Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

An Alternative IG List

 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Matty_C wrote:
Mattman wrote:
I have been rejigging my weapon ranges to the nearest 5cm (from 40k inches), so heavy bolters and the like are 35cm.
Think it is fair to say most fliers should be able to move the entirety of a battle field in a turn, even the bombers/superheavies.

I have put some thought into making fliers more workable, and posted my suggestion in the NE6 core rules thread.


Hi!

I posted up my reply. :)

I think it has the same issues all systems based on the 4 order tier have.

I appreciate your taking a stab at it though. I hope I am not coming across overly critical, but I feel I must relate what the issues of that particular design paradigm are. :)

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:27 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
No problem mate. Happy to discuss it. I would love to know what non-standard order systems you have tried. I think the problem is bigger than just the fliers themselves though.

Edit: also apologies if this is the 6th time you've said all this, and feel like a broken record!

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Matty_C wrote:
No problem mate. Happy to discuss it. I would love to know what non-standard order systems you have tried. I think the problem is bigger than just the fliers themselves though.

Edit: also apologies if this is the 6th time you've said all this, and feel like a broken record!


Hi!

I'll mention some of those non-standard systems in my response on the NE6 thread.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
I'm having some problems applying the points formula as it stands to companies, and to a lesser extent support detachments.
My main issue is that I want companies to be flexible in composition, with adding of transports being optional and different detachments assigned to companies. So they don't have a set number of models, so the break point calculation in the morale section isn't practically applicable.

I should get a revised PDF out soon with point values for companies in it, but there might be some refinements to the points formula I have to make. I think I will apply the morale factor to half of a unit's base cost so that there is just a simple cost per model/stand. That seems like the easiest work around.

Also the onus will be on players to calculate their own company break points, points values and victory points. But it shouldn't be too tricky for our group to use.

If anyone else is thinking of using the formula to calculate points values of variable sized formations then they will have similar problems with the morale section of the formula. If you are sticking to fixed size and uniform composition companies then you should be right. :)

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
Mattman wrote:
Been distracted with other things recently, so haven't spent a lot of time in the world of Epic. When I have re-jigged the marine stats and posted a draft, people can use that as a base line for other armies.

Matt

Also, forgot to say: Cool! Can't wait! ;D

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1542
Matty_C wrote:
I'm having some problems applying the points formula as it stands to companies, and to a lesser extent support detachments.
My main issue is that I want companies to be flexible in composition, with adding of transports being optional and different detachments assigned to companies. So they don't have a set number of models, so the break point calculation in the morale section isn't practically applicable.

I should get a revised PDF out soon with point values for companies in it, but there might be some refinements to the points formula I have to make. I think I will apply the morale factor to half of a unit's base cost so that there is just a simple cost per model/stand. That seems like the easiest work around.

Also the onus will be on players to calculate their own company break points, points values and victory points. But it shouldn't be too tricky for our group to use.

If anyone else is thinking of using the formula to calculate points values of variable sized formations then they will have similar problems with the morale section of the formula. If you are sticking to fixed size and uniform composition companies then you should be right. :)


Morale should not be giving you problems. The only issue with variable composition formations should be Break Point, and which models count into which sub-category thereof. Also, Break Point is not a sub-category under Morale. Both Morale and Break Point are sub-categories under Formation building.

As is obvious, the intent of the Formation rules as written are for building fixed-composition formations. Variable composition formations do not exist in Gold, and in my opinion should not exist at all as it destroys the base concept of having preset formations. If a player wants a formation with a different composition of models, they can use the formula to build it. Still, this exact discussion did come up in the Platinum thread and we came up with a work-around there (albeit for an earlier version of the formula, so that fix is out of date), so we can come up with one here. Read that thread to see how it was worked out for that.

Negative, don't go changing the rules. Apply the Morale adjustment to the Model cost before any other formation modifiers. Break Point should be the last thing adjusted for, except possibly for Formation Type.

Actually, this is simple to solve. For example, say you have a detachment of Infantry stands and you want to have the option for them to have a couple of Transport options, or none at all. To begin with, calculate the total value of the formation without any Transports. Then also calculate the value of the formation with each Transport option. Now you have the values for all possible options and you can present these options to the player either as "You have these choices that cost X, Y, & Z" or "The basic formation costs X, to add A costs +N, to add B costs +H, etc". The final result of this would probably look a lot like the "Expanded Formations" I posted for Marines and Guard a while ago.

So long as your options are detachment-based, this should be a reasonable work-around. If you are trying to give options on a stand-by-stand or model-by-model basis, then you are basically trying to recreate the formula and you should not be doing that. If someone wants that level of customization, they can work their way through the Formation Building part of the formula on their own.

In other words, the formula itself is already made for calculating the value of a variably sized formation. The only reason to pre-create formations is when they are of fixed composition.

If you absolutely have to have your pre-made formations have model-by-model options, then just doing 50% is far too simplistic and will produce inaccurate results that will NOT be compatible with other formula based formations. For all non-Command models, you will have to take the average of the Iterative (first group) value (0.75 for a BP of half, etc) and the Broken (second group: varies by Morale) value. For example, for a Company or other formation with a BP of half the total number of models and a Morale score of 3 (40% or 0.4), the amount you would adjust each model by would be (0.75 + 0.4)/2 = 0.58. If the BP is anything other than half, that ratio will have to be taken into account. For example, for a formation where all models are Morale 3 and has a BP of 2/3rds (0.833), the average would have to be found as per (0.833 + 0.833 + 0.4)/3 = 0.69. Command models are always adjusted as per Morale of -- or 0.7.

As a note, I have actually done the above myself for the few instances in Gold where the contents of a formation are variable amongst fixed options. Examples would include the Imperial Deathstrike Launchers and Ork Renegade Mekboyz formations. There are a few others, but not many. I'll have to add a note about this to the Formula thread, as well as make it clearer that Break Point is not a sub-set of Morale.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
Thanks Magnus.
The problem I was having was with the infantry company really. It contains three platoons, some of which can be 6 stands, and some of which can be 10 stands. Plus the standard infantry platoon has 16 possible transport combinations.
I ran some numbers and the differences between minimum and maximum company size translated to fractions of a point per base. In the end I decided to go with typical company sizes for the calculations.
I have updated the pdf with some points values now. The support formations have two values, one for when they are a support card, and one for when they are part of a company.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2015 3:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
As people will have seen with the marines I am working on, variable formation size and multiple (and mixed transport options) is what I am working on. I will just be using the per model cost with none of the break point or formation size modifier's, though models in companies with most probably have a 5/10% discount compared to support formations.
I am well aware that this means the system won't work with the army card system and won't really be balanced against existing NEG army lists or whatever fixed formation system is used in NEP, but whenever I get round to looking at the rest of the armies there will be a full suite of army lists following this same system. If people want to use them they can.

Matt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:06 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
Hmmm.
Well technically in the current codex an infantry platoon is a command squad, 2-5 infantry squads, 0-5 support squads, 0-3 specialist squads and 0-1 conscript squad of 20-50 men.
So 5-29 stands. Plus transports. Sounds like a challenge! I'll see how I go!

I have done a comparison based on the 72 formations I did up. On average the formations made by applying morale to model value were about 6% more expensive than their equivalent, formula based formation if they were a squadron, and 9% if they were a company. This was higher due to the large number of super heavy companies which have a difference of 0 for the squadron, but a difference of 14% when in a company of three.
The average difference between a squadron/platoons cost was 13% cheaper for the company using the formation part of the formula.
This was including a 10% discount, so the difference between being in a squadron and a company is around 3% based on the formation cost part of the formula. The formations I compared were made up of a lot of squadrons of 3, which should return the largest difference.
So if you are going to base points on the unit cost*morale factor, you will be giving up about 6% if you are playing against a list using the full formation calculation. So a support card or two.

I like the idea of variable sized formations so am going to play more with this.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1542
Mattman, if you are going to intentionally skip using part of the formula, then please make that plainly clear when you make whatever document you put them in. I don't want to have people comparing your formations to ones that actually follow the formula, seeing that they are different, and declaring that the formula is broken.

Matty_C:
Um, what the heck are you talking about. You seem to be saying that formations to which the morale adjustments are applied have a different value than ones that follow the normal formula. This is impossible, as a part of the normal formula IS adjusting the model value by the Morale adjustments. If you are doing things another way, you are doing them wrong. Please post an example with specific details so that I can see what you are doing to come to this conclusion.

Also, "squadron" is not a valid term for creating formations. Do you perhaps mean "Support"?

Even with that, the rest of your post just makes no sense. This may be because I cannot see your math, but I strongly suspect that you are doing something, if not several things, wrong. Again, please post one or more examples with precise numbers so that your process can be reviewed.

At the beginning of your post, you describe what the "current codex" (presumably for 40K) says is a part of an platoon. While that may be true, keep in mind that that organization is for 40K scale. Epic scale is intended to represent larger groups of forces. Even at 40K scale, all of that that would not be one "formation" as Epic deals with it. In Epic terms, I'm seeing a Company (Command and Infantry squads), up to five Support formations, and one Special formation (all the rest).

Another thought is that you are trying to recreate the wheel. Mattman has already put a lot of thought and effort into doing exactly what you are doing now. You may want to IM him directly and compare notes to eliminate unnecessary work.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
Hi Magnus. I was referring to this (that was posted in the post above mine):
Mattman wrote:
I will just be using the per model cost with none of the break point or formation size modifier's, though models in companies with most probably have a 5/10% discount compared to support formations.


I have performed a similar estimate of support formation's costs, and compared them to the costs that I had done based on using the full formation size/break point/morale format.

Typically there was a 6% increase in formation cost when using the method Mattman quoted above, vs. using the full formula (incorporating formation size/break point/morale) based on the 72 formations I compared. I did this because I'm considering making variable formation sizes for my list, similar to Mattman has referenced above, and was curious to see what the impact would be.

As for squadrons, I dropped that by mistake as I use that term in the list I'm building when referring to certain support formations.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:50 pm
Posts: 1542
Ah, gotcha. That's a bit more clear now. As far as I'm concerned, it is still "doing it wrong" to not use the whole formula as written, but that is to be expected as I have a vested interest as I've written most of it so far. Obviously I cannot stop people from doing things differently if they so choose, but I just ask that you label your thing accurately. That is, if you are skipping parts of the formula, do not label your list as following the formula, as doing so would cause confusion in people who did not read this thread.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:51 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
Will do mate.
Ideally it would be great if the formula could cater for variable sized formations, as I suspect Mattman and I aren't the only ones who would want to do this. But I'm not sure how that could be done without scrapping the formation size part of the calculation. Perhaps that is viable if it is done for everyone? Not sure. Gut feel says that an army composed largely of formations of 3 would be at a slight advantage over one made from formations composed of an even number of units(which is why you would have gone to the trouble to write it in the first place). How big an advantage is the important bit.

For now I am happy to disadvantage myself 6% if I go up against an army made using the full formula. It is probably still closer than if I had arbitrarily assigned point values. Plus it gives me bragging rights if I win! (And an excuse if I don't ;D)

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 1003
Yeah magnus, it will be clear that the variable system of army lists won't be balanced against other fixed lists, it will just be a different way of playing the game. But as Matty said, if people want to play friendly games with the different systems, then we can't stop them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Alternative IG List
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 487
Location: Hobart, Australia
New version 0.3 is attached.
It has some more variation in formation size and composition.

Also I've run the points for the commissariat tanks and super-heavy's and added them in. ;D

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net