Unit Quality vs. Armour

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Post Reply
DanZanzibar
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:29 am

Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by DanZanzibar »

I have only been playing the game for a few months, but it seems to me that there is a consensus that unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit. It seems true to me, especially in the most common comparison: Superior/Average vs. Amoured/Protected.

A couple of open questions:

1. Does everyone feel this way? If not, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

2. Are there other increments in quality and armour other than the previously mentioned example where the evaluation changes? For instance, perhaps you think going from Unprotected to Protected has more value (per point) than going from Raw to Average.

3. Does this (potential) imbalance add some flavour to the game in your opinion? (i.e. Some lists just have so-and-so great pound-for-pound units...)

This one is really for RBS...

3. Is changing the point system to balance this differently something you have been/are considering? If not, I'm sure you have some reasons I have not thought of - please share!
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by Athos1660 »

DanZanzibar wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:30 am (...) unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit.
Armour also impacts the cost of a unit.
See the points chart in Richard's first post : viewtopic.php?f=477&t=90532
His post might answer most of your questions.
Last edited by Athos1660 on Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:32 am, edited 3 times in total.
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by Athos1660 »

(double post)
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by rbodleyscott »

Athos1660 wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:23 am
DanZanzibar wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:30 am (...) unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit.
Armour also impacts the cost of a unit.
See the points chart in Richard's first post : viewtopic.php?f=477&t=90532
His post might answer most of your questions.
Note that the points system was changed in an update after that thread.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
DanZanzibar
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:29 am

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by DanZanzibar »

Thank you Athos for pointing me to the thread and to RBS for replying. Sorry for not digging up that thread before posting this - I'm sure it can be exhausting to answer the same questions over and over again, especially as you (RBS) always seem to take the time to respond to folks like me (which is really fantastic by the way).
rbodleyscott wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:30 pm
Athos1660 wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:23 am
DanZanzibar wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:30 am (...) unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit.
Armour also impacts the cost of a unit.
See the points chart in Richard's first post : viewtopic.php?f=477&t=90532
His post might answer most of your questions.
Note that the points system was changed in an update after that thread.
My only question would then be: given the time you have had to evaluate the new balance of the costing system, would you say that no further adjustments (short of new units in new DLC) are likely to come?
Athos1660
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by Athos1660 »

rbodleyscott wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:30 pm Note that the points system was changed in an update after that thread.
Thank you.

Indeed, v1.5.12 – May 30, 2019 :
Unit Cost adjustments:
• Expert Armoured Horse Archers (and equivalent units) – reduced from 72 to 66 points.
• Armoured Horse Archers (and equivalent units) – reduced from 57 to 52 points.
• Byzantine Flankers – reduced from 52 to 48 points.
• Persian Improvised Camelry – reduced from 60 to 56 points.
• Byzantine “above-average” lancers & archers – cost reduced from 55 to 54 points.
• Zealots – increased from 51 to 57 points. • Veteran Samnite Foot – increased from 63 to 66 points.
• Veteran Dailami Foot – increased from 54 to 60 points.
• Mediocre Legionaries – reduced from 60 to 54 points.
• Imitation Legionaries – reduced from 54 points to 51 points.
• Early Imperial Roman Auxilia – reduced from 48 to 42 points.
• Legio Comitatenses - reduced from 54 to 51 points.
• Thorakitai – reduced from 54 to 51 points.
• Well-Armed Slaves – reduced from 46 to 44 points.
• Cretan archers – reduced from 42 to 39 points.
• Balearic Slingers – reduced from 36 to 33 points.
• Assyrian-style Mixed Medium Foot (Protected) – increased from 42 to 44 points.
• Assyrian-style Raw Mixed Medium Foot (Protected) – increased from 30 to 32 points.
• Assyrian-style Mixed Heavy Foot – reduced from 60 to 56 points.
GamerMan
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by GamerMan »

1. So Armour and quality roughly get priced the same as one another, an average armoured and a superior protected troop being usually the same price.

But when you compare the two:
Quality has an effect on impact, melee, shooting, and morale checks. Where armour has an effect only on melee and being shot at. Which means if there are no enemy archers, it is very clear that quality is better. The superior protected troop will have +50 POA on impact, and +25 POA in melee, and when they do lose a melee, they will be only about 2/3's as likely to be disrupted by it (and more likely to recover from disruption). also, even if the melee was even, the superior troop will still have an advantage, because he was more likely to have won impact, and even winning 1 round without disrupting still is worth about the equivalent of 10 POA in melee from smaller troop size.

Once you start getting shot at by bows, it becomes more complicated. I'm not sure of the exact formulas, but if i remember correctly, the number of losses you take goes down by about 1/3 when you are armoured, but the chance of being disrupted goes down by about the same amount for superior troops. Now, the armoured will still gain an advantage in the melee once the two armies connect, but disruption totals will be about the same. Likewise, the price you pay for armour also makes armour not really help much against bow, because they have to concentrate fire more, but they also are hitting a larger percentage of your army when they do so.

so. Superior troops are much better at impact than armoured troops. they are better at melee, they are more likely to hold even if they lose a melee. superior archers are better at shooting than armoured is. And the one thing armoured is good at, getting shot at, they are more correctly neutral at, and high quality units are instead just vulnerable to archers in a way the armoured aren't. So the only time i want armour is if i am gonna get shot at a lot, and i know i also have to win a few real melees in addition.

2. fully armoured cataphracts just become a totally different unit than armoured lancers are, but the armour boost is good for the price if you need it.

3. i play both sides of all the battles i play, and play with auto seed units to force me to adapt more, so i'm not too bothered by armour being weak compared to superior
MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by MikeC_81 »

DanZanzibar wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:30 am I have only been playing the game for a few months, but it seems to me that there is a consensus that unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit. It seems true to me, especially in the most common comparison: Superior/Average vs. Amoured/Protected.

A couple of open questions:

1. Does everyone feel this way? If not, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

2. Are there other increments in quality and armour other than the previously mentioned example where the evaluation changes? For instance, perhaps you think going from Unprotected to Protected has more value (per point) than going from Raw to Average.

3. Does this (potential) imbalance add some flavour to the game in your opinion? (i.e. Some lists just have so-and-so great pound-for-pound units...)

This one is really for RBS...

3. Is changing the point system to balance this differently something you have been/are considering? If not, I'm sure you have some reasons I have not thought of - please share!
There is almost no way to universally balance the cost of armour within the current game rules. I raised the question last year because there were some really outrageous outliers and this is probably as good as it is going to get although I think the point system still does skew towards quality being undercosted vis a vis armour. The reason why this is the case is that the benefit of armour is very much a binary check creating very "swingy" results. Either your unit has armoured or it isn't and either your opponent has enough missile and skirmisher units to take advantage of a lack of armour or it doesn't. Either a unit that has been shot at enough will pass its CT or not..... .Both of those factors are heavily tied into what units you have access to in any given army list and what your opponent has access to in their army list. Then we have random terrain generation to consider and there may or may not be hills that either block LOS or enhance LOS by allowing units to fire overhead.

The big thing with armour and it being potentially undervalued by players is that the primary benefit it gives is a lack of an event rather than a positive effect that can be seen and humans, in general, are very bad at evaluating the two properly. Some posters have correctly assessed that unit quality always helps in that it is good on Impact, good in Melee, good when trying to pass CTs which means and that this is true even for shooting. Superior units have a better chance at passing CTs when getting shot up. But armoured units benefit by potentially not having to take the CT, to begin with, or requiring a missile heavy force to commit an extra unit to fire at it in order to force a CT. On average, a standard 480 man infantry unit needs to be shot at twice by non-moving bow infantry in order to force a CT if they are protected. An armoured unit will almost certainly require 3, non-moving bow infantry units, to force a CT. This can create awkward geometry situations for the missile army player trying to force as many CTs before his bow units are forced to fight hand to hand. Even worse, should one or more bow units need to pivot in order to dump arrows into an armoured unit, then you may need more than 3 shooters to force that CT. Sometimes you don't have that luxury and an entire turn of shooting may end up being "wasted" although the unit being pincushioned still has to deal with the effects of casualties should they fail in impact and be forced to fight in extended melee.

Then we get into the matter of the how much do you value CTs that you don't end up taking. In a hypothetical situation where your entire army is armoured and you are against a pure bow line, making them use 3 units to shoot 1 of yours to force a CT rather than 2 units can be viewed as buffing the toughness of your troops by 50% in the shooting phase. Moreover, consider a superior unit that isn't armoured and is also a lynchpin unit in an opponent's attack on a position. That unit proceeds to get shot up by the limited missile assets available to the defender of that position, ends up failing the CT and is now functionally useless for the next several turns or more while a general is fetched to rally the disordered unit and now the entire attack is potentially compromised? How many more points would you have paid to get that unit armoured up to potentially not have to take that CT (not to mention having to tie up a general if you really needed that unit in the fight)?

That's even before we consider how good each side is in terms of skirmishing. A army with easy access to an abundant number of skirmisher units can buy lots of them shield their most valuable units from missile fire. Being able to outskirmish an opponent is inherently valuable in and of itself so the points aren't really being "wasted" to protect your valuable units have equal to or less than protected armour status. The vast majority of missile damage comes from skirmishers for all but the most bow heavy armies so this issue is influenced by heavily by skirmishers themselves. Being able to shield your units is just another multiplier to the effectiveness of your skirmishers. Then again, an armoured unit, might not need as much skirmishing support to screen it freeing up your skirmishers to target their vulnerable units. Sometimes there are terrain considerations. If the bow army can camp a high ground and get good shots in, your skirmishers might not matter as much then. Maybe you can come up with a plan to work around the high ground and still be active. Then again, maybe you cant. It depends.

With so many moving parts, it is really hard to say whether armour is too expensive or not other than the general statement that whether you can leverage armour protection or not is very situational. If the army list is rich in skirmishers, armoured units in that same list will generally be less point efficient. If your opponent is lacking in skirmishers and bow units then armoured units will once again be less point efficient, doubly so if your army does have lots of skirmishers. The opposite is also true in that armour gets a lot better if you are consistently being outskirmished. The last thing you need is to have units not be able to make contact because a bunch of slingers got to it. Armour can also pay off in spades when you are up against Aachaemenid Sparabaras or Indian massed bows and you just need to enough units to not take CTs before getting into close combat and carving them up like a hot knife through butter.

Overall the most offensive outliers have been reigned in. The old Jewish Revolt list with its 51 point Zealots could field like 12+ of those units which had no armour but the other half of the points would be used flooding the field with a horde of skirmishers so that they almost could never get shot at. Even a potato could pilot that army to victory against almost any opponent. Even at 57 points that army can still be very dangerous. Armoured horse archers are still relatively worthless though compared to their unarmored counterparts. Since Cav only have 240 man units, it is so much easier to make the test when shooting that the extra armour is almost irrelevant. Being horse archers they also never do melee unless its to do a flank auto drop attack in which case armour is also irrelevant.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
DanZanzibar
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:29 am

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by DanZanzibar »

MikeC_81 wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:07 pm
DanZanzibar wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:30 am I have only been playing the game for a few months, but it seems to me that there is a consensus that unit quality is more valuable than armour as it impacts the cost of a unit. It seems true to me, especially in the most common comparison: Superior/Average vs. Amoured/Protected.

A couple of open questions:

1. Does everyone feel this way? If not, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

2. Are there other increments in quality and armour other than the previously mentioned example where the evaluation changes? For instance, perhaps you think going from Unprotected to Protected has more value (per point) than going from Raw to Average.

3. Does this (potential) imbalance add some flavour to the game in your opinion? (i.e. Some lists just have so-and-so great pound-for-pound units...)

This one is really for RBS...

3. Is changing the point system to balance this differently something you have been/are considering? If not, I'm sure you have some reasons I have not thought of - please share!
There is almost no way to universally balance the cost of armour within the current game rules. I raised the question last year because there were some really outrageous outliers and this is probably as good as it is going to get although I think the point system still does skew towards quality being undercosted vis a vis armour. The reason why this is the case is that the benefit of armour is very much a binary check creating very "swingy" results. Either your unit has armoured or it isn't and either your opponent has enough missile and skirmisher units to take advantage of a lack of armour or it doesn't. Either a unit that has been shot at enough will pass its CT or not..... .Both of those factors are heavily tied into what units you have access to in any given army list and what your opponent has access to in their army list. Then we have random terrain generation to consider and there may or may not be hills that either block LOS or enhance LOS by allowing units to fire overhead.

The big thing with armour and it being potentially undervalued by players is that the primary benefit it gives is a lack of an event rather than a positive effect that can be seen and humans, in general, are very bad at evaluating the two properly. Some posters have correctly assessed that unit quality always helps in that it is good on Impact, good in Melee, good when trying to pass CTs which means and that this is true even for shooting. Superior units have a better chance at passing CTs when getting shot up. But armoured units benefit by potentially not having to take the CT, to begin with, or requiring a missile heavy force to commit an extra unit to fire at it in order to force a CT. On average, a standard 480 man infantry unit needs to be shot at twice by non-moving bow infantry in order to force a CT if they are protected. An armoured unit will almost certainly require 3, non-moving bow infantry units, to force a CT. This can create awkward geometry situations for the missile army player trying to force as many CTs before his bow units are forced to fight hand to hand. Even worse, should one or more bow units need to pivot in order to dump arrows into an armoured unit, then you may need more than 3 shooters to force that CT. Sometimes you don't have that luxury and an entire turn of shooting may end up being "wasted" although the unit being pincushioned still has to deal with the effects of casualties should they fail in impact and be forced to fight in extended melee.

Then we get into the matter of the how much do you value CTs that you don't end up taking. In a hypothetical situation where your entire army is armoured and you are against a pure bow line, making them use 3 units to shoot 1 of yours to force a CT rather than 2 units can be viewed as buffing the toughness of your troops by 50% in the shooting phase. Moreover, consider a superior unit that isn't armoured and is also a lynchpin unit in an opponent's attack on a position. That unit proceeds to get shot up by the limited missile assets available to the defender of that position, ends up failing the CT and is now functionally useless for the next several turns or more while a general is fetched to rally the disordered unit and now the entire attack is potentially compromised? How many more points would you have paid to get that unit armoured up to potentially not have to take that CT (not to mention having to tie up a general if you really needed that unit in the fight)?

That's even before we consider how good each side is in terms of skirmishing. A army with easy access to an abundant number of skirmisher units can buy lots of them shield their most valuable units from missile fire. Being able to outskirmish an opponent is inherently valuable in and of itself so the points aren't really being "wasted" to protect your valuable units have equal to or less than protected armour status. The vast majority of missile damage comes from skirmishers for all but the most bow heavy armies so this issue is influenced by heavily by skirmishers themselves. Being able to shield your units is just another multiplier to the effectiveness of your skirmishers. Then again, an armoured unit, might not need as much skirmishing support to screen it freeing up your skirmishers to target their vulnerable units. Sometimes there are terrain considerations. If the bow army can camp a high ground and get good shots in, your skirmishers might not matter as much then. Maybe you can come up with a plan to work around the high ground and still be active. Then again, maybe you cant. It depends.

With so many moving parts, it is really hard to say whether armour is too expensive or not other than the general statement that whether you can leverage armour protection or not is very situational. If the army list is rich in skirmishers, armoured units in that same list will generally be less point efficient. If your opponent is lacking in skirmishers and bow units then armoured units will once again be less point efficient, doubly so if your army does have lots of skirmishers. The opposite is also true in that armour gets a lot better if you are consistently being outskirmished. The last thing you need is to have units not be able to make contact because a bunch of slingers got to it. Armour can also pay off in spades when you are up against Aachaemenid Sparabaras or Indian massed bows and you just need to enough units to not take CTs before getting into close combat and carving them up like a hot knife through butter.

Overall the most offensive outliers have been reigned in. The old Jewish Revolt list with its 51 point Zealots could field like 12+ of those units which had no armour but the other half of the points would be used flooding the field with a horde of skirmishers so that they almost could never get shot at. Even a potato could pilot that army to victory against almost any opponent. Even at 57 points that army can still be very dangerous. Armoured horse archers are still relatively worthless though compared to their unarmored counterparts. Since Cav only have 240 man units, it is so much easier to make the test when shooting that the extra armour is almost irrelevant. Being horse archers they also never do melee unless its to do a flank auto drop attack in which case armour is also irrelevant.
Thanks for taking the time to write the above post Mike. My hope in starting the thread was to get some perspectives on armour that I hadn’t really considered yet.

You stated that it it typically 3 vs. 2 shots of missiles that cause a cohesion test if armoured as opposed to protected (under the stated circumstances). That isn’t insignificant, especially considering the geometry of getting into shooting positions on a single unit. As well, your point about charging into massed bowmen is well taken. Thanks for these insights.

I understand that it is very difficult to quantify the value of armour. The current point costs obviously don’t have the extreme outliers as before. While it may still skew towards quality, I am starting to feel like it is good enough.

By the way, when I started playing MP about 4 months back, I had watched one of your videos (Rome and Seleucids I think) just before jumping into games and found it very helpful. I was then lucky enough to run into a couple of good players in my first couple of matches who played maybe 12-15 matches each with me since then and before the league started season 9. That was a great spring board to getting into the MP. Anyway, thanks for that video and your insights here.
Jagger2002
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by Jagger2002 »

MikeC, excellent post.
kronenblatt
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4333
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN

Re: Unit Quality vs. Armour

Post by kronenblatt »

Jagger2002 wrote: Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:12 am MikeC, excellent post.
Totally agree: I learned a lot from this reasoning.
kronenblatt's campaign and tournament thread hub:

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”