Traduction à Faire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test worked example
This worked example based on the first few days of the Battle of Alexandria is intended to demonstrate the accuracy of the casualty rules worked out so far and perhaps provide some insight into other factors. The battle is between a French cavalry army, tech level 25 galoop cavalry, under an excellent general fighting against a Kara Koyonlu mixed army of tech level 10.
After 1 day of battle
After 2 days of battle
By inspecting individual units I can tell that the overlapping Qara Koyonlu end units have not been attacked and all units have attacked the enemy unit opposite to them or nearest at the ends except both the right hand French cavalry have been attacked by a Kara cavalry. The red lines on the display illustrate the apparent Kara lines of attack. This gives no immediate insight into the battle AI’s operation but does suggest that in normal battles nothing very weird is going on.
Qara tech level 10, French tech level 25. Oddly enough these have no impact on shock modifiers. Infantry have 1.0 and cavalry have 4.0 for both sides. Qara units are cavalry 2/2/2/0 [morale a/d shock a/d] and infantry 3/2/1/0 whilst the French have 4/2/4/2.
The dice roll appears to have compensated for the leader but the two are not actually equivalent. Our leadership increases the casualties that we inflict and decreases the casualties that the enemy inflicts whereas the enemy’s superior dice roll only improves the casualties that they inflict.
Working out the battle we get…
Casualties
French Cav versus Kara Any = 4+3+2-0 = 9 -> 8x3.5x4 -> 112
For the whole force 112 x 7 x 6,845/7,000 = 767 casualties when, in fact, 762 were reported. This is assumed to be the result of rounding errors with casualties being evaluated separately for each unit.
Kara Inf versus French Cav = 1+5-(2+2) = 2 -> 3.5
In fact, in the middle of the line the French cavalry took 3 casualties each on the first day and 2 on the second day. This clearly shows a casualty rate of 2.5 rather than 3.5 so there is a slight discrepancy here indicating that the FAQ is not entirely correct.
Kara Cav versus French Cav = 2+5-(2+2) = 3 -> 2x3.5x4 -> 28
At the left flank this should be 80.8 casualties scaled for day 1 losses (all the exposed units in the Kara line are at 888 men). The actual losses by this end unit are 80 so we have as good as an exact match there. At the other end we have a similar match (worked out separately but seems correct).
Over all losses are a reasonably good match for the FAQ going as 155/784 on day one and then 142/762 on day 2. The declining rate simply reflecting the shrinking size of the two armies.
Moving on I want to have a look at morale losses and the analysis plus facts are as follows
Either Kara Inf versus French Cav 3+5-(2+2) = 4 -> lose .25, .25 actual = {6.21 -> 5.96 -> 5.71}
Or Kara Inf versus French Cav 3+5-(2) = 6 -> lose .25, .25 actual = {6.21 -> 5.96 -> 5.71} (no leader)
Either French Cav versus Kara Inf 4+3+2-2 = 7 -> lose .8, .8 actual = {4.06, 3.26, 2.46}
Or French Cav versus Kara Inf 4+3-2 = 5 ->
Either 3 Kara Cav 2+5-(2+2) = 3 -> lose 2.4, 2.4
Or 3 Kara Cav 2+5-(2) = 5 -> lose 2.4, 2.4
If leaders don’t count but tech modifiers do and the formula is 0.05x(score-1) then we get values of – 5x.05=.25, 4x0.05x4=.8, 4x.05x4x3=2.4 which are the right answers. This seems to suggest that this is the right idea.
Looking at the other end of the line we have 1 Kara Cav causing 0.8 morale loss to the end unit and 1 Kara Cav + 1 Inf causing 1.05 morale loss to the second one in. The formulae all add up again!!
Next round a score of 4 for the Kara infantry has knocked 0.2 off a cavalry unit. This still matches my formula so, for the time being I am going to consider this correct.
So the morale rules are the same as for casualties except that the multiplier is 0.05 instead of 3.5, leaders don’t count and unit strength doesn't count. Note that I have not managed to obtain a battle with terrain effects so I will be coming back to this issue
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auteur original: Kanitatlan
Voili, voilou, bonne lecture !
