Understanding casualty calculations

Hi,

I’m having a really thorough read of the campaign outcome rules, and am having a lot of difficulty getting my head around the way casualties are calculated. Can someone please help me understand the numbers?

I tried following the worked examples and got stuck. profounddecisions.co.uk/empi … #Example_1

I followed the victory calculation reasonably. There’s only one thing I don’t understand.
Barbarian Army 1:
shouldn’t it’s strength be 7500 base + 1000 quickening cold meat + 30% heroic stand
= (7500+1000) × 130 % = 11050

The calculation on the page only gives a 120%, not 130%.

I really don’t understand how the casualty numbers are calculated. Am I right in thinking the orders submitted don’t affect the amount of casualties an army inflicts, only determining victory and the amount it receives? I’m going to work through how I’ve read it, and hopefully someone can correct me.

I’m OK up to the amount of baseline casualties.

Imperial army 1: +100% for Rivers Run Red, +20% Overwhelming Assault = +120%
675 + 120% = 675 x 2.2 = 1485 (I get the same calculation as the example)

Imperial army 2: 675 base + 100% for Rivers Run Red, -20% Cautious Advance = +80%
675 + 80% = 675 x 1.8 = 1215

The example gives a calculation of 1.6, but if the correct order of operation is -20% from orders then x2, the shouldn’t the first Imperial army have taken 240% casualties not 220%. So does the doubling of casualties from Rivers Run Red happen before or after the bonus or penalty from orders?

Then I really can’t follow the barbarian casaulties. When does the 4% damage reduction from victory get applied? Why is the first barbarian armies casaulties multiplied by 220.8?

You’ve got some right and some wrong, I’m afraid.
The calculations listed in example 1 do, indeed, fail to account for the casualty effect of Quicken Cold Meat.
The six standard orders do not affect the rate of casualties caused, only those suffered. Thus a 5,000 strong army causes a baseline of 500 casualties even on Give Ground.
Barbarian army strength from the heroic stand should have been *1.3, rather than *1.2.

However, the key element you are missing from the calculations is that all increases are added together, after which each reduction is multiplied in turn. So +100 from RRR and +20 from Overwhelming Assault is +120% (I.e. 220%). Imperial Army 2 has +100%, then the reduction by 20% is done multiplicatively. 2*0.80 = 1.6.

The 220.8% is based off +100% from RRR and +30% from Heroic Stand (this is an error, should be +20… The two modifiers must have been transposed in the mind of the example creator), so 230. This would then be multiplied by 0.96 (a 4% reduction from VPs)… 2.30*0.96=2.208.

If you had ROL, rather than RRR, the the casualties would have been 130 (maintaining error for comparison) *0.96 *0.50 = 62.4%.

Concur I also think it is missing flat modifier and incorrect percentage.

I personally find the wording very confusing, working through the examples myself I have mentally rewrite the application paragraph to be "fixed number bonuses are added first, then percentage modifiers are multiplied together and the result multiplied by the fixed number. (or you could say “the fixed number result is multiplied by each percentage in turn”))

Ack, except for example 1: rivers run red casualties (+100%) combined with overwhelming assault casulties (+20%) which has come out as a +120% (so *220%) casualty figure.

It isn’t crucial to my roleplay whether percentage bonuses add or multiply, but I’d still like to know whether they do or not.

We have it pretty explicit from the Military discussion feeds:

  • All Percentage increases are added together, then added to 100% to get the top total. This is true for all figures (Army strength, casualties caused, casualties suffered).
  • Each Percentage reduction is then applied individually, in the form of a multiplier (so -20% is 0.8). The reason for this is, frankly, so that you can’t make -100% out of Give Ground and Rivers of Life: you get 0.50.5=0.25 instead. Again this is true all calculations.

I try to write the calculations out longhand, but they just end up more complicated. However, since I have written them out longhand, I invite you all to suffer as I have. :wink:

[size=150]I Am Not A Ref, but I would suggest that the sequence goes:[/size]
For each Army

  • Add all static bonuses to Army Strength (usually rituals and personal Military Units),
  • Take 100%, add all percentage increases for Army Strength (usually orders) and apply to the above,
  • In turn, apply each reduction to Army Strength (usually orders) to the total.
  • The result is the total Army Strength.
    For each Fortification
  • Add all static bonuses to Fortification Strength (based on personal Military Units)
  • If an enemy Army’s orders include attacking the Region that the fortification is in, multiply the above by 2.

Add up all Army and Fortification Strengths on each side.

  • Compare totals to determine the Winner,
  • Subtract the loser’s total from the Winner’s, then divide by 1,000 (round down),
  • This is the number of VPs gained.

For each Army

  • Add all static bonuses to Army’s Casualty Strength (some rituals and personal Military Units),
  • Take 100%, add any percentage increases to Army’s Casualty Strength (from special orders) and apply to the above,
  • In turn, apply each reduction to that Army’s Casualty Strength (from special orders).
  • Divide that by ten, this is the number of Casualties Caused by that Army.
    For each Fortification
  • Add all static bonuses to the Fortification’s Casualty Strength (based on personal Military Units)
  • If an enemy Army’s orders include attacking the Region that the fortification is in, multiply the above by 2.
  • If no enemy Army’s orders include attacking the Region that the fortification is in, multiply the above by 0.
  • Divide that by ten, this is the number of Casualties Caused by that Fortification.

Add up all Casualties Caused by each side, this is the number of Casualties Suffered by the other side.

  • Each Army that contributed Army Strength and each Fortification who’s Region was attacked are considered to be In Combat.
  • Casualties Suffered by a side are Assigned equally to each Army or Fortification that side has In Combat.

For each Army combat

  • Take the number of Casualties Assigned to that Army.
  • Take 100%, add any percentage increases to Casualties Suffered (from orders or magic), and apply to the above,
  • In turn, apply each reduction to the Casualties Suffered (from orders, magic or Defensive VPs) to the above total.
    For each Fortification in combat
  • Take the number of Casualties Assigned to that Fortification.
  • I don’t believe any effects increase or reduce casualties suffered by Fortifications.

[size=150]Complications:[/size]
If a force contains both Attacking Armies and Defending Armies:

  • if the Attacking Armies have enough strength to Win without the Defending Armies, then those Defending Armies are not considered to be in combat
  • Armies not in combat provide no Army Strength, neither cause nor suffer casualties and may benefit from Resupply.
  • If the Attacking Armies lose, then the Army Strength of the Defending Armies is added to their total and the Winner determined again.
  • This can change the winner and, yes, it can then cause Defending Armies on the other side to get involved, requiring a second recalculation.
  • I don’t think Graeme will thank us if we deliberately try to set up this double-flip.
  • To my knowledge, fortifications will never “sit out” a fight in their territory.

In cases where the Winning side has both Attack and Defence orders, VPs are divided proportionally between the armies.

  • Defensive armies gain casualty reduction from VPs assigned defensively,
  • Attacking armies gain bragging rights over ground taken by VPs assigned to attack.

In cases when a force is unopposed, Army strength is increased by 50% for VP calculations and nobody suffers any casualties.

[size=150]Theories[/size]
What happens when there is more than two “sides” to any fight is… unclear as yet:

  • I suspect that the higher total is made the winner and assigned a single stack of VPs based on how much he beats the 2nd place, rather than by how much he beat the total combined opposition. This favours the single largest coordinated force, rather than allowing two uncoordinated medium forces to create a stalemate.
  • I suspect that attacking VPs in this case are assigned based on the General’s intent (as reflected in their orders), rather than proportionally based on who they beat most. The Winner picks where the battle fronts are pushed back, that’s why we call him the Winner.
  • I suspect that casualties will be divided equally between all viable targets “not on your side” and all casualties assigned to one Army or Fortification will be added together before reductions/increases are calculated. Its hard to concentrate on wiping out a the little guy when the big guy has armies all over the place.

Yep, I have recently done so.

Out of interest, example 2, the barbarian fortification takes 950 casualties. Do you know where the extra 50 came from, I made 900?

… So what you’re saying is, the correct orders to damage the barbarians most are ‘you, you over there with the bow, go shoot an orc from max range really carefully, then we kite the bastards back to the walls’?