BoP: Napoleonic Wars (Out-of-character Thread) [Live]

[Ted]

Changed dice value to a D-30. That should make things more pitched.

I really think Napoleon should be given a better modfier as well then. Wellington said Napoleon on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men, so let's give Napoleon something better then his current bonus. +9 or +10 would be legit according to the old bonus/dice ratio.
Over all every bonus should be raised due to the new D30 in my opinion.

[Volk]

Changed dice value to a D-30. That should make things more pitched.

I really think Napoleon should be given a better modfier as well then. Wellington said Napoleon on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men, so let's give Napoleon something better then his current bonus. +9 or +10 would be legit according to the old bonus/dice ratio.
Over all every bonus should be raised due to the new D30 in my opinion.

I did triple the D-10 to a D-30. For balance I could just triple everything else as well. IE Napoleon = +9, Doctrine = +3, etc.

[Ted]

Changed dice value to a D-30. That should make things more pitched.

I really think Napoleon should be given a better modfier as well then. Wellington said Napoleon on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men, so let's give Napoleon something better then his current bonus. +9 or +10 would be legit according to the old bonus/dice ratio.
Over all every bonus should be raised due to the new D30 in my opinion.

I did triple the D-10 to a D-30. For balance I could just triple everything else as well. IE Napoleon = +9, Doctrine = +3, etc.

^ Yup, that would be good.

[Raddeo]

Volk, is 100k wrong? Would it be better to calculate 17% of 32572 men just to make it realistic? It was an example, not quote from historical book. It was to make it simple, not to make it realistic.
So let's talk in the language of math, it's more universal.
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * me_before_battle)
That's current equation as far as I know, right? What I propose is
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * enemy_before_battle)
Do you see it now? In your second example, why shouldn't Frenchies send only about 4 or 8 thousand into battle? Of course beside argument of "they don't know how many enemies there is", which is weak, for I can always write in orders, that I want to use in battle only as many men as enemy has. By using only 4k result of battle would be exactly the same, but they would lose almost 10 times less men. Of course, I don't take into consideration option of you, as GM, introducing deus ex machina to magically change the fate of battle. I'm talking about math only, so I assume that battle do take place, that no magical events happen, that it's normal typical battle. I do understand, that even with current equation bigger force may win after suffering significant loses. But I still do not understand why would one indeed use big army to suffer such loses, if he could order most of troops to stand just few metres from the field and survive without any influence on the result of battle.

[BabyJesus]

Changed dice value to a D-30. That should make things more pitched.

I really think Napoleon should be given a better modfier as well then. Wellington said Napoleon on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men, so let's give Napoleon something better then his current bonus. +9 or +10 would be legit according to the old bonus/dice ratio.
Over all every bonus should be raised due to the new D30 in my opinion.

I did triple the D-10 to a D-30. For balance I could just triple everything else as well. IE Napoleon = +9, Doctrine = +3, etc.

pls do

[Raddeo]

So Napoleon would automaticaly kill 12% of every army? Sick idea for me, I vote against. If I were you I would rather change addition to multiplying to balance bonuses. Equation would be then
result = roll * (1 +  bonuses)
and give 0.3 to Napoleon, 0.1 to doctrine, etc. Then, if he rolls 30 so the battle goes especially well, he would indeed kill additional 12%. But if he rolls 1 and the battle goes like a shit, he would kill almost no additional units. That's what I would consider to do if I were you. But even then I believe these bonuses would be too huge. 12% can easily win any war.

[Volk]

So Napoleon would automaticaly kill 12% of every army? Sick idea for me, I vote against. If I were you I would rather change addition to multiplying to balance bonuses. Equation would be then
result = roll * (1 +  bonuses)
and give 0.3 to Napoleon, 0.1 to doctrine, etc. Then, if he rolls 30 so the battle goes especially well, he would indeed kill additional 12%. But if he rolls 1 and the battle goes like a shit, he would kill almost no additional units. That's what I would consider to do if I were you. But even then I believe these bonuses would be too huge. 12% can easily win any war.

But 3 x 3 = 9 not 12? Honestly Raddeo, your math isn't making sense to me in numerous sections. It looks like you're trying to find the % of damage an army receives instead of the % of damage an army gives? It feels like it's making something simple into something overly complicated.

Are you sure you understood my equation right? My equation is to find how much damage (in %) that side deals to the other. So if it's Roll of 10 + Kutuzov + Fighting in Russia + Summer + Frederick's Tactics, that means the equation is (10 + 6 + 1 + 0 + 0) which is 17, which means you roll a 17, and damage 17% of the enemy army. Then let's say America rolls a 1 with no good modifiers, that means they have a critical failure and only barely damage 1% of Kutuzov's army. In purely battle terms, that means 17% of America's troops are casualties and only 1% of yours are casualties. In game terms, it means Kutuzov's forces won a major victory, and that that particular American Army basically implodes following that disastrous battle, with the remnants fleeing, surrendering, being killed, or going missing.

Going deeper though, let's say the America player tried to Power Game and only sent 10k vs your, let's say, 60k. Because the battle was not only a critical failure for that American Army, but because there is such a massive gap between the forces, I could make it so that "battle was total disaster, almost 1/5th of army was killed in combat, rest were hunted down by Russia's pursuing Hussars and Cossacks. Remaining men were captured or are missing in action. Russian casualties were basically insignificant. Army is annihilated." And then going even deeper, that one battle might effectively ruin the America player's plans or their whole overarching strategy (in this hypothetical situation).

I think my equation is fine. I don't see the need to over complicate it or start adding multipliers and dividers into it. If you really want to change it, give it some turns and battles and we'll talk about it then; however, I think you should review your equation and simulate it before trying to change mine.

[Raddeo]

Last thing I want is to argue with you on this matter, but I'm mathematician, my math is probably fine And it's the only reason why I've proposed my versions - for math should always make sense and be perfectly logical. I'm afraid your equations aren't.
Napoleon always uses Napoleonic Tactics. So 3*3 + 1*3 = 12. Much magic.

And I do understand your equation, really, I do.
D30 Roll +/- General +/- Nation Modifier +/- Season +/- Doctrine = Total Roll
After changes proposed by you, fighting as Napoleon and having roll of 1
1 + 9 (Napoleon) + 0 (no bonus for France I believe) + 0 + 3 (Napoleonic Doctrine) = 13
Even though battle was total disaster, roll was worst possible, soldiers were imbeciles and reserves of powder were so poor, that they had to use baguettes in fight, Napoleon kills 13% of any army he encounter. Even starting battle against Napoleon means, that 13% of your army will be destroyed. No matter what you do. No matter how many men he has. No matter anything. Don't even try to attack, for after few battles Napoleon will destroy even the greatest army with power of his beautiful face only. And to talk about others also, not only Napoleon, Russian winter with Kutuzow also won't let anyone win any battle. 10% of any army will be killed in every battle. Fight against forces 10 times weaker than yours and you'll still lose 10% because of awesomeness of Kutuzow.
With my proposition
D30 Roll * (1 + General + Nation + Season + Doctrine) = Total Roll
With D30 Roll of 1 we have
1 * (1 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0.1) = 1*1.4 = 1.4
Battle was a disaster, even Napoleon cannot save it, he kills only 1,4% of enemies.
With D30 Roll of 30 we have
30 * (1 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0.1) = 30*1.4 = 42
Battle was a great success and thanks to his amazing skills Napoleon achieved to kill 12% more enemies.
Now starting battle against Napoleon means that at least 1.4% of your army will be destroyed, but you have to be aware, that in worst case scenario his skills will allow him to destroy almost half of your forces. Do attack, but do it with caution.
That's concerning the first equation.
Concerning the second equation - in fact it's your equation that find damage army receives. For it's percent of soldiers that will be killed. 
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * me_before_battle)
That's your equation (or at least you claimed so in PW). Percent is multiplicated by army that receives damage. So it's damage received, even though bonuses are from side that deals damage. That's how math works. Army A rolls for damage received by army B. It's percent of soldiers that receive damage (roll is 15, so 15% of B's army is killed, so army B receives damage of 15%). In equation proposed by me
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * enemy_before_battle)
roll is damage dealt by an army. Army A rolls for damage given to army B (roll is 15, so 15% of A's soldiers achieved to kill one enemy, so army A gives damage of 15%).

Anyway, I wanted to ask other players to give their opinion, not start argument with you. That wasn't really my aim, so, to avoid further arguments, unless you prove me wrong or other player ask for explanation, I won't continue to explain my ideas. It was a proposition, not an attempt to force you to do anything. So if neither players nor you are interested in it, I won't try to convince you any further, as I really don't want to try to force you to anything

Btw. in your hypothetical situation any equation doesn't even matter, for after lost of 17% of men you destroy whole army. And all my propositions are about situations in which both armies survives and continue campaigns after suffering loses. If every battle ends in one side being totally destroyed after losing not even 1/5 of men, then case is closed, sorry for time I took from you with this discussion, as we're discussing something that doesn't matter.

[BabyJesus]

Napoleon is suppose to be op. Especially when you consider half of Europe declared war on him and completely ignores when one nation attacks their ships

#StillSaltyAboutLackofRP

[Furrnox]

Napoleon is suppose to be op. Especially when you consider half of Europe declared war on him and completely ignores when one nation attacks their ships

#StillSaltyAboutLackofRP

#StillSaltyAboutLackofRP

Let's make it a trading # on twitter.

[Volk]

Spoiler

Concerning the second equation - in fact it's your equation that find damage army receives. For it's percent of soldiers that will be killed. 
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * me_before_battle)
That's your equation (or at least you claimed so in PW). Percent is multiplicated by army that receives damage. So it's damage received, even though bonuses are from side that deals damage. That's how math works. Army A rolls for damage received by army B. It's percent of soldiers that receive damage (roll is 15, so 15% of B's army is killed, so army B receives damage of 15%). In equation proposed by me
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * enemy_before_battle)
roll is damage dealt by an army. Army A rolls for damage given to army B (roll is 15, so 15% of A's soldiers achieved to kill one enemy, so army A gives damage of 15%).

Ah I see what you did. It is kind of like the equation I made for BoP 1914. What I did not understand was how you used your Roll to determine casualties and Battle Result. I understand your "2nd equation(?)" now, as in how Roll is applied to determine casualties.

[close]

We should seriously make a math thread in the Mess Hall. The amount of math we've done just here is insane.

So I took your equation and mine and simulated both in a mock battle between 2 armies, a 60 thousand strong French army and an 80 thousand strong Russian army. I made the rolls 40 for France and 30 for Russia for simulation purposes and plugged them into both equations. Here's what I got.

Raddeo's Casualty Equation

R = Roll
C = Casualties
A = Army (Or Army_After_Battle)

[close]

Volk's Casualty Equation

R = Roll
D = Damage (as in how much damage that force dealt)
A = Army (Or Army_After_Battle)

[close]

There is obviously a significant difference between both results. Although the French Army has won by a considerable margin, the army was worse off in Raddeo's equation than in mine. Which would make sense in Raddeo's equation, as he calculates how many of your men killed somebody. However, it does make the battle much more pyrhic for France, as Raddeo's equation favors those with larger armies. I plugged the same numbers into my equation and got the above result.

I decided to test Raddeo's equation with the battle I devised my equation from: the battle of Austerlitz. I devised my equation when I was researching the game, and used the Battle of Austerlitz, Borodino, and Wagram as examples, but Austerlitz is my favorite so I used that one.

First I demonstrate how I devised my equation from scratch. I knew what France and the allies (for simplicity's sake I simply called them Russia) started with, and I knew the casualties of the battle for both sides. So I had to connect in some way the starting army to it's casualties.

Austerlitz Equation

I didn't bother multiplying X by the population, which is algebraically what you're supposed to do, since the outcome would be the same. I did, however, multiply X by the army population in my notebook when I was first developing the game.

D = Damage that army dealt. I knew that the French Army inflicted 36 thousand casualties on the Russians, and the Russians only dealt 9000 casualties to the French. So I have to find a relationship or connection between the two.

I divided the part by the whole and found that that the "Russians" lost 42% of their army, while the French lost only 13% of their army. Now, how could I simulate this in a game sense? I could try a system like BoP 1914, but that was for a different type of warfare and I had used a D-100 for that system. So how could I make it so the France player, or any other player for that matter, could damage 43% of the enemy army? That's when I developed my other equation, the Roll + General etc etc  = Total Roll equation. Then I could just take the Total Roll and convert it into "Damage". IE "France dealt 43% damage to Russia at the Battle of Austerlitz, and Russia dealt 13% damage to France at the Battle of Austerlitz."

My thought process was to make it a D-40 and have minor modifiers to allow people (France) to reach that magic 43%. (I chose 43% because it was the highest % of casualties for an army I've found in a major battle. Borodino both sides lost around 20% of their armies, etc. Waterloo France lost 36% roughly of their army to combat, many more missing/fled, while Allies lost roughly 16% of their armies from combat, with many more missing/fled.

I also contemplated a D-50 but I thought it would be too high and give an unfair advantage to France and the Great Powers in general since they'd have the only positive modifiers in the game (that was my thought process at the time.) I decided on a D-10, however it was just temporary until I could simulate more. If it worked out well, or if I simply had to for example multiply the entire Total Roll by some number like I did in BoP 1914 to get casualties I would've just done that. However, D-10 was not to my liking so I switched it back to my original pick of D-30 and here we are now.

[close]

Now that we know the %'s of the armies that were casualties (killed wounded captured), we theoretically know the rolls of both sides. Since we now know the rolls of both sides, I plugged the rolls into both our equations to see what our equations have to say about the Battle of Austerlitz.

Raddeo's Equation Simulating the battle of Austerlitz as a BoP Battle

[close]

Volk's Equation Simulating the Battle of Austerlitz as a BoP Battle

[close]

2 things are made clear. One is that my equation is more accurate towards history, however that is a given and biased considering this battle is what I devised my equation on, so I'm basically checking my work.

The second thing made clear is that Raddeo's equation favors larger armies, and that's perfectly fine. However, as Napoleon, other French Generals, allied generals, and Russian Generals fighting against the Persians and Turks in the same time period have shown, it's that larger armies don't always necessarily triumph or necessarily do well against smaller ones, especially in this time period. For examples, the Battle of Battle of Schöngrabern aka Bagration Clutch Master, Battle of Auerstadt aka Davout Clutch Master, etc etc. In the Russo Persian War, the Russian Army in the theatre never grew past 10 thousand men yet did exceptionally well against the Persian Armies, with one battle resulting in 2000 Russians stomping 30,000 Persians (it was a surprise night attack, but still, look at the casualties). Putting too much advantage into large armies effectively makes the amazing battles of Austerlitz, Jena-Auerstadt, etc actually impossible. Which would be a tragedy; because of these awesome battles and miraculous victories by all nations in this time period people like us are so fascinated by it that we spend hours creating, debating, playing and arguing a game to simulate this time period. It might look like it's just to make France OP, in particular Napoleon, but really every nation had some OP-ness. 

I do like your previous equation a bit though. The Total Roll finding one. Although if I had to use it I might change it slightly because it would effectively nerf all the generals with modifiers attached to them.

I swear some threads should be made for different subjects. Covering Math and History and whatnot. Hell, you could make an entire section devoted to helping people get through classes in College and whatnot just with the amount of information that passes through the forum on a daily basis.

Also remember, the game isn't just battles and casualties. Like what was shown in Turn 1's naval skirmishes, battles will happen sure, but the strategies and plans that you give me for what to do in the many scenarios a battle might create affect equally, if not more, the outcomes of said battles. If you say "if we get attacked fight, but pull away to safety at the soonest possible chance. I just want to test the enemy strength" that might influence the result, while "get stuck in, if we are engaged fight to the death, if we fall upon them never stop pursuing" might result in you losing the first battle, but because of your plans you maybe attack twice, three times, etc in the same turn.

TL:DR - One equation gives larger armies an advantage. This time period proves that larger army /=/ advantage. May edit equation(s) either way depending on input.

[BabyJesus]

im happy im not a gm

[Volk]

im happy im not a gm

 

[Superbad]

Fuck math.

[Commander Bondage]

Fuck math.

Thats why I dropped out