Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a product of total #
of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon and armor.
Assumptions I am making for my article:
1. Use base strength values
2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON army
3. Use an equation that considers strength AND constitution (since
armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since Archers are not the
same value for both)
Any strong reason to change one/more of these assumptions? #2 is the
one I am most concerned about. Changing an assumption would change
the current equation I would like to publish.
867 of 900 words and counting...hope I can edit down or get "special"
consideration.
Also, this article is going to apply to TA and FA games, but it is a
little more useful in a FA game if all sides are set-up either FreeP
or DS. Is there a chance it could appear in the FA special issue of
Bree?
Gary, I think you also need to be thinking anbout the
terrain madifiers. Depending on who and where they
are battleing it can be a big difference. Also, don't
forget about the nation relations.
Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a
product of total #
of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon
and armor.
Assumptions I am making for my article:
1. Use base strength values
2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON
army
3. Use an equation that considers strength AND
constitution (since
armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since
Archers are not the
same value for both)
Any strong reason to change one/more of these
assumptions? #2 is the
one I am most concerned about. Changing an
assumption would change
the current equation I would like to publish.
867 of 900 words and counting...hope I can edit down
or get "special"
consideration.
Also, this article is going to apply to TA and FA
games, but it is a
little more useful in a FA game if all sides are
set-up either FreeP
or DS. Is there a chance it could appear in the FA
special issue of
Bree?
Thanks,
Gary
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Character skill points have their own VP category. The
rules quite clearly specify Str and Con based on the troops
and their equipment alone. While morale may change due to
a change of command, a the time of the calculation of the
VP's, it has a value that is used.
bb
···
--- gearonskywalker <garyaswegan@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Clint, Anyone on this list...
>
> Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a
> product of total #
> of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon
> and armor.
>
> Assumptions I am making for my article:
>
> 1. Use base strength values
> 2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON
> army
> 3. Use an equation that considers strength AND
> constitution (since
> armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since
> Archers are not the
> same value for both)
>
> Any strong reason to change one/more of these
> assumptions? #2 is the
> one I am most concerned about. Changing an
> assumption would change
> the current equation I would like to publish.
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Good ideas as those things do add to army strength.
However, page 6 makes no mention of terrain, or relations.
Also these two things vary over the course of the game and unlike
armor or troop headcount are not very black and white when comparring
against troops (especially those on your own side) to see which is
best overall.
Gary, I think you also need to be thinking anbout the
terrain madifiers. Depending on who and where they
are battleing it can be a big difference. Also, don't
forget about the nation relations.
JCC
--- gearonskywalker <garyaswegan@y...> wrote:
> Clint, Anyone on this list...
>
> Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a
> product of total #
> of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon
> and armor.
>
> Assumptions I am making for my article:
>
> 1. Use base strength values
> 2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON
> army
> 3. Use an equation that considers strength AND
> constitution (since
> armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since
> Archers are not the
> same value for both)
>
> Any strong reason to change one/more of these
> assumptions? #2 is the
> one I am most concerned about. Changing an
> assumption would change
> the current equation I would like to publish.
>
> 867 of 900 words and counting...hope I can edit down
> or get "special"
> consideration.
>
> Also, this article is going to apply to TA and FA
> games, but it is a
> little more useful in a FA game if all sides are
> set-up either FreeP
> or DS. Is there a chance it could appear in the FA
> special issue of
> Bree?
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
> --- gearonskywalker <garyaswegan@y...> wrote:
> > Clint, Anyone on this list...
> >
> > Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a
> > product of total #
> > of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon
> > and armor.
> >
> > Assumptions I am making for my article:
> >
> > 1. Use base strength values
> > 2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON
> > army
> > 3. Use an equation that considers strength AND
> > constitution (since
> > armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since
> > Archers are not the
> > same value for both)
> >
> > Any strong reason to change one/more of these
> > assumptions? #2 is the
> > one I am most concerned about. Changing an
> > assumption would change
> > the current equation I would like to publish.
Character skill points have their own VP category. The
rules quite clearly specify Str and Con based on the troops
and their equipment alone. While morale may change due to
a change of command, a the time of the calculation of the
VP's, it has a value that is used.
troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon and armor.
Ignore my "inference" and "assumption" that it uses these core
values to calculate Str then Con, and THEN use THOSE numbers in
some mystical and magical VP calculation. You're the one writing
the article, and I'm guessing that you're making theoretical
stabs at those actual formulas. Power to you.
I was simply replying to any confusion whereby something other
than what is in simple black and white (like, Command Rank, or
Terrain Modifiers) is included. Apologies if my attempt at
clarity muddied the waters even further.
Victory points for armies are based on STR and CON scores taking into
consideration weapons and armor?
In a round about way Page 6 says this by inferring troop type and
weapons and armor are weighed. Hence assumption 3
Page 6 fails to mention IF an army would be graded higher if
commanded by a 100 commander vs 10. Hence assumption 2
Page 6 also fails to mention if terrain, relations, or army vs army
combat numbers are used so I chose base numbers. Hence assumption 1.
Thanks,
Gary
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, bgb <pbmnoot@y...> wrote:
> > --- gearonskywalker <garyaswegan@y...> wrote:
> > > Clint, Anyone on this list...
> > >
> > > Page 6 of the rule book says that army value is a
> > > product of total #
> > > of troops, type of troops, morale, training, weapon
> > > and armor.
> > >
> > > Assumptions I am making for my article:
> > >
> > > 1. Use base strength values
> > > 2. DO NOT count army commander skill rank bonus ON
> > > army
> > > 3. Use an equation that considers strength AND
> > > constitution (since
> > > armor impacts constitution NOT strength AND since
> > > Archers are not the
> > > same value for both)
> > >
> > > Any strong reason to change one/more of these
> > > assumptions? #2 is the
> > > one I am most concerned about. Changing an
> > > assumption would change
> > > the current equation I would like to publish.
>
>
> Character skill points have their own VP category. The
> rules quite clearly specify Str and Con based on the troops
> and their equipment alone. While morale may change due to
> a change of command, a the time of the calculation of the
> VP's, it has a value that is used.
>
> bb
>
>
