1. First Week - Resistance to mass shooting.
"This week is easy:
You just go in the middle of the field back there.
You stand still while these guys shoot at you arrows and bolts.
When it's over, you report your deads.
Questions?"
Ooooh, and there is the little surprise:
We just found some working muskets in the Corsair’s market.
Principle.
The shooting test is made by 10 human muskets, 10 crossbows and 10 bows, with no penalty.
We compute the likelihood of hitting, wounding, saving.
Multiplied by the number of hits (here: 10), we got the “average” number of kills.
We also further compute the reasonably lucky hits and the reasonably unlucky ones.
Between the “unlucky” and the “lucky” is the expected, normal result.
I want to clarify my presentation of the many figures I provide below:
When I mention:
0,8 2,8 4,8 killed by 10 crossbows
it is NOT, as you are used to see,
(hits, wounds, kills). Here, I provide no hits, no wounds. Only kills.
You are used to see posts with only the average number of kills.
Here, the average kills is the middle number.
But I provide also the
range of kills to be expected, i.e. you should expect to have
between 0.8 and 4.8 kills , and you should not be surprised as long as it stay in this range.
So read:
(minimum expected kills, average kills, maximum expected kills)
Which I call, for economy of space:
(unlucky, average, lucky)
the range (unlucky => lucky) is where you should expect the result to happen.
Outside of this range, it becomes statistically unrealistic.
It will happen sometimes, but you must not plan that it could.
If the shooting was to happen with some penalty (distance or cover), then the result would just require more shots but the relative result and the comparison between units would remain unchanged.
So I need not to take this factor into consideration if I want to compare units among themselves.
1.1. Shielded warriors
We will take as reference the Shielded warriors, equipped with hand weapon and shield (7pts each), for other units to compare.
(unlucky average lucky)
1,1 3,3 5,6 killed by 10 muskets
0,8 2,8 4,8 killed by 10 crossbows
0,3 1,7 3,1 killed by 10 bows
Knowing that one warrior costs 7pts, it translates in:
(unlucky average lucky)
7,8 23,3 38,9 pts destroyed by 10 muskets
5,4 19,4 33,5 pts destroyed by 10 crossbows
1,9 11,7 21,4 pts destroyed by 10 bows
In average (10 muskets, 10 crossbows, 10 bows), the unit would loose 18.1 pts worth of warriors.
This last result is what I am interested to compare to other units:
Can I have a better resistance per pts?
If yes, then I would use this cheap or resistant unit to screen more fragile or expensive units.
1.2. Unshielded Warriors.
(unlucky average lucky)
6,7 20,0 33,3 pts destroyed by muskets
6,7 20,0 33,3 pts destroyed by crossbows
2,6 12,5 22,4 pts destroyed by arrows
The average is 17.5 pts of warriors destroyed if they have no shield, 97% of the cost of destroyed shielded warriors.
-3% is really negligible, so take or not shields, it is not a game-breaker.
Of course, the stronger are the missile attacks, the lesser interesting are shields.
When facing stunties, shields are not paying back their cost ; when facing woodies, they are worth taking.
If you have to take the same army against a succession of opponents including both handguns and bows, then either you choose to optimize against Dwarves/Empire (and you take no shield) or you optimize against WE/Orcs (and you take a shield).
For the following units, I’ll usually just examine the pts % difference in order to keep the thread short, unless some detailed stats are interesting to discuss.
1.3. MXB.
With +61% more pts destroyed, they are more vulnerable to shooting and make obviously a bad screen.
1.4. Shielded MXB.
Only +58% more pts destroyed. The shield does not make a tremendous difference.
What the shield protects effectively against arrows is exactly lost against bullets.
If you’re sure not to have powder weapons in front of you, the shield is an excellent option.
If you are sure to have powder weapons in front of you, the shield is a bad option.
1.5. Corsairs.
The “killed” stats being
(unlucky average lucky)
0,8 2,8 4,8 killed by 10 muskets
0,5 2,2 4,0 killed by 10 crossbows
0,2 1,3 2,3 killed by 10 arrows
When translated into pts, it is 15% more pts destroyed than shielded warriors. We can get more nuances:
100pts of shielded warriors will be destroyed by the same amount of arrows than 107pts of corsairs.
100pts of shielded warriors will be destroyed by the same amount of bolts than 114pts of corsairs.
100pts of shielded warriors will be destroyed by the same amount of bullets than 119pts of corsairs.
The SDC helps reducing bullet’s casualties, but it is not enough to compensate for its price. Only against arrows does it roughly compensate for the price.
The difference not being that great, either one can make a cost-effective curtain for a more expensive unit.
1.6. RHB corsairs.
Same as AHW corsairs, obviously.
1.7. Shielded DR.
+107% more than the reference, i.e. twice as many pts of DR are lost than would warriors pts have been lost by the same shooting.
Don’t expect miracles. The full stats are:
(unlucky average lucky)
0,8 2,8 4,8 killed by 10 muskets
0,5 2,2 4,0 killed by 10 crossbows
0,2 1,3 2,3 killed by 10 bows
For those interested, shielded MXB DR are destroyed at a pts rate +137% higher than the reference.
I doubt anyone would take this strange unit, loosing its fast cavalry agile movement and its 360° shooting. I won’t discuss it again.
1.8. DR.
+144% more pts of DR are destroyed compared to the same shooting against the reference shielded warriors.
Here you see that a very inexpensive shield (6% of the DR) can decrease a lot its vulnerability.
The cost/benefit improvement brought by a shield is +17%. The big drawback is loosing the fast cavalry rule.
If you wanted your DR primarily to serve as a fast-moving cover for someone else, you better consider providing them with a shield.
1.9. MXB DR.
+215% more. No better protection, higher price. It is a perfect nonsense to shield anything with MXB DR.
1.10. Harpies.
At +23%, harpies are the most mobile screen.
(EDIT: being skirmisher improves a lot the figure: it would be +86% otherwise)
(unlucky average lucky)
0,5 2,2 4,0 killed by 10 crossbows & muskets
0,3 1,7 3,1 killed by 10 arrows
Keep in mind that the low Ld makes them prone to flee if they loose 2 of them, which happens most of the time.
EDIT: Comparing harpies and all kind of DR, we can tell that the most effective high mobility screen is made by harpies, much more cost-effective than shielded DR, themselves much more cost-effective than naked DR.
Take also into account that harpies are more mobile than DR; especially shielded DR.
DR have larger bases, but harpies are skirmishers so they can shield a larger area.
1.11. Armoured shades.
+91% (EDIT: it would have been +174% without skirmishing)
1.12. “Naked” shades.
+80% more pts lost than the reference (EDIT: +170% if they had not been skirmishers).
EDIT The armour is not even paying back its points, the reduction of KIA does not compensate the price of the armour (the armour is cost-efficient only for arrows, i.e. 1/3 of the present test).
So, unless you're facing only a few arrows, don’t buy any armour for shades.
1.13. AHW shades.
+91% (EDIT: would be +187% without skirmisher rule)
1.14. GW shades.
+102% (EDIT: would be +204% without skirmisher rule)
1.15. WE.
+69% more pts lost than the reference. Which is less than harpies!
Actually, WE suffer from arrows twice as much as warriors & corsairs (from a cost point of view). It is a very good idea to screen WE with core infantry.
1.16. Execs.
+72%. As cost-effective as WE in average. Execs loose more pts than harpies against bullets, but less against arrows.
1.17. BG.
+86%. Which is better than DR, even shielded!
Against arrows, bolts, or bullets, it is always more cost-effective to buy more BG than to screen BG with DR (shielded or not).
1.18. COK.
The stats are:
(unlucky average lucky)
0,3 1,7 3,1 killed by 10 muskets
0,1 1,1 2,1 killed by 10 crossbows
0,0 0,4 0,8 killed by 10 arrows
leading to 59% more pts lost than the warriors in average.
Actually, against arrows, they are more cost-effective than shielded warriors, which means that COK do not need any screen versus arrow shooting, or that they can be used themselves as a screen for other units!
1.19. COC.
The stats are:
(unlucky average lucky)
0,1 1,1 2,1 killed by 10 muskets
0,1 0,8 1,6 killed by 10 crossbows
0,0 0,3 0,5 killed by 10 arrows
The COC fears not the arrows. Bolts & bullets are a little more worrisome.
The high price of the chariot is spread over 4 wounds, so each wound is worth only 25pts.
Overall, the chariot looses 2% more pts than the warriors for a similar shooting.
Against arrows, it is incredibly more efficient than shielded warriors: 40% more cost-efficient! A chariot is the most cost-effective cover against arrows (from side shooting because of the chariot is longer than wide).
1.20. Hydra.
The stats are:
(unlucky average lucky)
0,1 0,9 1,8 killed by 10 muskets
0,0 0,6 1,1 killed by 10 crossbows
0,0 0,2 0,4 killed by 10 arrows
The Hydra fears not the arrows. Bolts and bullets may be just a little more a nuisance.
The high price of the hydra is spread over 5 wounds, and I count the two handlers for free…
Even with “free” beast masters (who cannot be targeted), the hydra looses -10% less pts than the reference for a similar shooting.
The hydra is the most cost-effective cover, with the single exception of naked warriors that soak more bullets for the pts (but not arrows not even bolts).