The Cold Facts

This is a response to the article submitted in the last whispers by W. Robinson Mason III, titled "Of Light Troops and Rough Terrain". I wish I could agree with the author of the other article, but the cold facts are I cannot. I have a deep love for fantasy medieval war gaming, and would like nothing more than see an effective use for all the troop types in the game. However, the numbers just don't add up. I'm writing this article not to correct W. Robinson Mason III, but to prevent any new players from being misled by the misinformation contained in his article. The over all quality of the game play is dependent on all the players being able to compete on a like level. Such gross misunderstanding of the rules can lead to an imbalance in the game in favor of those who know better. I'll start off by discussing the concept of cost effectiveness. Cost effectiveness can be looked at in many different ways, but I'm only interested in one, which happens to be the only way it applies to Middle Earth PBM. The most cost-effective armies are the strongest armies recruited in the shortest period of time. For example, I'll use a major town over a five-turn period.

Troop     # Troops   Optimal Strength   Constitution
  HC        2000            32,000          32,000
  LC        2000            16,000          16,000
  HI        2000            20,000          20,000
  LI        2000            10,000          10,000
  AR        2000            12,000          4,000
  MA        2000            4,000           4,000

As you can see--all else being equal--the HC army is clearly the strongest, followed by the HI, LC, LI, AR, and then MA. I repeated the number of troops for a very important reason. A lot of players fail to understand that the number of troops you are able to recruit is what determines the over all cost effectiveness of the troop types. That is because the number of troops that can be recruited at any given population center applies to us all. In other words, you cannot recruit more than I can from the same size population center. Therefore, it is imperative to recruit the strongest troop type you can. W. Robinson Mason III's argument was based on the assumption that the LI army will have double the number of troops that the HI army has. As he stated, "Contrary to popular belief, the light troops can be much more effective than their bulky counterparts when properly employed in the right terrain, and at the same gold maintenance cost each turn". This statement reveals the error to his logic. The key to understanding his error is the last part of his sentence, "at the same gold maintenance cost". Just where are we to find opponents that are nice enough to recruit half as many troops as we are? Without the 2 to 1 odds, the HI army will defeat the LI army every time. The rest of the combat algorithm does very little to alter that.

In the above chart I used optimal strength and constitution. Would it have made a difference if I figured out the actual strength and constitution? No, not really. In order to understand that , you must understand how the rest of the combat algorithm works. To calculate your actual army strength, first you figure out your "Average Army Modifier". Take your Command Rank, Nation Climate Modifier, Nation Terrain Modifier and Army Morale and average them. Then figure out your "Average Troop Modifier". You do that by averaging your Training Rank, Weapon rank, Troop Terrain Modifier, and Troop Tactic Modifier for each troop type. As you can guess, by averaging the modifiers you are reducing their individual effect. Next, multiply the "Average Troop Modifier" as a percentage figure with the "Ideal Troop Strength" of each troop type. This gives you a separate "Base Army Troop Strength" for each troop type. Total together the "Base Army Troop Strength" for all the troops in your army, and multiply the total by the "Average Army Modifier", once again as a percentage figure. That's basically how it works. There are other modifiers: relations, war machines, spells, and combat artifacts, but they have nothing to do with this topic. Remember, I'm only discussing a comparison between the trooptypes. In any event, your "Army Troop Strength" will be less than your "Ideal Troop Strength", unless your modifiers average one hundred or better. Since most of the modifiers vary little, or affect both opponents relatively equally, the army with higher "Ideal Troop Strength" will almost always end up with the higher "Army Troop Strength". Because of the way "Army Troop Constitution" is calculated, it also plays a major roll in determining the outcome. Armor is multiplied as a bonus percentage, thereby increasing your "Base Troop Constitution", and once again the heavy troop types have a significant advantage.

In his article, Mr. Robinson wrote, "Heavy troops work at 60-80% in rougher terrain, where light troop stock is often at 100%". This statement is very misleading. It implies that LI will have 100% of their "Ideal Troop Strength", whereas the HI army will be about 60-80% of theirs. That is simply incorrect. Remember the combat algorithm. Troop Terrain Modifier is only 1/4 of the "Average Troop Modifier", which consequently is only 1/2 of the modifiers applied to your armies. In other words, it isn't a very large factor. For example, let us say the Training rank for both armies was 50, the Weapon Rank was 50, and the Troop Tactic Modifier was 90. Now let us say the Troop Terrain Modifier was 60 for the HI army and 100 for the LI army. The LI army would have a 73% "Average Troop Modifier", while the HI would have a 63%. The 10% higher "Average Troop Modifier" is not enough to overcome an "Ideal Strength" and "Base Constitution" of one half that of the HI army. 73% of the "Ideal Strength" of the LI army in the above chart is 7300. 63% of the "Ideal Strength" of the HI army in above chart is 12,600. All else being equal, the heavy infantry still has a large advantage.

Now going strictly by the numbers, it would seem HC is the most cost effective troop. There are other factors besides base combat strength. Will that change things? Yes it will. In order to recruit cavalry of any kind, you must expend additional orders as well as sacrifice selling some production. For example, if you were the Eothraim, and you wanted to recruit HI in all your major towns, all you would have to do is get a commander to each of the population centers and issue order 408. Five orders per turn, that's all.

With cavalry, you would have to issue 10 additional orders. Two 947 orders, one for leather, one for mounts, moving all your product to one major town; and eight more orders distributing the products to the other major towns. That will take five characters just to get the product where you need it. How often you have to do this will depend on the amount of product you produce. Not to mention the fact that you can't sell any of the products to meet your rising costs. Now realistically, who can afford to do that? So when you factor in orders and the need to nation sell, HI become more effective. Obviously if you recruit HC when and where you can, and HI everywhere else, that would be the most effective. The best way to look at it is HC are a luxury, and HI are a necessity. Of course, not everyone recruits at multiple population centers, but that's another story.

As I mentioned, the most cost-effective army in this game is the strongest army recruited in the fastest period of time, with the least amount of orders expended. The last element of my statement to cover is the part about time. What does time have to do with this? Time is everything. This whole game is broken down into turns, and turns equal time. The number of orders you can issue are determined by the number of characters you have, who are restricted to two orders a turn. The more characters you have, the more orders you can issue. The more orders you can issue, the more you can do. How long does a game last? I've been in games that ended in 19 turns, as well as games that lasted over 50 turns. Simply put, since the available amount of characters is the same for everyone, and all characters can issue only two orders, we are dealing with a finite number of orders. How does this relate to armies?

The nation with the most powerful army is the one that allocates the largest percentage of his available orders to recruiting the strongest troop type. Think about it. If I spend more orders than you do recruiting troops, I'll probably have more troops than you--unless I'm recruiting in camps, but that's another story as well. Furthermore, if I'm recruiting a heavy troop type, not only will I have more troops, but I will have a stronger army as well. If I were recruiting all HI, the only way uou can have a stronger arny than I do is by out recruiting me enough to overcome my HI advantage--perhaps by recruiting all HC. How easy could you do this by recruiting LI? Not very. You'd have to be recruiting more than twice as much as me. What if I were recruiting LI? Would that make it easier? You bet it would.

It is for this reason that W. Robinson Mason III's 2 to 1 ratio combat example is possible. You can be in a game where your opponent does not recruit as well as he can, nor as much as he can. However, he has also stated, "With the exception of an occasional mob of Men-at-arms, wave after wave of Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry armies dominate the maps of most games". It is for this reason that you must put aside your desire for a more realistic combat system, and play this game the way it was designed. The experienced players know all of this already. I'm talking to the less experienced players who may not have a firm grasp of how the algorithm works.