Statistical Conversion

[Jargon]

I know the Warhammer mod for R:TW had a magic equation that converted Warhammer stats for the game. Does anyone know what it was or have any new ideas?

The first step would be to relate the two statistical areas. I would suggest the following:

Movement = Fiddiling with animations
Weapon Skill = Attack
Ballistic SKill = Missile
Strength =
Toughness = Defence
Wounds = Hit Points
Initative =
Attacks = Weapon Animation Speed (is this easily modifable?)
Leadership= Morale

Units should automaticaly get the max amount of armour possible for them, unless they are meant to be a two handed unit like Great Swords or Sword Masters. The type of weapon a unit uses plays an important part in Attack and Defence.

Shield = + 3 Defence
Light Armour= + 4 Defence
Light armour + shield = + 7 Defence
Heavy Armour= + 6 Defence
Heavy Armour + shield = + 9 Defence

Halberd +2 Attack
Two handed Weapon= +2 Attack
Lance= +3 Attack

Charge will depend on mounted / dismounted, but normally it is 1-3 for foot soldiers and 5-8 for knights, which makes it easy to convert.

In vanilla MTW, the basic stats for a spear militia are Attack 5, Defence 7, Charge 2. Its debatle whether these numbers are good or bad, but its something to start with.

Now seeing as most basic weak units in Warhammer are likely to have a Weapon Skill of 2, and Toughness and Strength of 3, I guess we should try and get the two figures to match after rounding up.

Weapons Skill 2 * 2.5 = 5
Toughness 3 * 2.33 = 7
Charge = 2

Now lets use a basic mounted unit like a Bretonnian Knights of the Realm and try to convert them using the same equation. The stats for Feudal Knights are Attack 10, Defence 16 and Charge 6.

Weapon Skill 4 * 2.5 + 3 = Attack 13
Toughness 3 * 2.33 + 9 = Toughness 16
Charge = 6

The extra armour the knight wears helps to get Toughness to match perfectly (okay so I played with the Heavy Armour + Shield bonus to get it to match). Currently the bonus from using a lance makes its attack a little too high.

Okay, now that iv'e fudged the numbers to get a basic knight to convert, how does it work with a basic elite infantry unit, like turning a Lizardmen Temple Guard into a dismounted Feudal Knight with Attack 13 and Defence 21?

Weapon Skill 4 * 2.5 +2 = Attack 12
Toughness 4 * 2.33 + 3= Toughness 13
Charge= 2 or 3

The attack is pretty good, but no armour means that they lose a lot of toughness. Are Temple Guard 't meant to compete with heavily armoured units? Maybe having a charge of 3 or higher morale would make the difference?

Placed under any amount of scrutiny and this system collapses, but at least if people play around with some ideas we could come up with some equations that can help to convert the many units in a fair manner (as opposed to doing it by gut instinct).

[Jargon]

Some interesting realistic combat discussion in this mods thread:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82671

Converting stats across using MTW units as templates is probably not the best way to do it, considering how over powered militia units are in the vanilla game.

[Bwian]

Thanks for this ... it's a good starting point for discussion on whether we need to come up with a formulaic approach, or a 'gut feel and test'

You have clearly put some time in to this!

[DrZoidberg]

'gut feel and test'


I'm all for this one. The stats is the one area where we can play around a lot, and I suggest we do it. We want it to feel right, rather than be a perfect conversion, right?

[Jargon]

If a gut feeling system works, then great. The problem is that someones gut feeling about a unit can be different to others. It can also lead to arbitary or unblanced results (someone may have a special memory of their Skeleton Warriors being really useful in table top battle, and they dont 'feel' they should be too weak in MTW). This way at least the numbers can be converted based on actual data available rather than impressions.

I would say start with a formulae system that converts the stats from Warhammer to MTW, then work from there in modifying it by what makes sense. Some stuff may not convert over well. What does a difference of having toughness 3 compared to 5 mean for the game? Is this not as large a difference as having heavy armour and shield? Seeing how the actual numbers can change things in MTW will help, and a good system will auto-balance the units compared to each other.

There are lots of variables not mentioned in my first post that need to be assessed. I believe unit 'mass' plays a role in the game engine, and would be a tremendous benefit for minotaurs, ogres, kroxigors etc. Tweaking weapon speed also makes a significant difference, and I think would represent the number of attacks nicely.

[DrZoidberg]

If a gut feeling system works, then great. The problem is that someones gut feeling about a unit can be different to others. It can also lead to arbitary or unblanced results (someone may have a special memory of their Skeleton Warriors being really useful in table top battle, and they dont 'feel' they should be too weak in MTW). This way at least the numbers can be converted based on actual data available rather than impressions.

I would say start with a formulae system that converts the stats from Warhammer to MTW, then work from there in modifying it by what makes sense. Some stuff may not convert over well. What does a difference of having toughness 3 compared to 5 mean for the game? Is this not as large a difference as having heavy armour and shield? Seeing how the actual numbers can change things in MTW will help, and a good system will auto-balance the units compared to each other.

There are lots of variables not mentioned in my first post that need to be assessed. I believe unit 'mass' plays a role in the game engine, and would be a tremendous benefit for minotaurs, ogres, kroxigors etc. Tweaking weapon speed also makes a significant difference, and I think would represent the number of attacks nicely.

You got me there. Does actually sound like the best way to do it. We do need to weigh in magic though. A lot of a units price depends on that.

[Casuir]

Defense is not one value, theres three seperate entries which dont all apply at the same time. Defense skill should I think be influenced by weapon skill somewhat, armour by the toughness and armour used and shields should be kept seperate from that. Weapon attack values should factor in strength and weapon skill.

[Jargon]

I didnt even think of that, if someones weapon skill is high enough they can deflect wounds without having anything to do with armour.

So, modified with Casuir's ideas, heres a basic equation without modifications:

Defence = Weapon Skill + Toughness +Type of Armour
Attack= Weapon Skill + Strength + Type of Weapon

Shield = + 1 Defence
Light Armour= + 2 Defence
Light armour + shield = + 3 Defence
Scaly Skin= +3 Defence
Heavy Armour= + 4 Defence
Heavy Armour + shield = + 5 Defence

Weapon:
Two handed / Great Weapon= +2 Attack
Lance= +3 Attack

Reusing the same examples as before:

Bretonnian Man At Arms

Defence= 2 + 3 + 3= 8
Attack= 2 + 3 + 0= 5
Charge= 2

Knights of the Realm

Defence= 4 + 3 + 5= 12
Attack= 4 + 3 + 3= 10
Charge= 6

Kroxigor

Defence= 3 + 5 + 3 = 11
Attack= 3 + 4 + 2 = 9
Charge= 3

So just using their vanilla stats straight up, theres not much difference between them. A humble Bretonnian Man at Arms is nearly as defensive as knight or a Kroxigor. We can do two things to change this; increase the bonus that heavy armour gives by 3 and Scaly skin by 1, and multiply the effects of toughness and strength (say by 2) inorder to stretch out the differences. I chose not to multiply weapon skill as to not inflate the numbers too drastically:

Bretonnian Man At Arms

Defence= 2 + (3*2) + 3= 11
Attack= 2 + (3*2) + 0= 8
Charge= 2

Knights of the Realm

Defence= 4 + (3*2) + 8= 18
Attack= 4 + (3*2) + 3= 13
Charge= 6

Kroxigor

Defence= 3 + (5*2) + 4 = 16
Attack= 3 + (4*2) + 2 = 13
Charge= 3

Okay so a little multiplication and we start to see more of a difference between the units. Heres what happens when we multiply weapon skill as well.

Bretonnian Man At Arms

Defence= (2*2) + (3*2) + 3= 13
Attack= (2*2) + (3*2) + 0= 10
Charge= 2

Knights of the Realm

Defence= (4*2) + (3*2) + 8= 22
Attack= (4*2) + (3*2) + 3= 17
Charge= 6

Kroxigor

Defence= (3*2) + (5*2) + 4 = 20
Attack= (3*2) + (4*2) + 2 = 16
Charge= 3

With toughness, strength and weapon skill multiplied the numbers start to bloat out a bit above normal MTW. The knight and the kroxigor gained a few extra points in attack and defence over the man at arms. Can the game's battles be adjusted so that numbers higher than normal work fine, but at least the differences between unit stats is distiinguished?

[Casuir]

You're still taking defense as a single value, its not, its three seperate ones. I think as well to do this right you're going to have to factor in how combat actually works in warhammer.

[uanime5]

Technically speaking Casuir defence is made of 7 levels. The first four cover armour and armour upgrades, the next one is defence skill, and the last two cover the shield abilities: shield vs melee and shield vs missile weapons. Though the three you mentioned Casuir are generally used as the default.

Jargon I'd also like to point out that the following weapon stats can also be changed. For melee weapons they are attack, charge bonus, delay between attacks, armour piercing ability (targets armour cut by half), attack abilities against infantry, and attack bonuses against cavalry. While for missile weapons these are range, number of missiles, delay between attacks, and body piercing ability (can pass through one soldier and hit another soldier).

[Jargon]

Great, thx for the info, I knew I had misenterpreted Casuir's post and needed a little more explanation. The best way iv'e found to fish out ideas from you guys is to put out a bad idea and watch out for the corrective posts :-)

[Casuir]

Technically speaking Casuir defence is made of 7 levels. The first four cover armour and armour upgrades, the next one is defence skill, and the last two cover the shield abilities: shield vs melee and shield vs missile weapons. Though the three you mentioned Casuir are generally used as the default.

Jargon I'd also like to point out that the following weapon stats can also be changed. For melee weapons they are attack, charge bonus, delay between attacks, armour piercing ability (targets armour cut by half), attack abilities against infantry, and attack bonuses against cavalry. While for missile weapons these are range, number of missiles, delay between attacks, and body piercing ability (can pass through one soldier and hit another soldier).

If you take a closer look at those entrys you'll see they're commented out and removing the comments will crash the game. The actual armour values are the line above that one which gives three values. Likewise the weapon settings the last two you mention one doesnt exist and the other isnt used. Stuff like body and armour piercing should only be used where warhammer rules warrant it, balancings akward enough as it is.

[Jargon]

Okay I found all the stuff you guys were talking about in export_descr_unit. We'll keep using Bretonnia as an example as they are the easiest to convert over due to mounted knights.

MTW stats for a Feudal Knight:

type Feudal Knights
dictionary Feudal_Knights ; Feudal Knights
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_cavalry
banner holy crusade_cavalry
soldier Feudal_Knights, 32, 0, 1
mount barded horse
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge, knight
formation 2, 4.4, 3, 6, 2, square, wedge
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 10, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 7, 5, 4, metal
;stat_armour_ex 7, 8, 0, 0, 5, 4, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, -2, -4, 0
stat_mental 9, impetuous, trained
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 730, 250, 120, 95, 730, 4, 180
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Feudal_Knights, Feudal_Knights_ug1
ownership england, scotland, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, papal_states, hungary, slave
era 0 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice, hungary
era 1 scotland
;unit_info 10, 0, 16

Okay, ignoring the unimportant ones and those with the ; symbol in front like Casuir advised, the ones we are looking at are:

stat_pri 10, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 1
stat_pri_armour 7, 5, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_mental 9, impetuous, trained
stat_charge_dist 45

An explanation of all the important stats are:

(stat_pri) Primary Weapon
attack factor= 10
attack bonus factor if charging= 6
Weapon type MELEE
Tech type = MELEE_BLADE
Damage type = PIERCING
Sound type when weapon hits = SPEAR
Min delay between attacks (in 1/10th of a second)= 25
Skeleton compensation factor in melee. Should be 1= 1

(stat_sec) Secondary Weapon
attack factor= 11
attack bonus factor if charging= 4
Weapon type MELEE
Tech type = MELEE_BLADE
Damage type = PIERCING
Sound type when weapon hits = SWORD
Min delay between attacks (in 1/10th of a second)= 25
Skeleton compensation factor in melee. Should be 1= 1

(stat_pri_armour) Armour
armour factor= 7
defensive skill factor (not used when shot at)= 5
shield factor (only used for attacks from the front of left)= 4
sound type when hit = flesh, leather, or metal= METAL

(stat_sec_armour) Mount Armour
armour factor= 0
defensive skill factor (not used when shot at)= 0
sound type when hit = flesh, leather, or metal= FLESH

(stat_mental) Morale
Base morale level= 9
Discipline may be normal, low, disciplined or impetuous. Impetuous units may charge without orders= IMPETUOUS
Training determines how tidy the unit's formation is. Discipline the response to morale SHOCKS= TRAINED
(optional lock_morale stops unit from ever routing, brilliant for units like Slayers that know no fear)

Okay, so if the above is how we want a typical Knight of the Realm from the Warhammer world to look like in MTW (this is just an assumption) then we need a calculation that can get the two different stats to fit. Once an equation has been made, we can try it with other units, see how far off it is from the ideal role the unit should have in the game, and then go back and modify the initial approach to find something that works for a variety of units.

Knight of the Realm Converted:

1) Primary Attack factor=*Weapons Skill + Strength + Weapon Type + Equation* = 10
2) Primary Attack bonus factor if charging= (I think this can be arbitrarily assigned based on the unit. 1-6 for infantry and light cavalry, 6-8 for heavy cavalry. It should be 6 for Knight of the Realm.)= 6
3) The type of weapon and sound used is just logic, Melee, spear, piercing etc.
4) Min delay between attacks= 25 (this seems to always stay the same for all the units, so 25 is fine)
5) Skeleton compensation= (Cavalry are almost always 1. This number seems to be increased to 1.33 for heavy axemen and billmen, and decreased to 0.6 for some spearmen)
6) Secondary attack factor= *Weapon Skill + Strength + Weapon Type + Equation*= 11
7) Secondary attack bonus factor if charging= 4 (This is almost always 3-5, I can;t work out what makes the difference, the weapon, the strength of the unit, etc.)

8) Armour factor= (Just apply a single digit based on what we have pre-assigned each armour type. Theres quite a range here for armoured cavalry, from 6-11. We could make typical Heavy Armour 7, work out what is the best armour in the game (Chaos Armour?) and make it 10-11, and fill in the gaps with other different types of strange armour that appear in Warhammer) = 7
9) Defensive skill factor (not used when shot at)= *Weapon Skill + Toughness Equation*= 5
10) Shield factor= (I haven’t bothered to look at this number yet)= 4

11-13) I think all secondary armour stats are for elephants. This will be useful for units like Juggernaughts, Stegadons and other monsters.

14) Base morale level= (The highest morale in MTW I could find was 11, and since Warhammer leadership tests are out of 10ish, I think we could do an almost direct translation of Warhammer stats here to begin with) = 8
15) Discipline= (this will be applied by logic. Perhaps we want to make impetuous or untrained apply more for rebellious races like Orcs and Goblins, so we decide to just make Knights of the Realm disciplined or highly disciplined) = Disciplined
16) Training= (logic again, most of the fluff history will tell us if they are trained or not)= TRAINED

Where it says *Equation* means that some combination of Wounds, toughness, and/or weapon skill need to be worked out, except I don’t have the time to do it at the moment.

I also noticed that "mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4" was the reason for horses fearing the more exotic animals. What would happen if we were to create a new mount category for units that weren’t mounted? For example, goblins are supposed to fear High Elves. Can we create a mount category called Elves, give it to all elves, and then give all goblin units "mount_effect Elves -4"? Is it just a form of classification, or will it have detrimental effects on Elven infantry units?

Here also is the list of attributes for future reference:

sea_faring = can board ships; can_swim = can swim across rivers
hide_forest, hide_improved_forest, hide_anywhere = defines where the unit can hide
can_sap = Can dig tunnels under walls
frighten_foot, frighten_mounted = Cause fear to certain nearby unit types
can_run_amok = Unit may go out of control when riders lose control of animals
general_unit = The unit can be used for a named character's bodyguard
cantabrian_circle = The unit has this special ability
no_custom = The unit may not be selected in custom battles
command = The unit carries a legionary eagle, and gives bonuses to nearby units
mercenary_unit = The unit is s mercenary unit available to all factions
is_peasant = unknown
druid = Can do a special morale raising chant
power_charge = unkown
free_upkeep_unit = Unit can be supported free in a city

(some units have the attributes like “hardy”, “very_hardy”, “gunmen”, “crossbow”, “can_withdraw” etc. but no explanation is given at the start of the text)

[Casuir]

I also noticed that "mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4" was the reason for horses fearing the more exotic animals. What would happen if we were to create a new mount category for units that weren’t mounted? For example, goblins are supposed to fear High Elves. Can we create a mount category called Elves, give it to all elves, and then give all goblin units "mount_effect Elves -4"? Is it just a form of classification, or will it have detrimental effects on Elven infantry units?

The mount categorys are hardcoded but even if they werent it probably wouldnt work. Horses fearing camels and elephants is caused by the frighten_mounted flag these both have.


Here also is the list of attributes for future reference:

That list dates from rome, theres new attributes been added and some of these dont work.

Also, arent feudal knights equipped with mail while brettonian knights have plate? Using them as a anchor might not be the best, I'd use a few units which have equivelants in the two systems.

[Jargon]

Okay good point, maybe men at arms or Empire spearmen would be a better way to start. There is also the issue that the vanilla stats are kind bad, combat is too quick and arcadey. I have Darth Mod, Ultimate AI, the Long Road and some others mods. Do you suggest Warhammer be based off the combat stats of any of those?

[uanime5]

armour_ug_levels 3, 4

This line is also important because it lists the starting armour a unit has (such as light mail) and all the upgrades it can get. If the Brettonian Knights start with plate armour then this should be 5 or 6.

[Bwian]

We need to establish a base figure for attack and defence that we can convert over from one set of rules and stats to another. We do not need to worry about comparing our stats with MTW2 stats...as long as we balance attack and defence the same.

If our mailed knights have a value of 3...that would be fine...as long as the attack values pitted against it gave the right results. MTW2 body counts are too high, and the battles too quick. I would like to see longer fights and less rapid killing....and we can address that in the balance.

Lets get a conversion as a start point, and see how it looks. Pit that unit against an equal unit, and you will see if attack or defence is out of balance. Then work the same balance against another WTW unit...and fight them off. Also..we need to consider cost and upkeep. The more effective a unit is, the more expensive it would be. This could be related to the number of army points the tabletop game requires to purchase. It is also a balance factor.

If unit X costs 200, then it should be able to take on 2 units of soldiers costing 100 on relativley equal terms. That sort of thing.

Forget stock MTW2 values ... if we need to have a wider range of armour values to cover the units, then we can do that. No reaosn why our 'base' unit has to resemble a stock unit ... we will be balancing it against another mod unit...not stock.

[Jargon]

Alrighty, using your advise I started from the basics. I found two opposing units that were almost identical stat wise in order to pit them against each other: skeleton warriors and Bretonnian men at arms. I converted their stats over to MTW roughly, and then used the same method on other units. Archers, light horsemen, the tomb guards and Questing knights. The conversion method worked reasonably well, its not like the peasants could overpower the Tomb Guard, plenty of fine tuning ledft to do. The trick will be in using the same method with other races and getting things to feel right.

So heres the numbers I was working with, and would appreciate any suggestions on:

Armour List

Normal Mount= +1
Special/Barded Mount= +2
Light Armour= +2
Scaly Skin 6+= +3
Scaly Skin 4+= +5
Heavy Armour= +6
Chaos Armour= +7

Shields: I'm not really sure what to do with shields, technically there is only one type in Warhammer, but I have seen a whole range of numbers for the third stat number in "stat_pri_armour", which i think refers to shields.

LightShield= +2 ????
Shield= +4
Heavy Shield= +8 ????

Weapon/Strength/Toughness/Ballistic Skill List:

This list makes a large jump from level 3 to 4. This is intended as a crude method of differentiating the higher and lower level skills without going into multiplication. The reasoning is that having 4+ in a skill represents a unit's specialisation in being strong, tough or agile. It really hurts having low stats, which is how it should be I think. These numbers can be easily changed if they are too high or low, or dont make sense.

1= +0
2= +1
3 = +3
4= +6
5= +7
6= +8
7= +9

Ranged Weapon Strength:

Javelin= 2
Bow= 2

Weapon Strength List:

Hand Weapon +1
Spear+3
Great Weapon +4
Halberd
Ethereal
Tomb Blades +5
Huge Ritual Blades
Flail

Charge List:

Light Archer= 1
Light infantry= 2
Standard infantry=3
Elite/Special Infantry=5
Large sized infantry= 6
Light Archer Cavalry= 3
Light Cavalry= 4
Cavalry= 6
Elite Cavalry= 8

Cavalry secondary weapon close combat= 50% normal charge

Mental List:

Undead= lock_morale
Questing Vow= +2 morale

It's fun to play with undead with lock_morale switched on, suddenly their crappy troops become very deadly as blockers.

Skeleton Warrior (Middle East Peasant)

stat_pri (WS+1, Strength+3, Hand Weapon+1), (Light Infantry Charge=2), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8

stat_pri_armour (light Armour=2), (Weapon Skill+1 + Toughness+3), (light shield +2) 0, flesh

type ME Peasants
dictionary ME_Peasants ; Peasants
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier ME_Peasants, 60, 0, 1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, is_peasant, peasant
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 5, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 4, 2, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 3, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 240, 40, 25, 240, 90, 4, 20
armour_ug_levels 0, 1
armour_ug_models ME_Peasants, ME_Peasants_ug1
ownership moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids, slave
era 0 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
era 1 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
era 2 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
;unit_info 2, 0, 2

Skeleton Archer (ME Archer Militia)

stat_pri (ballistic skill+1, light arrow+2), 1, arrow, 120, 30, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none,
25, 1

stat_sec (Weapon Skill+1 + Strength +3+Hand Weapon+1), 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8

stat_pri_armour (light armour+2), (weapon skill 1 + toughness 3), 0, flesh


type ME Archer Militia
dictionary ME_Archer_Militia ; Archer Militia
category infantry
class missile
voice_type Light
banner faction main_missile
banner holy crusade
soldier ME_Archer_Militia, 48, 0, 0.8
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, free_upkeep_unit
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 3, 1, arrow, 120, 30, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none,
25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 5, 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 4, 0, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 1, 1, 0, -2
stat_mental 3, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 192, 40, 20, 120, 192, 4, 60
armour_ug_levels 0, 1
armour_ug_models ME_Archer_Militia, ME_Archer_Militia_ug1
ownership egypt
;unit_info 3, 5, 2

Skeleton Light Horsemen

stat_pri (Balistic Skill+1 + Ranged Weapon Strength=2), (light cavalry charge=3), cav_composite_arrow, 120, 25, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 25, 1

stat_sec (Weapon Skill +1, Strength+3, Weapon Strength+1) 4, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 2

stat_pri_armour (light armour=2, mount armour+1), (Weapon Skill+1 + Toughness+3), (No Shield), flesh

type Mamluk Archers
dictionary Mamluk_Archers ; Mamluk Archers
category cavalry
class missile
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_cavalry
banner holy crusade_cavalry
soldier Mamluk_Archers, 24, 0, 1
mount heavy horse
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge, cantabrian_circle
formation 2, 4.4, 3, 6, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 3, 3, cav_composite_arrow, 120, 25, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap, thrown
stat_sec 5, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 2
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 3, 4, 0, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 0, 0, 3, 5, 5, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 2, -10, -2
stat_mental 3, low, untrained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 850, 155, 35, 210, 850, 4, 250
armour_ug_levels 2, 3
armour_ug_models Mamluk_Archers, Mamluk_Archers_ug1
ownership egypt, slave
era 0 egypt
era 1 egypt
era 2 egypt
;unit_info 5, 8, 12

Tomb Guard
stat_pri (weapon skill+3, Strength+6 + Tomb Blade+5), (Elite Infantry Charge=5), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.4

stat_pri_armour (light armour+2), (Weapon Skill+3 + Toughness+6 ), (Shield=2), metal

type Tabardariyya
dictionary Tabardariyya ; Tabardariyya
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Tabardariyya, 48, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 14, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.4
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 9, 2, metal
;stat_armour_ex 4, 6, 0, 0, 10, 0, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 1, 1, 0, -2
stat_mental 10, normal, highly_trained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 510, 175, 30, 180, 510, 4, 150
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Tabardariyya, Tabardariyya_ug1
ownership egypt
era 1 egypt
era 2 egypt
;unit_info 19, 0, 14

Bretonnian Peasants (Peasants)


stat_pri (WS+1, Strength+3, Hand Weapon+1), (Light Infantry Charge=2), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8

stat_pri_armour (light Armour=2), (Weapon Skill+1 + Toughness+3), (light shield +2) 0, flesh

type Peasants
dictionary Peasants ; Peasants
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Peasants, 60, 0, 0.8
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, is_peasant, peasant
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 5, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, spear, 25, 0.4
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 4, 2, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 4
stat_mental 5, low, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 150, 90, 25, 140, 150, 4, 30
armour_ug_levels 0, 1
armour_ug_models Peasants, Peasants_ug1
ownership england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice,
papal_states, slave, normans, saxons
era 0 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice,
papal_states, normans, saxons
era 1 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice,
papal_states, normans, saxons
era 2 england, france, hre, denmark, spain, portugal, milan, venice,
papal_states, normans, saxons
;unit_info 3, 0, 3

Peasant Archers (Using MTW Peasant Archers)

stat_pri (BS+3 + Ranged Weapon Strength +2), (light archer charge=1), arrow, 120, 30, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 25, 1

stat_sec (WS+1 + hand weapon+1 +Strength+3), 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8

stat_pri_armour (Light Armour+2), (Weapon Skill+1 + Toughness+ 3), 0, flesh

stat_mental Leadership +5, normal, untrained

type Peasant Archers
dictionary Peasant_Archers ; Peasant Archers
category infantry
class missile
voice_type Light
banner faction main_missile
banner holy crusade
soldier Peasant_Archers, 48, 0, 0.8
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, stakes, stakes
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 5, 1, arrow, 120, 30, missile, missile_mechanical, piercing, none, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 5, 1, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 4, 0, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 3, 0, 2, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 1, -2, 3, 4
stat_mental 5, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 144, 100, 20, 120, 144, 4, 60
armour_ug_levels 0, 1, 2
armour_ug_models Peasant_Archers, Peasant_Archers_ug1, Peasant_Archers_ug2
ownership bretonnia
era 0 bretonnia
era 1 bretonnia
era 2 bretonnia
;unit_info 3, 5, 2

Bretonnian Mounted Yeoman (Hobilars)

stat_pri (WS+3 + Spear+3, Strength+3), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1.5

stat_sec (WS+3 + handweapon+1, Strength+3) , 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 2

stat_pri_armour (Light Armour+2, Normal Mount+1), (Weapon Skill+3 + Toughness+ 3), (light shield+4), flesh

stat_mental Leadership +6, normal, untrained

type Hobilars
dictionary Hobilars ; Hobilars
category cavalry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_cavalry
banner holy crusade_cavalry
soldier Hobilars, 24, 0, 1
mount pony
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge
formation 2, 4.4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 9, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1.5
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 7, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 2
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 3, 6, 4, leather
;stat_armour_ex 2, 3, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, -2, -10, 2
stat_mental 6, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 270, 110, 25, 155, 270, 4, 80
armour_ug_levels 1, 2
armour_ug_models Hobilars, Hobilars_ug1
ownership england, slave
era 0 england
era 1 england
;unit_info 3, 0, 3

Questing Knight

stat_pri (Weapon Skill+6 + Strength+6 + Great Weapon+4), (Elite Cavalry Charge=8), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1.5

stat_pri_armour (Heavy Armour+6, Warhorse+2),(Weapon Skill+6 +Toughness+ 3), 0, metal

type Knights Templar
dictionary Knights_Templar ; Knights Templar
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_cavalry
banner unit templars
soldier Knights_Templar, 24, 0, 1
mount mailed horse
mount_effect elephant -4, camel -4
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, can_formed_charge, knight
formation 2, 4.4, 3, 6, 2, square, wedge
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 16, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 2
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 6, 9, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 5, 6, 0, 0, 5, 6, 6, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 7
stat_ground 0, -2, -10, 2
stat_mental 10, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 45
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 840, 185, 40, 230, 840, 4, 250
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Knights_Templar, Knights_Templar_ug1
ownership england, scotland, france, denmark, milan, venice, papal_states, sicily, poland, hungary
;unit_info 11, 0, 16

[uanime5]

stat_pri_armour 6, 9, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 5, 6, 0, 0, 5, 6, 6, metal


These two need to match each other of the game will create an error message. In the above case it should be:



stat_pri_armour 6, 9, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 6, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0, metal

[Casuir]

No it wont the second line isnt used by the game.

[Jargon]

Its difficult to test battle stats in MTW, does medium difficulty not add any extra modifiers into the mix? I have been pitting Grave Guard against Tomb Guard, which should be a fair fight, but the Grave Guard almost always win. Is it the MTW units that I am basing them off? Iv'e tried changing Tomb Guard from Tabardariyya to Hashishim as I thought the two handed axe may have been the problem, but that doesnt seem to be it.

I tried adding in Ushabti to see how well a super unit went. A unit of Ushabti straight up against a unit of Grave Guard usually leaves the Ushabti dead. If I hit the Grave guard with another unit like skeletons or Tomb guard first and hit them with the Ushbati from the side, this has a better effect. Should they be powerful enough to take on Grave Guard ont heir own? Maybe its the size of 75 men vs 16 thats just too much, as their stats are excellent.

Skeleton Warrior

stat_pri (WS+1, Strength+3, Hand Weapon+1), (Light Infantry Charge=2), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8

stat_pri_armour (light Armour=2), (Weapon Skill+1 + Toughness+3), (light shield +2) 0, flesh

type ME Peasants
dictionary ME_Peasants ; Peasants
category infantry
class light
voice_type Light
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier ME_Peasants, 60, 0, 1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_withdraw, is_peasant, peasant, frighten_foot, frighten_mounted
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 6, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 5, 2, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_simple, piercing, knife, 25, 0.8
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 4, 2, flesh
;stat_armour_ex 0, 2, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 3, low, untrained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 210, 40, 25, 210, 90, 4, 20
armour_ug_levels 0, 1
armour_ug_models ME_Peasants, ME_Peasants_ug1
ownership moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids, slave
era 0 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
era 1 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
era 2 moors, egypt, turks, mongols, timurids
;unit_info 2, 0, 2

Tomb Guard (Hashishim)

stat_pri (weapon skill+3 + Strength+6 + Hand Weapon+1 + Tomb Blads +3), (elite unit charge=5), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.4

stat_pri_armour (light armour 2), (Weapon Skill+3 + Toughness+6 ), (shield=4), metal

type Hashishim
dictionary Hashishim ; Hashashim
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Hashishim, 48, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, very_hardy, can_withdraw, frighten_foot, frighten_mounted
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 2, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 13, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, piercing, sword, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 2, 9, 4, metal
;stat_armour_ex 4, 0, 0, 0, 5, 8, 8, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 1, 1, 0, -2
stat_mental 11, disciplined, trained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 630, 250, 35, 205, 630, 4, 250
armour_ug_levels 3
armour_ug_models Hashishim
ownership moors, egypt, turks
era 1 moors, egypt, turks
era 2 moors, egypt, turks
;unit_info 14, 0, 34

Ushubati (Tabardariyya)

stat_pri (weapon skill+6 + Strength+8 + Huge Ritual Blades+5), (large unit charge=6), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.4

stat_pri_armour (undead Construct+4), (Weapon Skill+6 + Toughness+6 ), (no shield), metal

type Tabardariyya
dictionary Tabardariyya ; Tabardariyya
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Tabardariyya, 12, 0, 1.2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, can_withdraw, frighten_foot, frighten_mounted
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 3, square
stat_health 3, 0
stat_pri 19, 6, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.4
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 4, 12, 0, metal
;stat_armour_ex 4, 6, 0, 0, 10, 0, 0, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 1
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 10, normal, highly_trained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1170, 175, 30, 180, 1170, 4, 150
armour_ug_levels 3, 4
armour_ug_models Tabardariyya, Tabardariyya_ug1
ownership egypt
era 1 egypt
era 2 egypt
;unit_info 19, 0, 14

Grave Guard (Dismounted Druchima)

stat_pri (Weapon Skill+3 + Strength+6 + Hand Weapon+1 Wight Blade +3), (Elite infantry charge=5), no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 1.5

stat_pri_armour (Heavy armour=6), (Weapon Skill+3 + Toughness+6), 4, metal


type Dismounted Druchima
dictionary Dismounted_Druchima ; Dismounted Druzhina
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
banner faction main_infantry
banner holy crusade
soldier Dismounted_Druchima, 48 0, 1
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, hardy, can_withdraw, frighten_foot, frighten_mounted
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 4, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 13, 5, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 25, 1
;stat_pri_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_pri_attr ap
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, melee_simple, blunt, none, 25, 1
;stat_sec_ex 0, 0, 0
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 6, 9, 4, metal
;stat_armour_ex 3, 4, 0, 0, 4, 8, 8, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 6
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 8, normal, trained, lock_morale
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 630, 150, 30, 165, 630, 4, 160
armour_ug_levels 2, 3
armour_ug_models Dismounted_Druchima, Dismounted_Druchima_ug1
ownership russia
era 0 russia
era 1 russia
;unit_info 9, 0, 15

Stat List used:

Armour List:

Normal Mount= +1
Special/Barded Mount= +2
Light Armour= +2
Scaly Skin 6+= +3
Undead Construct= +4
Scaly Skin 4+= +5
Heavy Armour= +6
Chaos Armour= +7


Light Shield= +2???
Shield= +4
Heavy Shield= +8???

Weapon/Strength/Ballistic Skill List:

1= +0
2= +1
3 = +3
4= +6
5= +7
6= +8
7= +9

Ranged Weapon Strength:

Javelin= 2
Bow= 2

Weapon List

Hand Weapon +1
Spear+3
Lance +3
Great Weapon +3
Halberd
Ethereal
Huge Ritual Blades +5
Flail

Tomb Blades +3
Wight Blade +3
Poisoned Attack= +3

Charge:

Light Archer= 1
Light infantry= 2
Standard infantry=3
Elite/Special Infantry=5
Large sized infantry= 6
Light Archer Cavalry= 3
Light Cavalry= 4
Cavalry= 6
Elite Cavalry= 8
Cavalry secondary weapon close combat= 50% normal charge

Mental:

Undead= lock_morale
Questing Vow= +2 morale

Attacks:

Braindead= 1.5
1= 1
2= .7
3= .4
4= .3

Wounds:

1= 1
2= 2
3= 3
4= 4

Unit Size:

Light Archer= 48
Standard Infantry= 60
Special/Elite Infantry= 48
Large Monster unit= 12
Light cavalry= 40
Standard cavalry= 35
Elite cavalry= 24

[Casuir]

Animations play a part in combat,use two units with the same animation sets for now. Your stats look off though, have you worked out an actually formula based on warhammer combat or are you just assigning numbers off the top of your head? The ws/str/bs list you have there looks like its going to unbalance things for a start, the numbers should be related to each other in some way.

[Jargon]

Iv'e tried not to assign any numbers arbitarily, and made everything relate to Warhammer in some respect. If a special rule for Zombies is that they are Brain Dead, then I have tried to convert that as a 0.5 increase to their attack speed (slowing down). If a unit has magic or poisoned weapons, then that becomes a very specific bonus to attack that is balanced to the effect of other weapons. If some of the numbers seem like they have been chosen at random, its because I am trying to convert information that has no equal in the MTW game system..

When you say some of the numbers are off, are you able to give specific examples? At the top of each units stat sheet I have listed the changes I made for each unit (except the mental section) so that everything I have done is transparent and easily modifable by others. I am purposefully trying to display my method of thinking so it is easily to comment on.

The first number of "stat pri" is based on a combination of weapon skill, strength and the type of hand weapon employed. The second number is the charge based on the type of unit, so elite infantry have a larger charge than light archers.

The first number of "stat_pri_armour" is the type of armour, and the second is a combination of toughness and weapon skill. The third is to do with shields, but I am currently having trouble with that.

The way I have ws/str/bs converted now:

1= +0
2= +1
3 = +3
4= +6
5= +7
6= +8
7= +9

The reason I have created a jump between 3 and 4 is because of the way Warhammer gaming works. The difference between weapon skill 2 and weapon skill 4 is a difference of 2, which would mean very little in MTW, but in Warhammer table top gaming it can mean an extra 20-30% chance of success. The jump is intended to differentiate this. If someone can think up a more intelligent system then great, this is just the best I could come up with at the moment.

It could be changed to something more symetrical:

1= +0
2= +1
3 = +3
4= +5
5= +7
6= +9
7= +11

Or the numbers could be converted by multipliers or any other good ideas people can suggest.

[Casuir]

Specific examples of arbitrarily assigned values? Huge ritual blades for one, you've given a unit which carries these +5 whereas in the tabletop game theres no specific bonuses for these weapons. So Ushutabi get an additional bonus increasing their attack by a third of what it should be by a straight stat conversion. Great weapons give a +2 bonus to strength in the game which under your system translates into +4 if the units strength is 3, otherwise its a +2 bonus.

The system you have for armour looks dodgy as well, the values you've given some of the armour types dont match what they are in the game, scaly skin +6, light armour and having a mount all give the same bonus for example. It should be based on the actual saving throw the unit has, not an arbitrary value based on . Also the way you have the armour values set is wrong, under your system a unit being shot at only gets the benefit of its armour whereas in the tabletop game toughness is also taken into account. Shields as well look wrong with the bonus granted being twice what it should be going on the values you've given for light armour. Also units with shields get an additional +1 to their armour save which is applied only in close combat.

Charge bonuses are another area, the only bonuses you get in the tabletop game are related to the weapons carried, adding bonuses based on unit types is going to unbalance things. The values here should be based on the strength bonuses some weapons give when attacking and in proportion to how strenght is factored into the base attack skill.

This is what I mean by arbitrarily assigning values, it might relate to warhamer but by no means is it going to give accurate results as I think your tests show. Comparing your stats with the tabletop ones: from left attack factor, total defence (the value they would have in a straight one on one frontal clash), weapon skill, strength, toughness and saving throw.
ST: A .D W S T Sve
TG:13 15 3 4 4 5+
GG:13 19 3 4 4 4+
US:19 16 4 6 4 5+
Instead of being equal grave guard have nearly 33% extra defence compared to tomb guard while the only difference tabletop wise is an extra +1 saving throw. Ushubati's extra +1 in weapon skill gives them just that in comparison to tomb guard despite the large jump in stat bonus you've given there. Attack bonuses look alright but remember the ushubati have a +5 bonus they shouldnt have and the extra +3 you give the other two is uncertain, adding a bonus for the killing blow rule would unbalance the unit against units with just one wound and I cant find the benefits of a magical weapon in combat in the rulebook. Compare these with your questing knight:
ST: A .D W S T Sve
QK:16 15 4 4 3 2+
Obviously somethings off here defence wise, an extra 3+ saving throw and +1 in weapon skill shouldnt be the same as a +1 in toughness, right?

Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to discourage you here but this needs to be done right. It needs a concrete formula behind it rather than just saying this is equal to this, adding a few values together and seeing if it works.

[Jargon]

Discouraged? Anything but, your information is tremendously helpful, thanks. I'm not mired in what i have previously done, and only hoped to generate discussion (although no on else has yet to contribute) even if it meant posting bad information. Because you argued rationaly about the stats is easy to see how it should be converted.

Almost all the stats need to change. I'm not sure why I gave Huge Ritual Blades such a bonus, I guess I thought they were like improved Tomb Blades for some reason. They should be on par with great weapons. The way you explained the saving throws in relation to defence makes sense. It needs lots of work, but I dont think we are stressed for time at the moment so we can get it right.

[overkill1991]

If i understand it correctly you guys want to use tabletop stats and kinda make it to the game right ?


a problem is that if you base your game stats of the tabletop stats it isnt accurate. this is because the tabletop stats and the lore are very different.

example : in tabletop a bloodthirster would beat all hero characters such as Teclis, Malekith, Archaeon etc..

but in lore these heroes are all capable of killing a bloodthirster(or even multiple greater demons) in single combat.



i hope you guys understand what im trying to say.

and sorry if you guys were not trying to base the game stats of the tabletop stats, then i musunderstood what you guys were saying.

[Bwian]

Luckily, we don;t have hero characters in TW games, so we CAN look more to the stats.

[Casuir]

We'll seeing how the lore is there to support the actual game and not the other way round I think tabletop stats take preference. Superpowerful generals capable of taking on whole armies would unbalance the whole game.

Jargon, like other things balancing the units is lower priority than making them at the mo so you'll probably be working on this on your own for a while.

[Jargon]

No problem, I gave it a go when i found some free time last weekend, maybe i'll have another crack at it this coming weekend.

[uanime5]

There's a form on TWC in which Point Blank is converting the attacks of Kingdoms units to be more realistic (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1620). While these are not Warhammer conversions his 'RealCombat 1.3 Guide.rtf' does provide a lot of information about how effective various weapon types were.

[MangyElf]

I'll start by saying how much I'm looking forward to this mod and hope you aren't sick of people saying that by now. In fact it's the only reason I bought M2TW at all, otherwise I'd have stuck with Rome.

Anyways, I was curious so tested a couple of scenarios, multiple times (too many to count after pulling out all those the figures but a fair number each), in an open field battle with no cover, no weather fx and in daylight. I picked a missile test mainly because it was easier to note.

60 man strong unit of archers, missile skill 6 and quality_bodkin_arrows, whatever that means; I assume ammo type has an effect but I'm clueless as to what it is.

vs

1) low defence unit 0,1,0 - casualty rate per volley between 4% and 15% (% based on number of archers, not number of targets, to fall in line with the way WH stats work in this regard)

2) low-medium defence unit 0,2,6 - casualty rate per volley between 1% and 18%

3) medium defence unit 5,2,6 - casualty rate per volley between 0% and 18%

4) (missile skill now improved to 10) low defence unit 0,1,0 - casualty rate per volley between 4% and 20%

Range does seem to have an impact, as I would expect, although there were also some pretty poor volleys at close range too, definately on parr with the lower hit rate longer ranged volleys. The 0% hits on the better defence unit was at longest range. Incidentally, range is a statistical consideration as well because you presumably want to time it in accordance with WH movement vs range. For example, the range used was 190 but I think the target was well within this as both units were at the edge of the deployment zone, facing one another. I was able to pop off between 7 and 11 volleys before the target closed to charge range (skirmish mode was off). That works out as a range of 28" to 44" in WH, given move 4". That'd be way too much but I thing the mod I use (Stainless Steel) made longbowmen higher range from vanilla. Still, I suspect even vanilla range is more than WH range.

Also note that the shield seems to have a significant impact on frontal volleys (impossible to get a unit to face the other away, not without using something else to engage it and thereby mess with the casualty count; not that wanted to do that or I wouldn't see the effect of a shield). In fact there was very little difference between damage vs the shield and that vs shield and armour but I suspect this is because I used a shield value of 6, the same as the missile skill (I used that simply because it was convenient) and extra armour didn't account for that much given the generally low damage anyway. The higher damage volleys were few and far between on the armoured tests btw, more aberations than reliable data, though obviously they did happen so cannot be discounted. Strangely, when they occured, they were higher than the highest damage vs an unarmoured target but I think I can explain that... the lower defence target was taking heavier damage on average and getting spread out as it advanced, thus making unit spacing increase and lower it's max damage sustained. If true then it adds another factor into the equation that cannot be accounted for 'on paper' very well.



Now, ignoring modifiers, what I would expect to see in a Warhammer game:

BS3 using S3 bow

vs

T3 unit in no armour - 25% casualty rate

T3 unit in light armour - 21% casualty rate

T3 unit in light armour + shield - 17% casualty rate

BS3 using S4 bow

vs

T3 unit in no armour - 33% casualty rate

T3 unit in light armour - 28% casualty rate

T3 unit in light armour + shield - 22% casualty rate

Clearly WH stats cannot be duplicated with any degree of certainty, at least not by me, and not without making the attack skill higher. I suspect even that would not help immensely because TW almost certainly uses more variables, it being a computer and not a guy with some dice ;)

The closest scenario to what one would expect in a WH game was using 10 missile skill vs to 1 defence (non-armour/shield) but we can't forget WH toughness. Since 3 is average for humans then using a value of 1 defence doesn't seem right ie, how can you simulate a toughness 2 unit? Making defence higher would mean making attack skill higher still, to give a comparable result. Not that I got comparable results to WH but you get the gist as the test showed roughly what needs to change in order to make it a better comparrison. As if we didn't already know that LOL. I don't think an accurate comparrison is possible though and that complicates any statistical conversion, even a loose one.



That said, I agree that there does not need to be an exact correllation when a starting point is all that's required. However, you cannot remove the arbitrary nature of whatever figures you come up with when you just go for an approximation. Take the point about WS, that it is used for both offence and defence in melee combat. Does anyone know if M2TW does the same? If it does then great, it'll compare better. If not then how do you rationalise a melee attack vs a missile attack conversion? If M2TW only uses defence to determine if something hits, not opposing attack skill (and it seems very likely that it does not), then how can you increase defence based on melee skill defence in WH because you are also increasing the unit's defence against missile attacks, thereby throwing off balance in the conversion because WS is not used to determine whether a missile weapon hits in WH. Increase missile skills to compensate? You can't because the defence bonus for WS will differ according to how much WS a unit has. WS3 got a +3 defence while WS4 got +6, ok, that's 3 or 6 defence higher that an arrow has to penetrate. You can increase missile skill to compensate but by how much, 3 or 6? Either way it'll be imbalanced as a straight conversion, if you see what I mean.

Also, don't forget that equal WS on attacker and defender always has the same chance to hit of 50% in WH so you'd need to know exactly how attack works against defence or risk getting it wrong. The point being that while you can certainly guess, well, you'd be guessing and back to square one. You may as well save yourself the headache and just use M2TW balance, either vanilla or some other guy's mod, as a base. Alternatively, stick with what you have already done, work with that and we can like it or lump it. You're the ones doing the work after all so while you may feel the need to explain, you do not need to justify it ;)

On to another point that I think is worth chewing over. WH is pretty simplistic in statistical variety. It has to be really, due to how it's played. There isn't much variation at all, with most units being within 1 point of each other, or 16%. All the stats are on a simplistic scale too, even when they vary more, as is the case with armour. The variety in the tabletop game comes mainly from army composition but in M2TW if I want to produce nothing but unit X then I can do that, at least without modifications to the way this works. If you played WH before the rules on army composition were invented then you'd know how much balance was affected by it and indeed, why it was invented. WH stats simply don't work to balance the game on their own.

Obviously I realise that the chances of you letting invincible stacks of 20 by you is remote but you may as well consider the whole WH balance now, as a whole, especially if you want to stick with a stat conversion basis. Doubtless you have also considered these possible solutions, even if not in this light, but I'll bring them up anyway. So, limiting certain units with greater cost and upkeep, perhaps disproportionate to what you'd initially think. It is well worth looking at army lists as well as stats for costs. You can also limit unit size, increase build times, postpone until later eras and assign certain units to an uncommon building (in the same way that Sherwood Archers are assigned to an improved Archery Guild) so as you can see, I'm thinking possitively :idea2:

[Revan-Shan]

[QUOTE=Jargon]If a gut feeling system works, then great. The problem is that someones gut feeling about a unit can be different to others. It can also lead to arbitary or unblanced results (someone may have a special memory of their Skeleton Warriors being really useful in table top battle, and they dont 'feel' they should be too weak in MTW).QUOTE]

I have lots of experience in table top battles. Specially with The Empire and the Vampire Counts. I'll tell you someting:

The arcabusiers (the empire), are the most deadly basic unit of all when they are firing but anyone can beat them in hand to hand combat.

Basic skelletons and zombies (the vampire counts): a twohanded potatoe would be more useful and less expensive. Their only good thing about them is their moral and how they affect the enemie's moral.

Two hand swordmen (empire): Perhaps a little bit expensive but have a very good moral and they are very effective, you can rely on them.

Canons (empire): My experience with them is just: don't use canons. The only canon which is worth to use is the one which can fire multiple missiles at a time (cañon de salvas, don't know how to say it in english), when I hear its name one word comes to my mind: destruction.

Warhammer cavalry: I have never relied on it.

Mercenaries: The Damned Company is the best of all.

Heroes: Karl Franz, I once used him and he himself destroyed a whole Vampire Counts' army.

[DaCrAzYmOfO]

Thats the organ gun :yes:

[lanky316]

Helblaster Volley Gun in the case of the Empire. Very useful but I've found Cannons just as effective if you can get your guesses right. As for cavalry, as a Bret general how useful they can be, part of why I love to use a pike regiment from DoW.

[Jargon]

Great effort MangyElf, I hope you keep at it and dont lose patience like I did. If only Casuir was here, he would be able to pick apart your findings and give you 10 reasons why you need to do look at X, Y, Z. Hopefully he will post again one day.

Revan-Shan: This is a statistical conversion thread, everything you have described is your own personal memory and doesnt contribute.

[MangyElf]

Thanks. TBH I'd like for my reasoning to be picked apart. Not only does it make me think more but it means someone is paying attention hehe. I'm not so enamoured of my own opinion that it can't be changed either.

Meanwhile, and this is going to be a loooong post (x2, I'd best split it at least once ;) ), as food for thought here's an example of a different approach to converting the stats. I intend this to illustrate a conversion of stats that don't differ from the human 'norm' by more than a point, which describes the vast majority of units in WH. I'm not going to discuss morale or costs at all, at least not right now. I'm also likely to miss considerations, nobody's perfect.

I'm unsure as to how the charge value works so when I suggest doubling it for a horse I'm going by what I've seen reflected in the game/other modders not knowledge. Take that how you will. Similarly I have no idea how weapon attack speed works for different animations so I'm leaving that with a "?".

For clarity, please note that the following numbers aren't necessarily a suggestion, they are primarily for illustration:

Standard unit, no shield or armour, using a basic sword, axe or mace
Melee skill: 6
Natural defence (the -,n,- component of defence): 3
Shield defence (the -,-,n component of defence): 2 (to simulate parrying, not an actual shield)

No Armour: 0 armour defence
Light Armour: 4 armour defense
Heavy armour: 8 armour defense
Shield: + 4 shield defence


Is the unit faster or slower moving than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust natural defence +/- 2

Is the unit more or less skilled in melee than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust melee skill +/- 3
Adjust shield defence +/- 2

Is the unit more or less skill in ranged attacks than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust missile skill +/- 3

Is the unit stronger or weaker than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust melee skill +/- 2
Adjust armour defence +/- 1

Is the unit more or less tough than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust natural defence +/- 3

Is the unit more or less quicker than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust attack speed +/- ?
Adjust natural defence +/- 1 (effect minimal vs ranged and only ever important as first strike)

Is the unit using a longbow or crossbow?
Adjust missile skill upwards + 3
Adjust range upwards + 25%

Is the unit using a dagger?
Adjust attack speed upwards + ?
Adjust melee skill downwards - 1
Adjust shield defence downwards - 2

Is the unit using a flail?
Adjust weapon speed downwards - ?
Adjust melee skill upwards + 2
Adjust shield defence - 2

Is the unit using a two-handed weapon?
Adjust weapon skill upwards + 2
Adjust attack speed downwards - ?
Adjust shield defence dowwards - 1

Is the unit using a halberd?
Adjust melee skill upwards + 2
Adjust shield defence downwards - 2

Is the Unit using an improvised weapon?
Adjust attack speed downwards - ?
Adjust melee skill downwards - 3

Is the unit mounted? --
Adjust charge value upwards, x2 melee skill

--Is it using a lance?
Adjust charge value upwards + 3

--Is it using a missile weapon?
Adjust missile skill downwards - 2

Is the unit well equipped (ie owns good quality equipment)?
Adjust melee or missile skill upwards + 1
Adjust armour defence upwards + 1
Adjust shield defence upwards + 1

Is the unit very well equipped (ie owns good quality, technically advanced equipment)?
Adjust melee or missile skill upwards + 3
Adjust armour defence upwards + 3
Adjust shield defence upwards + 3

So why take this approach?

Mainly because the numbers don't convert in a straighforward manner and therefore it is better, IMO, to look behind the mechanics, at the reasoning as to why a number in WH is what it is and attempt to extrapolate it into TW (more doable) rather than attempt a straight numerical conversion (less doable). For the most part this is fairly simple, although I dare say compromises had to be worked within the system and that may leave certain things open for debate. Also, as I said, nobody is perfect and in any event, interpretation will always rear it's head so yes, the word "arbitrary" cannnot be escaped either. As I also pointed out, and will do so again for the sake of clarity/emphasis, the numbers are not necessarily intended as a suggestion (I'd need to be a bloomin' good guesser but I shan't rule it out, even though I prove myself not to be later on LOL), merely an illustration of a different method of conversion to that already on the table.

[MangyElf]

Now to illustrate the illustration more specifically ;)

You'll have to excuse me if this is out of date as I don't own later reference material, though I have played it (why buy when friends have copies :D ). Anyways, I'm stuck with an earlier version of WH to refer to.

I'll first use High Elven "Warrior Kindred". The description I have states that "...they are usually well armed...", wear light armour and carry a hand weapon.

Is the unit faster or slower moving than the equivalent human norm?
faster
+2 to natural defence (5)

Is the unit more or less skilled in melee than the equivalent human norm?
more skilled
+3 to melee skill (9)
+2 shield defence (4)

Is the unit more or less quicker than the equivalent human norm?
quicker
+ ? to attack speed
+ 1 to natural defence (6)

Is the unit well equipped (ie owns good quality equipment)?
yes
+1 melee skill (10)
+1 armour defence (5)
+1 shield defence (5)

We end up with it looking like this:

Melee attack: 10
Defence: 5,6,5 (total 16)
Some adjustment to make them attack faster than standard

Compare this to a "Dwarf Warrior". The description states that Dwarves are technolgically adept so while this is open to interpretation I am going to conclude their equipment is better than average. They wear light armour and also carry hand weapons (you could just as easily not though, perhaps ignoring the elf equipment bonus I gave too as once again it's open to interpretation). Their point value is the same as the elf kindred too (10 points).

Is the unit faster or slower moving than the equivalent human norm?
slower
-2 natural defence (1)

Is the unit more or less skilled in melee than the equivalent human norm?
more skilled
+3 melee skill (9)
+2 shield defence (4)

Is the unit more or less tough than the equivalent human norm?
more tough
+3 natural defence (4)

Is the unit more or less quicker than the equivalent human norm?
less quick
-? attack speed
-1 natural defence (3)

Is the unit well equipped (ie owns good quality equipment)?
yes
+1 melee skill (10)
+1 armour defence (5)
+1 shield defence (5)

Melee attack: 10
Defence: 5,4,5 (total 14)
Some adjustment to make them attack slower than standard

Finally I'll compare to an Empire "Ersatzsolder", worth only half the points of the other two. There is nothing special about it, it wears no armour, carries a hand weapon and is basically 'average' apart from that.

Melee attack: 6
Defence: 0,3,2 (total 5)

Alternatively, I could bump his point cost to one under the elf and the dwarf by spending on light armour and a halberd:

Melee attack: 8
Defence: 4,3,0 (total 7)

All three are basic units in my version so roughly compare. The TW stats don't look that bad converted this way either and remember that unit costs, upkeep and numerical strength also need to be worked in.

I'm not happy about a dwarf being worse than an elf in melee but that's down to my numbers/interpretation which can and, given this, should be adjusted. Meanwhile they give the idea away so work for what I intended. Plus, showing up that they don't look 100% accurate but can be adjusted is part and parcel of the illustration so I am not going to rework them - it's a better example if I don't.

Note also that I don't account for any extras a unit might have, such as circumstantial bonuses on offensive skill, morale, training or actual better quality gear reflected in the stats (as I mentioned earlier, I have no clue what different quality arrows, for example, actually do). Nor do I know what the numbers I plucked from thin air do in practice, hence them being illustrative only, but I hope you get the gist.

As for particularly weak or strong units, this same principle could also be used to convert them too, although I don't have time to see if they'd work with my wholly arbitrary numbers above. Probably not but the method is what I'm showcasing and that should work, in principle, np.

[messenger]

Heres a thought, for defensive skill the maximum is 6 isn't it?
If so I think you can safely get away with adding up initiative and weapon skill then dividing it by 2 and rounding to the nearest number.
For instance 3 WS +3 Initiative = 2 defensive skill.

[MangyElf]

Heres a thought, for defensive skill the maximum is 6 isn't it?
If so I think you can safely get away with adding up initiative and weapon skill then dividing it by 2 and rounding to the nearest number.
For instance 3 WS +3 Initiative = 2 defensive skill.

Well there is no 'safely' about it. Your suggestion, like mine, is pulling up an arbitrary number as a starting point. The gist of my post is that while this is all well and good (after all, you have to start somewhere) you also need to look behind the stats at the reasons why they are what they are.

It's the only real way of directly translating anything because the two are not written in the same language, as it were. TW just doesn't have precise equivalents to WH but what you can do is say, for example, that WS is designed to provide both offense and defence in melee combat. That you can translate into TW because it has stats for melee offense and defence. Anything else is just like saying think of a number, any number. There has to be a correllation or it's got nowhere to go.

[messenger]

Well there is no 'safely' about it. Your suggestion, like mine, is pulling up an arbitrary number as a starting point. The gist of my post is that while this is all well and good (after all, you have to start somewhere) you also need to look behind the stats at the reasons why they are what they are.

It's the only real way of directly translating anything because the two are not written in the same language, as it were. TW just doesn't have precise equivalents to WH but what you can do is say, for example, that WS is designed to provide both offense and defence in melee combat. That you can translate into TW because it has stats for melee offense and defence. Anything else is just like saying think of a number, any number. There has to be a correllation or it's got nowhere to go.
You could have atleast pretended it was a good idea :beam: .
Anyhow, I shall leave the stat workings out to you then.

[MangyElf]

You could have atleast pretended it was a good idea :beam: .
Anyhow, I shall leave the stat workings out to you then.
Great, give the kids a key to the candy store why dontcha :p

Seriously, I'm as in the dark as you are and merely popping ideas out. The point is to discuss them.

What I do know is that it makes more sense to look at a conversion in a certain way, at least in this case because the numbers are non-corresponding. It's like you have a number and must convert it to a percentage. The next logical step is to ask, "a percentage of what?"

So far I've got to the stage of 'asking that question' but I'm no closer to knowing the answer to it than you are. We need common ground between the two but without having the TW formula infront of me it's all guesswork with the added prospect of some long hours testing. I may make some unit adjustments and go test later, just for fun :holmes:

[MangyElf]

I did a bit more reading and noticed that not only did I get some things wrong but I missed bits too. Hopefully the following is more comprehensive and actually works better.

I did do some preliminary converting using my (perhaps by now) outdated WH stats by converting infantry and cavalry from dwarves, high elves and empire. I shan't bore you with that spam but at first glance they didn't look too bad but obviously I couldn't include everything as a finish product, like costs and unit strength but they don't look wildly out of place. It was also suprisingly quick to do the conversion process this way as many questions can be ignored, especially if you first jot down only the stats you'll be accounting for. What takes a lot longer, especially for me since I don't know everything inside out, is the actual conversion syntax. I've included one at the bottom, got bored after one but I will do more (only if it's useful and note I do not have access to a spreadsheet but make do with any small adjustments I need for myself in notepad).



Standard unit, no shield or armour, using a basic sword, axe or mace
Melee skill: 4
Charge Bonus: 2
Defence (the -,n,- component of defence): 3 (noticed now that says this is not used vs missile fire -ammendments made accordingly)

No Armour: 0 armour
Light Armour: 3 armour 1 defence
Heavy armour: 6 armour 2 defence
Shield: +2 Buckler (for when it says unit has shield + 2H weapon) / + 4 shield (standard) / + 6 large shield (for when it seems likely *shrug*)

Adjustments per point above or below 3

Is the unit faster or slower moving than the equivalent human norm (not mounted)?
Adjust shield +/- 2 (better armour protection, from missiles only from the right direction)

Is the unit more or less skilled in melee than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust melee skill +/- 3
Adjust defence +/- 2

Is the unit more or less skill in ranged attacks than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust missile skill +/- 3

Is the unit stronger or weaker than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust melee skill +/- 3

Is the unit more or less tough than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust armour +/- 3

Is the unit more or less quicker than the equivalent human norm?
Adjust min attack delay +/- 5 (min 0)

Is the unit capable of making multiple attacks?
Include secondary weapon stats?? @ half values?? and +25 min delay??

Is the unit using a bow?
Adjust defence downwards - 2

Is the unit using a powder weapon?
Adjust missile skill upwards + 3
Adjust defence downwards - 2

Is the unit using a longbow or crossbow?
Adjust missile skill upwards + 3
Adjust range upwards + 25%
Adjust defence downwards - 2

Is the unit using a sword?
Adjust min attack delay +25

Is the unit using a mace or axe?
Adjust min attack delay +30

Is the unit using a dagger?
Adjust melee skill downwards - 1
Adjust defence downwards - 2
Adjust charge bonus downwards - 2

Is the unit using a flail?
Adjust melee skill upwards + 2
Adjust min attack delay +75
Adjust defence - 2

Is the unit using a two-handed sword?
Adjust weapon skill upwards + 2
Adjust min attack delay +50
Adjust defence downwards - 1
Adjust charge bonus upwards + 2

Is the unit using a two-handed axe or mace?
Adjust weapon skill upwards + 3
Adjust min attack delay +75
Adjust defence downwards - 2
Adjust charge bonus upwards + 2

Is the unit using a halberd?
Adjust defence downwards - 2
Adjust charge bonus upwards + 2
Adjust min attack delay +75
stat_pri_attr ap

Is the unit using a spear?
Adjust charge bonus upwards + 2
Adjust min attack delay +50
stat_pri_attr spear, spear_bonus_6 OR light_spear, spear_bonus_4

Is the unit using a pike?
Adjust min attack delay +75
stat_pri_attr long_pike, spear_bonus_8

Is the Unit using an improvised weapon?
Adjust melee skill downwards - 3
Adjust min attack delay +75
Adjust defence downwards - 2

Is the unit mounted? --
Adjust charge value upwards + 6
Adjust defence upwards + 2

--Is the mount armoured?
Adjust armour + 2

--Is it using a spear?
Adjust min attack delay +25

--Is it using a lance?
Adjust min attack delay +25
Adjust charge value upwards + 3

--Is it using a missile weapon?
Adjust missile skill downwards - 2

Does the unit have access to magical equipment?
Adjust melee skill upwards + 1
Adjust missile skill upwards + 1
Adjust armour upwards + 1

The example:

No doubt it'll be out of alignment and you'll notice some bits I just filled in with any old rubbish, to make do. I think I got things right.

Hammerers M3, WS5, S4, T4, A2, H+S (buckler), 2H axe, magic access

type Hammerers
dictionary Hammerers ; Hammerers
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy
accent Dwarf
soldier Dwarf_infantry, 30, 0, 1.0
attributes sea_faring, can_withdraw
formation 1.2, 1.2, 2.4, 2.4, 5, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 17, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, axe, 75, 1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 8, 0, no, 0, 0, melee, melee_blade, slashing, none, 100, 1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 12, 3, 1, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 2
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, 0
stat_mental 11, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 5

[MangyElf]

I can't see how to edit but the example needs a small correction cuz I altered things after I finished and, would you believe it, typo'd in there too :p

stat_pri_armour 10, 7, 2, metal

[Bwian]

MangyElf .. I am liking the look of that. It's complex, but I can see you are including as many factors as possible, which would be valuable if we are having units with/without certain options in the army list.

I also considered that we would need to increase the unit cost/upkeep of units where certain 'heavy' options were taken. That way, we can actually have units with the upgrades, with 'great weapons' and so forth. The fact that we cannot mix and match stats within a unit restricts what we can do, even though we can make visual changes .. but I would like to increase the total number of available units by adding some 'options' on some races.

[Faenaris]

While I'm not a maths man and can't really help out with the formulas, I can point you out to someone else who might be able to help.

Mirage Knight and his team of modders have created the mod "Dawn of War40K: Firestorm" and while this is a mod for Dawn of War, they might be able to point out some ideas regarding stats conversion. I know, it's a longshot (the sheer difference between Dawn of War and M2TW is staggering), but they might be able to give some pointers or something.

http://dow.40k.se/~dow40k/forum/index.php

[MangyElf]

MangyElf .. I am liking the look of that. It's complex, but I can see you are including as many factors as possible, which would be valuable if we are having units with/without certain options in the army list.
Thanks. Without knowing exactly which units would be there I tried to include as much WH variety as possible. That said, well over half those questions can be boiled down to ask "what weapon is the unit using?" so most of it can be ignored on a per unit basis anyway, as can stats that are 'average'. Also, for example, dwarves being extra tough meant I only had to note that modifier once per race. All in all it probably looks more complicated than it is. The real complexity would be in deciding if my numbers are an acceptable basis to start from but at least I don't have to do that :D


I also considered that we would need to increase the unit cost/upkeep of units where certain 'heavy' options were taken. That way, we can actually have units with the upgrades, with 'great weapons' and so forth. The fact that we cannot mix and match stats within a unit restricts what we can do, even though we can make visual changes .. but I would like to increase the total number of available units by adding some 'options' on some races.
Sounds cool. At least IMO, the WH army lists I was using did throw up sufficient variety that I know this could work using my suggested method, At least on paper, elves differed sufficiently from dwarves who differed sufficiently from empire. Also internally each unit looked to provide enough stat variations not to make them pointless clones of the next unit.

All except crossbow, longbow and gunpowder units, where statistically they do look pretty similar, even the same except for armour variations. I checked both the vanilla and the Stainless Steel mod I'm using for stats on these and they do seem to be more varied than I could make them. In my defence this was really down to the fact that the WH stats themselves only really vary in range. Maybe these need to be looked at more closely, perhaps using some sort of variable conversion like I suggested for shields.

[Krazysigmarite]

Ranged weapons are are similar in some sense, but it's really up to the ballistic skill of the unit, as well as the weapon type. Here's the example I'll give, without posting GW stats (as it's illegal I believe).

Bows: Standard range
Longbows: Long range
Crossbows: Long range, +strength
Handguns: Standard range, +strength, armor piercing

[MangyElf]

Ah yes, I was going by memory on longbows and it appears to be faulty since they are indeed S3. I did check but crossbow is listed right underneath and I guess I just read what I expected to read, S4. My bad.

I assume the model animations make a difference too but maybe not. Realistically, which I realise may not be a concern for a WH conversion, bows and longbows had a much greater rate of fire than a crossbow or powder weapon (min delay ratio in the region of 1:8, if memory serves but we've seen how good I am with memory today hehe), though they were harder to train (higher cost, longer build time or both in TW terms).

The mechanically assisted drawing of a crossbow and the chemically assisted energy behind a black powder weapon made them potentially (not necessarily since designs varied a lot and BP weapons could and did misfire) more powerful than a manually drawn bow as well. Contrary to the common misconception, the longbow was not all powerful vs plate armour - the arrow does bounce off and even bend when striking steel plate more in proportion, or even shaped, to armoured plate sizes. Can't speak for better quality steel bodkin arrows but how many common soldiers carried that costly an arrow around? Which btw, is not necessarily a consideration in a WH mod for say, high elves (assuming it makes a difference, seeing as how they included different quality/types arrows/bolts).

Too late to cut a long story short but I guess that means there are potentially more variance factors at work than stats visible on the unit card. The min delay figures in my example were based on other TW figures I've seen but with new models on the way, they were at best a stab in the dark.

I'm not entirely happy with range as far as variety is concerned. That's because even with supposedly improved (modded) AI included, a computer opponent seems to struggle with how exactly it should act. It too often decides on walking them, not always but enough that even shorter range weapons have potential to get off far more shots than they would in WH. Reducing range to below TW averages might help but I suspect this will be hard to balance, given the discrepancies in AI behaviour I've seen.

[Tsarsies]

MangyElf, your approach seems very reasonable for converting WH over to TW. I dont, nor have i, played WH so i dont knwo what kind of statistics you are actually trying to convert.

But i have played and toyed with TW statistics.

if i may throw some suggestions out there.

before even considering to assign numbers or find equations for WH units i would suggest getting a list of all weapons in WH and all armor and shields. then using WH stats, put them in order of least lethal to most lethal, least defense to most defense. somthing like...

Dagger
Short sword
axe
staff
mace
Longsword
bastardsword
broadsword
spear
2-handed sword
battle axe

Leather
Padded
Hardened Leather
Partial Light Mail
Light Mail
Light Brigandine
Partial Splint Mail
Partial Heavy Mail
Splint Mail
Heavy Splint
Heavy Mail
Heavy Brigandine
Breastplate
Light Plate
Partial Platemail
Platemail
Heavy Platemail
Full Platemail

Buckler
light shield
Heavy shield
tower shield

etc. etc.

I dont know all the equipment in WH but this is just an example. then assign WH numbers to those items. if a dagger does 1-3 damage in WH then assign it 3 etc. if WH is like D&D2nd ed. and armor values are in reverse then simply reverse the number. as in leather provides 9 and plate provides 0, reverse it so leather provides 1 and plate 10. then if your using magical based items add the magical property. +1 +2 +3 etc.

someone mentioned wounds and toughness. i assume wounds are similar to hit points. try converting wounds to stat_health. this is somthing that will obviously need to be tweaked, but a general unit in TW has 2 health and most other units 1. there is no reason why you cant try increasing that number to 4 or 10 even (battles will surely last longer, but if you also have higher values for attack (like 35) then there is no problem right?) its somthing that just needs testing on the battle map.

toughness sounds like somthing i would be associating with armor rating (seeing as it would still aid the unit when shot at - defense skill does not apply when shot at)

if you try using the WH stats first then you can comprimise from there to balance units out. i dont know what other factors you have in WH that people keep saying cant be converted. but everyhitng ive read so far in this thread look slike oit could basically be converted straight over.

as for magic attacks, well, they would be balanced in the WH universe to work with the values in WH already, so converting them would be easy.

on to mounts. does WH use any mount other then horses?... if not then once again get a list of your mount types, pony, barded horse, work horse, war horse etc and simply convert WH stats to each horse type. (horses should give defense aswell as add charge bonus to the unit). if there are no stats in WH for horses you can simply start with 2-4-6-8 (for defense and charge) - experimentation will ofcourse yeild results to balance them.

if WH uses strange mounts like lizards or dragons or whatever then you can assigne them as camels and elephants to use the mount_effect that TW uses where horses are afraid of camels etc. (i belive that is hard coded, so naming your lizard or dragon a camel would only be in the files, in play the player would still see the name dragon or what have you).

armor upgrade levels. in TW they range from 1-6. each level gives the unit 1 point to defense. this is not hard coded, you can have 12 upgrade levels, or 18. then assigne 2-3 to each smith. in a mini mod i tried using for awhile i had 18 upgrades, 3 for each smith level. so a leather tanner would upgrade from unarmored-leather-padded-hardenedd leather. each unit can only have 3 upgrades (that is hardcoded). take spear militia, you might want them to start unarmored (o), but be able to upgrade to light mail. there upgrade leves would be (1,3,5). i found this approach made upgrades very valuable. it all depends on how many different tyoes of armor you plan to have. i assume chaos armor would be the highest and there fore only availabe to a select few.

the general idea is to get a list of all items, upgrades, mounts and assign them values straight from WH. i dont recommend basing any unit off of vanilla seeing as you are playing with a fantasy universe so your stats are going to be completly different... then try playing with those stas on the battle map (even if the unit has an attack of 50) try it. i think the limit is either 99 or for some reason the number 65 comes to mind.

ive done some statistical conversion before, id be happy to help out, but i dont have any WH reference material.

[MangyElf]

Since you're also thinking about this I'll give you a run down of how WH stats work. Hopefully you'll see the problem in converting it, if not accurately then at least in the right ball park.

Each unit has the following stats, at least in the version I'm looking at:

M (movement), WS (weapon skill), BS (ballistic skill), S (strength), T (toughness), W (wounds), I (initiative), A (attacks). I've ignored mental stats for now.

A couple of examples of average racial stats:

Human
M3, WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1

Dwarf
M3, WS4, BS3, S3, T4, W1, I2, A1

Skaven
M5, WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I4, A1

There are some variations within the racial lists - usually elite units get a point added to one or more stats, while cannon fodder units like peasants or slaves take a point off WS and BS.

Melee weapons have various modifiers to those stats, your basic one handed weapons (like sword, mace and axe) being the norm, having no modifiers. A 2H weapon, for example, is -1I, +1S and also reduces target's armour save by 1. There are not that many weapon variations, presumably because the way in which stats work (by virtue of the tabletop nature of the game) means the number of variations is limited. This doesn't have to be the case in a TW conversion but it's adding a whole other layer to peel back so I figured to try and get what's already there sorted before even thinking about that.

Ranged weapons come with their own S value (thrown use unit's own S value), a range and, in some cases, an armour save modifier at closer range.

Armour saves depend on the armour: light/shield (6), light+shield/heavy(5), heavy+shield (4) and whether the unit is mounted or not, plues whether the mount is armoured or not reduce the save number even further (by 1 or 2 points respectively). They also give a movement penalty, though I forgot to consider that in my previous conversion (doh!).

There are a range (not very complex) of other, situational modifiers but here's how basic combat works:

All rolls are made on a D6. Initiative determines who goes first. Attacks determine how many dice the unit rolls to hit.

To hit: for melee you compare the attacker's and defender's WS on a table that gives a number from 1 to 6. Very high vs lower WS's require any 6's be rolled again and another number from 1 to 6 needs to be obtained to hit. Any dice that that show the required number or higher, and remember you'll be rolling one D6 for every unit that can attack, counts as a hit.

For Ranged attacks you don't have an opposing defence value, just a straight chance to hit on a D6 (BS3 means you need to roll a 4 to hit, BS4 means you need to roll a 3, etc).

To wound: All dice that didn't hit are removed and you determine whether any of the hits that landed had the chance to cause a wound. You roll all the dice that hit again, cross-referencing attacker's S vs defender's T this time, to determine the roll required on a D6. Too low S vs high T means you can't wound that target. Any dice that roll the required number cause the opposing unit one wound.

It's not over yet though, the defending unit can roll armour saves if it has armour. Any that succeed negate one wound.

The number of wounds determines the number of models removed from combat, dependant on the value of W on the target.

As you can imagine, there's a lot of dice rolling on a per attacker basis but it's made quicker by rolling all at once and removing any that don't get the required number to go to the next step. There is no variable damage involved, except in the case of certain magical effects that cause multiple wounds to a target they damage. It's all pretty simplistic stuff, potentially very much unlike TW where the computer can calculate many more variables a lot faster than a guy with some dice.

Everything I've done so far doesn't even touch on converting mental stats to morale and discipline, nor does it attempt to determine unit costs or fill in stats like terrain modifiers per unit type so still much to think about aside from my musings so far.

[Tsarsies]

Hmm ok, now i see how some of those stats or values would be difficult to convert.

I guess you need to decide what factors are important and what are least important.

Some of them seem like they could convert rather easily. the rest of this post may contain ideas/thoughts you have already covered but ... if i may...

below are stats from WH to the EDU equivalant as how i see it anyway. :)

WS (weapon skill) = Attack Factor

BS (ballistic skill) = Attack Factor (keeping in mind that archery units main weapon is the ranged weapon, thus secondary stats would be for melee)

W (wounds) = stat_health

A (attacks) = Min delay between attacks (in 1/10th of a second), this is somthing that would need to be altered and tested through tedious adjustments with the sprite animation (somthing i know nothing about, but i assume bwian does from the look of his models thus far). note that each units attack animation is set up to correspond with this number in the EDU (i belive). so adjusting it as i said, would be tedious and very drawn out for who ever has the task of doing each and every unit. good luck with that! might be easier and definatly more time saving to balance this number into the attack factor.

T (toughness) = Armor rating. in the EDU this number is followed by 3 other 'upgrade levels'. meaning you would need to decide what levels of armor the unit could obtain with the correct building to upgrade. lets take the dwarves toughness of 4 for example. i assume this would be an unarmored dwarf. and using my previous post about armor upgrade levels (just for argument sake) lets assume this dwarf is also wearing leather armor. which is the first upgrade level from unarmored. so add 1 point. giving 5 armor (T). now, this dwarf wants to upgrade to the next level of padded armor. 4 + 2 = Armor rating or (T) of 6. and so on. if the dwarf was able to wear scale mail, then the result would be 4 + 9 = 13 armor rating. the same would be for all the races of WH. just take the toughness of the creature/unit, add the appropriate armor level the unit/s will begin with and you have your initial toughness. then as the game plays out, the unit may be able to upgrade. in which case you NEED to have already decided what upgrades are available to it. can a peasant wear plate armor??? etc. Also, there are 2 other factors to consider for armor rating over all. these two factors are not used in all situations, only the basic armor factor is used ALL the time (as in when flanked, or shot at from afar). the first is shield, does the unit carry or use a shield. in your post you stated the following,

"Armour saves depend on the armour: light/shield (6), light+shield/heavy(5), heavy+shield (4) and whether the unit is mounted or not, plues whether the mount is armoured or not reduce the save number even further (by 1 or 2 points respectively)."
those values decrease. do these values ever become negative numbers in WH? or is an armor save of 1 the best armor save you could have. fomr those values im guessing a shield generaly lowers the armor save by 1-2? depending on shield type... so in the EDU assign 1 or 2 to the shield factor depeding on what kind of shield the unit uses. as for mounts, that defense value should be assigned to armor rating, not armor skill or shield factor... the second value to consider is defense skill. i saw nowhere in your post about how skillful a unit is in defense. but generally this value determines whether the unit is well trained or not. is the units training that of a peasant or of an elite corpe. most units range from 1-6 in the EDU for this value. but i dont know what value form WH could signify this.

then we still have M (movement), S (strength) and I (initiative).

M (movement) = Attack bonus. the bonus gained when the unit charges. for mounted units you would need to add the mounts value ofcourse. but this may unbalance some units, because using your example skaven calvalry would have a higher charge attack then dwarves or humans. (not that dwarves would be riding a horse anyway). although this may be desirable i dont know.

S (strength) = to me seems like a value that should have varying effects on the unit. a stronger unit is obviously going to hit you with more force, so therefore it will aid in attack factor (you also said archery units have a seperate S value, so that would correspond here aswell). it may also depend on whether strenght in WH also corresponds to the units endurance and stamina, if so, then i would associate this value with wounds, and thus the 'stat_health' aswell as attack factor.

I (initiative) = another interesting value. in WH i assume it corresponds to who goes first, and how often they get to attack in a round? maybe combine this value with movement and attacks.

as for how the basic concept of combat works in WH i guess you would be ignoring most if not all of that due to using TW's engine and physics. i mean, 6 sided dice wont be thrown. but still, knowing how the table top combat is played out would help in balancing certain units. and of course, it all comes down to final balancing. when you get to playing the game you may find those skaven peasants are walking all over the dwarven generals. and there ofcourse will be some tweaking that has to be made. although i hope that the discussion in this thread helps the modders out in deciding how to figure those valuable WH stats for M2TW conversion.and maybe my input helped a little ;)

as for mental stats and such, ill let you guys discuss that so i can read up on what stats are used in WH for mental attributes and moral before i throw my 2 cents in :)

hope my 2 bob helps out here :)

[alexader]

skaven and dwarves don't have cavalry and possible the won't have in the mod either

[MangyElf]

WS (weapon skill) = Attack Factor

As explained earlier in the thread, it isn't just attack factor. It represents both attack and defence in WH, being an opposing roll of attacker's WS vs defender's WS in order to determine if an attack hits. This is why I suggest it adds both melee skill and defence when converted.


A (attacks) = Min delay between attacks (in 1/10th of a second), this is somthing that would need to be altered and tested through tedious adjustments with the sprite animation (somthing i know nothing about, but i assume bwian does from the look of his models thus far). note that each units attack animation is set up to correspond with this number in the EDU (i belive). so adjusting it as i said, would be tedious and very drawn out for who ever has the task of doing each and every unit. good luck with that! might be easier and definatly more time saving to balance this number into the attack factor.

It isn't really a delay factor in WH and TW does have space for a secondary attack, though whether this is solely for melee attacks by ranged units and 'stuff' (that isn't the mount) is the reason I put ?? after I suggested that's what gets used if a unit has multiple attacks.


T (toughness) = Armor rating. in the EDU this number is followed by 3 other 'upgrade levels'. meaning you would need to decide what levels of armor the unit could obtain with the correct building to upgrade.

Toughness isn't an upgrade, it's a representation of how difficult a unit is to wound during combat and thus 'always on'. Clearly, in TW terms it is some type of defence value though, so I suggested it is converted to the TW armour value. That is because this value is the only one out of armour, defence and shield that applies to ranged and melee attacks equally (as does WH toughness). As I understand it, shield applies circumstantially to ranged attacks and defence doesn't apply to ranged attacks at all.


lets take the dwarves toughness of 4 for example. i assume this would be an unarmored dwarf...

Armour and toughness are seperate stats in WH so IMO you're over-thinking what should be a straighforward conversion: armour type = x armour value, while n amount of toughness = y armour value so that total armour value = type adjustment + toughness adjustment.

There is no need to conjoin these two seperate entities during the conversion process, merely note the result will be two seperate adjustments to TW's final armour rating. It shouldn't really matter that a dwarf wearing no armour is the equivalent to a vanilla TW unit wearing, I dunno, chain or something, because it's all relative; there is no toughness stat in TW, or more than 2 types of armour, 1 shield, 1 mount and 1 barding adjustment in WH so there is some leeway to making multiple uses out of TW's armour value.


[armour...]do these values ever become negative numbers in WH? or is an armor save of 1 the best armor save you could have.

No, you cannot have a negative armour value. It determines a saving throw and as such can either be none or a positive value. Roll the required save and you negate a wound, fail and the wound gets through.


fomr those values im guessing a shield generaly lowers the armor save by 1-2?

WH shields come in one variety only. If a unit has a shield it adds 1 to it's armour value. You're only rolling a d6 in WH so there's not much scope to vary too much. I suggested multiple shield values for both variety and to accomodate WH units that are equipped with both shields and 2H weapons. I don't claim this is a perfect solution but it's the only one available so far.


depending on shield type... so in the EDU assign 1 or 2 to the shield factor depeding on what kind of shield the unit uses.

One for one values don't work because the scale is different. A value of 1 in WH is out of 6. I have no clue what 1 represents in TW but it is not on a scale of 1 to 6, that's for sure.

My conversion suggestions were guestimates based on what the end results looked like, ie were they close to a reasonable looking TW unit or not and did they provide variety between one unit and the next. You'll notice I made a 2nd suggestion with adjustments not only to correct errors but as a work in progress.

Adding one for one does not create a resonable looking TW unit at all and allows no room for TW's variety when you'd end up with low value stats and little to no distinction between one unit and another.


i saw nowhere in your post about how skillful a unit is in defense. but generally this value determines whether the unit is well trained or not. is the units training that of a peasant or of an elite corpe. most units range from 1-6 in the EDU for this value. but i dont know what value form WH could signify this.

You did see me mention 'defence' in WH, you just didn't recognise it. To recap, defence is three-fold in WH: 1. a hit can miss and/or the defender's WS is an opposed value to the attacker's WS; 2. toughness is a defence against being wounded, opposing strength as it does; 3. armour saves can negate a wound that otherwise would have occured.

That said, why would anyone bother to convert training as a seperate entity from WH? It isn't a statistical entity all to itself but rather a bonus or penalty to existing stats. It follows that if we work out what WH stats mean in TW terms then we can simply translate the finished unit, complete with elite or peasant stat adjustments already in place. The alternative is to make every WH unit standard, convert it to TW and then assign a value for elite or peasant, in other words a complete waste of time since we still have to do the stat conversion anyway.


M (movement) = Attack bonus. the bonus gained when the unit charges. for mounted units you would need to add the mounts value ofcourse. but this may unbalance some units, because using your example skaven calvalry would have a higher charge attack then dwarves or humans. (not that dwarves would be riding a horse anyway). although this may be desirable i dont know.

Movement does three things in WH. It allows a unit to move, to charge from a greater distance and to close to melee range faster. So thanks ;) By making be consider it in those terms I realise that I did not account for everything in my suggestion - a movement higher or lower than 4 should perhaps also modify the charge value of a TW unit. This has to fall short of the charge value a mount would add, though perhaps I should have added a charge adjustment scale per movement which would have accomodated a mount's high move.

alexander already noted that dwarves and skaven do not have cavalry but for general clarification on races that do have cavalry coupled with non-human movement rates, cavalry movement is based on the mount, not the model. IE you do not add mount speed onto normal move, you replace it. Usually the mount has M8, such as a horse.


I (initiative) = another interesting value. in WH i assume it corresponds to who goes first, and how often they get to attack in a round? maybe combine this value with movement and attacks.

No, "A" determines how many attacks you get. "I" just determines who acts first, a distinct advantage when you have the chance to reduce the number of enemy models that can attack you when it's their turn.

You can't really start lumping stats together to convert btw. In fact the absolute last thing we should do is start trying find a common denominator's between one WH stat and another. If that could easily be done then Games Workshop would have simplified their WH stats already and besides, it's bad enough finding a common denominator between WH and TW. The end result might be that different WH stats adjust the same TW stat but that's totally different, being a result of conversion and not a means to convert.


when you get to playing the game you may find those skaven peasants are walking all over the dwarven generals. and there ofcourse will be some tweaking that has to be made.

Always a concern but that's the idea behind getting a reasonably acceptable starting point. Doing this by eye defies that point, hence the attempt to standardise it with a formulaic approach. An exact conversion would only be possible if we had data on how exactly TW works and even then it may not be possible but without it there is no chance short of extreme luck. I don't think it needs to be exact though, merely consitent, acceptable and enjoyable to play.

[Tsarsies]

I believe you misunderstood me.
i may not have originally been clear that the WH values would only modify the TW values, not a clean cross over. i was merely trying to find the most appropriate TW stat in the EDU that may correspond to your WH stats.

WS (weapon skill) = Attack Factor. (i didnt realize WS also effected defense in WH, simple to fix tho, it can simply affect both attributes)

BS (ballistic skill) = Attack Factor for missile units

W (wounds) = stat_health

the secondary attack (although has nothing to do with delay) in TW is not a 2nd attack. meaning if the unit can no longer use a ranged attack what will it do, go into melee. if a calvalry unit charging with a lance gets to its target is it going to wield a lance in melee? no, it will switch to its secondary attack, a sword/mace etc. delay and secondary attacks are 2 completly seperate entities

T (toughness) = Armor rating (i never stated it was an upgrade, what i meant was that toughness could be added to the units initial armor level to give its base armor level in game, from this base value, it can be upgraded. the armor, not the toughness) i dont think i was over thinking the armor value, i was just adding suggestions. i also stated that there are 3 different types of armor values in TW, armor, skill and shield. T would be associated with armor, which in TW IS the upgradable one. units can increase skill through experience. and shield does not change. skill and shield have no effect when targeted by ranged attacks or flanking attacks

and lastly, I (initiative), i never intended 'lump' stats together as you stated, just modify each other. not WH, TW stats.
your WH stats need to affect one or another TW stats. one way or another. My previous post were just suggestions which i though might have helped you out. ive never played WH before, so i dont know how that game works. if my suggestions for the EDU are wrong then what will represent stat_health etc. Toughness might not be defense in WH and more along the lines of how hard it is to wound the unit, but then, what will you use for a units basic defense value in TW, and what will you use in TW to represent Toughness if toughness isnt defense?... so as i said, was just trying to help you find connections in the EDU.

I would like to help you figure it all out tho. and it is very easy to misunderstand someone on message boards seeing as tone of voice is non existant.

[MangyElf]

Yup, due to non-vocal clues I like to think a discuss/debate tone is the default reading of any post, except for obvious trolls and flames, so please take that as read ;)

I get where you're coming from but some apparent errors needed to be corrected and I wanted to ensure you knew where I was coming from. I already posted my suggestion on what I think WH values translate to and despite having no prior knowledge of WH you seem to be reaching the same or similar conclusions to me. Take a look further up the thread and you'll see I got most of what you said already covered.

Since we seem to be agreeing, at least in part, perhaps you could take it from where I left off instead of starting from scratch again. Definately saves retreading the same ground, especially if we're reaching the same/similar conclusions.

[Tsarsies]

I dont think i could continue from where you left off simply because i dont know the WH game or have any of its reference material. but if you come into any other touchy areas ill surely throw in my two cents. ive also been of the impression that you were of the modding team. if your not, then it would be valuable to have there input on the subject, seeing as they will have the final say.

Although i was thinking that if weapons in WH only add 1-2 points to the WS then that will cause issues in TW. as you said it would make some units rather redundant if stats are very similar whether the unit wields a 2 handed sword or a dagger. so it may be a decision that will be difficult to make. i understand the mod is intended to represent WH as good as possible, but there will at some stage be sacrifices to be made. The RC approach seems a good bet here.

I would like to know what the modifiers are in WH for mental stats, or atleast what kind of things affect them. Because in TW you can have varying levels of morale levels for units. i would assume skeletons would use the 'lock_morale_ option.

i would think costs of units upkeep, upgrades etc would be easy to convert. then again, i assume in WH you dont set up trade routes, which would bring in more money, and maybe make the upkeep costs seem too low once converted to TW. but still, could always use the RC approach and add up individual equipment costs, mount cost and unit training costs to get an overall picture of what a unit in WH actually costs. they did however use facts from history, so may not fit in a fantasy setting.

There is alot of good ideas in this thread, some seem to make alot of sense while others are rather touchy or opinionated. so it really comes down to one of the modders to even just point us in the right direction of what they think (or feel) would be the best approach.

this is a thread ill be keeping an eye on most, as the statistical conversion will play a rather big role in how the game plays out eventually.

[MangyElf]

I dont think i could continue from where you left off simply because i dont know the WH game or have any of its reference material. but if you come into any other touchy areas ill surely throw in my two cents. ive also been of the impression that you were of the modding team. if your not, then it would be valuable to have there input on the subject, seeing as they will have the final say.

The mod team roster is stuck at the top of this board so you can see, by cross-referencing the names to the people posting in this thread, that we have had input from them already.


Although i was thinking that if weapons in WH only add 1-2 points to the WS then that will cause issues in TW. as you said it would make some units rather redundant if stats are very similar whether the unit wields a 2 handed sword or a dagger. so it may be a decision that will be difficult to make.

You make me think you haven't read my suggestion at all :p If you had you'd realise I got that covered too, though I don't claim it's perfect. I've had a habit of converting rules and even inventing my own for a little over twenty years, ever since I discovered TTRPGs, but I've never known any to suffer from another person's pov.


I would like to know what the modifiers are in WH for mental stats, or atleast what kind of things affect them. Because in TW you can have varying levels of morale levels for units. i would assume skeletons would use the 'lock_morale_ option.

IMO, mental stats are a moot point until the combat stats can be converted. That's because there is going to have to be some give and take on them. The skeleton example you make is a good illustration since an unbreakable morale could have far-ranging consequences on any unit that can also hold it's own in combat. If a unit won't rout there needs to be a balance between the time it takes to 'die' and how much morale loss the opponent can take before it breaks. It might mean skeletons can't all have unbreakable morale (they do sufffer a condition known as instability) or it might mean skeletons have to take a drop in comparative fighting stats, or neither. We won't know until we see how they stack up against a 'living' unit and we can't determine that until we have the combat stats worked out.


i would think costs of units upkeep, upgrades etc would be easy to convert. then again, i assume in WH you dont set up trade routes, which would bring in more money, and maybe make the upkeep costs seem too low once converted to TW.

The aren't easy at all since WH doesn't use money, it uses a point system and an army list. Some units are compulsory, some are limited supply and point distribution between heroes, mages and army units is limited by a variable range value. Some units can spend more points for equipment upgrades while a few others can't. Points are balanced to stats, more or less (ie the general idea but nothing is perfect), but it works well enough. So, once again back to stats required first since we can balance the conversion with a formula but it will only be a start point when we don't know what TW calculations are exactly. There is no upkeep value in WH so that has to be determined 'by eye' and I expect that and costs will have to be weighted, seeing as they are an obvious further means to control unit availability.


There is alot of good ideas in this thread, some seem to make alot of sense while others are rather touchy or opinionated. so it really comes down to one of the modders to even just point us in the right direction of what they think (or feel) would be the best approach.

You realise that is also a mere opinion ;) We were specifically asked for opinions so a comment doesn't have to be 'good', it only has to be relevant. Even if it turns out to be undesirable then at the very least it excludes itself and could even spark a better idea. Not sure why you decided to call some comments on this thread "opinionated and touchy" btw. Bit uncalled for don't you think? Also, you might want to consider that it is impossible to read emotions into unemotive plain text, though experience has taught me that many can be fooled into thinking the reflection they project is not really a reflection at all.

[Tsarsies]

By opinionated and touchy i meant nothing more then peoples own personal opinions, so no, i dont think uncalled for. and yes i read your posts, hence the 'as you said' statement. it almost appears impossible for me to contribute to this discussion as you apparantly have most if not all bases covered, or so it seems. so i will go take my foot out of my mouth now :).

[Jargon]

Good to see you trying Tsarsies. What MangyElf needs, with all his enthusiasm to convert, is someone who is a WH gamer but also an expert with TW stats to critique his work. Casuir fit that role really nicely when I made an attempt, but he is now gone. Someone will eventually drop by to fill that role im sure.

I hope the 'opinionated and touchy' non-issue is dropped and the collective attention focused back on more great statistical work.

[MangyElf]

By opinionated and touchy i meant nothing more then peoples own personal opinions, so no, i dont think uncalled for. and yes i read your posts, hence the 'as you said' statement. it almost appears impossible for me to contribute to this discussion as you apparantly have most if not all bases covered, or so it seems. so i will go take my foot out of my mouth now :).
Intent is twofold, what you meant to say and what you took care not to say. I can't possibly know your intent but I can plainly see you took no care to avoid a loaded comment. Even then I didn't cast blame, mistakes happen, I simply pointed it out since we don't want a genuine mistake repeated now do we. If you can't take critique or advice without taking offence then posting opinions to a message board is not the best passtime you could have chosen. Thicker skin is a distinct advantage on any forum. You admit to knowing nothing about WH so I took the time out to inform you, the fact I didn't explain it well enough or that you misunderstood (whichever, I don't care when the result was the same) meant I had to elaborate/correct. If that's opinionated or touchy then we live in different realities.

As for what I have already covered, I've said time and again that I want it picked apart. I'd like this mod to be a great one. If anything I've suggested helps, cool, but the last thing I want is for work to be done only to find out there is a flaw in it. What a waste of time that would be so analysing my method (which I've made a point to note for the convenience of picking it apart) and conclusions is very much desirable. Hell, you can even ignore them but not when you're reaching the same/similar conclusions yourself.

That in mind, it is not apparent that you've read any of it. You make no reference at all, taking away any context prior to you joining this thread, so can you blame me for questioning? Even so I wasn't pulling you up on it, merely suggesting you do make reference to it and save us all discussing the same things in isolation.

Rest assured, I do not want a flamefest, it's counterproductive. Nor do I want you to feel excluded, that's not my call, ever. I won't just nod politely and continue discussing this as if the first page and a half of this thread didn't exist though. I'm more than willing to help you get to grips with the WH rules so that you can help better with this but that you must realise that it will involve correcting any misunderstandings and may involve pointing out when you're reaching conclusions already printed here in black and white. No idea what's to take offence over in that.

@Jargon, yes, it would be ideal but failing that I'll personally take anything that casts new light onto the topic. Tsarsies has already done that in at least one respect. That can't be anything other than a good thing from my perspective. It's just a shame about the crossed wires, it's meant we've wasted time *sigh*

[Myrddraal]

Folks, neither of you have actually directly disagreed with each other, yet your responses are getting increasingly 'tight lipped' with every post.

What is it with Warhammer fans? can't we just get on? :shrug: Good will to all men and whatnot?

~:grouphug:

[MangyElf]

Dude, my posts have been called a lot of things but "tight-lipped" is a first. Have you seen the average length of those puppies? :p

[Jubee]

@MangyElf

I don't know is this important but you are working with old warhammer rulebook, so some stats are wrong etc, but the core rules are about same.

In example great weapon (A two handed weapon) rules have changed a bit, it isn't as good at horseback because it is a bit cumbersome. And it won't reduce your initiative, now it you just have to strike last, unless charging.

There are also a few more rule changes, but your "conversion table" is pretty good, just some details could be changed.

[MangyElf]

Yeah, cheers for the info. I think it must be 3rd edition I have access to but I have played the next two editions, or at least 2 more editions after my copy. Can't really say if they were consecutive but I do remember some rule changes even if I don't recall which cuz it's been a while. I figure it shouldn't be too hard to change any stats that need them when, as you say, the basics have always been about the same.

That said, in the case of that 2H weapon change I'm not really sure how we'd specifically convert attacking last except on a charge so it might even be easier to use older rules; they're still reasonably balanced and not that different but I'm thinking more from a 'get your head inside the reasoning behind a stat' pov so effectively the principle should be the same - 2H weapons being slower yet easier to wound with. From a mount the 2H weapon might get the same penalty as a mounted archer, though if it were up to me I'd multiply the penalty by 10, seeing as how easy it would be to fumble such an unsuitable mounted weapon, hehe the horse's head scare tactic charge, lop! Still, it is fantasy ;)

[Jubee]

Yea, I didn't mean that 2H weapon should be in mod exactly like in WH rules, that was just an example how rules change. I'll read your posts in this topic carefully so I'll "Get inside the system" like you say :)

Summa samarium, you are doing great job. By the way, are you "officially" in modding team?

[Jubee]

No Armour: 0 armour defence
Light Armour: 4 armour defense
Heavy armour: 8 armour defense
Shield: + 4 shield defence

How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?

[Revan-Shan]

How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?

If this was done the Hordes of Chaos' armies would be the strongest.

Remember:
Light armour +1
Shield +1
Heavy armour +2
Plate armour (empire and 'perhaps' vampire count heroes) +3

[MangyElf]

Yea, I didn't mean that 2H weapon should be in mod exactly like in WH rules, that was just an example how rules change. I'll read your posts in this topic carefully so I'll "Get inside the system" like you say :)

Well I'm pretty convinced the logic of using this method is sound in respect of a statistical conversion because, as I said earlier, the numbers don't match in order to convert more simply. It bothers me that this does introduce an element of guesswork but I can't work out a better way, even if I can't rule out a better way ;)


Summa samarium, you are doing great job. By the way, are you "officially" in modding team?

Ok, have to ask, what's "summa smarium" mean? I though at first you were addressing someone else but since I can't find a name that matches...

If that question is for me, nope and I'm not looking to be either, certainly not for such a small and currently insignificant (given no one said they'd actually use anything I said) contribution of a few posts and a bit of reasoned thinking, the latter of which (and more) plenty of others have also suplied on this and other threads here. Now I'm trying to imagine how any such misunderstanding arose and all I can think of is I used 'we' instead of 'I' but by that I was referring to us all, the community interested in this aspect of the project, so my apologies for being unclear if that's what caused it.



How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?
If this was done the Hordes of Chaos' armies would be the strongest.

Remember:
Light armour +1
Shield +1
Heavy armour +2
Plate armour (empire and 'perhaps' vampire count heroes) +3

Strictly speaking, in a statistical conversion the only way one thing can be more powerful than another after the process is if it was already more powerful before it. The whole idea is to translate stats, not to reinvent them. Fair enough, anomolies might arise in translation but that's true of any unit/faction. Also you must consider that stats are not the only balancing factor, just like they are not the only factor in WH when point costs, unit strength and army composition are also involved. Similarly, those factors must be considered in translation too, perhaps seperately and on certain aspects especially, like unit availability.

My only concern as far as my own figures are concerned is that I based converted values around the idea of just two armour levels from WH. I even had cause to reduce those values slightly in order to make them, IMO, a 'better fit'. If a third level of WH armour were introduced it might be that it'd be better to scale the values. Without redoing the conversion for multiple units again I can't tell. That I can't do without info on the WH items but unfortunately, it's not in my copy of the game.

[Eufarius]

I most definetly agree with Myrddraal hahaha.
LOL.

[Silly Knicket]

Sorry for being rude, but using only two different armour levels is just silly, when you have around 7 in MTW2...
WHFB is a tabletop game, and rules have to be simplified so you don´t have to spend all the time looking through charts and doing calculations.
Using six-sided dice makes it necessary to simplify things even more.
I honestly don´t think literal translations of the warhammer stats to this mod is a good idea...
If MTW2 has a great and detailed system for several things (and does all the calculations for you), why not use it? Why not look at the actual WHFB models and see if they are using leather, light mail, brigandine, half plate or plate?
Light armour and heavy armour simplifications is a necessity in a fastpaced tabletop game, but not in a computergame.

Don't get me wrong, I really like both MTW2 and WHFB (not to mention WHFRP), but lets try to take the best things from both games, instead of crippling the MTW2 engine for the wrong reasons.

[MangyElf]

Sorry for being rude, but using only two different armour levels is just silly, when you have around 7 in MTW2...[QUOTE]
There are more than 7 levels of armour in M2TW, from armour value = 0 to armour value = 10+ (whatever the cap is, if there even is one).

Dunno why you thought you might be rude, unless it's to Games Workshop because this is a conversion and no one can convert what isn't there. WH only has light and heavy armour so we can only convert light and heavy armour (3 types in later versions?). Elementary my dear Banjeeboy :holmes:

However, other stats will convert to armour values too, so a wider range does get used in the end. Providing no major anomolies show themselves, ie the exact conversion values ultimately decided upon are gtg, then it doesn't matter whether a supposedly unarmoured model has an +armour value because everything is treated the same way.

[QUOTE]WHFB is a tabletop game, and rules have to be simplified so you don´t have to spend all the time looking through charts and doing calculations.
Using six-sided dice makes it necessary to simplify things even more.

Couldn't agree more, said so already.


I honestly don´t think literal translations of the warhammer stats to this mod is a good idea...

As I also said, a literal translation is impossible IMO. The numbers don't match for a literal translation. It'd make it a whole lot easier if they did because we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


If MTW2 has a great and detailed system for several things (and does all the calculations for you), why not use it?

How could it not be used? This will be M2TW after all. The question isn't what to use to play this mod, that's a given, the question is how will the WH units be balanced in it. They could just pull numbers out of a hat or they could ask for ideas on converting the WH stats that are already there. Moot question when, if you check the sticky thread above, Bwian chose to do the latter.


Why not look at the actual WHFB models and see if they are using leather, light mail, brigandine, half plate or plate?

A) because they are not defined as those types of armour, they are defined as none, light or heavy armour.

B) even if you could distinguish, good luck spotting such detail on 25mm scale models. Not impossible but...

c) WH is not balanced by looks, it is balanced by stats.


Light armour and heavy armour simplifications is a necessity in a fastpaced tabletop game, but not in a computergame.

Why would anyone include such a simplification? My suggestion, for example, will not have just 2 values for the M2TW armour stat. Read the whole thing and you'll see for yourself. Try it out by converting a couple of WH units for yourself and it will illustrate. If you spot any inconsistencies then by all means suggest a correction or just tell us about them. That is, after all, the request I've been trying to get across to everyone since my 1st post.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, my mistake :)
It seems like I forgot the beginning of this thread...
What I was getting at, was to get all the "in-between" stats that a 1-6 scale doesn´t allow, something that already been covered on page 1.
So... just disregard my previous post.
(even though I think using the actual models as a reference is a good idea... if possible)

[MangyElf]

I seem to have appointed myself stats advocate of something :p I really son't mean to come across as that but the topic of converting stuff between games has interested me for a long time and I meant it when I said the only reason I bought M2TW was in anticipation of this mod so naturally that's a huge part of it too.

Anyways, I think the modders here could have done just as you suggest and convert everything by eye, based on how their models looked. They certainly don't have to justify anything to us except that the proof is in the pudding as they say. If the final product is good it won't matter how stats were arrived at. However, I can see a few reasons why they wouldn't want to:

Firstly, they might risk losing a feeling of WH if arbitrary numbers are chosen, though they aren't demonstrating stupidity in any way so such guesses would be 'educated'.

Secondly, all new units must have stats for M2TW. It is inescapable so the work will be done anyway, by typing out all those numbers per unit. Inserting best guesses is much more open to mistakes if done as they go along and if they were to list all the changes first then it's no more work to base that reference material on what's actually listed in the WH rulebooks. The idea of a conversion table is that when its done you only need refer to it, you don't have to look at every single unit individually so if anything it's much less work in the end.

Thirdly, you can't infer most of the TW/WH stats from the look of the model. It tells you what armour and weapon they are using and that's it. For example, in WH terms you cannot know how strong or tough a unit is from looking at a picture of it. In TW terms you still have to determine what a weapon or armour does too, so how much skill do you assign a unit with great axe? How much for one weilding a sword and shield? What terrain stats will a race/unit have? You could base these assessments wholly on vanilla TW units, it ought to be balanced but is it WH? Certainly there are no dwarves, orcs or skaven etc in vanilla TW so why risk it.

Last but by no means least, I think the mod team have shown particular attention to detail so far so why stop now? It'd be a shame if this, dare I say, 'lovingly' crafted bit of work were let down in any way when it's all too simple to fish for ideas. Of course I can't speak for any involved but it seems more than plausible to me that this would be a good reason to see if something can be worked out, to make this mod as WH-like as possible. Like I pointed out, IMO they don't need to justify how values were reached but how much better is it to have a conversion table to pick apart, muse over and hopefully be able to say, "see, it really is based on the original WH stats". If for no other reason, such a thing laid bare (even to just the modders themselves) means adjustments can be made more easily if needed too. If a reference fits together logically then it is far easier to bring someone up to speed (eg if anyone bows out and gets replaced or even just refreshing yourself on how you thought last year and without having to reinvent your midset when you pulled numbers out of a hat) and any tweaking can be done methodically, instead of arbitrarily, making such updates less time consuming.

[Jubee]

Ok, have to ask, what's "summa smarium" mean? I though at first you were addressing someone else but since I can't find a name that matches...

That spell check machine accidentally twisted it. It supposed to be "Summa Summarum" which is latin and means "In the end", "Eventually" and that kind of words. My bad.

[Silly Knicket]

I think the stats/conversion stuff on the first page is really good, the "model reference" was only about armour. There is no reason at all not to use the huge amount of rules and army books of WHFB when it comes to putting stats to the units... its only "heavy and light armour" that is a bit too simplified for my taste.
Toughness and wounds have to be converted anyway, we don´t want trolls and ogres going down faster than snotlings in heavy armour :)

[MangyElf]

I think the stats/conversion stuff on the first page is really good, the "model reference" was only about armour.
Jargon's original hard work is certainly a great start but I wouldn't have furthered the discussion if I didn't believe I could see a couple of holes in it. That's not a critisism when it's the whole point of such a discussion and I would hope others point out any holes they see in my own suggestion.

That in mind, a little compare and contrast would be cool, if you have the time, to elaborate on exactly what you like about the original and don't like (by implication) about my ideas. If there are holes then show them up please because, and I mean no offense, simply expressing a preference doesn't really take the discussion anywhere.


its only "heavy and light armour" that is a bit too simplified for my taste

I'll run with that comment then, see if I can explain this better and in the hope that given your interest/preference, you can spot any flaws...

A fuller range of armour values than just "two types" does become apparent after the suggested conversion. That's mainly because toughness also needs to be accounted for, not necessarily with the numbers I suggest (they're suggestions ;) ) but the best conversion of toughness is, IMO, to assign it an armour value. WH toughness acts, as far as I can tell, most like TW's armour. If you disagree then what would you suggest and why? This means armour would not soley represent the bits of leather, cloth or metal worn by the unit but also it's inherent resilience too. Then there are the other two pri_armour stats to consider, defence and shield, which will add to overall defence variety as well.

I suggested values of 3 for light and 6 for heavy because I didn't want to inflate defence values too much, not when shields and defence, not forgetting toughness, also need to be considered. As Bwian stated, as long as values are consistently scaled relative to each other then the actual numbers don't matter so much for the theory side of things. Attack skills seemed to convert adequately in proportion too but if not I reckon there is some leeway in vanilla TW stats for making armour compartively stronger vs attack skill, in order to prolong a fight to some degree. Other mods use 'ratios' favouring armour over attack so there is some precedent on the tried and tested front to draw from and I have seen the preference for longer vs shorter fights expressed around here somewhere too.

I suggested +/-3 armour per point of toughness above/below T3 because the WH scale bears out that it's statistically as good as an armour save point (everything is d6). It was as good a starting point as any but yes, there will be some linearity and lack of variety by doing this, though not as much as you seem to think with armour values of 0, 3, 6 and 9 (plus values of 2, 5, 8 and 11 if mounted on a barded horse). That covers most numbers I've seen vanilla TW use for armour but yes, you will lose some potential variety with this method. And yes, it only varies units that have different armour and toughness but that's the point - if it doesn't have the attributes before conversion then to vary them after conversion means you aren't actually converting, you're making it up.

In any event, does the variety in 1/3 of the defensive stats really matter in isolation? The numbers are just numbers when all is said and done, assigned a prosaic description (leather, plate, chain etc) that the engine doesn't care about at all. You could call armour 9 "fred" or "light leather" and it wouldn't matter, just like you can call it "heavy amour + T4". Also consider the worth of 1 point of armour in TW and how in practice you never see every value of armour (from 0 to whatever) in your faction, probably not even across vanilla factions. The fact is that while there are several possible varieties, actual variety is less.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, read over things a bit more careful this time :) (but this might still have been mentioned
Even though the basis of the conversion should be stat numbers, and some good formulas, we need to look at how those stats really work out in the tabletop game.
As it works out in the tabletop, having better toughness is far superior to wearing light armour, as an example.
Further on, a unit with toughness 5, wearing no armour at all, has a 50% better survivability rate (versus "standard" S3 units) compared to a T3 unit, wearing heavy armour and a shield.
Mounted charges, twohanded weapons, and elite units makes a big difference here, but I think this already has been covered. (and it already has support in the MTW2 engine)

An example:
36 hits by a S3 unit:

T3, no armour
-18 saved by toughness.
0 saved by armour
=18 kills

T3, light armour
-18 saved by toughness
-3 saved by armour
=15 kills

T3, heavy armour
-18 saved by toughness
-6 saved by armour
=12 kills

T3, heavy armour+shield
-18 saved by toughness
-9 saved by armour
=9 kills

T4, no armour
-24 saved by toughness
0 saved by armour
=12 kills

T4, light armour
-24 saved by toughness
-2 saved by armour
=10 kills

T4, heavy armour
-24 saved by toughness
-4 saved by armour
=8 kills

T4, heavy armour+shield
-24 saved by toughness
-6 saved by armour
=6 kills

T5, no armour
-30 saved by toughness
0 saved by armour
=6 kills

T5, light armour
-30 saved by toughness
-1 saved by armour
=5 kills

T5, heavy armour
-30 saved by toughness
-2 saved by armour
=4 kills

T5, heavy armour+shield
-30 saved by toughness
-3 saved by armour
=3 kills

What we can see here is that T4 is comparable to wearing heavy armour, and that T5 increases the survivability rate even further from that.

There are of course attacks that are both higher strength, and armour piercing... but the S3 attack is the "normal" attack, if there is such a one.
(humans, orcs, dwarves, skaven, elves etc regular units, using regular weapons or bows).

I didn't see this comparison being made earlier in the thread, pardon me if it already has been covered.

[MangyElf]

Good work and something we can definately move the discussion along with. Unfortunately there's a major flaw with this approach, which I'll get to after I correct your figures to what the tables in my WH reference show me they should be, just to make sure we're on the same page first.

Same unit, S3 and 36 strong but also accounting for WS3 on attacker and defender, then BS3, for completeness sake:

T3
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 6 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 9 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 6 wounds
R = 9 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M1 & R1 1/2
M = 5 wounds
R = 7 1/2 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M2 & R3
M = 4 wounds
R = 6 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M3 & R4 1/2
M = 3 wounds
R = 4 1/2 wounds
--------------------------------------------
T4
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 4 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 6 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 4 wounds
R = 6 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M2/3 & R1
M = 3 1/3 wounds
R = 5 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M1 1/3 & R2
M = 2 2/3 wounds
R = 4 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M2 & R3
M = 2 wounds
R = 3 wounds
--------------------------------------------
T5
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (6 needed or 1 in 6) = 2 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (6 needed or 1 in 6) = 3 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 2 wounds
R = 3 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M1/3 & R1/2
M = 1 2/3 wounds
R = 2 1/2 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M2/3 & R1
M = 1 1/3 wounds
R = 2 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M1 & R1 1/2
M = 1 wounds
R = 1 1/2 wounds
--------------------------------------------
Now on to the most important bit, which works the same whether we use your calculations or mine, the mathematical flaw in this approach...

WH orders the combat sequence as to hit roll first, then to wound and finally armour saves. Therefore, change any variable (S, T, WS, BS, #of combatants) and it will seem at first glance that the value of armour is changing. It isn't, it is always worth exactly the same - 1 in 6 wounds saved per 'level' of armour. Similarly, the worth of T4 compared to T3 and T5 compared to T4 is also 1 in 6 wounds saved. The results of armour saves are simply being scaled to fit the number of wounds that get past earlier stages in the process, in this case an increase in toughness. More toughness = less wounds armour needs to save against but it still removes exactly 1/6th of the wounds per 'level', on average, regardless of how many it needs to save against. Similarly, if we alter the number of combatants or the values for WS or BS, the worth of T will also appear to change but it is always constant, the number of hits it needs to defend against is what changes.

T4 compared to T3 is the equivalent of light armour. T5 compared to T3 is the equivalent of heavy armour. My suggested values reflect this with 3 for light, 6 for heavy and +3 per point of toughness above 3.

Definately good work though. Thinking about this at all is as important as getting it right and it's undecided if any of us is even in the ball park yet so I hope my disagreement and pointing out the mistake doesn't discourage you from looking into this further.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, 1T gives a 1/6 better chance of surviving, so does 1 point of armour... which should make them equal in value, statistically speaking.
But... it doesn´t really work out that way in-game.

Lets assume 1T=1 point, and 1 armour save= 1 point

Target #1 T:1, save 2+ (6 points)

Target #2 T:2, save 3+ (6 points)

Target #3 T:3, save 4+ (6 points)

Target #4 T:4, save 5+ (6 points)

Target #5 T:5, save 6+ (6 points)

Target #6 T:6, no save (6 points)

72 Generic soldiers with S3 and a handweapon attack each one of those above:
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 5 wounds(30 wounds, 25 armour saves)2+ to wound, save 2+
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 8 wounds (24 wounds, 16 armour saves)3+ to wound, save 3+
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 9 wounds (18 wounds, 9 armour saves)4+ to wound, save 4+
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 8 wounds (12 wounds, 4 armour saves)5+ to wound, save 5+

#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 5 wounds (6 wounds, 1 armour save)6 to wound, save on 6

#6) (T6, no save)suffers 6 wounds (6 wounds, 0 saves)6 to wound, no save

72 Generic soldiers with S4 and a handweapon attack each one of them:
(-1 save because of S4)
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 10 wounds (30 wounds, 20 armour saves)2+ to wound, 3+ save
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 15 wounds (30 wounds, 15 armour saves)2+ to wound, 4+ save
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 16 wounds (24 wounds, 8 armour saves)3+ to wound, 5+ save
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 15 wounds (18 wounds, 3 armour saves)4+ to wound, save on 6
#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 12 wounds (12 wounds, no armour saves)5+ to wound, no save
#6) (T6, no save)suffers 6 wounds (6 wounds, no armour saves)6 to wound, no save

72 Generic soldiers with twohanded weapons (+2S, correct me if I'm wrong) attack each one of them: (-2 save because of 5S)
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 15 wounds (30 wounds, 15 armour saves)2+ to wound, 4+ save
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 20 wounds (30 wounds, 10 armour saves)2+ to wound, 5+ save
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 25 wounds (30 wounds, 5 armour saves)2+ to wound, save on 6
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 24 wounds (24 wounds, no armour saves)3+ to wound, no save
#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 18 wounds (18 wounds, no armour saves)4+ to wound, no save
#6) (T6, no save)suffers 12 wounds (12 wounds, no armour saves)5+ to wound, no save

Attacks usually don´t get much higher than S5. (except for elite cavalry charges, elite troops with twohanded weapons, artillery, heroes and such)
So... even though 1 point in armour, and 1 point in toughness should be comparable... it still doesn´t seem that way to me.
Armour reduction because of high strength is one reason.
The bias towards toughness is quite obvious, I think, although much less than I stated before.
It is also better to focus on one of the stats (armour or toughness) rather than having decent stats in both.
If I had the choice when choosing troops, I would definitely go for toughness.
Another things to take into consideration is that their tables are based on playability as much as mathematics. 3S vs 7T should be a 6, followed by a 3-6 if it was logical... but a 6 is enough, because of playability reasons.
WHFB is a great game, with a quick, easy and balanced system, but it certainly has it flaws.
Perhaps using 1T for 1 armour save is a good way to go in WH:TW, and perhaps it was GW's intention when making the rules, even though it doesn´t really work out like that in the tabletop.

Don´t know what to make out of this.


On a sidenote:
IIRC, you only need a 4 to hit in melee in the 7th edition WHFB though (not a big deal), and shields do not protect against ranged attacks, a rule I certainly hope we do not implement in this mod.

(Edit: clarifications in italics, corrections in bold)

[MangyElf]

I'm not sure I follow all your figures but the worth of one point in toughness or armour (at least in the range of Toughness = 3 to 5) is the same, 1 in 6. It is on a scale of 1 to 6 so the only way to change their worth is to alter this scale. The sides on the dice do not change so the value per point on the dice is a constant.

Or look at it this way, changing toughness is no different to changing any variable in an equation, ie the result will differ. There is a starting point followed by three seperate equations in WH's combat system, meaning the results of the preceding calculation always affect the results of the next, so: change the number of combatants and you change the number of hits that need to be calculated; change the amount of WS or BS and the number of wounds calculated will change; change the toughness or strength and the number of armour saves needed will change. The fact that increasing T3 to T4 provides 1 in 6 less wounds stays the same, while changing armour from light to heavy always has the exact same effect, reducing wounds by 1 in 6.

All that changes is 1/6th of *what* so if 12 potential wounds are caused then 2 will be saved against yet when 24 wounds are inflicted, 4 will be saved against. Similarly, if 12 hits take place then improving T3 to T4 means 2 less wounds will occur while if 24 hits take place then 4 less wounds are inflicted. In both cases the value of 1/6th is a constant, what changes is the variable result of the preceding equation.

As for changing the value of the armour save by using a weapon that gives a -ve modifier to target armour saves then obviously armour saves will be lessened or negated entirely. This is the WH equivalent of AP and is a whole other issue, one that never affects the relative worth of armour, merely the relative worth of the weapon that gives this modifier. We again need to look at the reasoning behind the way in which WH calculates AP in order to translate it to TW, for the simple reason that the mechanism of the same name in TW, AP, is already taken up with something entirely different - afaik there are no means to reduce armour as they do in WH, when in TW it's either halved (attacker has AP attribute) or it stays the same (attack doesn't have AP attribute).

A -ve modifier to WH armour is a different mechanism to reducing T or increasing S because it can ignore certain armour and reduce the effectiveness of the rest. It is a means to an end so if we could invent a weapon attribute that reduced armour by x instead of dividing it by 2 then we could translate it directly to TW. Without that we need another means to achieve similar/acceptable results. What we can't do is assign armour and toughness different values (when clearly they don't have different values) just because in WH such weapons exist - it throws off the conversion for every other type of weapon, which is most of them. It is the weapon modifier that changes, not the armour value. Therefore such an AP effect needs to be converted in another way, ignored completely or rendered directly, using the TW mechanism which already exists and ignoring how it works in WH. My preference is to compromise and just improve attack skill because it is specific to the attacker, not the defender, just like the -ve armour save modifier in WH.

[Silly Knicket]

Even though the logic behind 1T=1 armour seems fine, I can´t seem to get exactly that result from trying it out statistically...
The WHFB combat system isn´t 100% logical. Its very much based on a stat value of 3 when it comes to S and T as an example. Always failing rolls on a 1 messes things up further.
If you look at my post above, the figures aren´t completely logical, but they are the actual results you would see on the tabletop.
I would like to see a mathematical formula that takes into account WHFB playability, speed and ease of play. (and don´t forget appeal for 12-year olds)
Another logical discrepancy:
Armour works out when someone with a S value around 3 knocks someone on the head, but if two people with S and T values around 7-8 were slugging it out, armour would be nullified. (because of the -4 save modifier because of 7S)
I'll add some clarification to the figures in the post above, I think T has bigger impact than armour because of being earlier than armour in "the formula". (sorry for being such a mathematical amateur :P, don´t really know the english words for this either)

However, I think that valuing T and armour equally in the mod is a good thing
to do, it will work out, and it will certainly be much less of a hassle than trying to implement the exact (illogical) formulas from the tabletop game.

[MangyElf]

In my version of the rules, large and powerful creatures get an AP modifier seperate from S but yeah, still loosely based on it. Whatever newer rules state I think high S is anomolous enough to either ignore or simply give any that exist in the mod TW's AP attribute and/or adjustments to attack skill. Similarly, high toughness, when/if it occurs in the mod, could make do with higher armour I think. For example, I don't think it is possible to make high toughness units wholly immune to low strength attacks in TW so we might not be able to convert that far anyway. Although, having said that, I did get some complete misses on the ranged attack volleys I tested so maybe if attack skill is sufficiently low vs defence it can be simulated to some extent. The problem there is that it might require using defence that the TW engine can't have or attacks skills so low on most units as to provide less than desirable variety. Worth looking into maybe but only if they intend to use such units.

If it does work out anomolous when converying extremes then there's definately a case for looking at such things seperately, if used, because they will presumably be few and far between. With other checks in place, like high costs, limited production and smaller unit size, there should be some scope for suping them up sufficiently that they act more appropriately. It's less convenient for all the reasons I gave earlier but if there won't be that many then it should be doable. If we can sort the bulk of the conversion adequately, and in theory we can do that, as discussed, then it would certainly beat throwing the baby out with the bath water just because it won't duplicate the more extreme end of the WH stats. Luckily it won't be my decision but getting the bulk to work should be the priority and who knows, we may be worrying over nothing and it'll work out sufficiently well for extremes too.

(cool, I now get an edit button attached to my posts, must be a post count thing)