Statistical Conversion

[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

[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

[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 .
Anyhow, I shall leave the stat workings out to you then.

[MangyElf]

You could have atleast pretended it was a good idea .
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

[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*