No One's Maths Thread (Mostly GSC)

[russellr]

Nov 5, 2016 14:23:24 GMT No One said:

kazetanade said:

No One, how does the Seismic Cannons+ rest of unit match up against Flyrants in terms of points spent? I think you have numbers for both range bands against marines, but I'm not sure they've been compared to a Flyrant.

For 2 units (180 pts) vs 1 flyrant: (Excuse the formatting)

                    Flyrant (0-12)  (12-24) +Las (0-12) +Las (12-24)
T4 3+         2.96     3.33     2.67     5.11     4.44
T4 3+ 5++ 2.96     2.22     2.22     4.00     4.00
T4 4+ 5++ 2.96     2.22     3.56     4.00     5.33
T6 3+         1.78     3.33     1.78     4.22     2.67
T6 2+ 5++ 0.89     0.89     1.11     1.33     1.56
T5 3+ 4++ 2.37     1.67     1.56     2.56     2.44
T4 2+ 5++ 1.48     0.89     1.56     1.78     2.44

Edit: I just realised these numbers would mean nothing, since you aren't looking at my spreadsheet for what they correspond too...woops. Fixed.

Also, can you explain how does your spreadsheet do the "after taking this many hits from S4 on both units, Acolytes will perform as well as or better" part of your calculations?

Basically, by looking at the number of expected casualties from X number of S: Y hits and taking those from the number of 'models' that contribute to the 'total' hits.

i.e. Hits is basically 4x(14-Dead) for acolytes (except able to account for charge/might from beyond), 4x(4-Dead) for aberrants. Which would obviously be different for aberrants.

Hi, very useful, but are the last two columns valid? As you can't choose two seismics and a heavy weapons team in the same unit.

[kazetanade]

The Last two columns are rapidfire lasguns, not lascannons.

EDIT: No One, I meant howdoes your spreadsheet find the equilibrium
, or the point at which it happens?

[russellr]

Nov 5, 2016 18:38:37 GMT kazetanade said:

The Last two columns are rapidfire lasguns, not lascannons.

EDIT: No One, I meant howdoes your spreadsheet find the equilibrium
, or the point at which it happens?

Ahhh of course!

[cypheon]

No one else noticed the last two numbers for rapidfire lasguns seem switched? How are double shots at 0-12 doing less potential wounds than 1 shot each at 12-24 ?

[almostmercury]

Because the seismic cannons are performing worse.

[russellr]

Nov 5, 2016 23:01:39 GMT cypheon said:

No one else noticed the last two numbers for rapidfire lasguns seem switched? How are double shots at 0-12 doing less potential wounds than 1 shot each at 12-24 ?

Which numbers exactly? It makes sense to me that sometimes one profile is better than the other.

[cypheon]

Lasguns, vs T4, 2+/5++.

0-12 (double shots) = 1.78
12-24 (single shots) = 2.44

Does not add up that firing half the shots is more effective.

[No One]

kazetanade said:

EDIT: No One, I meant howdoes your spreadsheet find the equilibrium
, or the point at which it happens?

Manually, or pseudo-manually with solver to find the point at which they're equal. Haven't figured out a way to do it as something that will happen by just changing the variables. Which is why I mention it as being tedious and annoying in the first post.

cypheon said:

No one else noticed the last two numbers for rapidfire lasguns seem switched? How are double shots at 0-12 doing less potential wounds than 1 shot each at 12-24 ?

The different range bands are for the seismic only - the assumption is that the las will always be in double tap range. The only 'choice' is to whether the seismic is in the 0-12" or 12-24". This is not necessarily the most accurate assumption, but with the ability to effectively deploy anywhere outside of 9" almost guaranteed, it should be very accurate for the initial volley. After that, well, you're probably going to get shot - squad and seismic might live, but at that point the las will have dropped in effectiveness anyway, and that's not something I can really account for very accurately.

Edit: To put things another way, the +Las means just that - it's the addition of the other 8 guys in each squad rapidfiring to the existing seismic cannon damage.

[kazetanade]

No One, did you have a chart somewhere for optimum bodies to have when facing shooting (going second with lots of 6s) and overwatch? It Should be tied in somewhere with your "I lose this many bodies before Acolytes are better" comparison yea?

[No One]

kazetanade said:

No One, did you have a chart somewhere for optimum bodies to have when facing shooting (going second with lots of 6s) and overwatch?]

Umm...I don't think so? I mean, I'm not 100% sure what you're actually asking here. I can pretty easily have a look at how much damage a certain unit will do after a certain amount of firepower though, if that's what you mean? Could probably tweak to have variable starting unit size, though it's not currently set up for that (being the static units mentioned in the first post).

[kazetanade]

Yeah I meant to ask if you had a "number of bodies" needed to weather a round of shooting from the enemy (assuming going second but with many CA units with 6s), then weather the overwatch barrage, and hit combat with a unit size big enough to do damage?

It does depend on the base unit being charged... though I always assume 10 rapid fire bolters I'm facing head on. Apart from S5 which just performs better than bolters (notably only Heavy Bolters and Pulse Rifles which are widespread? I think.), other guns are pretty much super overkill and not in high enough volume to kill all that much, so 10 rapidfire bolters feels like amongst the worst things you'll face as Cult.

[No One]

kazetanade said:

It does depend on the base unit being charged... though I always assume 10 rapid fire bolters I'm facing head on. Apart from S5 which just performs better than bolters (notably only Heavy Bolters and Pulse Rifles which are widespread? I think.), other guns are pretty much super overkill and not in high enough volume to kill all that much, so 10 rapidfire bolters feels like amongst the worst things you'll face as Cult.

Lazy answer - depends on cover. But if you're out of cover - you're looking at close to max to really hit effectively after casualties (by 'effective', I'm approximating half of the opposing squad dead i.e. killing 5 marines). But, with only a 5+ (Shrouded in the open, or just a 5+ in general) - ~14 man squad would be about right. Kills a bit under 5 marines on the charge, with ~6 left alive.

Though of interest - 9 guys (with 5+) will take the shots+overwatch of a 5 man marines squad and kill off ~4 guys on average, which is pretty much perfect.

[jaysic]

***Have only read the first page. Do your wound comparisons take into account WS3? WS4? WS5? I'm assuming you were doing probability to hit / wound / unsaved wounds.

[No One]

jaysic said:

***Have only read the first page. Do your wound comparisons take into account WS3? WS4? WS5? I'm assuming you were doing probability to hit / wound / unsaved wounds.

Currently, no (with the exception of the vehicle analysis) - the assumption was that everything was WS 4, because I don't actually know how I'd account for different WS (without redoing it manually, which is how I did the vehicle - that was reasonably easy though, since everything was changed to the same hit ratio).

[russellr]

Nov 12, 2016 0:47:13 GMT No One said:

jaysic said:

***Have only read the first page. Do your wound comparisons take into account WS3? WS4? WS5? I'm assuming you were doing probability to hit / wound / unsaved wounds.

Currently, no (with the exception of the vehicle analysis) - the assumption was that everything was WS 4, because I don't actually know how I'd account for different WS (without redoing it manually, which is how I did the vehicle - that was reasonably easy though, since everything was changed to the same hit ratio).

There's two ways.

1) Doing manual maths

2) Writing a program (or use Excel) to roll a ton of dice in different situations

I'm not sure which would be more time consuming heh.