[EX3] Battle group adjustments

[Aaron S]

I hope to run a game of Exalted someday. As part of understanding the system, I investigated how a battle group works by simulating a set of individuals fighting a battle group. Those results suggest that a battle group does not represent the threat it aggregates well enough for my liking. I propose a set of three modifications to generate results closer to standards I provide below.

This exercise forced me to understand what I think defeating a battle group is equivalent to in terms of fighting a small group of individuals. I settled upon using a victory condition for the battle group of either killing at least one or injuring at least half of the individuals to a -2 wound penalty.

My ideal results exhibit the following traits, in large part:
1. Equal win rates for the individuals and for the battle group, when four to six individuals face a size 1 battle group. This arises because I want to use battle groups in combat to give me the same threat as multiple individual enemies with simplified tracking.
2. Low win rates for the individuals against a size 2 battle group. The size difference should be meaningful. It does not necessarily have to be dominating.
3. Three to five rounds of combat before one side wins. The lower bound is because I consider it good when the losing side has time to see things are going poorly for them and make choices based on that. The upper bound reflects my rough guess, without having run Exalted, of how long I would want an equally-matched contest to last to maintain player interest.
4. A not-insignificant chance of a draw in a round. This means the battle group inflicted damage on enough individuals to achieve a win, then low-Initiative characters finished it off. A draw represents both sides suffering casualties. I have a gut feeling that it also means the outcome doesn’t swing just based on the final round of combat.

In the simulation, I ran three mortal Quick Character types—militia, medium infantry, and elite troops—as a number of individuals against a battle group of the same type. Both sides made only withering attacks with hand-to-hand weapons. The fight ended when the battle group lost all Magnitude, any individual died, or at least half of the individuals suffered a -2 or -4 wound penalty.

Militia					Medium Infantry					Elite Troops
#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill
1	44.8	7.8	Poor		1	40.6	2.1	Poor		1	64.7	2.9	Poor
2	80.0	8.9	Poor		2	76.5	3.7	Poor		2	91.8	1.8	Poor
3	97.5	1.7	Poor		3	95.7	1.3	Poor		3	99.3	0.2	Poor
4	99.4	0.5	Poor		4	99.1	0.5	Poor		4	99.9	0.0	Poor
5	99.9	0.1	Poor		5	99.9	0.1	Poor		5	100.0	0.0	Poor
6	100.0	0.0	Poor		6	100.0	0.0	Poor		6	100.0	0.0	Poor
7	100.0	0.0	Poor		7	100.0	0.0	Poor		7	100.0	0.0	Poor
8	100.0	0.0	Poor		8	100.0	0.0	Poor		8	100.0	0.0	Poor
1	22.2	3.4	Average		1	13.2	0.6	Average		1	35.4	2.3	Average
2	58.0	9.4	Average		2	46.3	3.2	Average		2	75.9	3.1	Average
3	90.2	4.3	Average		3	82.2	2.5	Average		3	96.3	0.8	Average
4	97.7	1.6	Average		4	95.0	1.5	Average		4	99.5	0.2	Average
5	99.7	0.3	Average		5	99.2	0.4	Average		5	100.0	0.0	Average
6	99.9	0.1	Average		6	99.9	0.1	Average		6	100.0	0.0	Average
7	100.0	0.0	Average		7	100.0	0.0	Average		7	100.0	0.0	Average
8	100.0	0.0	Average		8	100.0	0.0	Average		8	100.0	0.0	Average
										1	11.6	0.8	Elite
										2	45.5	3.1	Elite
										3	84.2	1.9	Elite
										4	96.5	0.8	Elite
										5	99.6	0.1	Elite
										6	99.9	0.0	Elite
										7	100.0	0.0	Elite
										8	100.0	0.0	Elite

The results using the Exalted 3 rules failed my first, most important standard. Individuals won too handily. For an extreme outlier, note one individual Elite Troop won almost two-thirds of matches against a whole battle group. A side effect of the lop-sided victory, I think, is that fights were also too short. 90% last only one or two rounds for 4-6 individuals.

I simulated perhaps 10 variations of the battle group rules. Each had to be a small change, in order to retain the simplicity of battle groups. Here are results from simulating three variations in combination. They show much improvement.

Militia					Medium Infantry					Elite Troops
#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill
1	23.7	7.9	Poor		1	17.5	1.8	Poor		1	33	3.9	Poor
2	49.3	18.8	Poor		2	37.3	7.1	Poor		2	61.8	8.6	Poor
3	79.6	11.2	Poor		3	60.9	7.8	Poor		3	85.7	5.1	Poor
4	88.1	9.1	Poor		4	72.4	8.8	Poor		4	92.8	3.8	Poor
5	95.3	4	Poor		5	83.4	6.8	Poor		5	97	1.9	Poor
6	97.5	2.4	Poor		6	88.3	6.1	Poor		6	98.4	1.2	Poor
7	99	1	Poor		7	92.7	4.5	Poor		7	99.2	0.7	Poor
8	99.5	0.5	Poor		8	94.8	3.6	Poor		8	99.6	0.4	Poor
1	9.5	2.6	Average		1	4.5	0.4	Average		1	13	1.7	Average
2	25	10.9	Average		2	12.2	2.6	Average		2	32.8	6.6	Average
3	50.4	12.4	Average		3	25.3	4.3	Average		3	59.3	7	Average
4	63.7	14.6	Average		4	35.7	7	Average		4	73.1	8.1	Average
5	77.9	11.2	Average		5	47.4	8	Average		5	84.3	6.1	Average
6	84	10.2	Average		6	55.9	9.4	Average		6	89.9	5.1	Average
7	90.3	7	Average		7	64.5	9.4	Average		7	93.8	3.6	Average
8	93.3	5.4	Average		8	70.3	9.7	Average		8	96	2.6	Average
										1	3.2	0.4	Elite
										2	10.9	2.5	Elite
										3	25.6	4.6	Elite
										4	37.9	7.4	Elite
										5	52.1	8.2	Elite
										6	61.8	9.2	Elite
										7	70.8	8.8	Elite
										8	77.1	8.4	Elite

First, apply Size as automatic successes on attack and damage rolls instead of adding it to the dice pools. Second, do not apply the onslaught penalty to a battle group’s Defense. Third, add half of the individual’s Join Battle value to the base of 3 to set a battle group’s Initiative.

The modifications cause the individuals to suffer defeat far more often facing a larger battle group. That much is good, as far as I looked at it. However, I’m not confident what this will mean for actual PCs to face a size 5 battle group. Will they succeed where they should? Will the battle group feel correct for the threat it represents?

Militia (size 2)					Med. Infantry (size 2)					Elite Troops (size 2)
#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill		#	Won%	Draw%	vs. Drill
4	25.9	9.4	Poor		4	0.4	0.1	Average		4	0.4	0.2	Elite
5	44	12.4	Poor		5	1	0.3	Average		5	1.1	0.4	Elite
6	56.6	16.3	Poor		6	1.8	0.6	Average		6	2.1	1	Elite

[Heavy Arms]

1. Equal win rates for the individuals and for the battle group, when four to six individuals face a size 1 battle group. This arises because I want to use battle groups in combat to give me the same threat as multiple individual enemies with simplified tracking.

This is entirely contrary to the point of Battle Groups. Four to six individuals should beat a Size 1 BG everything else being equal far more than 50% of the time, because the point of BGs is not just to simplify tracking a large number of enemies. BGs are supposed to be inferior to full individual characters because a small group of heroes taking on an army of mooks and winning is something Exalted seeks to model.

The results using the Exalted 3 rules failed my first, most important standard. Individuals won too handily.

The tables aren't entirely clear. This is just 1-8 individuals vs. Size 1 BGs, right?

Even so, the numbers seem a bit funky given the mechanical bonuses BGs get. Can you run through how you handled things in case there's an error in your simulation?

For an extreme outlier, note one individual Elite Troop won almost two-thirds of matches against a whole battle group.

Like this... seems a bit off. How is a single Elite Troop doing that well against even a Size 1 BG using Elite Troop Stats; even with a Poor Drill rating (which... how does that even make sense to consider?). They've got the same basic stats, but the BG has +1 to attack, raw damage, and soak. The big down sides are they can't regain Magnitude and they don't double 10s on damage. The only reason they should be losing at all is because the individual wins via attrition over quite a number of turns. Doing 8 Magnitude damage in 2 turns just seems ridiculous for a single fighter to pull off.

I simulated perhaps 10 variations of the battle group rules. Each had to be a small change, in order to retain the simplicity of battle groups. Here are results from simulating three variations in combination. They show much improvement.

I think you might want to consider other things before you get too far into this. For example the impact of commanders. The Order action is a massive buff to a BG, and the Rally to Numbers actions extends their life spans. Leonidas + 300 elite Spartans is a lot scarier than just 300 random elite Spartans.

First, apply Size as automatic successes on attack and damage rolls instead of adding it to the dice pools. Second, do not apply the onslaught penalty to a battle group’s Defense. Third, add half of the individual’s Join Battle value to the base of 3 to set a battle group’s Initiative.

The first makes BGs too powerful; especially automatic successes on damage rolls. That is most definitely TPK territory for large Elite BGs + Commander vs the players.

The second, is more reasonable if you disagree with the intent of BGs as stated in the book, but it invalidates any Charm strategy that relies on taking advantage of them, and is a serious pain if the PCs are facing Elite Drill troops who can be sporting Defenses high enough to be extremely hard to hit without Charms.

The third doesn't seem like it actually changes anything. It just means you don't roll for BGs, they always act on the average tick for their base stats.

[Leetsepeak]

I think the first thing you should do is make sure you know what the design goals for Battle Groups are in the corebook.

[The Unsung Hero]

While I agree with the comments so far in this thread, it's important to remember what the OP said their goals were, and that the model in 3e's system didn't meet those goals. This was their attempt at solving a problem for them. Feedback saying their premise is wrong sort of misses the point. Accept that OP wants something different than the stated goal of the book and is homebrewing something different and reflect on that.

To the OP, I would say that while I wouldn't use such a threatening modification to my group, if it brings the challenge you want to your games, go for it. Extrapolating from what you've shown, I'd say a Size 5 group is probably extremely dangerous to any player group that doesn't have an army of their own. Have you tried facing 2 BGs against each other yet?

[Abakus]

I sort of agree with the previous posts in that I think you've sort of missed the boat on what BGs are meant to do thematically and mechanically. However, I think The Unsung Hero has a point in what you said your goals were, so let's talk about that.

I share Heavy Arms' concern about the methodology. Elite Troops 1v1 having won that much more vs a size one battlegroup, which is almost a strict upgrade, is puzzling to me. Unless its raw damage output is enough to crash the BG version very very quickly, I'd take a look at that part of the data. Perhaps being Poor Drill is that much of a downgrade, but I'd be a bit surprised.

I also noticed that you've totally omitted Command Actions. These are vital to the Battlegroup rules, and are meant to largely increase lethality of mass combat. I would suggest you try to internalize that aspect of the rules and think about the ramifications of them for your system. If you "even out" an unled Size 1 battlegroup, then a Led size 1 battlegroup will crush opposition.

Also of note: PCs can start with battlegroups for a trivial investment of chargen resources. Buff them too much, and every single player in your game will spend combat ordering his bodyguards to drive an axe through their enemies rather than doing it themselves.

You mention you'd like to run Ex3 "someday," which I take to mean you haven't yet. As a word of warning, it is a heavily genred and narratively driven game and system. If you don't like the Battlegroup system, which dovetails elegantly into those goals, you may not end up liking quite a lot about it. Just giving you a heads up, this might not be the game for you.

[andrix]

You've clearly put in a lot of work to this and it's actually pretty interesting to see your raw numbers. My two cents is that our experience is that in practice battlegroups are already deceptively powerful, and are easy to discredit at your peril. The most important thing we've had to remember is that because they attack every enemy in contact with them their level of threat is measured by how they stack up against the weakest member of the party. They can and will start to really steamroll the weaker people in the group if you let them and that means they have to be viewed as a collective threat for everyone to deal with before that starts to happen or you're going to have a bad time. There Dawn caste still loses if the eclipse is dead by turn 3 even if he's not taken a scratch. It might be something you need to keep in mind as you work on this that your party is rarely going to be uniform in what they're capable of

[Janissary87]

I can attest to these points from play experience, I had a near multi-party member fatality due to a size 2 BG of Buck-Ogre led by a Cataphractoi. Sure, the Dawn and Night Caste took the battle almost unscathed, but my Twilights and Eclipse would have been a colorful smear in the Wyld if not for my combat characters intervention; then you have to add in the cost of using defend other, and the fact that a partial party kill would have left my combat characters stranded in the Wyld...

Anyway, my point is that BG's are dangerous for everyone in the vicinity, making it twice as taxing for combat oriented characters outside of a white-room scenario.

[Aaron S]

Thank you for the quick and great feedback. There’s a lot to cover. I address ideas covered in posts #2 through #6 in this reply.

Clarifications about the simulation and results

Heavy Arms, the tables are for one to eight individuals fighting a Size 1 battle group formed from the same character statistics with battle group Traits and modifications. I don’t model Clash Attacks, tactics, movement, or range in the simulation. Each participant takes an attack action for withering damage on its turn, without regard to the conditions for a Clash. The opponent always uses the higher Defense. The simulation checks for win or loss at the end of a round.

The outlier result with Elite Troops is an interesting one. I looked through the detailed logs to understand what happens. I think the main cause of individual wins is the extra damage needed to hurt an individual because of the Elite Troop’s high Join Battle. The battle group already has a deficit, and half of the rounds, the individual adds another point of Initiative, further buffering his or her health. Those fights drag on forever; only two thirds complete in eight rounds or fewer.

Intent, mine and design

Before speaking to methods, I wanted to explain a bit more why I brought this up. I read and like the promise of a battle group to simplify the threat of a collection of individuals. Essentially, compress half a dozen fighters into one combatant. I wanted to validate a battle group’s threat on the scale of a unit of individuals. The results run combats such as five Elite Troops against a size 1 battle group of Elite Troops. I don’t see enough threat emerging from the conversion from individuals to battle group. Obviously, I think that a battle group should be more dangerous than running two individuals of the same type.

My first loss condition for the individuals was even worse for the battle groups. I had the individuals fight until at least one was Incapacitated. Those extremely lop-sided results led me to consider more carefully what I might use as a breaking point for a unit’s morale, when running them as individuals. That’s what led to the loss condition of at least half heavily wounded or any dead.

I appreciate if a larger battle group has a danger to it. Regardless, I expect I would use battle groups most often at Size 1 or Size 2 in a campaign. Partly this comes from reading the quick start adventure. I like the wolf pack. It inspires a variety of applications of this mechanic.

On the flip side, I don’t expect to use a battle group to represent a whole Wyld Hunt pursuing the party. A battle group could easily handle a unit of foot soldiers or rangers in it. The Exalts in the Hunt seem to deserve their own Quick Character, at least while the PCs are inexperienced. That seems to fit with EX3’s description of battle groups for those “who aren’t especially noteworthy to the story as individuals, and who aren’t potent supernatural beings such as Exalts.”

Is the game’s intent for battle groups covered anywhere other than page 205?

Open issues and variations

I’m still pondering the question, “How much force can even a Size 5 battle group bring to bear on an individual?” Hero shows two characters defending against hundreds of crossbow shots. Each isn’t the target of more than twenty shots, perhaps, in a short span. This suggests that I need to either bake that outcome into the mechanics so the right result occurs naturally with a Size 5 battle group, or I would have to make judgment calls at the table and say that only a Size 2 fraction is attacking a PC’s position if otherwise the attack is too strong. I hope to find a simple mechanic that handles this well.

Heavy Arms makes a good point about Charms. I don’t know anything about the Charms yet. 800 Charms intimidates me. I could start with those from combat Abilities, hoping that my modifications don’t affect other Charms. I might defer that to either community wisdom or seeing what players pick, if ever a game does develop.

Regarding command actions, I tried a few variations giving battle groups two free successes from an order action. It generally gave the individuals a few percentage points (~3%) increase in their win rate. As I understand the order action, successes from it apply to actions the battle group attempts. I took that to mean, when attacking, only a battle group’s attack pool and no other increases from the order action.

I have yet to see how a Size 1 battle group fares against a Size 2 battle group. This isn't too interesting to me, only because I don't expect my PCs to have a battle group of their own. That might be naïve on my part. I do need to learn how strong individuals fare against battle groups of weaker types. Ideally, stronger characters perform as well or better against a battle group of inferiors than they do against five inferior individual combatants.

[Aaron S]

A number of comments indicate that battle groups already play out strongly in games. When any of you use a battle group, what do you expect it to be comparable to? Do you intend a Size 1 battle group to be the equivalent of half a dozen individuals? What tells you that it worked that way instead of as, say, two individuals?

Janissary87, thank you for the summary of play involving a Size 2 battle group of Buck-Ogres (p. 537). A Buck-Ogre mixes of higher and lower stats compared to an Elite Troop (p. 497), notably twelve health levels versus seven, 8d16 attack versus 11d12, and 13 soak versus 10. The Buck-Ogre’s special attack to make a flurry of two different attacks seems strong, and it has an ability to halve onslaught penalties. The Cataphract (p. 534) fights even more viciously.

These appear to me to be about the toughest creatures listed for Wyld antagonists. Is this roughly average for the sort of challenge your players seek out or involve themselves in? Do you play out combats against weaker characters like the mortal antagonists? How experienced are your PCs?

How much range do let you a Size 2 battle group cover? If a PC moves to short range, do you allow the battle group to continue embattling the PCs at close range and also move some of its forces to embattle the other PC, stretching across the range band?

Simulation results for Buck-Ogres are closer to what I would hope would occur. The group wins against 1, 2, or 3 individuals at Poor, Average, or Elite drill. I guess that lower Join Battle and attack pools compared to Defense and soak hurt the individuals. That’s the commonality I see between Buck-Ogres and Medium Infantry, their closest analog so far.

  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]vs. size 1              vs. size 1              vs. size 1[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]drill poor              drill average           drill elite[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]# ind.  Won%    Tied%   # ind.  Won%    Tied%   # ind.  Won%    Tied%[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 1       28.5    1.0     1        3.7    0.1     1        0.1    0.0[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 2       75.9    2.2     2       33.7    1.8     2        4.6    0.4[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 3       97.6    0.5     3       82.1    1.5     3       37.3    1.5[/COLOR][/FONT]
[B]  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 4       99.8    0.1     4       97.1    0.7     4       79.1    2.0[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 5      100.0    0.0     5       99.8    0.1     5       97.0    0.6[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 6      100.0    0.0     6      100.0    0.0     6       99.7    0.1[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 7      100.0    0.0     7      100.0    0.0     7      100.0    0.0[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 8      100.0    0.0     8      100.0    0.0     8      100.0    0.0[/COLOR][/FONT]

I don’t have the understanding of the Exalted system to know that adding a second Buck-Ogre will add 40% to the individual win rate against a poor Drill Size 1 battle group (or third against average, or fourth against elite). I suppose this exercise also helps me begin to build that intuition, discover those relationships. Janissary87 makes an excellent point about the limited applicability of ‘white-room scenarios’. I might be using an inappropriate tool for my purpose. I think I have gleaned some useful tidbits even so.

My modified rules make the battle group of Buck-Ogres too strong by my measurements. Suspicions in my head say I need improve my system understanding first—how attack and damage interact with Defense and soak, how people react to health levels of damage, when players choose other actions in a combat scenario than attack.

  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]vs. size 1              vs. size 1              vs. size 1[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]drill poor              drill average           drill elite[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000]#ind    Won%    Tied%   # ind   Won%    Tied%   # ind   Won%    Tied%[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 1        6.1    0.5     1        0.5    0.0     1        0.0    0.0[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 2       21.8    3.1     2        2.7    0.5     2        0.1    0.0[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 3       47.5    4.5     3        9.3    1.2     3        0.5    0.1[/COLOR][/FONT]
[B]  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 4       63.4    5.6     4       17.4    2.6     4        1.2    0.2[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 5       78.1    4.8     5       28.9    3.6     5        2.6    0.4[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 6       85.6    4.3     6       38.6    5.0     6        4.5    0.7[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 7       91.6    3.1     7       49.5    5.5     7        7.0    1.2[/COLOR][/FONT]
  [FONT=Consolas][COLOR=#000000] 8       94.7    2.3     8       57.8    5.9     8        9.8    1.8[/COLOR][/FONT]

Thank you for the help and examples.

[The MG]

Do you intend a Size 1 battle group to be the equivalent of half a dozen individuals?

Not at all. A Size 1 battlegroup is effectively a single minor opponent, nothing more.

[Heavy Arms]

I'd really like to see the algorithm in use, because:

The outlier result with Elite Troops is an interesting one. I looked through the detailed logs to understand what happens. I think the main cause of individual wins is the extra damage needed to hurt an individual because of the Elite Troop’s high Join Battle. The battle group already has a deficit, and half of the rounds, the individual adds another point of Initiative, further buffering his or her health.

This feels like there might be a flaw in it.

I mean, yes, the Elite QC has a high Join Battle dice-pool, but they average 8 initiative to start (which is the same Magnitude value a Size 1 BG made of that stat block starts with). But the BG has greater accuracy, greater damage output, and greater soak. Eyeballing the math says that the BG should be doing more damage than the individual's Initiative gains on average, meaning it's a fight of attrition to see who runs out first. Maybe the result you got is accurate, but it kind of feels like something might be skewing it (such as the "half of the rounds" comment, what do you mean by that?).

[Janissary87]

Sorry, @ work so I don't have the ability to post an in-depth answer, will try to post a short summary.

My player Circle consists of five Solars, one of each Caste except Twilight (2) anf no Zenith. The Night focuses on assassination tactics and my Dawn has all of the Single Point Style MArts.

My players are in the vicinity of 160 exp and E3.

This combat happened in the midst of one of the Twilight's Wyld Shaping Workings, she had Shaped a rendition of a childhood alchemy lab and then rolled terribly on the encounter roll, causing the entire dozen or so Buck Ogres to flood the relatively small room.

The Cataphract also rolled really well on an initial Command attempt, causing multiple crashes on the first round. It was very tense for everyone until the Dawn got to close range with the Raksha, after that point teamwork and coordination allowed them to carry the day without any fatalities, but with one Twilight fleeing the scene through sorcerous means.

This was probably not the most difficult challenges faced by the group, but it was definitely among the top 3.

Often I've found the most useful tool while STing to be improvisation and a willingness to fudge numbers and difficulty according the needs of the scenes drama.

Oh, range bands! The alchemy lab, about 40 ft by 20 ft, consisted of one short range band, with Wyld Chaos and the Cataphract being a medium range band away. One of the players attempted to disengage and did so successfully, but was caught up to the following round. They kept the same size, but had the player successfully disengaged again I likely would have reduced the BG size attacking that playet to 1. I also might have required a Command Roll to determine how much magnitude "damage" such a split would have done to the oroginal BG. These things wouldd also be heavily affected by terrain type and room layout. I wouldn't have a hard and fast chart to determine how this affects the battle exactly, but would judge it with a lot of wiggle-room and an attempt to model ...err, versimilitude. An urban mass combat should feel very different from a jungle, should feel different than a ballroom in the Imperial Manse.

On the other hand I'm not really a hard numbers guy, so seeing the flat math laid out like this is really interesting! Good luck in getting to know the system.

[TheCountAlucard]

Most of my seafaring game's baddies have utilized battle groups of some sort, mostly in the form of having drilled the crews of their ships to fight, or having brought along troops; a few others have had some manner of magical minions. The PCs, of course, had a battle group of their own, enhanced with a mix of Tiger Warrior Training Technique, Sea Devil Training Technique, Blood and Salt Bondage, and an unreasonable amount of resources.

(One of the few exceptions has been when I introduced the Mist Demons for the first time. They were still few enough that I couldn't really justify throwing a BG of them at the PCs.)

[Abakus]

Regarding command actions, I tried a few variations giving battle groups two free successes from an order action. It generally gave the individuals a few percentage points (~3%) increase in their win rate. As I understand the order action, successes from it apply to actions the battle group attempts. I took that to mean, when attacking, only a battle group’s attack pool and no other increases from the order action.

This is correct. If upgrading your BG's dice pool by (effectively) 4 dice increases the individuals win rate...I admit to being puzzled. I think something's gone wonky with your methodology here.

I have yet to see how a Size 1 battle group fares against a Size 2 battle group. This isn't too interesting to me, only because I don't expect my PCs to have a battle group of their own. That might be naïve on my part.

I really recommend taking a look at the Command Merit to understand the relative value of a Battle group compared, to, say, an artifact. At two dots, a PC starts with a Size 3 group. If you decide you want battlegroups more simulationist than narrativist, your players will almost certainly recognize the merits in this. PCs can start with battlegroups for next to nothing, and a huge amount of character concepts--ship's captain, cult leader, martial arts sifu, warlord, to name a few I've seen in play--will almost certainly start with at least a size 3 battle group. In play, Storyteller BG's are typically used to supplement a few dangerous opponents. Exalted combat also plays much differently from how it reads and how it would appear from white room scenarios such as this. A single charm, such as War Lion Stance, can completely warp a battlefield into a totally different tactical situation for both sides. I'd really suggest you try to increase your system mastery and get some play experience before trying to fiddle with things. Our group took a very long time to really appreciate all the moving parts of the system and how they fit together, and I'm sure there's stuff we haven't even realized yet.

[Aaron S]

If upgrading your BG's dice pool by (effectively) 4 dice increases the individuals win rate...I admit to being puzzled.

I'm sorry, I completely misspoke. The individual win rate went down, so it adjusts in the right direction. It's not as much as I hope, given I imagine a basic lieutenant as part of and coordinating the mortal troops. Presuming the lieutenant takes an order command action inside the battle group and achieves two successes, I then apply them as a bonus to the battle group's attack pool.

I'd really like to see the algorithm in use....

Here’s the algorithm. It follows the basic sequence of making attacks (but not Clashing). It would be great to hear of different rules interpretations.

# My apologies for errors in transcription from original
# implementation to this hodge-podge pseudo-code.

# Consider individuals and groups to be lists of instances
# of a Combatant class that tracks their stats.

fn fight
  for_each cha in individual
    cha.join_battle
  for_each cha in group
    cha.join_battle
  do
    fight_round()
  until (half_heavily_wounded_or_any_dead individual)
      or (any_dead group)
  return

fn fight_round
  let combatants = merge(individual, group)
  while combatants isn't empty
    let actor = combatants.get_by(max_initiative)
    combatants.remove(actor)
    if (not actor.is_dead())
      actor.reset_onslaught_penalty()
      actor.make_withering_attack()
  return

# Below are Combatant class methods,
# presuming a 'self' object.

fn is_dead
  return self.health_damage_ >= self.health_boxes_

fn reset_onslaught_penalty
  self.onslaught_penalty_ = 0
  return

fn make_withering_attack
  let attack_successes = self.roll_attack()
  for_each target in self.opponent
    let threshold = attack_successes - target.defense()
    if (threshold >= 0)
      let damage_pool = self.get_damage_pool(threshold, target.soak())
      let damage_successes = self.roll_damage(damage_pool)
      let initiative_gain =
        target.receive_withering_damage(damage_successes, self.is_group_)
      if (not self.is_group_)
        self.initiative += 1 + initiative_gain
    target.penalize_defense()
  return

fn roll_attack
  return roll(self.attack_ + self.size_ + self.order_ - self.wound_penalty_)

fn defense
  return max(0,
    self.defense_ + self.drill_
      - self.onslaught_penalty_ - self.wound_penalty_)

fn get_damage_pool threshold, soak
  return max(self.weapon_overwhelming_rating_,
    self.weapon_damage_ + self.size_ + threshold - soak)

fn soak
  return self.soak_ + self.size_

fn roll_damage pool
  return roll(pool, botch = false, double_10s = not self.is_group_)

fn receive_withering_damage amount, is_group_attacker
  let initiative_gain = 0
  if self.is_group_
    # Check for Initiative Crash
    if ((self.health_damage_ < self.magnitude()) and
        (self.health_damage_ + amount >= self.magnitude()))
      initiative_gain += Initiative_Boost #5
    self.health_damage_ += amount
    # ...
    # Skip some logic for reducing size of larger battle groups
    # ...

  else #individual
    let wounds = 0
    if is_group_attacker
      wounds = max(0, amount - max(0, self.initiative_))
      amount -= wounds
    # Check for Initiative Crash
    if 0 < self.initiative_ <= amount
      initiative_gain += Initiative_Boost #5
    initiative_gain += amount
    self.initiative_ -= amount
    self.health_damage_ += wounds
    self.wound_penalty_ = self.health_track_[self.health_damage]
  return initiative_gain

fn magnitude
  return self.health_levels_ + self.size_

fn roll pool, botch_possible = true, double_10s = true, threshold = 7
  let success = 0
  let botched = false
  for_each i in range(pool)
    let die = get_uniform_int_distribution(1, 10)
    if die >= threshold
      success += 1
      if double_10s and die == 10
        success += 1
    else if botch_possible and die == 1
      botched = true
  if (success == 0) and botched
    success = -1
  return success

Because the results were not obvious to me, let me also provide the action-by-action results for the Elite Troop facing its own poor Drill battle group. Both sides attack with their slashing swords. Just for reference based on their statistics, two thirds of attacks will hit*, individual rolls damage of 1 + threshold (minimum 2), and battle group rolls damage of 3 + threshold. I picked four examples to show short and long wins for each side.

1. Individual wins quickly. Moderate initiative, lucky hits with lucky damage.

Fight          1
joining battle ind 0918 with initiative 6
joining battle grp 0750 with initiative 3
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  0.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  0.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  4 damage (of  6 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  1 damage (of  8 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 3 succ - 5 def = -2 thresh) and misses by 2.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  1 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  5.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 8 succ - 5 def =  3 thresh) and hits for  3 damage (of  4 rolled), total boxes  8.

2. Individual wins slowly. Great initiative, lots of back and forth, though the individual took one strong hit early but had the initiative to stay on top.

Fight          2
joining battle ind 0918 with initiative 10
joining battle grp 0750 with initiative 3
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  2.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  2.
grp 750 attacks 918 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  5 damage (of  8 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 6 succ - 5 def =  1 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  2.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  1 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  5.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 3 succ - 5 def = -2 thresh) and misses by 2.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  5.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 6 succ - 5 def =  1 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  4 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 2 succ - 5 def = -3 thresh) and misses by 3.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 8 succ - 5 def =  3 thresh) and hits for  3 damage (of  6 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 3 succ - 5 def = -2 thresh) and misses by 2.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 6 succ - 5 def =  1 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  4 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  7.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 1 succ - 5 def = -4 thresh) and misses by 4.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 6 succ - 5 def =  1 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  4 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 5 succ - 5 def =  0 thresh) and hits for  1 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  8.

3. Group wins quickly. Faced poor initiative for the individual, landed a series of powerful blows, still had half its Magnitude track boxes filled.

Fight          3
joining battle ind 0918 with initiative 9
joining battle grp 0750 with initiative 3
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 9 succ - 5 def =  4 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  2.
grp 750 attacks 918 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  5 damage (of  8 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 9 succ - 5 def =  4 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 3 succ - 5 def = -2 thresh) and misses by 2.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 6 succ - 5 def =  1 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  2 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  5 damage (of  8 rolled), total boxes  0.
grp 750 attacks 918 (11 succ - 4 def =  7 thresh) and hits for  6 damage (of 10 rolled), total boxes  4.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.

4. Group wins slowly. Faced great initiative for the individual, took a good hit early but doesn’t have wound penalties, and won with six of eight boxes filled on its Magnitude track.

Fight          4
joining battle ind 0918 with initiative 4
joining battle grp 0750 with initiative 3
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  1 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  1.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 2 succ - 5 def = -3 thresh) and misses by 3.
ind 918 attacks 750 (10 succ - 5 def =  5 thresh) and hits for  3 damage (of  6 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 3 succ - 5 def = -2 thresh) and misses by 2.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 8 succ - 5 def =  3 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  6 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  0 damage (of  3 rolled), total boxes  4.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 7 succ - 5 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  0.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 8 succ - 5 def =  3 thresh) and hits for  2 damage (of  4 rolled), total boxes  6.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 8 succ - 5 def =  3 thresh) and hits for  5 damage (of  6 rolled), total boxes  1.
grp 750 attacks 918 ( 6 succ - 4 def =  2 thresh) and hits for  3 damage (of  5 rolled), total boxes  4.
ind 918 attacks 750 ( 4 succ - 5 def = -1 thresh) and misses by 1.

* Thanks to Torben Mogensen's Troll dice roller and wyrdR’s user-contributed ‘Exalted dice pool’. http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp