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?
-
I think the first thing you should do is make sure you know what the design goals for Battle Groups are in the corebook.Leave a comment:
-
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.Originally posted by Aaron S View Post
The tables aren't entirely clear. This is just 1-8 individuals vs. Size 1 BGs, right?The results using the Exalted 3 rules failed my first, most important standard. Individuals won too handily.
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?
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.For an extreme outlier, note one individual Elite Troop won almost two-thirds of matches against a whole battle group.
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.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.
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.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 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.Leave a comment:
-
[EX3] Battle group adjustments
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
Leave a comment: