After a few hours of changing and re-changing, I finally have some stats to share. I have sent an Excel spreadsheet to Mike so he could put it on the site. The figures referenced below are in the spreadsheet.
OK, here goes. As I started my analysis, I found something that worried me. When calculating group fighting scores, it appeared that the common units were a much better value for the AP you spent on them (see figure 1). For example, it costs 12 AP for a group of 6 Light Infantry-Common units. That group has an unadjusted fighting score of 12 (a 1-1 ratio). For 6 Light Infantry-Veteran units it costs 24 AP but that only gives you fighting score of 14 (a 1 – 1.71 ratio). Basically you only get 2 extra Fighting points for 12 more AP! This has always bothered me, as I feel that veteran units should be better at fighting than common units. They do have a higher fighting score, but the way group combat is resolved, their support score, which is the same, gets used. Another option with this scenario was to limit all groups to no more than 4 units. This brought the Fight / AP ratios closer and the Fighting score differences were closer (which allowed for just one d6).
My first solution was to change the support (see Figure 2). For these calculations I only used standard Infantry and Cavalry units. In order to make the AP / Fight Ratio the same, I made the support and the fighting score the same. This closed the gap a little with the common/veteran issue, but made the fighting score issue worse. Now you would have to use 2d6 just to make it close. I think this option will not work, as it stands.
My next attempt was to change the way group combat was resolved. I left the support alone and decided to try using the fighting values of all units in the front ranks and add to that the support values of the back ranks. This accomplished two things. First, the Fight / AP ratios were much closer. Second, it helps to differentiate the Veteran and Common units better. I think this has a lot of potential.
Here is a summary of what actions we could take. This list is not the only options, as I am sure someone may see other options. We also could use a combination of these options.
Option 1 – Leave everything the same.
Option 2 – Use 2 six sided dice.
Option 3 – Limit group size to 4 for all groups.
Option 4 – Make graduated changes to support.
Option 5 – Change the way group combat is resolved. Use fighting score for front rank and support Score for back rank.
My opinions:
Option 1 leaves us with the issue of too much difference between some groups and common units being too good a value. Option 2 looks good for large groups, but it falls apart when looking at smaller groups. If the group is smaller than 4, any type of unit can easily beat any other. The dice roll becomes too large a part of the outcome. Option 3 by itself or in combination could work well. Option 4 probably would not work, and would have to use group size limits and 2d6 to even come close to feasibility. Option 5 looks like a good option. I like the fact that the veteran units would become more powerful in group combat, like they should. Using 2d6 still shows to be a large problem with small groups, so I think it may not be a good idea. It works for groups of 6, but not the smaller groups. Just my humble opinion. My first thoughts before playtesting is use Options 5 and Option 3.
All of this has only been tested on paper and assumes same sized groups with no combat modifiers. I hope to test this soon. Please try some of the options and let me know what you guys think. I also would like to hear any other options. Thanks for reading this long winded post J
Mark
Added: In response to your comments, Mike, I do think from a new player standpoint that the Front Line Fighting - Back Line Support seems to make a little more sense than the Primary Fighter model. And limiting groups to four keeps things close not matter how they are constructed. I do think that changing the number of dice depending on how many units are involved could confuse things for a new player. Using these two options, no tables need changed and 1d6 works for everything.