

Okay BGG, I'm stumped. I can't make sense of the combat odds rules (14.2, p19) in NaE at all.
"14.2 COMPUTATION OF THE COMBAT ODDS Each side adds the combat value of units engaged. Note: special units, mobile and fixed depots (except alone fixed depots) having no combat value, they are not taken into account. The attacker’s combat value total is divided by the defender’s combat value total. This result gives the players a fractional combat ratio. This combat ratio is rounded to the nearest whole number (0.5 is rounded up). For instance, 4 vs 8 is 1/1 and 5 vs 11 is 1/2"
School was a long time ago, so maybe this is me just forgetting how to do maths, but how on earth does dividing 4 by 8 get to 1/1? Surely that's about as open & shut a case of 1/2 as you could come up with? Is this a mistake?

Jim O'Neill (Established 1949)
Scotland Motherwell Graduate of Barlinnie
VENI, VIDI, VISA  my good wife conquering a Shopping Mall.
Like a good red wine, I improve with age... and being laid.

Hi Paul,
The key is in the phrase (0.5 is rounded up).
So, four divided by eight = 0.5 and is therefore rounded up to one.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Jim Est. 1949

Martin Åkerlund
Sweden Stockholm

It must be a mistake. 4 vs 8 is obviously a 1/2 ratio. In the (revised) example on p.33, 6 vs 10 is said to be a 1/2 ratio which proves the example on p.19 is wrong (if there was any doubt).
The way I intepret the text, combat ratios are always rounded to the nearest listed ratio and is rounded up only if between listed ratios.
2 vs 9 = 1/4 3 vs 9 = 1/3 4 vs 9 = 1/2 5 vs 9 = 1/2 6 vs 9 = 1/1 > 14 vs 9 = 2/1
Now, why anyone would round ratios this way instead of the much easier "industry standard" way of rounding everything down is beyond me.



This is what was confusing me. But if Jim's right (and going by the text, it looks like he is) surely they've picked that example to deliberately show that a .45 result ends up as 1/2?

Martin Åkerlund
Sweden Stockholm

The second example is correct. 5 vs 11 is rounded to 1/2.
The first example is wrong. 4 vs 8 is also 1/2. Like you said, as open & shut case as you could come up with.

Jim O'Neill (Established 1949)
Scotland Motherwell Graduate of Barlinnie
VENI, VIDI, VISA  my good wife conquering a Shopping Mall.
Like a good red wine, I improve with age... and being laid.

OK, Gentlefolk, I am 67 and have a fair knowledge of maths, even though uni was 50 years ago, so let's try it this way:
From the Rule Book, p19:
"The attacker’s combat value total is divided by the defender’s combat value total.
This result gives the players a fractional combat ratio. This combat ratio is rounded to the nearest ratio used in the Combat Table (0.5 is rounded up)."
Attacker's value = 4 Defender's value = 8 On my pocket calculator 4 ÷ 8 = 0.5
0.5 rounds up to 1, hence odds are 1:1
Tall Paul, you are quite correct that 0.45 would equal 1:2
Regards,
Jim Est. 1949

Martin Åkerlund
Sweden Stockholm

Let me again disagree. Clearly, if a table lists a 1/2 combat ratio and the combat strengths are 4 vs 8 which is the same as 1/2, then surely the listed ratio to use is 1/2. Anything else would be completely bonkers.
If your interpretation was correct, how would you then explain that 6 vs 10 is said to be 1/2? If 0.5, against all logic, would round up when it doesn't even need rounding, then surely 0.6 would round up as well, don't you agree?

Jim O'Neill (Established 1949)
Scotland Motherwell Graduate of Barlinnie
VENI, VIDI, VISA  my good wife conquering a Shopping Mall.
Like a good red wine, I improve with age... and being laid.

Brastias wrote: ...Anything else would be completely bonkers... If your interpretation was correct, how would you then explain that 6 vs 10 is said to be 1/2? First of all, Martin, you are completely correct in the sense that it is totally illogical that 4 to 8 is not 1 to 2. Unfortunately the rules dictate that we go the illogical route and I am only interpreting the rules.
As to the example of combat with Napoleon against Mack, where the odds are calculated as 1 to 2 despite the fact that they should be 1 To 1 with Mack's 6 against Napoleon's 10, the example is wrong. Unfortunately, this has not been picked up in the reprint.
I suppose that from the outset of playing the game, one should state whether one is going to use logical rules or the rules as written. This has been a great conversation and I have thoroughly enjoyed the insight. Mr Åkerlund, your logic is faultless; in fact it is
Pyuredeadbrilliant.
Kindest regards,
Jim...... Est. 1949

Martin Åkerlund
Sweden Stockholm

I appreciate the conversation and the kind words.
That said, I still believe you interpret the rule wrongly. I also think the example in the "Example of play" section is correct.
As I mentioned before, I believe the rule is supposed to be interpreted: "round to the nearest printed ratio. If two printed ratios are equally close, round up."
I checked the French Rules v.2 and think I've found a pretty clear indication that a mistake was made in the english translation of the example covering rule 14.2.
"Le total des valeurs de combat de l’attaquant est divisé par le total des valeurs de combat du défenseur. Ce résultat définit un rapport de force, sous la forme d’une fraction. Le rapport de forces est arrondi à l’entier le plus proche (0,5 à l’entier supérieur). Par exemple, 6 contre 8 est arrondi à 1/1 et 5 contre à 1/2."
Now my understanding of the french language is similar to that of a 4year old...chimp, but it's quite clear that the numbers in the english version of the rules are incorrect. Had the example been correct, I don't think we would have had this discussion.

Jim O'Neill (Established 1949)
Scotland Motherwell Graduate of Barlinnie
VENI, VIDI, VISA  my good wife conquering a Shopping Mall.
Like a good red wine, I improve with age... and being laid.

Then, Martin, as all good Gentlemen do, we shall agree to disagree.
Warmest regards,
Jim Est. 1949

Christian van Someren
Netherlands Groningen Groningen

I have to agree with Martin that this is an error in translation. In the French rules, it is clear that you always round to the nearest odds ratio. The 0.5 rounded up is referencing e.g. an odds ratio of 1.5:1 rounded up to 2:1.
The Version 2 French example of play includes a force of 6 attacking 12, which gives a 1:2 odds ratio.



Thanks for that Christian. That seems to clear it up pretty conclusively.
Lesson for us all? Everything is better when you speak French.


