Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Unhappy King Charles!» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Risk Assessment rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Seth Gunar
United States
Ringwood
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
One of my favorite aspects of UKC is the decision about when to engage in battle or disperse. The military operations basically revolve around sieges and the potential for major or decisive victories (which offer more cards and therefore more opportunities to expand your power base). So, I have posted here part of a response to another post for your consideration.

The possibility that your opponent will achieve a "Major Victory" in a straight up battle is the same as the probability that you will roll a 1 while he rolls a 6 (a difference of 5) - which is 1/36. This is less than 3%. This means that in 97% of straight up battles, the worst that can happen is that you must retreat and lose one militia brigade - THE HORROR!

If you have a -1 differential against you, he has to get a +4 on the die roll result. This raises the possibility of military chatastrophe (the loss of 2 militia brigades - oh my god! - and the gain of a card by your opponent) to 3/36. This raises the possibility of a major defeat to 8%.

With a -2 differential, the odds of a major defeat rise to 1/6. This means your potential for a major defeat is up to 17%.

With a -3, you are up to 10/36, or 28%.

With a -4, you are up to 15/36, or 42%.

So, I would say that when you start to throw in the possibility of your opponent also having a decisive victory combat card, you probably only need to start thinking about dispersing when you are facing a -4 battle. If you have a really small army which makes the pain of dispersal virtually non-existent, you may think of dispersing on a -3. Only if you are as risk averse as my grandmother would you want to disperse on a -1 or -2.

Meanwhile, you have to also consider what your enemy had to do in order to compile a force that is immense enough to gain such a huge differential. Chances are excellent that he has not been able to protect or gain political control of many spaces. When you consider this, it is possible that on balance you are coming out even or ahead even if you do lose a major defeat. Or to put it another way - there were many really good reasons why armies in the English Civil War rarely rose above 15,000 men. These reasons - such as attrition and desertion and the need to preserve a political and economic power base - are captured in the game design.
3 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael
United States
Harrisonburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm less concerned about losing a "Major Victory" than I am with a disparity between myself and my opponent when it comes to troops permanently eliminated. It's easy to lose the game if you simply start to run out of recruitable troops and the end and your opponent hasn't.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Gunar
United States
Ringwood
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Cathan wrote:
I'm less concerned about losing a "Major Victory" than I am with a disparity between myself and my opponent when it comes to troops permanently eliminated. It's easy to lose the game if you simply start to run out of recruitable troops and the end and your opponent hasn't.


It would seem that Mr. Daglish - one of the playtesters - thinks you should basically hope to lose all the militia units owned by the parliament player as quickly as possible so that you can get to the professionals. Fight all the time if possible.

Interesting...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Vasey
Scotland
Mortlake, London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameWhore wrote:
Cathan wrote:
I'm less concerned about losing a "Major Victory" than I am with a disparity between myself and my opponent when it comes to troops permanently eliminated. It's easy to lose the game if you simply start to run out of recruitable troops and the end and your opponent hasn't.


It would seem that Mr. Daglish - one of the playtesters - thinks you should basically hope to lose all the militia units owned by the parliament player as quickly as possible so that you can get to the professionals. Fight all the time if possible.

Interesting...


He's the only one of the playesters to think this, but it remains interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Gunar
United States
Ringwood
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Charles Vasey wrote:
GameWhore wrote:
Cathan wrote:
I'm less concerned about losing a "Major Victory" than I am with a disparity between myself and my opponent when it comes to troops permanently eliminated. It's easy to lose the game if you simply start to run out of recruitable troops and the end and your opponent hasn't.


It would seem that Mr. Daglish - one of the playtesters - thinks you should basically hope to lose all the militia units owned by the parliament player as quickly as possible so that you can get to the professionals. Fight all the time if possible.

Interesting...


He's the only one of the playesters to think this, but it remains interesting.


I'm not sure I agree, but I see his point. Near the end of the game your recruiting ability becomes severely limited in any event. Best to make sure that what you can recruit are the units available - that is if ANYTHING is still available.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood
United Kingdom
Ely
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
It would seem that Mr. Daglish - one of the playtesters - thinks you should basically hope to lose all the militia units owned by the parliament player as quickly as possible so that you can get to the professionals.


I don't quite understand this strategy. I would not adopt it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.