Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm current working on a article determining the mathematical percentage and overall effectiveness of volume of fire vs. precision fire ; specifically calculating the armour value average vs. the average AP of all weapons. Taking into account a high value percentage of saves vs. a weapon with low ap.

Using statistical analyses as well as incorporating to some degree anomalies.

Here is the thesis

Volume of fire is ultimately more effective over precision fire within the game

My method for disproving or proving this would be the following steps.

1. Calculate the average save of all infantry models ; compare this with average AP value of weapons. Along with the mean of the average STR of said weapons to get a percentage number of a 1 to 1 ratio of failures vs. sucess in percentage format. An overal examination of each army will also be calculated per what is available to them.

2. Calculate the average STR , AP Value, Number shots ; this will not be a 1 to 1 ratio but will need to have AVGSHOTSPER against Percentage Saved.

Here is where I need help at first; destroying this as a thesis as this is just a rough draft. In summary the method I will use is. For High AP..

Average STR vs. Average Toughness 1 to 1 ratio
Average AP vs. Average Armour 1 for 1 ratio


For Volume of Shots
Average Shots of weapons must be calculated.
Average STR of said
Average Wound vs Success of Armour

Then further break down this analysis with specific army types and availability. Here are some problems I am going to run into ; where should I place rapid fire. Should I use a set Average for Models effected by blast or not include them in the calculation. What method should I use for calculating said average.


In order to perform properly Id like my math examined as well as my sources ; I also run into the issue of what to do with certain weapons such as D cannons et... Sniper rifles as several weapons are diffuclt to categorize.

The first step in this is to deal with infantry ; taking a base armour value for an amrour and purely from a mathematical standpoint calculating what that armours save would be using the meth of Troop Selection/ armour value. Then comparing this to the average of AP of weapons per game.


This my seem kind of extraneous but it is actually really interesting from a overal metagame stand point and I think developing this further will help people not only understand what weapons work best versus what armies overall as well as what armies are more effective when using weapons with volume of fire.

One of my preliminary test runs using mathematical was to deterimine marines SCORE.

SCORE is something that I have assigned and am workin on as a overall "effectiveness of fire" for an army. 1 being Volume of fire 10 being number of AP value versus AVGARMOUR.
The percentage is instead of being written in percentage format is given the value of a whole number.

For example , Space Marines Avg for Volume of fire is 23 percent casualty vs AVGARMOUR. This would give them a score of 2. Space Marines AVG of FIRE for AP vs AVGARMOUR is a score of 44 percent this would give them a score of 4. Comparitevly you could take the average armour of space marines vs. the average of ap ; the result would give you an idea of what performs better when marines fight marines AP or Volume of fire.


Alot of this may seem common sense but in the ultimate end when trying to calculate what your volume of fire is per your army list this will hopefully give you an idea of whether your army is weak against the average of another said army or not.


Like I said this is a work in progress I do not expect it to be finished; if anyone is interested in a said system or even just discussing what we want to disprove. Then feel free.

Some will find this incredibly boring but I dont.

I think it's interesting, but I don't think averaging volume of shots or averaging ap is the way to go. You get more shots at a lower strength, more things have bolters in a marine army than plasma guns or heavy weapons, so that's gonna skew the results. It's kinda like averaging the height of a classroom of students when one of the students is 8 feet tall. The one student skews the results, and the results don't represent either the one tall student or the majority of the other students.

Having had only a brief glace through your proposal a few things stand out:

You dont seem to be taking coversaves into account. The biggest change in relation to shooting in 5th compared to 4th is the abundance of coversaves. Without taking this into consideration low shot high AP weapons will have a higher score.

This is especially true if you are averaging armour saves without thinking about points costs and model numbers. If a space marine is placed on an equal footing to a ork or a terminator then again low shot high AP guns come out on top.

Taking all of the armour from every model and comparing it to AP value is a horrible model for calculating if rate of fire is more valuable. Especially if you are trying to apply it to the current meta-game.


First, you have to take into account the rate at which you encounter a army. I.E. I highly doubt you play against DE as often as you play Orks or SM.

Then you have to find out the percentage that certain units in said armies are used. I doubt in a IG army you will see more Ogryn than Guardsmen. After you find that out for every army you will need to create an average total of armour / Toughness.


As your model stands you are saying that every army is played in equal amounts, and that in those armies every unit is taken as often as any other unit. (man I would love to see an IG army running as many ogryn as guard models).


oppps class is over, I will post more later.

scuddman wrote:the results don't represent either the one tall student

It does if he crouches..

But yes, like this man said - averaging not so good.

The best way for you to do this comparison is to take a few case examples.. Fairly realistic (i.e 10 marines would need to be within 10" to target sqaud for all of them to fire as a blob-unit. 12" If thier in a completely stright gunline which isnt realistic. < E.g)
Pick a bunch of high-shot volume weapons. Pick a bunch of high-ap weapon. Note down the point cost (& Foc slots used etc) and run the numbers against a bunch of standard 'situations' ..for example, 20 orks incl a nob in cover, out of cover. 10 marines in cover, out of cover. 5 termies, 25 gaunts (etc etc).

Also make a note of the mobility of these weapons, if any, which would allow them to deny any possible LOS coversaves that could be used. A tactical marine multi-melta will never usualy be able to deny cover saves. A multi-melta on a land-speeder has a much greater potentail. Obviously squads can also just sit inside cover.

I am taking into account deviations of size. For instance STR8 multiple shot versus ST8 one shot grouped with STR4 shots.

I'll go ahead and give a example of what I mean ; basically going to try and create a arbitrary number called SCORE based on what data I can use.


Like I said this is not a one off thing. Deviation of more than a set amount will probably be disgarded. I am running into trouble of how to classify weapons and or application of armour saves.


I may have to actually break it down by percentage based AP per army then break the armour saves down further by applying a set to taht.

Let's look at space marines as it is a easy example and their weaponry is rather commonly known.


HQ : 1 choice 2+

Elite: 2 Choice 2+; 1 choice 3+ ;
Troops: 1 choice 3+ ; 1 Choice 4+
F. Attack : 4 choice 3+ ; 1 Choice 4+
H. Support : 1 Choice 3+


So of infantry availalbe including J. Pack ; Bikes. Marines majority breaks down to excluding deviations of single models such as techmarine legion of the damned PS dont hate this is all from memory. 11 choices of infantry.

Breaks down to 64% ; 18% ;18 %. Now You cannot average these as they are differenat numbers. However you can still have application.
Space Marine : 2+ 18
Space MArine : 4+ 18
Space Marine : 3+ 64


I think I will have to actually break down weapons futher in order to make the correct calculations .

Over-complicated. itll never ne of use to anyone.

Use examples of squads, where-ever it be 3 attack bikes w/ h.bolters, 10 rapid firing marines, annhilator pattern predator etc. Against sets of situations.

This is its easy to compare/contrast & easy to understand. Otherwise nothing will be gained by it.

Not really as if you can get some comparative numbers and a base understanding of comparison statistics one could for instance tell if their army would do well against one sort by just plugging in theses abjective scores.

Hollismason wrote:Not really as if you can get some comparative numbers and a base understanding of comparison statistics one could for instance tell if their army would do well against one sort by just plugging in theses abjective scores.

Point in fact

This is a prime example of math hammer gone wrong. It's going to be impossible to come up with a "SCORE" for weapons or units or anything like that which will be definative of their value on the field because the field is always changing. Eldar players these days love their scatter lasers, and rightfuly so. However when they go up against a deathwing army, they wish they had brough star cannons. Sure the scatter lasers are better against more opponents than the star cannons are, but you (for the most part) don't know who you're going up against when you make your list. The same thing goes for range on weapons. I'll keep using eldar examples because they are the ones I use most often. Shruiken cannons are fine on wave serpents because wave serpents will be close to the enemy and can generally survive at medium to short range, however; they are the worst weapon option around for war walkers because the walkers can't survive at that range. Unfortunatly, there isn't really a way to "math" that out...at least not without modeling each weapon as a seperate entity on each unit that can take it. Things only get more complicated as you look at more and more different situations.

If you're going to rate weapons, I think it might be more useful to weight them by a separate score for each weapon before making a final comparison.

For instance, in basketball I might weigh a player by the following criteria:
Shooting ability
Rebounding
dribbling
play making
clutch
any other basic skill

I then would get an overall score for that player and that player alone. I add up all the players on a team and then I would have a final, definitive score.
An alternative I have seen is also to weigh each player at each position using the above, then taking an average to get some sort of score.

Of course, a major problem with this is not all weapons have the same amount of frequency, and you would need to have some method of taking this into account. You could then use the final score to cross compare weapon types and get to a conclusion about whether or not volume of fire works.

If yuou can tell I have a lot of free time at my station right now. Uh, I guess best example would be to say I want to create a score to use the ability to take that score apply it to your army and then see if your army is well balanced to meet most armies.

For Instance ; I have a total of 7 lascannons but 3 H. Bolters ; how well would that perform.


Just something I am mulling about. Its not really anything more than a measure of your fire power capabilities.