Topic: Unit Level Performance Stats : meta report

[Skyros]

https://woehammer.com/2024/04/16/old-world-forces-of-fantasy-unit-performance/

Very interesting stuff. Note that sample size isn't huge yet, but some interesting trends can be detected. In general, the stats show what we knew, unit performance for empire is truly awful. Only other one that looks more negative than positive is dwarves, but the chart has formatting errors apparently.

There are a couple standouts that surprise me : mortar being great, steam tank being not great. However, I can rationalize explanations for this (small sample size, hard to use the steam tank relative to other monsters, etc). OR... I guess I could re-evaluate how I categorize the units.

But, in general, as we knew, priests of sigmar are garbage. Priests of ulric are better but still not good. Veteran state troops massive trap.

Pistoliers don't even appear at all, sadly.

And, as suspected, griffons and archers and demigryphs are all quite good.

I imagine the sample sizes are too small to make too many definitive statements right now, but its definitely interesting information to keep an eye on.

[commandant]

State troops are better than steam tanks is interesting. The sample size is also smaller for some units compared to others. Also it is worth noting that there is 103 Generals of the Empire but only 50 Grand Masters.

Like other stats these suffer from not knowing what the army lists are. It doesn't say what lists the priests of sigmar/ulric were used in or how they were used.

[Skyros]

This data is as close as we are going to get to knowing what the army lists are, or at least, which units appear in the army lists that are winning, and which units appear in the army lists that are losing.

Once we have enough of a sample size, we don't really need to know where a priest of sigmar was or how he was being used. If only 20% of the lists running him are winning, it's a bad unit.

It doesn't mean an extremely skilled player might not be able to make it work and be part of that 20%, just that, relative to other units (which is how all units are judged) its a weak choice.

[Skyros]

The steam tank is, I think, surprisingly hard for most people to use well/earn its points back. It costs a lot. It is slow. It has a short charge range compared to other monsters of that price point. It does almost no damage compared to other monsters that cost that much.

It requires careful positioning and target selection to get use out of it.

I imagine in most games it ends up slowly grinding its way through a block of zombies or men at arms something.

It could be that the idea of a ~300 point 'tarpit' unit is pretty silly in and of itself, because what's actually happening at those points levels is you are getting tarpitted by cheaper stuff all game.

[Minsc]

There's alot of red (in the underwhelming sense) for Empire...

Mortar being that high kinda surprise me, but then it's also has the lowest showing(33) with the exeption of units who wasn't in the list at all due to lack of data (aka, no one wants to play with them), so could be either a statistical anomaly or simply "luck" (either lucky matchups or lucky that good generals happened to field them). The Mortar is a bit of a hit or miss warmachine ain't it? Great against say High Elves, worthless against Beastmen, etc.

Grand Masters, Imperial Griffons, Archers and DGKs in top? Checks out.

Priests and Greatswords being in the bottom of the barrel also checks out. Kinda surprised Priests was brought in enough lists to make them ... make the list.

Initially I thought that the Steamtank being that low was surprising, but it honestly isn't. Its a slow, expensive unit thats pretty hard to use effectively and that isn't particularily killy - and any good player (as in, tournamentplayer) will know how to either avoid it, lock it in place with trash (the Stank on it's own has at best 5 CR) or simply kill it with any S7+ unit. The more I think about the Stank, the more I'm unimpressed by it. Other than a mobile cannon with shock-value, what does it do?

No Missile Troops being in the list due to lack of showings kinda surprised me, but the rest of our no-show units not being there (because they either suck or are pointless) like Pistoliers, Witch Hunters, Helstorms, Chapter Masters, Arch Lectors (inc. War Altar) and Free Company, etc doesn't surprise me at all.

[Clymer]

Thanks for sharing! Yeah, some interesting stuff.

A couple things to be considered when parsing this data:
- Anything with a win rate higher than the Empire's 34% is outperforming the army as a whole.
- It's possible (likely), that individual units actually appear worse than they could potentially perform because they are dragged down by the overall performance of the army.
- The larger the sample size of the unit, the more likely that unit's performance is reflective of the average army-wide performance.

I don't think any of those negate the overall trends shown, just adding some nuance to the analysis.

There's two surprises near the top. The mortar, of course, and then regular old State Troops.

State Troops are interesting because they are outperforming the army average win rate by 10% and seem to be outperforming knights... although knights are taken more often so their individual performance is probably better than it would seem here. Also, making the comparison to Brettonian Men at Arms, who have a 51% win rate, which is exactly average for Brettonia.

That's not a case to say that State Troops are good as-is in an absolute sense, but they do appear to be a better choice for Empire than some other options.

I'm not sure whether I am surprised to see Veteran State Troops and Greatswords underperforming.

On one hand, my unit of veteran swordsmen with demigryph BSB and Griffon banner has been nigh near indestructable, I've only lost it in one game where my opponent specifically tooled up for it. On the other hand, the times I have taken big veteran halberd blocks they have had some spectacular turns, but generally get wiped out. This last Sunday I lost a unit of 40 halberds with Lector of Sigmar and Banner of Iron Resolve to a single Brettonian Duke after three rounds of combat. I think I did a wound, maybe two to the Duke?

Greatswords, while they have done better for me than blocks of halberds, are very difficult to build an army around at 2000 points. When I have taken Greatswords, I am generally planning a "fun" game because I know they take up so many points without impacting the core tax, that I know I am forfeiting taking other tools I will need to play an optimized game. So, while I think they actually are a good unit in themselves, they hamper army construction to a degree that I don't think we'll see them in any competitive lists of less than 2400 points.

Anyway, lots to unpack here for sure.

[Skyros]

Yes, good points. Fundamentally, it's about your troops earning their points back.
A 600 point unit of veteran swordsmen with three characters and the griffon banner may well be indestructable, but are they earning their points back? Probably not.
Same thing for the steam tank. It's slow. It can't charge far. It doesn't do much damage. It probably really struggles to earn its points back unless the enemy lets you drive it into the most advantageous matchup for it.
Greatswords are, IMO, paying a lot of points for stubborn (which I basically view as a valueless trait on high LD units near their generals leadership) and are pretty overcosted for their killing and staying power. Maybe using drilled can bring them back?

It's hard to know what to make of the state troops category without knowing if it includes missile troops, and also knowing if it includes detachments. I'd like to see all of these broken out in different brackets.

But looking at these, I'm perfectly willing to believe that taking, say, two units of halberdiers is better than taking one steam tank.

[commandant]

Also we should be careful because its worth noting that the wizard lord is in red. Objectively I think we can argue that the Empire has one of the better wizard lords in the game. Cheaper, access to a lot (if not all) of the magic lores.
Maybe other army's magic items are too strong though we have some decent arcane items of our own.

[Skyros]

I'm not too concerned about the being in red, (other than it being a mark the army as a whole is bad) for individual units. The wizard lord is a better choice than a lot of other options in the empire list (as you'd expect) so overall the data shows its a good, strong choice.

Maybe not strong per se on its own, but it is fairly cheap and flexible.

[commandant]

Also its worth noting that the Bretonnians have to take either men at arms or bowmen and both of them are at the bottom of the heap. It would be interesting to note if their win rate is dragged up by the other Bretonnian units

[Skyros]

Could that be because of the army lists in the arcane journals that don't necessarily have to take them?

It could also be that entries that aren't included due to small numbers are dragging down lists that have them (and they are taken in such small numbers because they are terrible, like empire pistoliers) which would mean units that appear to be at the bottom of the heap aren't necessarily.

[commandant]

Are there many lists in the Bretonnian arcane journal that don't require men-at-arms or bowmen

[Clymer]

Also we should be careful because its worth noting that the wizard lord is in red. Objectively I think we can argue that the Empire has one of the better wizard lords in the game. Cheaper, access to a lot (if not all) of the magic lores.
Maybe other army's magic items are too strong though we have some decent arcane items of our own.

The Wizard Lord is red because it's win rate is less than 45%. But, it's win rate is 43% in an army with a win rate of 34%, ergo, it is outperforming the rest of the army. Which is no surprise.

Similar to your post about Brettonian men at arms being bottom of the heap... well yes, compared to other units in that army, but their win rate is bang on the 51% overall win rate of Brettonians, so they are performing exactly average for their army.

[Clymer]

Could that be because of the army lists in the arcane journals that don't necessarily have to take them?

It could also be that entries that aren't included due to small numbers are dragging down lists that have them (and they are taken in such small numbers because they are terrible, like empire pistoliers) which would mean units that appear to be at the bottom of the heap aren't necessarily.

The numbers of times a unit is taken must be independent of the number of games they appear in, because they appear a different number of times than there is data for either 2000 point lists, 1500 point lists, or both combined. If the performance data comes from both 2000 and 150 point lists, then men at arms are taken at a rate of .8 per army. Obviously some armies will have none and some will have more than one, but at least 20% of Brettonian lists must be an arcane journal list that does not need to take them. It's also possible that army lists were not available for some of the 170 games with Brettonia counted in the overall stats.

[Skyros]

Are there many lists in the Bretonnian arcane journal that don't require men-at-arms or bowmen

Both army lists in the Bretonnian arcane journal do not require men at arms.
The errantry list doesn't require peasants at all.
The exiles list requires one of either yeomen guard OR bowmen. And I imagine most people taking that list are taking yeomen guard, since they are amazing, and not bowmen.

[The Peacemaker]

Knights errant are top of the list so I'm guessing lors pf armies are using the arcane journal?

Or are knights errant really good in the main book?

[Clymer]

Yes, good points. Fundamentally, it's about your troops earning their points back.
A 600 point unit of veteran swordsmen with three characters and the griffon banner may well be indestructable, but are they earning their points back? Probably not.

Well, a bit shy of 400 points for the unit + BSB, and yeah, they generally earn that back and then some. They don't earn like demigryphs though, that's for sure. And I also can't duplicate that unit because, of course, we get just one BSB, one Griffon Banner, one War Banner. And I haven't yet found similar performance in any other State Troop/Veteran build I've tried.

When it comes to units earning their points back, I find that really hard to calculate. For example, in one game versus chaos warriors, my general on a griffon did not contribute a single offensive wound. However, he absorbed all of the shooting from two units of marauder horsemen until my knights could run them down. He absorbed the First Charge of my opponent's Chaos Knights and delayed them for several turns so that my infantry block and Steam Tank had time to deal with his heavy chariot and his big block of chaos warriors and sorcerer. When the chaos knights finally got a solid frontal charge on my infantry, they bounced which set up a next turn charge with the Steam Tank who wiped them out with impact hits before my infantry had a chance to fight.

In that battle, it would be hard to say which units earned their points back and which didn't. Yes, the Steam Tank and Infantry did the damage to eliminate units that were worth more than their own points cost. But they couldn't have done that without my stupid griffon general seemingly spinning his wheels on the side of the board, doing no damage.

[Clymer]

Greatswords are, IMO, paying a lot of points for stubborn (which I basically view as a valueless trait on high LD units near their generals leadership) and are pretty overcosted for their killing and staying power. Maybe using drilled can bring them back?

Very over costed, by at least 2 or 3 points. Stubborn on these guys is over-costed for the reason you give, and also because stubborn is for losers. Stubborn does you no good when you're winning combats, and Greatswords do win. In three games with them and in probably 8 turns of combat, they have only lost combat once when they were down to just my demigryph BSB and the command section. They just win way more than you'd think. But at about 500 points for a full unit plus BSB, they better be winning. The problem is the rest of the army doesn't function well, especially in the core department. It's not just that the Greatswords draw off points that could be used for other supporting units, it's that like State Troops, they also need supporting characters dedicated to them to do well, whether that's a wizard casting enchantments, or a lector, or a BSB. You need those guys to make your core work too, so the competition for resources is too tight.

And yes, the FAQ on Drilled makes them way more attractive. I ran them with drilled in a game this last Sunday, and they were really great in their own right... but the problem still remained that the rest of my army was lacking.

[commandant]

Also we should be careful because its worth noting that the wizard lord is in red. Objectively I think we can argue that the Empire has one of the better wizard lords in the game. Cheaper, access to a lot (if not all) of the magic lores.
Maybe other army's magic items are too strong though we have some decent arcane items of our own.

The Wizard Lord is red because it's win rate is less than 45%. But, it's win rate is 43% in an army with a win rate of 34%, ergo, it is outperforming the rest of the army. Which is no surprise.

Similar to your post about Brettonian men at arms being bottom of the heap... well yes, compared to other units in that army, but their win rate is bang on the 51% overall win rate of Brettonians, so they are performing exactly average for their army.

Yes but if they are performing average and they are the bottom of the heap what is bringing down the average of the over performing elements of the army?

Also while priests might be performing poorly it is difficult to suggest that they are performing poorly enough to bring down the average of the entire army. They don't make up enough of a percentage of the points

[Skyros]

Perhaps units that don't get an entry in the table because they aren't brought often enough to make the cut (and they aren't brought often enough to make the cut because they are bad). Questing kinghts or grail relique, for example. Or knights of the realm on foot.

We won't know for sure IMO until there's more data and even the 'not brought very often' units are brought in sufficient numbers to make an informed judgement.

[Clymer]

Yes but if they are performing average and they are the bottom of the heap what is bringing down the average of the over performing elements of the army?

That's a good question. The only super-obvious culprit is veteran state troops. Next up maybe greatswords? Steam Tank also looks like a pretty low and significant outlier, as do IC knights.

Although cannons and knights don't have high performance numbers, it seems like almost every army has knights and a cannon, so you would expect them to reflect the average of the army overall, which they do... well the cannon definitely does.

Also don't dismiss the warrior priest as an indicator of a problem just yet. Rather than thinking about the priest itself as the cause, think about how one would build an army where you are hoping to use a warrior priest. You might skip out on some magic, right? The warrior priest could be a replacement, or partial replacement for a wizard, right? Take the two kinds of priests, plus the master mages together, and you get a significant number of hits: 113 instances of low-magic substitutes, which is almost as many as there are Level 4 wizards. Those units together are evidence of an awful lot of Empire players skirting the magic phase.

Also, the win rate probably cannot be attributable to units that do not appear on this list. Just do a little statistical reasoning for a moment: Could a unit, or set of units, that is so uncommon that it is not mentioned on this list have a significant impact on the army's overall performance, one way or the other? It's possible, but unlikely.

[commandant]

I was referring to the Bretonnian Men-at-arms. They are coming in at 51% which is the same (roughly) as the Bretonnian army. But there is nothing below them to balance out the things that are coming in at higher percentages so why is the Bretonnian win rate so low?

[commandant]

Yes but if they are performing average and they are the bottom of the heap what is bringing down the average of the over performing elements of the army?

That's a good question. The only super-obvious culprit is veteran state troops. Next up maybe greatswords? Steam Tank also looks like a pretty low and significant outlier, as do IC knights.

Although cannons and knights don't have high performance numbers, it seems like almost every army has knights and a cannon, so you would expect them to reflect the average of the army overall, which they do... well the cannon definitely does.

Also don't dismiss the warrior priest as an indicator of a problem just yet. Rather than thinking about the priest itself as the cause, think about how one would build an army where you are hoping to use a warrior priest. You might skip out on some magic, right? The warrior priest could be a replacement, or partial replacement for a wizard, right? Take the two kinds of priests, plus the master mages together, and you get a significant number of hits: 113 instances of low-magic substitutes, which is almost as many as there are Level 4 wizards. Those units together are evidence of an awful lot of Empire players skirting the magic phase.

Also, the win rate probably cannot be attributable to units that do not appear on this list. Just do a little statistical reasoning for a moment: Could a unit, or set of units, that is so uncommon that it is not mentioned on this list have a significant impact on the army's overall performance, one way or the other? It's possible, but unlikely.

This is sort of my point. Cannons have a 35% winrate (reflective of the army as a whole) but the next highest used model is the captain (most likely as a BSB) which has a much higher win rate. If there is a cannon in every army and a captain in most armies is the problem that people aren't taking BSBs

[Clymer]

Oh, yeah, that's a good question too 

One day I'll start paying attention when I read.

What are they taking when they are not winning?

Empire Allies.

[commandant]

Its possible that there is some build with multiple captains that is doing really well and increasing the captain's win rate where as many armies might only have 1 cannon