Re: The Art of Placement
 

When it comes to 'quality'... I believe that Prec 100 single target spells aim for high-hp targets

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I think the grid is this size, please correct me if this is wrong.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...ions/field.jpg

Your armies start in the 18 by 18 red squares. If you have a lot of units they can overflow and fill the entire white area too.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

This is the pattern I normally use when placing my units.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ARP/ARP112/Ftb_Play.jpg

Re: The Art of Placement
 

I did the calculations, and 2 bodyguards HELPS. Yes, if your mage is selected, the chance of being hit (assuming 100 fatigue and non-magic weapons) goes from 86% up to 95%. On the other hand, your mage only has a 33% chance of selection (vs. 100%).

The result is 86% chance of being hit vs. ~31.5% chance.

That is a DROP of ~54.5% (over 50%!).

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Foodstamp - genius! I will certainly be using that from now on.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Thank you, vfb. So, if you're correct, there's almost no protection from curse spells except hanging out in the very back and hoping that lizardman shaman doesn't move up.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

wouldnt having the 2 bodyguards increse the odds of that square being initially chosen as a target x3 though?

you'd have to add in the odds of the mage getting hit due to his bodyguards being "missed"

assumed targetting process:
pick target unit. (1x mage +2x guards)
determine Target square.
determine square actually hit. (assume good accuracy)
determine unit hit in that square (if any -- guards "pay back" here 1/3 chance of picking mage).
determine if that unit IS hit.
determine damage.

I think it comes out near a wash, but the bodyguards may be slightly counterproductive.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Well, any grouping of men will attract fire... but you are really picking hairs here. I mean, so long as you dont place the mage+guards square provocatively, you are fine. You have to think like the targetting AI: should I fire at this lone square with three men? Or this enormous cluster of 5x5 squares packed full of men? Two extra guys doesnt really make a difference.

Additionally, if you choose good bodyguards - normal hp, high prot, elemental res (if you can of course), then it makes that square even less appealing as a target.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

That is unlikely to work either. I've seen casters run up to cast spells (well, they were running for some reason, and I know I didn't tell them to!) at a siege, and get whacked by an arrow from a tower. So if you're worried about a unit getting cursed, it's better not to bring him to the fight. But if the unit is always hanging out in the back anyway, it doesn't really matter if it does get cursed, since that only has a negative effect on melee units.

Just don't bring your uber melee guy to clean out the lizards. A bunch of slingers or archers or casters will most likely be more efficient in any case.

Re: The Art of Placement
 

Just a few points:

* The placement diagram is I think wrong in that the available placement square is just about the entire side of the neutral zone, and the default placement area is in the middle of the available placement square, but doesn't touch the neutral zone.

* I think adding a couple of bodyguards will reduce the chance of a mage getting hit roughly in the way Fate describes. Of course it also helps a lot in the event of a not-overwhelming melee attack too. I don't think a couple of bodyguards are very likely at all to attract any more enemy fire than the mage would, unless they are a targetable type (large monster, missile, or cavalry) and the enemy uses such orders (much more risk against human players). I guess it might be an increase if the enemy has single missile snipers set to Fire Rearmost.

* Technically, Curse has some risk of extra afflictions for any unit that might get hurt, not just melee.