Octopus with Shield Expertise is more deadly than a 14-hex dragon

[Senturian]

During my military years (1979+), I recall reading somewhere that it was thought that 1 trained soldier was worth the square of 2 untrained (1.44) because one (lucky?) shot could resolve the issue.
Not sure if it translates well to Medieval times.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Senturian

During my military years (1979+), I recall reading somewhere that it was thought that 1 trained soldier was worth the square of 2 untrained (1.44) because one (lucky?) shot could resolve the issue.
Not sure if it translates well to Medieval times.

The modern US military tends not to be big on weighing soft factors in its models. At least when I was developing wargames for them, it was said they didn't like to include training, experience etc in calculations. Maybe it's also thought best not to rely on that, and for training games, to have the effects of training be behavior of the players. However the "special" forces seem to think lots of training is worthwhile.

Some medieval historians I've read have commented that it seems military strength seemed to be roughly estimated by the number of reliable armored men one had (which, as in TFT but I'd think for somewhat different reasons, had some correspondence to ability).

[larsdangly]

It is for good 'gamist' reasons, but armor is not realistically valued in TFT (i.e., the DX penalty and damage reduction are closely similar in 'firepower' value), so the measuring of strength by number of armored combatants isn't a great metric in the game.

[Skarg]

Indeed, unless they have enough DX to overcome it. ;-)