So, how much does a 1% Point Advantage increase your chance of winning? Obviously, this depends on first player versus second player. I'm looking at this particularly for Corellian Conflict, so sweet sizes can exceed four hundred points and points totals don't correspond to first player/second player.

Not just 1% on the nose, but 2%, 3%, 4%, etc. Is the relationship linear? Parabolic? Hyperbolic? I'm not sure how closely Star Wars: Armada corresponds to the Lanchester Law.

I'm not sure that any of the tournament data is relevant here, since the point differences are for bidding purposes. And bids don't matter in CC.

Anyhow, there's a lot of debate about the best planets to pick, advantages in various special ability planets, etc. In Corellian Conflict. I need to figure out how the special advantages skilled spacers and SpyNet figure into chances of victory and then I need to launch a doomed attempt to determine how losses are affected by Point differences. Obviously, exactly compositions make a huge difference. Player skill maybe more important, but for examining strategies and Planet values, assuming equal player skillll is an acceptable starting point.

With some vaguely accurate statistical model, it's possible to run a large number of abstract Corellian Campaigns to determine how well various strategies actually work. For example, there are some pretty well known strategies for picking initial systems. Are those provably the best strategies? Are they the effect of groupthink? Very often we find ourselves convinced that a certain approach is the only approach, only to have our expectations destroyed when we meet someone coming from a different thought Meta.

Probably very very small since it is within the realm of a bid and so many other factors control which player wins.

i think it would be extremely difficult to get a good read on this because we’d need a lot more stats and the game is much more fluid than say a game like chess, where we can gather a ton more data and correlate those to outcomes.

Yeah. But it's not just 1%. In CC, a 5% difference is common. 10% is supposed to be pretty frightening. (Wonder how much of that is psychological?)

Do you mean 1% by points difference in a CC game? like 400 vs 404 pts?

And exactly how do you calculate this? Like, 384 vs 387?

I'd argue though that a between 2.5% and 5% or 20-40 points of stuff is a very significant and noticeable difference. Although, if its a bid, this is actually a useful construct, as opposed to simply empty points.
On the contrary: Its within easy ability of a good player to defeat a worse/new player even with a handicap of 40points. Therefore, I suggest/propose that the skill difference between a good player and a not good player is more than 40 points, and is more in the realm of 80pts or 20% points handicap. I'd also suggest that this is similarly scaled for MOV calculation.

How many of you good players would be certain of your victory going against a "bad" player who isn't playing intentionally poorly if it was 400 vs 440? 400vs 480? 400 vs 500? 400 vs 520?

Now as an aside, I kind of want to hear batreps of complete outmatches. 400 vs 500 points. 300 vs 400. 200 vs 400.

I think I've won games of 75 vs 100pts in Xwing.

I won a 600 versus 800, 1v2. Skill is absolutely pretty huge.

6 minutes ago, Vergilius said:

I won a 600 versus 800, 1v2. Skill is absolutely pretty huge.

Truth. Plus I feel like at that level the ability to localize force becomes more important, since you cant leverage your whole fleet anyway just by the nature of the ranges, ship footprints and manuever charts in this game. Conjecture from me tho.

I won a store champ with 349pts.... so theres your anecdotal bombshell...

I heard Bill Brasky once beat a fleet that was 7000 points! And he only had 2 CR90s and a basic X-wing!

I think there are too many factors at play. 1% difference in points is pretty minimal, and can be 1 upgrade. If that upgrade never gets used, then it played no part. A bad die roll can more than make a 1% difference in a game. Superior play and strategy can overcome a large difference in points.

I think it would be tough to make any kind of prediction. That 5 or even 10% difference might not matter depending on the objective, the builds, the players, etc. The number of variables in play make it really hard to calculate.

Currently playing CC, Empire, gong into round two with a fifty point per fleet advantage. And I'm considered a good player, so....

Lancaster's Law, like Hugh's Salvo model, relies inordinately heavily a plethora of assumptions, not the least of which surround how equivalent forces are. It also assumes that there are few outside forces involved, or that they can all be modeled stochastically, all of which are untrue for Armada. Now, Hugh's Salvo model would be a very interesting way to analyze squadron engagements, and in fact many of the early theory posts on the subject are in fact unknowing (or unlisted) versions of that model, but Lancaster's Law, while the general principle holds, doesn't really work as a predictor for Armada. If anything a game is supposedly to be balanced to avoid the law's effects until after the balance of power has already shifted.

4 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Lancaster's Law, like Hugh's Salvo model, relies inordinately heavily a plethora of assumptions, not the least of which surround how equivalent forces are. It also assumes that there are few outside forces involved, or that they can all be modeled stochastically, all of which are untrue for Armada. Now, Hugh's Salvo model would be a very interesting way to analyze squadron engagements, and in fact many of the early theory posts on the subject are in fact unknowing (or unlisted) versions of that model, but Lancaster's Law, while the general principle holds, doesn't really work as a predictor for Armada. If anything a game is supposedly to be balanced to avoid the law's effects until after the balance of power has already shifted.

I feel the appropriate Wire quote is that if I come at the king, I best not miss.

40 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Lancaster's Law, like Hugh's Salvo model, relies inordinately heavily a plethora of assumptions, not the least of which surround how equivalent forces are. It also assumes that there are few outside forces involved, or that they can all be modeled stochastically, all of which are untrue for Armada. Now, Hugh's Salvo model would be a very interesting way to analyze squadron engagements, and in fact many of the early theory posts on the subject are in fact unknowing (or unlisted) versions of that model, but Lancaster's Law, while the general principle holds, doesn't really work as a predictor for Armada. If anything a game is supposedly to be balanced to avoid the law's effects until after the balance of power has already shifted.

What part of Lanchester's is relevant or being compared? Or used? It seems like its particularly not capable of handling complexity

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

What part of Lanchester's is relevant or being compared? Or used? It seems like its particularly not capable of handling complexity

OP asked if Armada followed Lancaster's Law. I replied pointing out this is not what the Law is designed to do, because there are too many variables and weapons exchanges in Armada are discrete units, much closer to the HSM.

Here's a few numbers to add to the discussion:

Rebel Activation: 18 points (GR-75 Medium Transport) - 4.5%
Rebel Deployment: 14 points (Z-95 Headhunter x2) - 3.5%
Rebel Combat Ship: 39 points (CR-90B Corvette) - 9.75%

Imperial Activation: 23 points (Gozanti Cruisers) - 5.75%
Imperial Deployment: 16 points (TIE Fighter x2) - 4%
Imperial Combat Ship: 44 points (Raider I-Class Corvette) - 11%

The cheapest commander for each side is 20 points - 5%