There was a message in the locked thread that I had liked to reply to, it was about if you could make a model to show the difference between artillery and missile infantry in terms of survivability and ranged power etc.
First of all, a DISCLAIMER: This is for fun. I had a boring flight and spent two hours just playing around with the stats of most ranged infantry and the cannon-type artillery and made some very simple models. I am not in any way saying these are accurate, this is for fun but I wanted to share it anyways because in a way they are pretty illustrative. If you are only going to go on and on and on about this being inaccurate and biased, please stop reading now. If you are a bit nerdy and think these kinds of stuff is just fun to meddle with, stay tuned.
So what I did was to mash up the defensive parameters into one meta-score and the offense parameters into another meta-score. So defense is: MD, armor, speed, loose formation flag, stalk flag, parthian flag, HP, resists, shield. The resist style parametesr are used to calculate effective HP (but scaled down because they don't work on all damage types). Likewise, the parameters for range, DPS (AP scaled higher than reg damage), accuracy, stalk flag, parthian flag. I also scaled for cost.
Firstly I took the defense meta-score and plotted vs range, just to visualize the original question.
The interesting thing here, as expected, is that Jezzails and Bowshapti score unnaturally high defensive values for their range, while Deck gunners are even over-compensated having very artillery-like defensive stats but with only 245 meters range.
I then modelled the offense meta-score vs range. Here I tried to just optimize the cost-scaling to be reasonable, making the assumtion that artillery and archers should both be roughly equally cost effective. Not perfect, but it's something to steer the cost scaling a bit.
Now, the grand finale is of course then to merge the meta-scores (without the cost-scaling) and plot vs cost. Which units are undercosted and which are overcosted?
I have to say, being a really crude model and all, it was quite interesting anyways to see the usual suspects stand out. Rangers, Bugmans, Jezzails, Bowshapti score well above their value. Waywatchers are up there, but not as much as they probably should be in the real game. The model doesn't for example account for that the 360 fire on several units work as extra defense. The Helblaster was a surprise, it has excellent offensive stats, but it's hard to use in real games. I actually makes me want to try it more just to see.
Otherwise all traditional cannons and BTs are probably underestimated a fair bit. This is more likely because of the calibration scaling. Especially cannons have really poor cal area and the model doesn't take the accuracy stat into account as I don't really know how it works. Cannons use these stats though while most missile infantry don't, except waywatchers iirc. So maybe arty and ww should be bumped up a little because of that. Otherwise WLC, carronade and Organ gun stands out as under performers, together with the BTs.
Now, having done that, I of course had to nerf Jezzials just to visualize the predicted change. I gave them -55 meters range, -30 armor and +0.5 cal area, and it looks like this:
Now, please note that I am not saying this proves anything what so ever. It's an extremely crude model and has tons of flaws. Especially alarming is that the cost-scaling is obviously completely wrong in the merged plot, you can't use the x-axis. Anyways, this is just sharing the result of a boring flight.
Make me proud, don't let me wake up to a locked thread now. Have fun, good night!
After a few iterations and tweaking all scaling parameters on a training set that does not include the monstrous infantry I end up with a plot like this: