Ogres Vs Ironguts – The MATH Thread

Edit: Totally rewrote this first post to reflect my latest conclusions from the discussion that has occurred in this thread.

Update 12/6/11:  Latest version (1.1) DL Link - https://rapidshare.com/files/1154195471/Ogre_spreadsheet_1.1.ods

This is a spreadsheet that will show the wounds given on one side of a close combat round.  Either the attack or the defense of any non mixed unit against another.  You have to put in the stats relevant to close combat in both sections and it will spit out a number of wounds dealt.

While useful, the spreadsheet doesn't tell the whole story.  That story being, who will fare better in a combat against (insert unit here).  You can find who will win by doing all the steps yourself.  figure out who will strike first, plug in numbers to find wounds dealt, then attack from other side, not forgetting impact hits if charging and stomps.  Its a pain, but it is doable in this incarnation.

The next step, which I am working on at the moment is to simulate a full round of close combat all the way up to and including break test and % chance to pass.



For now there have been some conclusions.

The question has always been: Who is better, Ironguts or Ogres?

After building this worksheet up and the lively discussion I have had in this thread I have come to this conclusion:  It matters what you need that unit to do.

If you need an anvil unit take bulls with ironfists.

If you need a hammer unit take ironguts.

The lower points cost, possibly striking first, and parry save from the ironfist make the bulls able to take the hits and keep standing through the rounds of combat.  This ties up that hard hitting unit across from you so you can get a flank charge in or just be able to not worry about that unit for a while.

The higher strength is SUPER CHEAP points wise for the ironguts.  Along with (as already stated) the ability to bring a magic banner, these guys can decimate many of the tougher opponents when they hit them.  GW has done a great job of balancing that bonus with less than stellar defense against hard hitting units and making them always strike last with the great weapons.  This means most times you will get wounds taken off before you even get to hit them possibly removing attacks from your unit before you can attack them.

Ideally, I think 2 units of bulls for every one unit of Ironguts is the best ratio. But the bull units get filled out first.

A lot of people see it this way.  Bulls are only 25% cheaper in points than the same number of ironguts.  2 units of bulls is not worth 1 unit of ironguts points wise if they have the same number of models.  However, 2 units of bulls and 1 unit of ironguts (same number of models in each) is worth the same amount of points as 2 units of Ironguts.  What really matters is the points you are willing to spend and what actions you need the units to perform.



My personal preference now is to first decide how much gnoblar chaff I want for my core, then split the rest of the core points down the middle and bring as many of both bulls and guts as I can in even points per unit.  This strategy will always give me 4 bulls for every 3 ironguts.  Doing this lets me bring more of the specialized units like leadbelchers and mournfang, and ironblasters, and well, the list goes on and on.

I usually try to aim for either 9 or 12 in a unit and If I am working at higher total points I will just bring more units at those numbers instead of large hordes.  With at least 1 unit of each and plenty of chaff I can see where he puts his hard hitting units and deploy the bulls to counter them.  Then I can deploy the ironguts where they can do the most damage against a unit that will shred like paper when my guts even glare at them.

In conclusion:  If you are facing a unit that is high strength you want bulls to absorb that hit, if you are facing a unit that is high toughness and/or saves you want ironguts so you can get the attacks through.

Wow really interesting post rockmuncher, would luv to see that worksheet as im sure many others are. Also i think its only the front rank that get to stomp so for 3x2 unit only 3 stomps as apose to 6 and likewise for 4x2 would only get 4 stomp attacks rather than 8. Hope that doesn't skew your figures too much? Anyways great thread none the less.

Elf_eater

against what toughness, armour save and weapon skill did you calculate the damage done by the ogres or ironguts?

I would love to have this spreadsheet.

After the other discussion of Ironguts vs Ogres, I have started to play Ironguts more than Ogres now (Wound you believe it?) and so far I've really enjoyed the success of the Ironguts.

Although, I do miss my 2x gnoblar units I usually field with the extra Core Points I have and the extra 5% points I would be saving by going Ogres + gnoblars vs the extra 5% cost of just Ironguts...

It would be great to support in-field experiences with both units with concise and definitive mathematical results.  I am all about increasing my chances of victory, even if its a marginal percent.

 

2.When figuring out attacks I assumed a 3x3 formation giving us 19 attacks, 3 impact hits and 6 stomps.
OR
A 4x2 formation giving us 25 attacks, 4 impact hits and 8 stomps.

Forgive me if I am wrong as I am new to OK and fantasy in general. But I thought we did not get stomp attacks from supporting units?

Forgive me if I am wrong as I am new to OK and fantasy in general. But I thought we did not get stomp attacks from supporting units?

You are totally correct, you can only stomp with models that are in base contact with the enemy.


It's great that you worked out the maths of this and all, but it's generally what you could deduce from common sense.

I currently use soley IG's because of the fact they kill more than bulls.
The variables matter greatly, for example, different toughness' and AS make a massive difference to the IG's killing power compared to the Bulls'.

On the flip side, Bulls will die slower compared IG when it's a high Strength attack and especially if the enemy has a low (I).

Same here at the moment, but also for the reason that they can carry a standard of discipline and my bulls cannot.  Not saying the bulls won't be brought back later, but for now...

What it told me is what most of you have been saying:  Ogres are better for surviving combat, and Ironguts are better for killing things.

You needed a spreadsheet for that?

It's an interesting sheet though. The interesting question of course would be to find the balancepoint between where ogres outdo guts and visa versa, in terms of 1) power, 2) defense, 3) pointefficiency and 4) likelyness to win. Like you said there are too many variables but one can make a list of units that we are likely to face and field (no need to consider theoretical situations that aren't likely to occur). Filter from that list the obvious matchups (no need to take guts when playing skaven; better take them when facing warriors, it's the grey area that needs examining) thereby reducing the list in size and reducing the amount of variables, perhaps enough so that each situation that matters can all be calculated.

In the end all we must know is what matchup asks for ogres and what for guts. What also needs examining is the size of the area on both sides of the balancepoint. If anything tougher than a clanrat calls for guts as the better choice, than guts are the better choice in an allround army and even allround armies shouldn't have ogres. If guts are better only 50% of the time, than an allround list should have both.

Well, I am pretty new to actually playing and haven't played as ogres yet so some of the things are not common sense to me like stomps and the normal troop types we see.

After looking at the replies I realized I need to redo the offensive side of the chart because I missed a few things.  The stomps were input wrong, even though they shouldn't change the ratios very much ( I did it wrong for both IG's and OG's)  The big thing I did wrong on offense was not setting up multiple armor and ward saves.  I will go back and fix it then post the updated spreadsheet.

The good thing is that I feel I hit all the numbers on the defensive side.

Here is the chart for wounds taken against different WS and S as noted.  Where the strength is 4 or higher I adjusted the ASV as needed.  From this I took the average of each group of attacks and that's how I got the percentages in the first post.
Ogres WS3 T4 ASV5 WSV6

ws   s    1   2   25   0.77   19   0.59   11   0.34 1   3   25   1.54   19   1.17   11   0.68 1   4   25   2.89   19   2.20   11   1.27 1   5   25   4.63   19   3.52   11   2.04 1   6   25   5.79   19   4.40   11   2.55          avg      avg      avg          3.12      2.38      1.38 ws   s    3   2   25   1.16   19   0.88   11   0.51 3   3   25   2.31   19   1.76   11   1.02 3   4   25   4.34   19   3.30   11   1.91 3   5   25   6.94   19   5.28   11   3.06 3   6   25   8.68   19   6.60   11   3.82          avg      avg      avg          4.69      3.56      2.06 ws   s    4   2   25   1.54   19   1.17   11   0.68 4   3   25   3.09   19   2.35   11   1.36 4   4   25   5.79   19   4.40   11   2.55 4   5   25   9.26   19   7.04   11   4.07 4   6   25   11.57   19   8.80   11   5.09          avg      avg      avg          6.25      4.75      2.75 Ironguts WS3 T4 ASV5 WSV0 ws   s    1   2   25   0.93   19   0.70   11   0.41 1   3   25   1.85   19   1.41   11   0.81 1   4   25   3.47   19   2.64   11   1.53 1   5   25   5.56   19   4.22   11   2.44 1   6   25   6.94   19   5.28   11   3.06          avg      avg      avg          3.75      2.85      1.65 ws   s    3   2   25   1.39   19   1.06   11   0.61 3   3   25   2.78   19   2.11   11   1.22 3   4   25   5.21   19   3.96   11   2.29 3   5   25   8.33   19   6.33   11   3.67 3   6   25   10.42   19   7.92   11   4.58          avg      avg      avg          5.63      4.28      2.47 ws   s    4   2   25   1.85   19   1.41   11   0.81 4   3   25   3.70   19   2.81   11   1.63 4   4   25   6.94   19   5.28   11   3.06 4   5   25   11.11   19   8.44   11   4.89 4   6   25   13.89   19   10.56   11   6.11          avg      avg      avg          7.5      5.7      3.3 So you can see that against a WS3 S4 unit that throws 25 dice a unit of Ogres should take 4.34 wounds and Ironguts should take 5.21 wounds. against what toughness, armour save and weapon skill did you calculate the damage done by the ogres or ironguts? Since the different weapon skills equate out to a 3+, 4+, or 5+ to hit and a 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, and 6+ to wound I did every combination of those.  Where I failed though is I calculated for a 5+ armor save (6+ and no save against higher strength) and a 6+ ward save. Basically I left the ASV and WSV up from testing the ogres and just changed the ws and s while testing. I need to go through and redo the offensive side that accounts for all to hit, to wound, armor save, and ward save to get a true average.  Probably about 3 hours of work. I want to put a grid like the one above only for the offensive side of the coin.  I have to fix my mistakes first though. If you want to have me figure out a single enemy unit in the meantime post their ws, s, t, # of attacks, any armor or ward saves, and any special circumstances or attacks.  Ill post how many wounds are given/taken in a round of combat.  If you give me the initiative I can probably give you the rounds of combat till one is destroyed.

To check your numbers (or find my own calculation errors), I take the setup

Ogres

WS 3 T 4 S 4 ASV 5 WSV 6

Irongut

WS 3 T 4 S 4/6 ASV 5 WSV 0

vs. Enemy

WS 3 T 3 S 3 ASV 5 WSV 0

Stomp
 - Hit: *
 - Wound: 3+
 - Save: 6+
 wounds with probability 56%

Impact (on S5)
 - Hit: *
 - Wound: 2+
 - Save: -
 wounds with probability 83%


Ogre Attack
 - Hit: 4+
 - Wound: 3+
 - Save: 6+
 wounds with probability 28%

Iron Gut Attack
 - Hit: 4+
 - Wound: 2+
 - Save: -
 wounds with probability 42%

Enemy Attack vs. Ogre
 - Hit: 4+
 - Wound: 5+
 - Save: 5+,6+
 wounds with probability  9% (0.09259259)


Enemy Attack vs. Irongut
 - Hit: 4+
 - Wound: 5+
 - Save: 5+,-
 wounds with probability  11% (0.1111111)


Attacking the ogres:
9% (0.09259259) probability to wound with one attack times 25 attacks gives 2.31 wounds on average.
Attacking the Ironguts:
11% probability to wound with one attack times 25 attacks gives 2.78 wounds on average.

The ogres and Ironguts do on average 1.67 wounds with stomp and 2.5 wounds with the impact hits from a charge with S5 (one additional rank to the first). The Ironguts do 7.9 wounds with 19 attacks, the ogres 5.28 wounds on average. Thas a charge of  ogres brings 9.4 wounds, and of ironguts 12.1 wounds, not accounting for a reduced number of ogres after the attack.

Basically, the number so far seem to be saying that the difference between ironguts and ogres defensively is less than a wound.  (since the only difference is the parry save, this is expected really).

Offensively, ironguts pack much more punch.

Attacking the ogres:
9% (0.09259259) probability to wound with one attack times 25 attacks gives 2.31 wounds on average.
Attacking the Ironguts:
11% probability to wound with one attack times 25 attacks gives 2.78 wounds on average.

The ogres and Ironguts do on average 1.67 wounds with stomp and 2.5 wounds with the impact hits from a charge with S5 (one additional rank to the first). The Ironguts do 7.9 wounds with 19 attacks, the ogres 5.28 wounds on average. Thas a charge of  ogres brings 9.4 wounds, and of ironguts 12.1 wounds, not accounting for a reduced number of ogres after the attack.

I got the exact same results except for the underlined part where I got 7.92 wounds for the ironguts.  Looks like I got the equations same as you.

Basically, the number so far seem to be saying that the difference between ironguts and ogres defensively is less than a wound.  (since the only difference is the parry save, this is expected really).

Offensively, ironguts pack much more punch.

From dealing with the sheet (even though I got some of it screwed up) It looks like the Ironguts are going to deal over a wound more than ogres.  That should put the Ironguts ahead if the points were even. but since ironguts cost more,  How much ahead is enough to overcome the higher points cost.

If they do that much more damage then it's a cost you have to make.

I just set up the grid for the offensive side of things.  It's a 6 by 6 grid with 15 entries in each grid. lol that's only 540 entries plus doing averages after.

Seperate boxes for:
asv0-ws0 to as6-ws6

auto hit
3 to hit
4 to hit
5 to hit

2 to wound
3 to wound
4 to wound
5 to wound

and each one has an entry for:
Ogres 3x3
Ironguts 3x3
Ogres 4x3

This should show the ratio between like sizes of OG's vs IG's (3x3 vs 3x3) and like point costs of OG's and IG's (4x3 OG's at 419 pts vs 3x3 IG's at 422 points)
The really cool thing is that it looks like I can set up to get an average of each against each armor save or ward save or both and put it in a graph.

First things first though.  Time to input some numbers.  I should have it all done by tomorrow about this time hopefully.

One thing you have to make grids for seperate enemy toughness as well to make a fair comparison. For instance, ogres would make 4+ and worse rolls to wound more often than the guts, same with 5+ or even 6+.

I've found from experience, That Ogres do best vs. T3 and a 5+ or worse armour save. Against them they really shine. They have troubles winning combat against high T or good armour save troops WITHOUT character support.

To include the cost part one might want to compare 2*3 IG for 258 pts and 2*4 Ogres for 256 pts. Then we have

Ironguts: 18 Attacks, 3 Impact Hits, 3 Stomps
Ogres: 24 Attacks, 4 Impact Hits, 4 Stomps

Then for favorable opponents, the increased mass of Ogres compared to ironguts is an advantage shown in the numbers

VS IG Ogres
WS3, T3, AS 6+ 12 14
WS3, T3, AS 5+  11.7 12.2
WS3, T4, AS 6+  11 10.7
WS3, T4, AS 5+ 10.8 9.3
The ogres can not only deal more damage against weak enemies they receive less wounds and can soak up more damage. For low initiative opponents they have still the advantage to strike simultaneosly vs. the always strike last rule

I won't question that Ogres APPEAR more efficient for the cost. However, Ironguts you can pretty much throw at everything. This simply isn't true for Ogres. And I find not having a magic banner a drawback. I personally don't run 6 Ironguts. I run 7 or 10 usually, with characters, who profit from the magic banner. If I want to run a secondary damage dealing unit for circa 250 points, than I'd much prefer a unit of Mournfangs or a Stonehorn.

Rockmuncher, you need a hobby. Er...another hobby!

Math makes my stomach make sounds. Now where are my cookies?

Regards
Danne

To include the cost part one might want to compare 2*3 IG for 258 pts and 2*4 Ogres for 256 pts. Then we have

Ironguts: 18 Attacks, 3 Impact Hits, 3 Stomps
Ogres: 24 Attacks, 4 Impact Hits, 4 Stomps

----

The ogres can not only deal more damage against weak enemies they receive less wounds and can soak up more damage. For low initiative opponents they have still the advantage to strike simultaneosly vs. the always strike last rule

I am doing this, only at a 25% increase over your numbers.  The ratios will stay the same.  One of the questions this will help answer is if its worth it to take a bigger group of Ogres at the same cost as a smaller unit of Ironguts, or if the extra strength on the Ironguts makes more sense.

One thing you have to make grids for seperate enemy toughness as well to make a fair comparison. For instance, ogres would make 4+ and worse rolls to wound more often than the guts, same with 5+ or even 6+.

 
Yesterday I had the grid set up to chart "to hit" and "to wound" rolls.  While that will give me good numbers it won't show the discrepancy of how much easier it is to get those "to wound" rolls on Ironguts over Ogres.  I figured out that I can just expand the chart by 5 spots and chart WS and T instead.  This way you can look at it and compare against other profiles without having to figure out any other steps.  This setup will also show more accurately how often the Ironguts get those wounds vs the Ogres.

I won't question that Ogres APPEAR more efficient for the cost. However, Ironguts you can pretty much throw at everything. This simply isn't true for Ogres. And I find not having a magic banner a drawback. I personally don't run 6 Ironguts. I run 7 or 10 usually, with characters, who profit from the magic banner. If I want to run a secondary damage dealing unit for circa 250 points, than I'd much prefer a unit of Mournfangs or a Stonehorn.

The reason I am doing this is because I wanted to find out if one or the other truly was more efficient for the cost.  I didn't add in a magic banner because I was trying to compare apples to apples as much as possible.  I figure if the numbers are close then the magic banner is a bonus that puts Ironguts way on top.

I use both.

Both have their applications I suppose.

However, IG is a must.

It's either IG or IG with Ogres for me.

On the defensive and offensive side, there's another factor that is not taken into account : Ogres do not strike last. That saved a ton of fat behinds in my battles against Dwarves and Marauders.

There isnt anything that my horde of bulls hasnt absolutely trounced in CC, including things that everyone seems to claim are solely-IG matchups.  I guess people arent running a lvl 1 beasts to get Wyssans... most efficient buff for a horde of bulls ever.