Mixed unit morale

[Norfleet]

I don't think there's any actual weighting: The morale of the squad is simply the average morale of the squad, with the exclusion of "special" morale (30,50,99) units, which are resolved seperately. Part of the reason your vampire/imp squad didn't rout is because a large 200-man squad must sustain a comparably larger amount of pain and suffering before a morale check is performed, whereas a smaller squad is checked with fewer losses. The cruddy morale of the imps is only slightly bolstered by the nearly as cruddy morale of the vampires.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Cheezeninja:
It seems like it must be more complicated than a simple weighted average though, because certain morale numbers mean certain things.

True. I should have written 'Experience suggests that for units with morale Ratings of 30 and below...'.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I don't think there's any actual weighting: The morale of the squad is simply the average morale of the squad, with the exclusion of "special" morale (30,50,99) units, which are resolved seperately.

But what kind of average morale? If as you suggest it isn't weighted, a squad of 24 militia and 1 Emerald Guard should have the same average morale as a squad of 1 militia and 24 Emerald Guards, obviously this isn't the case.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
But what kind of average morale? If as you suggest it isn't weighted, a squad of 24 militia and 1 Emerald Guard should have the same average morale as a squad of 1 militia and 24 Emerald Guards, obviously this isn't the case.

That's...not quite the definition of average I'm used to seeing. You're arguing that the unweighted average income of 35 CEOs and a starving beggar is the same as the average income of 35 starving beggars and one CEO. Obviously, that's not the case!

[Sindai]

NGF seems to be calling "weighted average" what most people would simply call an "average." Maybe I don't have the terms technically straight, but a weighted average would seem to imply some factors beyond simply the values and quantity of numbers involved, since those are already included in an average.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That's...not quite the definition of average I'm used to seeing. You're arguing that the unweighted average income of 35 CEOs and a starving beggar is the same as the average income of 35 starving beggars and one CEO. Obviously, that's not the case!

It actually is the case, since your not using a very precise definition of average.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Sindai:
NGF seems to be calling "weighted average" what most people would simply call an "average."

Probably - what I mean by weighted average in Norfleet's example, is 35 CEOs weight 35 times more than 1 beggar, thus the weighted average would be (35 x 1M$ + 1$)/36 = 975000$ (approx.)