Serial Defenders

[76mm]

Wasn't sure what to call this thread, but one of the things I'm growing to dislike about the combat sistem is that if a defending BG is attacked by one enemy, and then by another, and then another, the defender seems to inflict the same number of casualties on subsequent attackers as on the initial attacker, even though at this point they are already committed to battle with the initial attacker and therefore have less freedom to maneuver and available combat power to repulse subsequent attackers, as well as the fact that subsequent attacker are often attacking on a flank, etc.

As a "made up" example (based on "in game" experience): phalanx attacks legion head-on. Phalanx loses 13%, Legion 2%. Another Phalanx attacks in other frontal hex, loses 15%. Another phalanx attacks legion in flank, phalanx loses 17%.

I have had units (typically elite legions) surrounded on 5 sides by attacking units and it can still take multiple turns to take them down. While I can see how maybe a unit attacked by multiple units on multiple fronts might be able to defend itself, but it seems odd that they can continue to inflict large losses on attackers, as if they are not otherwise engaged.

How is this dealt with on the TT? I guess it is less of an issue there because there are fewer units, but still curious.

A similar issue is the admittedly rare occurence when a unit attacked in the rear not only does not lose, but manages to inflict severe losses on the attacker (I have probably only seen this a handful of times in all of the games I've played).

[rbodleyscott]

In the TT game, extra units can only (frontally) attack the defender if part of its frontage is free to attack. Units in TT are called "battle groups" because at the scale used (250 men per base) they mostly do not represent single historical units, but groups of such units. The sub-units as yet unengaged are assumed not in fact to be engaged and hence to be free to react in the same way as normal, so the normal impact POAs apply.

Of course it is different if the battle group is attacked in flank or rear - when the defenders/attackers are automatically on a net --/++ POA.

[deadtorius]

I have had the misfortune of taking severe losses from rear charges on the TT too. If the dice hate you (virtual or otherwise) your rolls will end in defeat. I have had whole games where I seemed to roll too many 1's and no 6's, both on the TT and the PC

[76mm]

*sigh* I just had an elite legion attack judean guerillas in the rear, in the open, and suffer 14% casualties. it gets really old at times....

[pantherboy]

A possible solution without requiring a major change is to produce extra results tables. Rather than purely base losses off of who got more or less hits have expanded tables that incorporate POA. In this way you'll have tables for:

+2 POA more hits
+1 POA more hits
+0 POA more hits
-1 POA more hits
-2 POA more hits

The same above for equal hits and then another set for less hits. Remember that each line also has a range of casualties based upon the actual number of hits rolled. Ultimately this would allow you to narrow the current ranges and fine tune results.

e.g. In your rear attack example the -2POA guerilla rolls 4 hits (6,6,6,6) and more than the legionaire which on the table has a range of 3%-7% (just plucking numbers from thin air).

Cheers,

Steve

[deadtorius]

Or you could just sacrifice some sheep to the Gods of luck before you try that fatal move. Sometimes luck just happens to go against you. Trying to fiddle with more complexities is to just muck up something that works, just some times it does not work the way we had hoped.

[IainMcNeil]

You have to understand that you are playing teh game from a high level. The reason your Legion suffered casualties is to simulate teh countless small upsets at the local level represented modelled by the dice. E.g. Your Elite Legion was commander by an idiot who instructed the men top perform some ridiculous manoeuivre too close to the enemy. The Legions hit a small but steep bank just before contact dirupting their charge. A heroic Juden commander inspired his men to fight on, suprising the Legionaries who were expecting an easy win. There are countless excample of these local level events turning the course of the local fighting.

These events are not things the commander would see or know about. You have to take in to account that nothing is certain in war and plan accordingly. That is the skill. The system completely relies on these upsets to model combat realistically otherwise good troops woudl always win and poor troops always lose and this just didn't happen.

[CaptainHuge]

Wasn't sure what to call this thread, but one of the things I'm growing to dislike about the combat sistem is that if a defending BG is attacked by one enemy, and then by another, and then another, the defender seems to inflict the same number of casualties on subsequent attackers as on the initial attacker, even though at this point they are already committed to battle with the initial attacker and therefore have less freedom to maneuver and available combat power to repulse subsequent attackers, as well as the fact that subsequent attacker are often attacking on a flank, etc.

As a "made up" example (based on "in game" experience): phalanx attacks legion head-on. Phalanx loses 13%, Legion 2%. Another Phalanx attacks in other frontal hex, loses 15%. Another phalanx attacks legion in flank, phalanx loses 17%.

I have had units (typically elite legions) surrounded on 5 sides by attacking units and it can still take multiple turns to take them down. While I can see how maybe a unit attacked by multiple units on multiple fronts might be able to defend itself, but it seems odd that they can continue to inflict large losses on attackers, as if they are not otherwise engaged.

How is this dealt with on the TT? I guess it is less of an issue there because there are fewer units, but still curious.

A similar issue is the admittedly rare occurence when a unit attacked in the rear not only does not lose, but manages to inflict severe losses on the attacker (I have probably only seen this a handful of times in all of the games I've played).

In this example, isn't the Legion taking casualties each time and aren't the Phalanxes getting supported bonuses?

[IainMcNeil]

Yes for casualties, no for supports - you dont get supports at impact as numbers dont come to bear until the melee phase.