On the topic of death rolls

[Esbenmf]

Related to death rolls, but not entirely the same.

When a Battle Group of 8 bases (4 front in two ranks) fights two Battle Groups of four bases each (in two times two formation) the larger Battle Group has a bigger chance of losing a base all else being equal (POA's, dice rolls, ...), just because it is bigger, and thus receives more hits, than the two small Battle Groups. This seems wrong. I suggest, that losses are inflicted - not pr. Battle Gropu pr. army, but pr. army, so in a mutli Battle Group close combat each army sums up received hits, and then resolves death rolls, instead of each Battle Group rolling individually.

So what about combats with Battle Groups on the same side having both lost and won. I suggest, you just add the modifiers, to each army's death roll, and then proceeds.

An example:

A = Battle Group of army 1
B and C = Battle Groups of army 2

Situation:
AAAA
AAAA
BBCC
BBCC

1) B received one hit, C three hits, A three hits ( two from B, one from C). So A loses, C loses, and B wins. In my proposal A would make a death roll of 4+2 = one base lost.
B and C would make a combined roll of 1+3+2 (B hits, C hits, C lost) also a sure loss of one base.

1) B received two hits, C two hits, A four hits ( two from B, two from C). So A draws, C draws, and B draws. In my proposal A would make a death roll of 4.
B and C would make a combined roll of 2+2 (B hits, C hits) a change from the version 1, where B and C would each make a death roll of 2. (more rolls with deaths, the average is the same in this example).

You can then always randomise, exactly which Battle Group takes the losses.

Esben

[hammy]

If you actually crunch the numbers on this one you will find that the discrepancy between base loses for each side is not as large as you might think.

I don't fully follow your examples either, I suspect you may have misstyped in at least one place.

[ethan]

seemed pretty large when I did a sim...found in BG discussion thread in the m/ian forum. IIRC the big BG took about 50% more casaulties.

[philqw78]

what if there are more than 3 BG. What if one BG is 2 bases. What if one is elephants. What about additional hits from overlaps. What about a BG that is overlapped and overlaps a different BG. etc.

[Esbenmf]

What if...

You just sum up all hits and death roll modifiers on each side of the close combat, and take one death roll for each side, not so complicated. It just makes it more likely that a side with multiple small battle groups to take casualties.

It will work to alleviate one of the weird results of having multiple small battle groups IMHO.

Esben

[RichardThompson]

What if...

You just sum up all hits and death roll modifiers on each side of the close combat, and take one death roll for each side, not so complicated. It just makes it more likely that a side with multiple small battle groups to take casualties.

It will work to alleviate one of the weird results of having multiple small battle groups IMHO.

Esben

If you really want things to be proportional you would have to remove the '+2' for drawing/winning melee from the death roll.

This would then be unrealistic so you would have to introduce something like a saving throw for the winners.

This would involve throwing even more dice than now and probably isn't worth it.

[stecal]

I'd say get rid of the winner's +2 mod for the death roll. It serves no purpose - casualties inflicted to a fleeing enemy's rear are reflected in the automatic loss of bases in the pursuit phase. The combat dice already reflect the severity of the fight, i.e if it was 5 to 1 then the winner will usually not suffer much, but a 5-4 victory is a very close, bloody brawl. (Pyhrric victory) Use mofiers to the death roll only as a rules mechanism to fix some matchups like the ineffectiveness of bow fire or toughness of elephants (and maybe mounted)

it seems the authors in FOG-R are already heading in this direction:

WG: Firearms played a growing role in warfare during this period. Can you share some of the developments and challenges in bringing this aspect to the game?

As mentioned above, firearms largely negate the effects of armour under the rules. In addition, we wanted their shooting to have as significant effect as it did historically, despite battle groups only being partly comprised of shot bases and ranges being quite short. Those who have played FOG: AM will be familiar with the dreaded “Death Roll”. In order to avoid recording casualties, this is a simple dice roll which must score greater than the number of “hits” (an abstract concept not representing actual physical hits) received to prevent the loss of a base following combat. When shot at, the death roll is made with a +2 bonus to represent the fact that shooting in Ancient and Medieval times was less deadly than close combat. In FOG:R there is no +2 bonus on the Death Roll when shot at mostly by firearms, which makes shooting by firearms significantly more deadly. Troops shot at by bows and other obsolete missile weapons still get the old Death Roll bonus.

The effect of this is that base losses have a much more significant role in FOG:R than in FOG:AM. In addition to ensuring the importance of firearms, play-testers have generally agreed that this increases the tension and excitement in the game

I want more EXCITEMENT (i mean death) in my FOG ancients game too!

[hannibal]

I agree. The +2 modifier means that many, small BGs will in general lose less bases than fewer, big BGs. This is one of the factors that encourages "swarm" armies and makes them disproportionately strong. Get rid of the +2 modifier or else introduce a modifier for big BGs. I guess the only problem will be for elephants etc so playtesting required. I predict more death!