Dice loss slows combat

[philqw78]

There is a minor problem when 2 BG are disordered or severely disordered facing each other in melee. The melee takes much much longer. less dice are rolled so less bases are removed and the differential between hits is much smaller.

I thought about adding dice instead of subtracting if facing disordered BG, but this makes little difference to the steady BG's if POA's are in favour of the unsteady troops. A bit of a quandry.

Also when 2 disrupted or fragged BG are facing each other combats do not really speed up due to less dice being thrown.

Originally I posted that BG that are fighting those who would lose dice now instead add them at the same ratio. The disrupted/disorder/fragged do not lose dice.
So some of the answers may now seem odd.

[hammy]

Interesting idea.

I can see how it could cause some odd rounding issues but it would speed combat against weakened troops.

[MatthewP]

Quite like this, although it may upset the balance when you have a mixed combat involving a fragged (frag 1) bg fighting a fragged bg (frag 2) and a steady bg (stead 1). Because frag 1 gets more dice agasint frag 2 it may get more hits and counter out the effect of stead 1, which would prolong the combat.

Does that make sense?

[philqw78]

Oooh, 2 replies as I edited, after figuring out that steady troops getting extra dice when 2 POA's down wouldn't help. But the troops POA's up getting less dice as now does help them.

[gozerius]

A disrupted or fragged BG getting fewer dice is logical. Its combat capability is degraded. Two BGs suffering the same level of cohesion loss are both less effective, since fewer men are willing to trade blows (imagine a bunch of beat up, exhausted, guys facing off, like the final rounds of a closely matched prizefight), but the loser of a combat is already at
-1 or -2 to their CT, thus more likely to lose further cohesion. Spears and pike already suffer POA penalties when unsteady. What are you trying to fix?

[philqw78]

What are you trying to fix?

That disordered BG fight each other slowly. 2 disrupted BG throw less dice so do less damage to each other so combat takes longer RTFPM.

[nikgaukroger]

What are you trying to fix?

That disordered BG fight each other slowly. 2 disrupted BG throw less dice so do less damage to each other so combat takes longer RTFPM.

Must admit that I don't think FoG combats need speeding up. IMO this topic is an interesting(ish) factoid but not indicative of any issues.

[philqw78]

Like I said, a minor problem

[pyruse]

Surely disrupted battle groups *should* fight more slowly than fresh ones?
The men are tired, and probably spending most of their time shouting insults, and hurling the occasional missile, not actually at sword strokes.
This seems like exactly the right effect.

[philqw78]

Surely disrupted battle groups *should* fight more slowly than fresh ones?
The men are tired, and probably spending most of their time shouting insults, and hurling the occasional missile, not actually at sword strokes.
This seems like exactly the right effect.

The main point is about severely/disordered BG. People should be killing them more quickly.

The problem is disordered and disrupted have the same effect so it would complicate the rules to differentiate.

[pyruse]

The main point is about severely/disordered BG. People should be killing them more quickly

Should they? They are disordered because they are among rocks or trees, which makes them less effective, but also harder to kill.
Not sure about mounted troops disordered by elephants.

[shall]

Not sure I buy the issue yet ... but if I did I wouldn't complicate the dice system as it needs to stay as simple as it is (can already cause the odd headache).

If anything you could make DSR troops do a normal death roll on a draw to speed it up, or FRG take a CT on a draw as well as a loss .. or some toher simple change.

But at present, speaking personally, I think I prefer as is.

S

[Strategos69]

Not sure I buy the issue yet ... but if I did I wouldn't complicate the dice system as it needs to stay as simple as it is (can already cause the odd headache).
If anything you could make DSR troops do a normal death roll on a draw to speed it up, or FRG take a CT on a draw as well as a loss .. or some toher simple change.
But at present, speaking personally, I think I prefer as is.
S

Overcomplicating the game with the dice is not advisable. I would propose two changes:
1) An extra steady point of cohesion for all heavy infantry. I find that now combats are resolved almost at the same time in the center and in the wings, without the wings having enough time to intervine in the center.
2) If all BG's involved have the same level of cohesion, no dice changes are applied. If one BG is worse than other, then the BG being worse applies it. Thus, the number of dice to be deducted will not depend on the level of cohesion itself but the rapport to other BG's. I think that is simple, even simpler than the current rule because less deductions will be made.
Example: two BG are fighting and both of them are fragmented. Both throw normal dice.
One BG is fragmented and the other is disrupted. The disrupted one throws normal dice and the fragmented loses 1 per 3.
Complicated situation: a fragmented BG faces a steady BG and a disrupted BG. Options: a) it is resolved as now b) the fragmented BG loses 1 per 3 against the disrupted and 1 per 2 against the steady BG

[spikemesq]

Not sure I buy the issue yet ... but if I did I wouldn't complicate the dice system as it needs to stay as simple as it is (can already cause the odd headache).
If anything you could make DSR troops do a normal death roll on a draw to speed it up, or FRG take a CT on a draw as well as a loss .. or some toher simple change.
But at present, speaking personally, I think I prefer as is.
S

Overcomplicating the game with the dice is not advisable. I would propose two changes:
1) An extra steady point of cohesion for all heavy infantry. I find that now combats are resolved almost at the same time in the center and in the wings, without the wings having enough time to intervine in the center.
2) If all BG's involved have the same level of cohesion, no dice changes are applied. If one BG is worse than other, then the BG being worse applies it. Thus, the number of dice to be deducted will not depend on the level of cohesion itself but the rapport to other BG's. I think that is simple, even simpler than the current rule because less deductions will be made.
Example: two BG are fighting and both of them are fragmented. Both throw normal dice.
One BG is fragmented and the other is disrupted. The disrupted one throws normal dice and the fragmented loses 1 per 3.
Complicated situation: a fragmented BG faces a steady BG and a disrupted BG. Options: a) it is resolved as now b) the fragmented BG loses 1 per 3 against the disrupted and 1 per 2 against the steady BG

No. was my first reaction to the OP, but I suspect that multiple BGs and Cohesion levels would muck up the system. Unlike POAs, dice losses are harder to spread across files. Could be worth a try in this version:

1. Combat dice lost for cohesion is relative to enemy cohesion. So DISR vs. DISR use full dice, DISR v. STDY and FRAG v. DISR lose 1:3, FRAG v. STDY lose 1:2.

2. Relative Cohesion determined as "worst spread." So DISR v. DISR + STDY lose 1:3, FRAG v. DISR+STDY lose 1:2.

This would make losing bouts go faster, per the OP. It would also reward using reserves and other STDY troops to reinforce a line, as adding a STDY BG to a fight would breathe life into the DISR BG. Currently, introducing a fresh BG to a losing fight has less chance of salvaging the line, once a unit falters to DISR or FRAG in close combat. Indeed, where a BG is FRAG, the rules encourage keeping fresh troops away from the fray to avoid the CT from breaking.

At bottom, I am not sure the OP is a huge problem to begin with. The "relative cohesion" concept does intrigue me though.

[Strategos69]

Actually I thought about the "worst spread" possibility but discarded writing it because it gave too much advantage when getting a fresh BG in the fight but I think that spike got it right. Reserves can make a difference in this cases and giving them a plus seems a good idea. Indeed, as we have to deduct less dice usually, this system will speed up the game mechanics. In most of the cases only one BG will lose dice, which is easier to count than every single BG.