Risk to Generals

[philqw78]

There is very little risk to generals in melee when fighting as part of an elite or superior BG. There is a huge risk when fighting as part of an Average or Poor BG.

Consider the better troops will normally have less bases in contact, normally being 4 or if foot 6 base BG. Therefore enemy will far less often cause 2 hits and being superior they will lose less often. So there is rarely a chance to kill the general. With bigger, poorer BG they almost always take 2 hits. Therefore there is always a chance to kill the general.

Why not just make it a straight 12 to kill a winning or drawing general, an 11 to kill a losing general regardless of the 2 hits.

It could also be used to kill generals in overlap, that currently cannot be killed.

If you are squeamish substitute kill with incapacitate.

[timmy1]

I agree with Phil's proposal (that should get it killed stone dead).

[lawrenceg]

Or for more complexity, make it 1 hit per 4 bases needed to have a chance of killing the general. The original idea seems to be that there is no chance if combat is not very intense.

[philqw78]

But players can put Generals into melee where they hav absolutely zero chance of death. Overlap. Charging skirmishers with Battle troops with 1 base contact. We all know that strange shit has decided battles. So if you want the advantage take the risk.

[grahambriggs]

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

[timmy1]

Graham, your idea works for me.

[lawrenceg]

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

[grahambriggs]

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

Because you have to simplify somewhere? Also, with 12 bases fighting the chances of a draw are less I suppose (not that i considered that when I wrote!)

[hazelbark]

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

I am not so certain you are accurate here. Remove Army CiCs and you have a lot of generals "fighting" meaning near where they can get killed.

The Sub commmander TC bases in particular are a way of abstracting the command system. Who do they really represent? A senior officer on a first name basis with the monarch or a fierce inspiring leader.

Also TCs are a lot more important i think to armies with lots of average troops. So more generals die, means less average armies.

[lawrenceg]

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

Because you have to simplify somewhere? Also, with 12 bases fighting the chances of a draw are less I suppose (not that i considered that when I wrote!)

Also the benefit is bigger as 12 dice are upgraded instead of 4, so in game terms it is possibly fairer to have a slightly larger risk.

I wouldn't object if this change was adopted.

You could even take out the number of hits variable and make it:

Lose = death on 11 or 12
Draw = death on 11 only
Win = death on 12.

[madaxeman]

There is very little risk to generals in melee when fighting as part of an elite or superior BG. There is a huge risk when fighting as part of an Average or Poor BG.

Consider the better troops will normally have less bases in contact, normally being 4 or if foot 6 base BG. Therefore enemy will far less often cause 2 hits and being superior they will lose less often. So there is rarely a chance to kill the general. With bigger, poorer BG they almost always take 2 hits. Therefore there is always a chance to kill the general.

Why not just make it a straight 12 to kill a winning or drawing general, an 11 to kill a losing general regardless of the 2 hits.

It could also be used to kill generals in overlap, that currently cannot be killed.

If you are squeamish substitute kill with incapacitate.

Sign me up for this one.