Combat resolution sequence

[rogerg]

I suggest changing the cohesion test, commander risk and death roll sequence. The following order seems more intuitive:

1) Roll to cause hits
2) Death rolls casualty
3) Test for commander loss
4) Take cohesion tests

As the rules are at the moment, we have the following situation, which has occurred several times in my recent games. A BG passes a cohesion test but breaks on the autobreak. This renders the CT result redundant.

Although we are now in the habit of rolling the death roll and CT simultaneously, it is still an anomaly that a lost base has no effect at the time of the test. The base gets removed and then we have to remember not to count it for 25% as we add up the CT factors. Further, should the commander be lost or a BG break, there is then another test.

It seems much more logical to do the fight, take the casualties and then test morale on the result of the combat. The test would encompass any 25% loss factor incurred at the time, and would include "more than one reason to test" for other breaks or commander losses.

I appreciate that there is the possibility of a delayed test when other combats within 3MU might generate a further reason to test. The player may wish to delay testing before choosing the test order. However, playing practice is to leave the hit dice by the BGs, assess which have lost, then test. In multi-BG contests, it may well be easier to roll all the hits, roll all the death rolls then take one CT per BG if required.

There is a further advantage in taking the loss prior to the test in that the 4 base BG's losing a base are immediately subject to the 25% loss. I am raising the BG size issue in another post.

[shall]

Its all very finely calibrated today to the order Roger, so the change you suggest would require a rethink of all the factors. All BGs would be more vulnerable, but 4s much more so immediately than 6s or 8s. The penalty for losing generals changes which will affect behaviour - you only face 1 test, not an extra test. Then the whole points system would have to be reviewed as well.

It would be a really major recalibration exercise rather than just a tweak. I will mull it over and there are some technical reason that it is the order it is at present.

But my over-riding first thought is that it isn't really practical to make such a dramatic change I'm afraid. It seems to work well at present so this would be icing on the cake more than anything fundamental unless I am missing soemthing.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

The main reason the order is as it currently is, is to reduce positive feedback, particular from unlucky dice.

When we were first devising the rules we debated whether to take base losses off before CTs or after. We decided that death rolls should be taken after CTs precisely to avoid 25% losses having an immediate effect.

Taking bases off before CTs increases the luck element in the game. We feel that luck is currently balanced correctly and do not wish to increase it.