LF don't getting a cohesion penalty for losing to close foot

[bilugo]

Had this come up on a recent game

my HF Romans were fighting some LF, when the LF lost the combat and working out the cohesion table, found they don't get a -1 for losing to HF, but if they were MF they would.

Why is there a discrepancy in this regard?

[philqw78]

Because LF already only get half the dice in the combat, usually have no POA's and should be at least 2 MU further away. But basically the LF don't need another penalty, it would, I assume, move the balance too far to the advantage of the HF.

[SirGarnet]

I think somewhere in the forums it was discussed that the penalty for MF losing vs. HF and for other types losing to particular troop types simulates interactions where the the losing side would expect to suffer more than the usual level of psychological effect or physical disruption - it's more of a make or break situation, like a what is abstracted in DBx as a quick-kill.

LF vs. HF can expect to lose badly, and as pointed out above will likely do so without any additional penalty.

In addition, losing comes as no surprise so there is no extra psychological dislocation involved.

Mike

[grahambriggs]

Had this come up on a recent game

my HF Romans were fighting some LF, when the LF lost the combat and working out the cohesion table, found they don't get a -1 for losing to HF, but if they were MF they would.

Why is there a discrepancy in this regard?

Let's assume 8 average bases per side with no net POAs and that the HF roll well getting 5 hits:

MF would expect to do 4 hits in return (8 dice hitting on 4,5,6). They'll be on -1 for hand to hand casualties and -1 for losing vs HF = -2

LF would expect to do 2 hits (8 bases so 4 dice hitting on 4,5,6). So they will have -1 for hand to hand casualties and -1 for losing badly = -2.

So same difference. However, looking at the case where the HF roll poorly and only do three hits:

- the MF beat them 4 to 3, the HF must test on a -1.

- the HF still beat the LF, but only 3 to 2, so the LF test on -1.

So, in general, the LF are in an equal or worse position than the MF even on equal POAs. Given that most LF are unarmoured and without melee weapons they will usually be at least one POA down so will be butchered.

[rbodleyscott]

Design policy was to avoid representing the same disadvantage twice - the "double whammy".

For LF, losing 1 dice in 2 was in our opinion sufficient disadvantage - and a considerably worse disadvantage, as Graham points out, than the -1 on Cohesion Test for MF. To give them both penalties would be a "double whammy".

Similarly, troops that have been charged in the flank no longer count a -1 CT penalty for "threatened flank" (unless within 6 MUs of the table edge). The cohesion drop on contact, and having to fight the impact combat on -- POA are deemed sufficient penalties without racking up more.

[grahambriggs]

Similarly, troops that have been charged in the flank no longer count a -1 CT penalty for "threatened flank" (unless within 6 MUs of the table edge). The cohesion drop on contact, and having to fight the impact combat on -- POA are deemed sufficient penalties without racking up more.

Except in rare circumstances. For example, if cavalry charge one BG frontally and another in flank they might have to break off and could be in a position to charge the flank again next bound.

[dave_r]

Unless attempting to attack LF in difficult going, then any combat between HF and LF should always be ++ to the HF at impact. This is because the only way it should happen is that the LF have attempted to evade and been caught....