What does even partly (manual) mean?

[sIg3b]

Each close combat is unit vs. unit. There is no unit that is partly Elephants or partly Scythed Chariots or partly Impact Foot. What is the manual trying to say here?

partly.jpg (111.05 KiB) Viewed 3570 times

[Jagger2002]

Partly means if any of the units in the combat are of the type specified. For example, if a unit A is in melee against 3 units and one is an elephant, then the modifier will apply if unit A loses a melee against any of the units. That is my understanding.

[sIg3b]

Possible, but consider the following situation: Hoplites are in combat with Elephants and Irregulars. They draw against the Elephants, but lose against the Irregulars. When Cohesion testing, do they get the -1 modifier?

Taking the manual literally, they shouldn´t, because they didn´t lose against the Elephants either fully or partly. The game doesn´t add the opponents up, but treats the fight as two duels, so even if they are losing against Irregulars while also fighting Elephants, this doesn´t mean they are partly losing against the Elephants.

[Jagger2002]

double post

[Jagger2002]

Possible, but consider the following situation: Hoplites are in combat with Elephants and Irregulars. They draw against the Elephants, but lose against the Irregulars. When Cohesion testing, do they get the -1 modifier?

As I understand, yes, they would receive the -1 modifier for the loss against the irregulars because they were also in melee with the elephants.

Taking the manual literally, they shouldn´t, because they didn´t lose against the Elephants either fully or partly.

It isn't a question of whether they lost to the elephants but whether the hoplites were also fighting against elephants. The "partly" refers to the participants in the combat. Not to whether they won or lost against the elephants.

[Jagger2002]

Rereading the rules, yes, I can see how the rules could be interpreted as implying that winning is the important point rather than participants. I believe my answer is correct from my experience of playing the game and that the wording of the rules are misleading. Perhaps RBS can clarify because I could be wrong.

[deeter]

Jagger2002 is correct.

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

In fact the wording in the manual, which was based on the tabletop rules, is misleading.

The current code does not give a unit (for example) -1 for fighting elephants if it takes a test for losing against another enemy unit. It only gives the -1 for fighting elephants if the elephants were the cause of the test.

This is a difference from the tabletop rules.

By contrast, the -1 for being shot at by artillery does apply to subsequent tests for shooting by other units in a turn, because it was specifically coded that way.

We need to consider whether it would be better to change the manual or the code.

[Athos1660]

I like it as it is currently, especially how artillery works.

Not sure elephants should work the same way.

Artillery shooting at a given target is a decision made by the player for one turn. Kind of a overall bonus to prepare or finalize the shooting/charges by other targets. CT generated by elephants is during close combat, only a part of a general melee between several units.

[Jagger2002]

The current code does not give a unit (for example) -1 for fighting elephants if it takes a test for losing against another enemy unit. It only gives the -1 for fighting elephants if the elephants were the cause of the test.

That is good to know. I assumed a lost to any enemy unit in the melee with enemy elephants would trigger the -1.

[kronenblatt]

I like it as it is currently, especially how artillery works.

Not sure elephants should work the same way.

Artillery shooting at a given target is a decision made by the player for one turn. Kind of a overall bonus to prepare or finalize the shooting/charges by other targets. CT generated by elephants is during close combat, only a part of a general melee between several units.

Agree. Would prefer the manual to be changed, not the code.

[sIg3b]

We need to consider whether it would be better to change the manual or the code.

I think a case could be made for either option.

In the meantime, thank you for the clarification; appreciated!

Is the similar true in the second case? (Medium foot etc vs. partly Mounted/Medium/Heavy foot in open)

[deeter]

Wow! Got that wrong. I think it would be preferable to apply the -1 for elephants in the same way it is for artillery. Elephants don't seem to do enough as it is, so this would be a good boost for them.

Deeter

[Jagger2002]

I would definitely leave the medium, warriors, bowmen, etc alone. They are already too vulnerable.

[rbodleyscott]

Is the similar true in the second case? (Medium foot etc vs. partly Mounted/Medium/Heavy foot in open)

Yers, all such close combat cases.

[TheGrayMouser]

I would like to see the effect of changing the rules to match the wording ( like a few others , I thought these units were testing with a -!!!)

[Cunningcairn]

I would like to see the effect of changing the rules to match the wording ( like a few others , I thought these units were testing with a -!!!)

+1

[76mm]

I think it would be preferable to apply the -1 for elephants in the same way it is for artillery. Elephants don't seem to do enough as it is, so this would be a good boost for them.

Yeah, that's my vote as well, although I don't feel very strongly about it.

[sIg3b]

Not so sure. Elephants are already pretty strong, and even if they rout, they don´t seem to backfire that dramatically. (Unless the whole line is in the red already.)