Slitherine

One way of addressing the "immunity to death" problem of small BGs would be to replace the +1, +2 or +3 with a different dice. This removes the scale effect from the expected base losses per hit. On average, two BGs of 4 would lose the same number of bases as 1 BG of 8 in the same situation, instead of less bases as currently.

lawrenceg wrote:One way of addressing the "immunity to death" problem of small BGs would be to replace the +1, +2 or +3 with a different dice.

Code: Select all

Existing    proposed
0                d6
+1              d8
+2              d10
+3              d12

This removes the scale effect from the expected base losses per hit. On average, two BGs of 4 would lose the same number of bases as 1 BG of 8 in the same situation, instead of less bases as currently.

 

Interesting, but will stop the use of El and 2 bases BG.

Lionel

Vision of hunting for the right dice in my D&D heavy days

All interesting stuff.

Reducing the + for draws and losses intorduces a lot of volatility into the game though. At least today if you win or draw you are relatively unexposed. Would need careful thought.

Win +2, Draw +1, lose straight - has some interesting effects.

Si

I for one think it works fine whats the problum you win its a +2 you draw its the same you lose its - why change I have'nt found people fighting over this.

shall wrote:Reducing the + for draws and losses intorduces a lot of volatility into the game though.

Actually I think it reduces the volatility. If you have an even combat, the loser (purely by chance as no side has an advantage) is likely to lose a base and drop cohesion. And the winner s not likely to lose a base. So one side gets the double whammy, the other side gets no ill effects.
If the death roll for the winner is reduced, it is more likely that both sides will suffer, so the negatives are shared out more evenly. So it is less volatile.

Once you have roilled for hits you have founds out whether it was equal or not. So if you lose 4-0 it wasn't equal on the day - only in theory.

So thereafter it would intorduce volatility unreasonably to drawn situations.

As you say it would rebalance winners back towards draws, but this is not an objective. A reverse double whammy of sorts if you see what I mean.

Personally I wouldn't want to re-even losing/winning results as this would slow progress. Our phase of battle principle is acutally abouyt having the first dice roll decide the result of the initial phase of who won and lost, the second set wherther the loser took it on the chin or not.

S

shall wrote:Once you have roilled for hits you have founds out whether it was equal or not. So if you lose 4-0 it wasn't equal on the day - only in theory.

So thereafter it would intorduce volatility unreasonably to drawn situations.

As you say it would rebalance winners back towards draws, but this is not an objective. A reverse double whammy of sorts if you see what I mean.

Personally I wouldn't want to re-even losing/winning results as this would slow progress. Our phase of battle principle is acutally abouyt having the first dice roll decide the result of the initial phase of who won and lost, the second set wherther the loser took it on the chin or not.

S

I think explains it very well. You roll dice you win you opponent rolls to see how bad it is all seems quite simple