Deah roll modifier for winning or drawing BG

[Polkovnik]

I think this may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I thought it deserves its own thread for discussion. I think the death roll modifier for winning or drawing BGs should be changed from +2 to +1. This would lead to a significantly increased chance of a winning BG taking casualties. This will have a positive effect on a few frequently raised problem areas:
Underperformance of protected / unprotected foot - they can have more depth to absorb losses.
Roman vs barbarian match-up (a case of the above that is often raised as a significant problem area)
Small BGs / Swarms – small BGs will be less desirable as even high quality BGs will be more likely to take losses
Dominance of superior troops
Underperformance of poor troops (except LF)
Lack of attritional losses for successful BGs
Game length - bloodier battles should lead to slight reduction in game length
Effect of chance on the game – currently dice have a big effect, as whoever loses a big impact combat is likely to lose bases and cohesion – a double whammy.
The later is particularly the case when you have an even impact combat between two large BGs. The impact dice have a huge effect on the outcome. My proposal would give a more balanced outcome as the winner is more likely to take losses. It’s particularly annoying when you lose an even combat by 3 hits to 2. What should be a relatively even outcome often ends up very one sided, purely based on the initial combat dice.

[jlopez]

I'll vote for that.

[MatthewP]

Bad news for elephants and other small battlegroups though.

[hammy]

Possibly +1 of you draw or win by 1 hit and +2 if you win by 2 or more hits.

[timmy1]

Hammy is right...

[RichardThompson]

Hammy is right...

I agree

[david53]

Can't see how you'd get more people taking Protected troops TBH I can't see the need for a change if you lose the combat big you should have a big chance of losing bases. Changing this will effect major parts of the rules such as the CT for IMO little gain. Just noticed underperformance of poor troops as a reason is'nt that covered by there name Poor. also noticed 'Lack of attritional losses for successful BGs' thats cause they won. What your doing is stoping the wining I thought that was the fun part.

[Polkovnik]

Bad news for elephants and other small battlegroups though.

The effect on small BGs is intentional. It seems to be widely accepted that small BGs are too good compared to larger ones. The effect on elephants is an unfortunte side effect, as elephants have to be taken in small BGs.

[Polkovnik]

Can't see how you'd get more people taking Protected troops .

This will lead to more base losses, which cheaper troops are more able to absorb. For example, this would make two ranks of armoured off spear vs 3 ranks of protected off spear a more even fight.

I can't see the need for a change if you lose the combat big you should have a big chance of losing bases. .

My suggestion has no effect on the chance of losing bases for the loser of the combat.

Changing this will effect major parts of the rules such as the CT for IMO little gain.

I've got no idea what you mean here. No change to the CT would be required.

also noticed 'Lack of attritional losses for successful BGs' thats cause they won.

So do you think that a unit of knights should be able to fight in three successive combats against more numerous opponents (say), routing each opponent, and not suffer any detrimental effect on its performance ? No significant casualties, no blown horses, nothing to stop it fighting as well as at the start of the battle ?

[timmy1]

Polkovnik

You state that 'It seems to be widely accepted that small BGs are too good compared to larger ones'. I am interested in why you think it is widely accepted. I don't see evidence for that.

[olivier]

It was a VERY bad news for any mounted! At first loss they'll go to 25% with all the minus to shoot and CT.
For Kn and Chariot who fought on a large front, they become a one shot weapon ( and an expensive) as they take many hit against them!
But its a good news for sup bowmen who's become near invulnerable if they stay steady in the first round phase...
Where did I put my Nubians?!

[Polkovnik]

It was a VERY bad news for any mounted! ::

Why ? Virtually all mounted can be taken in 6s. I'm pretty sure I read on here that the fact they are virutually never taken in 6s is something the authors would like to change. This would go some way towards doing so.

[Polkovnik]

For Kn and Chariot who fought on a large front, they become a one shot weapon ( and an expensive) as they take many hit against them!:

It hardly makes them a one shot weapon. A BG of 4 superior Knights has to lose three bases before it autobreaks. Whilst this will increase the chances of them losing bases when they win, they will still be very tough troops to beat.

[david53]

For Kn and Chariot who fought on a large front, they become a one shot weapon ( and an expensive) as they take many hit against them!:

It hardly makes them a one shot weapon. A BG of 4 superior Knights has to lose three bases before it autobreaks. Whilst this will increase the chances of them losing bases when they win, they will still be very tough troops to beat.

Not at all your losing more dice than the person you beat in combat how fair is that.

Right I beat you you test you don't drop or lose but i lose a knight base when i win along with a loss of 2 dice how do you figure that as fair, thats without the minus for 25 per cent

[Cerberias]

You're talking about extremly unlucky chances there david.. winning a combat and losing a base when the other team doesnt go down or lose a base?

[philqw78]

You're talking about extremly unlucky chances there david.. winning a combat and losing a base when the other team doesnt go down or lose a base?

Not really. Knights will typically fight on a 4 base frontage. That means at 8 dice against them. If they are fighting 2 small BG, or worse 2x6BG they could suffer very badly.

[Polkovnik]

For Kn and Chariot who fought on a large front, they become a one shot weapon ( and an expensive) as they take many hit against them!:

It hardly makes them a one shot weapon. A BG of 4 superior Knights has to lose three bases before it autobreaks. Whilst this will increase the chances of them losing bases when they win, they will still be very tough troops to beat.

Not at all your losing more dice than the person you beat in combat how fair is that.

Right I beat you you test you don't drop or lose but i lose a knight base when i win along with a loss of 2 dice how do you figure that as fair, thats without the minus for 25 per cent

This can all happen with the rules as they currently stand. Don't you think they are fair at present ?

[Polkovnik]

You're talking about extremly unlucky chances there david.. winning a combat and losing a base when the other team doesnt go down or lose a base?

Not really. Knights will typically fight on a 4 base frontage. That means at 8 dice against them. If they are fighting 2 small BG, or worse 2x6BG they could suffer very badly.

If they win the combat the most they can suffer is a base loss. The opposing BG(s) are much more likely to suffer base losses and loss of cohesion. It is unlikely that the knights will suffer worse than their opponents when they win the combat.

[kevinj]

I'd been thinking along the lines of +2 for BGs larger than 6 bases, +1 for others, but I like Hammy's suggestion as well.

[rogerg]

To keep it simple, +1 for the winners, but move the elephant bonus to +2.
Elephants are not seen in great quantities in FoG competitions, but other small battle groups are. The armies picked for competition are a good measure of what works. The 'test the market' approach.