Slitherine

There is very little risk to generals in melee when fighting as part of an elite or superior BG. There is a huge risk when fighting as part of an Average or Poor BG.

Consider the better troops will normally have less bases in contact, normally being 4 or if foot 6 base BG. Therefore enemy will far less often cause 2 hits and being superior they will lose less often. So there is rarely a chance to kill the general. With bigger, poorer BG they almost always take 2 hits. Therefore there is always a chance to kill the general.

Why not just make it a straight 12 to kill a winning or drawing general, an 11 to kill a losing general regardless of the 2 hits.

It could also be used to kill generals in overlap, that currently cannot be killed.

If you are squeamish substitute kill with incapacitate.

I agree with Phil's proposal (that should get it killed stone dead).

Or for more complexity, make it 1 hit per 4 bases needed to have a chance of killing the general. The original idea seems to be that there is no chance if combat is not very intense.

But players can put Generals into melee where they hav absolutely zero chance of death. Overlap. Charging skirmishers with Battle troops with 1 base contact. We all know that strange shit has decided battles. So if you want the advantage take the risk.

It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

Graham, your idea works for me.

grahambriggs wrote:It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

Because you have to simplify somewhere? Also, with 12 bases fighting the chances of a draw are less I suppose (not that i considered that when I wrote!)

grahambriggs wrote:It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

I am not so certain you are accurate here. Remove Army CiCs and you have a lot of generals "fighting" meaning near where they can get killed.

The Sub commmander TC bases in particular are a way of abstracting the command system. Who do they really represent? A senior officer on a first name basis with the monarch or a fierce inspiring leader.

Also TCs are a lot more important i think to armies with lots of average troops. So more generals die, means less average armies.

grahambriggs wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:It seems to me that far too many generals get thrown into combat compared to history, presumably because the reward is worth the risk. The reward seems about right - the troops fight a bit better. So I agree that increasing the risk is a way to do it.

Any time a general enters the close combat zone there should be some risk (even if only from old women throwing roof tiles). And it seems logical that losing a fight should entail more risk than drawing; and that drawing should be riskier than winning. So how about:

Losing hand to hand: die on 11
Drawing hand to hand and receiving 2 or more hits: die on 11
None of the above but in hand to hand (including overlap): die on 12

But why should a commander with a 12-base BG be more at risk (on a drawn combat) than one with a 4-base BG?

Because you have to simplify somewhere? Also, with 12 bases fighting the chances of a draw are less I suppose (not that i considered that when I wrote!)

Also the benefit is bigger as 12 dice are upgraded instead of 4, so in game terms it is possibly fairer to have a slightly larger risk.

I wouldn't object if this change was adopted.

You could even take out the number of hits variable and make it:

Lose = death on 11 or 12
Draw = death on 11 only
Win = death on 12.

philqw78 wrote:There is very little risk to generals in melee when fighting as part of an elite or superior BG. There is a huge risk when fighting as part of an Average or Poor BG.

Consider the better troops will normally have less bases in contact, normally being 4 or if foot 6 base BG. Therefore enemy will far less often cause 2 hits and being superior they will lose less often. So there is rarely a chance to kill the general. With bigger, poorer BG they almost always take 2 hits. Therefore there is always a chance to kill the general.

Why not just make it a straight 12 to kill a winning or drawing general, an 11 to kill a losing general regardless of the 2 hits.

It could also be used to kill generals in overlap, that currently cannot be killed.

If you are squeamish substitute kill with incapacitate.

Sign me up for this one.