Slitherine

Had a good game last night with Lance - Romans vs Hellenistic Greek.

I managed to get 2 of my Commanders killed by Lance's skill in throwing double sixes!! But it did cause us to focus on the order of events.

The current order appears to be:

Step 1 - Cohesion Test for losing the Combat
Step 2 - Death Rolls
Step 3 - Roll for risk to Commanders
Step 4 - Cohesion Test if Commander lost

If our interpretation is correct it felt like it prolongs the phase? If the Commander is at risk in the Impact or Melee phase, we'd prefer to see this rolled for as Step 1. Currently at Step 1 the losing BG gets the benefit of an attached Commander.

So this would then become:

Step 1 - Roll for risk to Commanders
Step 2 - Cohesion Test for losing the Combat, with an extra minus one if Commander lost
Step 3 - Death Rolls

It's shorter, quicker, and increases the impact of losing the Commander to a losing BG.

I commend the idea to the house.

Pete

Very rapid repsonse I'm afriad as I have to dash of to Nottingham.
So excuse the brevity.

We looked at this one in the last cycle and concluded:

+s more time efficient

-s a bit too destructive on the BG concerned - especially if it happens at impact - more a gradual effect of losing the benefit in melee and then worrying about the aftermath felt better in testing. Would have a side effect of ecnourage people to join for melee and less for impact. If you join for melee today and win - but lose your general- then usually you won't suffer too much in melee and have a chance of surviving thereby.

-s you still have to test other BGs in range so it complicates the order a bit to have some during combat and some at end of phase.

On balance therefore we felt the -s outweigheds the pluses but I have to admit it wasn't a 90/10 decision more a 60/40 one.

Si

Thanks for sharing the rationale.

On balance I think it's quite generous. The chances of losing a Commander is still relatively low and the benefit gained from having one in combat can be decisive.

But happy to take 2 tests if you think that's the best solution.

Pete

One of the principles we started with was to make sure generals were valuable in all roles.

At present we seem to have a fair old mix of how they are used. TCs certainly are valuable to throw into a melee. FCs are too valuable generally to put into a fight unless you have no choice. ICs only in game winning positions a la Alexander. Terry and I don't put generals into combat all the time by any means - in fact if anything we now err of the side of trying to win without having to take such risks.

While one says it is hard to lose them as 11/12 it is 1 in 12. We tracked a few battles with combats and fought something like 40 combats in total over an army rout game. With generals always in then about 15 of those would have generals = 1 generals dead per game on average = problems most times.

Also if you lost 2 dbl6s whil winning you really did suffer from putting them in - rather badly. If yuou lost them while losing the 1 in 26 isn't the right way to llok at it as it s 1 in 12 really of which 1/3rd of results is 6-6 (vs 6-5 and 5-6). So if you lose 2 generals in a game while losing combat then 1 in 9 times it will happen with 2 dbl 6s. So not that uncommon in fact.

We feel the balance is about right if most players generally feel they are worth committing to attacks at times. We don't want to see generals hanging around at the back of the table when they are supposed to be leadinga Serbian Knight charge.....

Si