Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Sep 18 16 2:16 PM

Hi Dave,

My current thinking is that the only change will be the introduction of a 9+ to-hit for disordered lights, bowmen etc. I think anything else is too complicated in the heat of action, especially with new or young players. I think we can keep this system in other periods, too- it's what we'll have in ECW.

Best, Simon

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#23 [url]

Sep 18 16 10:49 PM

Hello Simon

I think hitting with a +5 for veterans in melee is a good idea, a +7 for raw is ok but the firing is already difficult with a +8 to hit, so making it more difficult...
I would like to see firing hit with +6 for archers, and +8 for other foot bow! I have a Achemenid Persian army and would love playing with...

Robert

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Sep 19 16 12:10 AM

Hi Robert,

The thing is that shooting has to be harder to hit than melee. Bowmen shoot twice on 8+, so they can be quite effective; if the two shots are added together that is effectively a 5+. I am starting to collect Achaemenids, myself.... :-)

Best, Simon

Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Dec 17 16 3:10 AM

HI Simon,

We've always accounted for quality in the the 'to hit' roll - vets get the +1 and raw -1. It just makes sense and adds chrome to reflect reality IMHO. As for remembering your troops..learn your army! The idea that veteran and raw troops fight with the same effectiveness just seems wrong to me and doesn't speak to the history. Hope you include this at least as an option in version 2. Shooting seems fine as it is.

...my 2c.

HW

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

Dec 17 16 8:09 AM

Well if you add +1 for veteran shooters, you really should add +1 for veterans in melee ... The hitting on a 6+/8+ is really easy to explain to new players and easy remember in the heat of action.

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Dec 17 16 8:40 AM

It also helps to remember that shooting and melee combat are both two part processes, a to hit card and a to save card. At present the difference between veteran and raw is reflected by a 20% difference in likelihood of making a save ((veteran hoplites save 60% of the time, raw hoplites only 40% of the time). I think this difference is enough, hut that is probably because of a personal dislike of certain troop types becoming superhuman.

Andrew

Quote    Reply   

#28 [url]

Dec 17 16 10:16 AM

There's also a similar enhanced possibility of the veterans rallying, should they become disordered.

I suppose one could increase the raw to veteran gradient by giving more experienced troops a bonus card vs. less experienced, such that veteran hoplites would get an extra card hitting on 8+. This would be a bit like the "more pike" mechanism in "For King and Parliament". Wouldn't help with missile firing though.

Quote    Reply   

#29 [url]

Dec 17 16 12:21 PM

Gents,

This does to a degree come down to how effective you think veterans vs raw troops should be. Your comments about rallying and save differences are perfectly valid and if you feel the qualitative difference is enough as is...then all is well. I think that Vets should have a greater ability to inflict damage (to hit) than more reluctant warriors who are less likely to do so at the coal face...this just seems more 'historical' to my mind.

A 20% shift from the best to worst troops is I think modest in the to hit and save calculation and feels right me. The beauty of TtS! Is such small incremental shifts can be tinkered with without really breaking anything...this comes down to personal preference- hence my suggestion as an optional rule for those that would prefer a slightly greater gradient between troop quality.

@ Simon....you're quite right on shooting...I have no problem with vets hitting on 7+ and raw on 9+ (though that does hurt them rather a lot making them quite ineffective). The current numbers combined with ammo limits align nicely with low intensity (skirmish) shooters and a spread of 7+ to 9+ seems ok...but raw shooters would be crap!

Massed archery (volley fire) should be more lethal so maybe they always hit on 8+ but the save is reduced based on the proficiency of the shooter. Given that massed archery is less dependent on individual prowess than veteran skirmisher types an 8+ seems reasonable.

HW

Last Edited By: Happy Wanderer Dec 17 16 12:24 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Dec 19 16 1:47 AM

Hi HW- I promise I'll give it some thought when I get around to V2. I'll make a note now in the spreadsheet where I capture ideas. Best, Simon

PS I really don't mind raw shooters being crap! :-)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#31 [url]

Jan 27 17 4:33 AM

Hi there

just my two cents on the topic

I really think the 6+/8+ to hit should be left as it is, it's part of what makes the simple beauty of this streamlined design. Even if veteran/raw status doesn't have a direct effect on the to hit, it has an indirect one because veteran troops will be disordered less easily and rally more easily, so they'll be able to enjoy the 6+ to hit more often, and the same goes for raw troops in the other way.

The one thing that may be a little underrepresented is the qualitative edge of some expert shooters, such as English longbowmen or Mongol cavalry... I don't know if the extra ammo is enough. Maybe a save penalty for good order target units, so as not to touch to the 6+/8+. 

Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

Jan 27 17 5:48 AM

In the ECW Version I'm currently experimenting with replacing 6+ cards, with two 8+ cards. This works rather well (although it doesn't in any way address the veteran/raw debate). Two 8+ are slightly bloodier than a 6+ -there is a 10% chance of getting 2 hits.

Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

Jan 28 17 8:06 AM

I'm all for simplicity, but the two 6+/8+ results to hit are really not something requiring further simplicfication in my opinion. It also reduces the effect of the extra card for lance/elephants, etc, from 100% of the inital attack force to 50%.
And it also provides an opportunity for "extreme luck" by scoring two hits, which I don't think is desirable, all the more because it can be doubly devastating because of the sequentiality of combat.
I think 10% chance for a regular two-hits unit to pulverize an identical unit in defense without even exposing itself to some sort of response is not agood idea.

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Jan 28 17 8:15 AM

Regarding the raw/veteran debate, as I mentioned before I think that for melee units the save difference is appropriate, because it indirectly affects their offensive capability. The problem is more the difference between an armoured/ melee-weapon equiped bowman ( save bonus adequate here) and an bowman expert at shooting. Not sure the extra ammo is enough. Of course , besides English longbowmen and Mongol-type horse archers, there aren't that many bowmen that would deserve "elite" status
But, then, they are kinda famous units, it would be sad to fail to convey the proper historical feeling when using them

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Jan 29 17 3:24 AM

I think the way that two 8+ vs one 6+ card gives a wider spread of results, is the reason that I like it! The small chance of a second hit adds an element of excitement, and I find I rarely regret adding excitement to the rules. ;-) The opposing unit has a save, so there is only a 6-8% chance that it will be routed at a stroke. I would look at lances, too, to keep them in proportion.

Elite shooters; perhaps some sort of re-play of a missed shooting card? I'll give that some thought later on.

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Jan 29 17 2:45 PM

I'm all for excitement, but I was questioning the appropriateness of a 6%-8% chance ( so due to happen at least once or twice in a game, if not more) of a standard unit ( admitting the 2-Hits unit is the standard unit, which I believe is more or less the intention of the design) to eradicate a unit of the exact same size and offensive power with one single attack, while not exposing itself to any possibility of damage ( 'cause that must be taken into account too). From an historical/realistic point of view I believe it is hard to justify, from a gameplay point of view, of course, it's all about preferences: it may add excitement through higher unpredictability, but the increased volatility of the combat results makes luck a much stronger factor in the outcome of the game and determination of the final victor. This may also be source of frustration.

Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Jan 29 17 3:46 PM

I think a unit running away at contact 6-8% of the time is conservative; there are many historical examples of units breaking at contact or soon thereafter. At Mantinea 418 BCE, allegedly all the Athenians ran away before contact!

I would reckon it'd be more likely to happen every other game. We have the same effect now with units that have bonus attacks, it'd be just a little more of the same. In the ECW version, some cavalry units are playing 3-5 8+ cards at a time and that works OK (just so long as one doesn't get too invested in one's units!). :-) Bloody, it is.

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Jan 30 17 1:00 AM

Okay, I guess it's a question of design choice. I was imagining that an inflation of to hit cards draws and their corresponding sva draws could become a little cumbersome ( charging with a lance on a unit's flank would require drawing 6 to-hit cards and their saves)
More generally, I must say I have always been very skeptic about the appropriateness of the wild destructiveness of many miniature games, and the corresponding "empty battlefield" syndrome, specially for those in the "fact-paced" category. For sure, players often associate "bloody" with "fun", although I personally fail to see a direct link between both.
But in fact, the battles themselves were rarely bloody (with a few spectacular exceptions) in terms of % of casualties. The slaugther generally occured after one side broke and ran, with winner/loser casualties ratio going from 1/10 to insane 1/50 or more on some occasions. But that happens after the end of the game! Battles where one (or both) side(s) would lose a third or even half of its physical mass, and therefore ability to over ground, while retaining some ability to fight ( which is what happens in may miniature games) never happened in reality.

Anyway, just a point of view...

Quote    Reply   

#39 [url]

Jan 30 17 2:45 AM

Re casualties I do agree that in general most casualties occurred after one side or the other, in a battle, ran away. When a unit in TtS! is lost, this represents a morale failure, much more than it does casualties (this is why TtS! units can rally from disorder). Whilst the majority of casualties would occur "after the game", they would start to occur during the battle as individual units broke. To-hit cards represent more the possibility of disordering an enemy unit, than of killing its soldiers.

Empty battlefield- I do agree that is a shame. I have though about modelling casualties; a routed pike phalanx would pretty much be a piece of rough terrain in its own right! Imagine the obstacle that the mass of tangled pikes and corpses must have created. I have modelled a lot of dead elephants (need some more in fact- no one does a dead Indian yet).

Interesting discussion! :-)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help