Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Last Battles of Napoleon» Forums » Rules

Subject: When does rounding of Combat Strength occur? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
A L D A R O N
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
A L D A R O N
badge
----[---->+<]>++.+++++++++++.--------.---.>-[--->+<]>---.---.-.
Avatar
mb
The rules say that units affected by "like factors" are rounded together as a group, but this can get tedious and gamey. Should all fractions in Combat Strength just be retained until the end — i.e., that rounding only occurs after all modified strengths of all units in a Combat have been added?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M St
Australia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
I'd consider keeping the fractions more tedious. Not sure what's particularly gamey about it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A L D A R O N
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
A L D A R O N
badge
----[---->+<]>++.+++++++++++.--------.---.>-[--->+<]>---.---.-.
Avatar
mb
M St wrote:
I'd consider keeping the fractions more tedious.

Not keeping them just means one always needs to inventory (and correctly identify) all units involved and group those with "like modifiers", and also that one needs be sure one hasn't missed the fact that two or more groups of units share "like modifiers". If you retain until the end, that's not necessary.

M St wrote:
Not sure what's particularly gamey about it.

It increases the permutations one might be inclined to inventory in this way in order to trigger rounding up, because, for example, shifting a group of like-modified units from a combat with no group with the same like modifiers, to one that has another such force, may change the final, combined strength of the forces. (E.g. from 2 to 3 if each has effective unrounded strength of 1.3.) Moreover, it makes such examinations more important, since it increases the potential total effect of rounding on a combat from ±0.5 to ±F*0.5, where F is the number of distinct groups of units sharing like factors.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M St
Australia
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
To be honest, I think these are rather abstract concerns. What does it mean to "inventory" all groups? In most attacks you'll have one or two hexes - and then we have to have a situation where one of these groups attacks, say, across a river, or a woods hexside, and the other not. Some of these may have multiple combat arms, but then we are down to very few units per group (And in fact if you are using cavalry and infantry in a joint attack, you are likely using them suboptimally.) I just don't see it as an issue in practice.

Concerning your second point, all that group shuffling does is change your strength by a point. If someone goes to that level of effort, I'd like to play against them as they probably will overlook some other, more important factor. As you probably know, having looked at the rules, I picked up this style of combat system as a foil to the common mechanisms that encourage true factor counting - and where such counting may make a big difference as it shifts you across major steps in the CRT. In this system, the way to win is much more influenced by maneuver, timing, concentration, and employment of combined arms. One needs to pick the right forces and hope they carry through - that extra strength point is unlikely to be decisive.

That said, I'm not fussed about doing it a particular way. I did it the way it currently is because I thought it was easier, not because I think a particular way of getting those 0.5 strength points will dramatically increase realism. I'll put the question up for discussion.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A L D A R O N
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
A L D A R O N
badge
----[---->+<]>++.+++++++++++.--------.---.>-[--->+<]>---.---.-.
Avatar
mb
M St wrote:
To be honest, I think these are rather abstract concerns.

Well, yes; but I think that could be said of all gaming, and wargaming in particular.

M St wrote:
I just don't see it as an issue in practice.

Your scenario is correct (mostly; it could be worse if there were disrupted and undisrupted units in each stack, for example). But the question arises because someone might make it an issue, and while one might well defeat such a player (as you suggest) one still has to sit across from him.

M St wrote:
That said, I'm not fussed about doing it a particular way.

Either way works. I also wondered whether it was intentional. Whether it was designed to penalize players for constructing an attack with units with too many distinct shared factors.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.