Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Pax Romana» Forums » Rules

Subject: Rule 7.32 Can a wall absorb 1 BP loss without reduction? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
I will break him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This interpretation was given to me by a playtester of Pax Romana and it seems to make sense thematically. However I would like an official clarification.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Randall
Canada
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
Belisarius88 wrote:
This interpretation was given to me by a playtester of Pax Romana and it seems to make sense thematically. However I would like an official clarification.


No. If a Wall Point takes a loss, it is reduced.

However, I'm probably going to introduce an optional rule that goes like this (and which I introduced on Consimworld unofficially a while ago):

(7.32 - Optional) Each Wall Point counts as 1 BP for battle purposes (if the Defender chooses to use the City/Town in battle), except that each City/Town Wall Point counts for 2 BP when distributing losses, if the defending player chooses to use the City/Town for that purpose. [Addition] Furthermore, unlike the losses assigned to combat units, each Wall Point can absorb one Battle Point without being reduced (see Example below). To indicate a loss in Wall Points, place a –1 or –2 Wall Points marker under the City or Town marker to reflect the new Wall Point level.

Which, of course, takes your interpretation into account.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
I will break him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually like this rule Neil, although I have not played enough to really have an informed opinion. But here is a situation that occurs only because of that rule: turn 1 Pyrrhus activation with 5 MP fails to take Capua when he rolls 1 for attack and Capua rolls 5 for defense. Even with 8 shifts, I would be taking 40% losses at Capua because I would need to inflict 80% losses on the Capuans to break through their defenses.

This rules makes it more difficult to take fortified places and I think it matches historical difficulties with siege warfare during this time period.

Hey Neil, is gaming your full time job? You sure do a good job of supporting your games. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Randall
Canada
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
Quote:
This rules makes it more difficult to take fortified places and I think it matches historical difficulties with siege warfare during this time period.


I agree. And it's now the way I always request that we play it.

Quote:
Hey Neil, is gaming your full time job? You sure do a good job of supporting your games. Thanks!


Thanks. But no, it's just a heavy part-time obsession.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
nrandall wrote:
Belisarius88 wrote:
This interpretation was given to me by a playtester of Pax Romana and it seems to make sense thematically. However I would like an official clarification.


No. If a Wall Point takes a loss, it is reduced.

However, I'm probably going to introduce an optional rule that goes like this (and which I introduced on Consimworld unofficially a while ago):

(7.32 - Optional) Each Wall Point counts as 1 BP for battle purposes (if the Defender chooses to use the City/Town in battle), except that each City/Town Wall Point counts for 2 BP when distributing losses, if the defending player chooses to use the City/Town for that purpose. [Addition] Furthermore, unlike the losses assigned to combat units, each Wall Point can absorb one Battle Point without being reduced (see Example below). To indicate a loss in Wall Points, place a –1 or –2 Wall Points marker under the City or Town marker to reflect the new Wall Point level.

Which, of course, takes your interpretation into account.



Has anyone realised that with this rule it would take 80% losses to reduce 1 town wall but 70% losses to reduce 2 city walls? I would have thought a town would be easier to take than a city?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Diego Angelotti
Canada
Hudson
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greg,

you really want Aleria! Don't you?

Just kidding
Diego
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I sure do! My general is right now having a tantrum that such a small backwater town can hold off 2 mighty legions by itself...shakeangry
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
BTW Diego, I sent you an email regarding the seige bid I forgot about...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
I will break him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And since a town is only strength 2, it would be easier to get that 80% with an army smaller than the 70% needed to take a 5 BP city.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
ok what about when it only takes 30% losses to reduce 1 city wall compared to 80% for 1 town wall?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
I will break him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Greg the size of the army needed to increase your odds of taking a town is much less than the size of the army needed to take a city. For example, two HI of 6 BP have +3 shifts against a town but to have the same against a city you need 5 HI. This goes for the chances of decreasing a wall too (rather than causing a 1 BP loss which is absorbed).

Now let's compare 2 HI (6 BP) attacking a full strength town or a city:

Town: +3 shifts Capture town on roll of 5-6 (33% chance)
City: no shift Cannot be captured, reduce one wall on roll of 3-6 (66% chance)

The fortified town will fall on a 33% chance, while the city would require a second attack after taking at least 10% losses to the attacker on the first attack.

Is Greg's argument that this optional rule makes it more difficult to take towns than cities correct? Without working out all the probabilities here, my intuition tells me that taking the city is much more difficult because it would typically require more than one attack and the potential of taking losses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Cox
Australia
Petersham
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Hmm thanks some useful stats there.

So to capture a city with equivalent odds of 3 to 1 (or 3 shifts) you would need to roll a 4-6 (50% chance)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Sosa
United States
Newark
Delaware
flag msg tools
badge
I will break him.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you had the 15 BP army, then attacking the city would be a +3 shift for you, requiring a 4+ die result, which is a 50% chance. Of course that means that with proportionately equally large armies (6 BP against a town or 15 BP against a city) capturing the city is easier.....

Perhaps we can explain this thematically by stating that a walled town is not 2.5 times weaker than a walled city, or that armies of certain size have inherent bonuses to siege warfare (more likely to have siege equipment, effective cutting off of city supplies, etc).
 
 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.