|
Curtis Lemay -> RE: Analysis of RFCs by defenders set to Ignore Losses (7/17/2013 3:36:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser
I've read through this and other threads about the RFC-Combat Odds issue presented and I was hoping to get some practical advice.
If I understand this, as presented by Bob, we're only talking about factoring in the ratio of equipment? So, when changed, if all goes as planned, combat, where the equipment ratio is near 3:1 in favor of the attacker, should still work roughly as it does now.
Something I don't remember comments about were Bob's suggestions for future standards (3:1 normal, 1.5:1 half, 6:1 double, or something to that effect). Wouldn't this further increase defender bonus for a lot of combat where attack-defender are closer to equal? Or am I misinterpreting the proposed fix?
I was thinking of "normal" meaning a straight (unmodified) morale check for RFC. So, if you had effective 3:1 assault ratio (ground only, no support) odds after the combat round you would have the defender's unmodified morale percent chance of forcing an RFC, etc (as in 3.2 and earlier). This, of course, would be modulated by terrain/deployment effects (so all infantry vs. infantry in a fortified hex would require 24:1 odds to be "normal"), etc. If you had an effective 6:1 odds, his morale would be halved, etc. If you only had 1.5:1 odds, his morale would be doubled, etc.
That would be the default. Designers would have a game parameter to scale the effect one way or the other (so WWI scenarios could be made much harder to gain ground, etc.)
quote:
Until such a glorious day, are there suggestions on mitigating the problem? Should one consider using a lower loss setting when smaller sized units (say regimental/division in a corps-based scenario) are left to defend a hex by themselves?
House rules to that effect, or similar, have been suggested.
|
|
|
|
