As I noted last time, I'm a little frustrated by combat dragging out in Micro Battle. I decided to do some more combat testing.
Some Revelations
As I experimented with combat mechanisms, I came to a couple revelations.
- Opposed die rolls are too slow. I can only adjudicate one combat at a time. My older mechanism tested if the attacker hit, which allowed me to roll multiple attackers at once.
- I need to go with a single roll to determine hits and retreats, for the same reason as above.
Changing these mechanisms will reduce dice rolls and speed play.
On Combat Resolution
The issue with a single "to-hit" roll is that you can get into an indecisive stalemate where neither side hits in its turn. Opposed die rolls worked better because one side usually wins.
To mitigate the issue, I'm going to experiment with a system where the attacking unit is defeated if it fails to hit. This should speed things up.
On Hits and Retreats
My initial mechanism allowed a unit defeated in combat to test whether it takes casualties or retreats. These were separate dice rolls. I based the mechanism on the concept that a defeated unit will either
- take minimal casualties and stand firm
- retreat with minimal casualties
- stand firm despite casualties, or
- take casualties and retreat.
Testing casualties separately from retreats seemed the best way to cover all possibilities.
To speed things up, though, I want to merge these into a single roll. I'm not keen on having a binary system of retreat or take casualties. I want results to be more decisive. Therefore, I decided to test a 2-tier system where a defeated unit either (a) takes casualties or (b) takes casualties and retreats.
Note that units can only take 2 casualties. This should make combat far more decisive. Perhaps too decisive. I will experiment with rallies.
The Test
I decided to do a simple test with a small battle line on flat terrain.
Red has the initiative and attacks. All things being the same, Red needs a 4+ to win a combat.
It succeeds on the left and center but fails on the right.
Blue counterattacks, with its rightmost unit hitting Red's flank. I treat the flank attack as support for the main combat.
Blue succeeds on the left and inflicts a casualty. Despites its flanking attack, Blue fails on the right. The main unit takes a second casualty and routs from the field.
Red's turn to attack. It fails on the left and loses a unit. It double-teams blue on the right but loses miserably and takes a casualty.
Blue's turn. Both attacks fail. Blue loses a unit and the other must retreat with a casualty.
I think I missed a turn. Anyway, Blue has rallied and attacks Red, causing a casualty.
More missing turns. Blue destroys a Red unit then takes on the last remaining Red. Blue wins!
Assessment
The whole test took about 14 minutes to run. Hard to say if that is slow or fast; I need to do a full-blown battle to assess. Still, I like where this is going. Will need to experiment some more.
It’ll be interesting to see how you get on.
ReplyDeleteI must admit I do think the option of “take casualties OR retire/fall back” has something going for it. I think of this as “STAND FIRM here, but accept XX casualties” with the alternative being to “RETIRE (or fall back or retreat, whatever term you use) having accepted X casualties”. So, to STAND FIRM will incur a fair few casualties, but does keep the unit holding its current position, whereas RETIRE sees the unit only incur a relatively small number of casualties before withdrawing away from the enemy (perhaps to “cover” or a better position).
However, it’s your game so you just need to aim to produce whatever rules give you the type of game you want.
Cheers,
Geoff
I too find opposing dice slow in solo play (opposing dice great for FTF) and like you say, really like 1d6 per attacker so you can roll multiple dice at once for multiple attacks.
ReplyDelete