Extreme assault?

[Huib Versloot]

I find the "no results" outcome and the single morale check as Umbro pointed out, examples of weaknesses in the programming and I don't think it all works as intended so I cannot imagine it is going to stay that way.

Alfons:

So... I'm trying to understand here. Instead of the "no results" outcome, you would advocate? And how would morale checks work in an "improved" / "toned down" EA version? :conf:

I'm trying to understand if what you and Umbro propose would be the "fix" required for EA. :chin:

Instead of 'no results' I mean more casualties on both sides. This means that an attacker might choose to take losses by assaulting but the attrition will bring him the hex in the end, even if he suffers far more losses than the defender over a series of assaults. This will feel like 'toned down' (I think) because in the end something happens when you assault.

The morale check is explained somewhat by Umbro on the Matrix boards. You might already have read that.

Under Extreme Assault rules there is a separate phase of the assault process. After all assault and counter-assault results have been applied there is a "Morale Saving Throw" for the defenders. The defenders morale is compared to a D10(-1) roll, if the roll is above the morale of the unit the unit fails and is forced to retreat, otherwise it stays in place. The units' morale benefits from terrain and leaders and is further modified positively or negatively depending upon whether it "won" the assault or not. Whether it "won" the assault is determined according to an unpublished table.