It seems that a consensus has grown around this issue that involves:
1) A risk of greater combat losses.
2) A reworking of the Morale Saving Throw.
Point 1) is easily addressed by simply introducing an effectiveness multiplier for assault combat.
Point 2) is more interesting. The concept appears to be that whether a defender successfully sees off an assault into its position is based on the Morale (read elan for this purpose) of the defending unit. On the face of it this is a good model. The problem with the approach as coded is that it does not take into direct consideration factors that would impact that elan - such as the elan and numbers of the attackers. (It does indirectly as some of those factors will impact the losses caused in the combat part of the assault).
Original Assault had these two phases also, but the second was really simple - if the defender was disrupted and there were any undisrupted attackers then the defender retreated. Note: really simple - but takes into account the attacker! However, too simple and too predictable.
It seems that a strawman is beginning to emerge. We know that at the extremes:
1) If there are no undisrupted attackers the defenders hold (btw, when a leader is in an attacking stack and the rest of the attackers are disrupted the leader should probably enter the hex on his own)
2) If all the defenders are destroyed the attackers advance.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
