Repel attempt bonuses

[PvK]

I assumed that one repeller would only get one repel attack per turn. It would be silly to be able to shish-kabob 12 guys on one pike in that way.

In other words, I'd suggest this sequence of events:

1) When someone tries to move in range of someone who is "ready" and has a longer-reach weapon, do the current repel mechanic, but without the chance to do a puny amount of damage.

2) If someone succeeds in overcoming the repel, the repeller gets to attack them first. However, this makes them "unready", and unable to repel anyone else that turn.

3) Assuming the moving fighter survives the repeller's attack, they get their attack.

4) On the repeller's turn, he becomes "ready", but if he attacks, he becomes "unready". Therefore, he never attacks twice in a row, nor more than once per turn.

PvK

[Calanor]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
The difference between attack and defense skill is also important. I think it is perfectly reasonable that morale factors in, and also that zombies march straight into the pikes spears or whatever.

Should they not suffer the appropriate damage if they show no regard for their own safety, then? I have no problems with zombies not caring whether or not a pikeman skewers him or not - and that outlook might very well be bad news for the pikemen (especially if there are several zombies around), but if this is the case the damage inflicted should not be as symbolic as it is now. A combination of, say, Defense and Morale would IMHO perhaps be more reasonable. A nice little formula (which I do not intend to construct now ) would determine the exact effect. Three different outcomes might take place - the target was either repelled as usual, managed to avoid the repel attempt or managed to close in, yet suffered the full damage of the attack in the process. The latter would happen if the Morale check went just fine, but the Defense was too low. Thus, zombies and berserkers would tend to manage to close in, yet might get impaled in the process, unmotivated troops would be frequently repelled as per the current rules, and light, fast and preferably disciplined troops (i.e. with high Def and reasonable Morale) might find themselves quite able to completely avoid the repel attempts. This would also mean that light infantry would have a certain advantage not usually shared by heavier troops, although a failed attempt might be serious news due to the frequently quite low Protection level of such units.

[Psitticine]

The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly.

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Psitticine:
The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly.

Speaking of knights: if their lance attack is cancelled by a repel, do they get to try again to use it next round? What if it's cancelled by failing an awe check?


Anyway, it looks from this sequence that berserking wouldn't help against repels (not immediately anyway) because the morale check is made before damage is potentially done to the attacker. But if the berserker makes his morale check once, and then takes damage from the repel, he will go berserk and automatically pass the repel morale tests in future rounds (and possibly have increased att/str this round?)

It also looks like mindless regenerators can ignore repel attempts (they automatically pass the morale check, and 1 hp won't seriously hurt a regenerator generally), and nature-9 blessed sacred troops can too.

[PvK]

Not if they are advancing against many enemies with pikes. Sounds like each one would have to overcome a repel from every defender, possibly taking one damage from each.

It'd make a lot more sense if it were changed as I mentioned below - only one damaging repel per repeller, but at full damage.

I guess it sorta comes out in the wash on average, but it doesn't make much sense on a literal level to have everyone repellable by everyone, at one damage each. Not a huge deal, but I always like things to make good sense. So, a suggestion.

PvK

[Keir Maxwell]

Although I'm a realism fan I'm cautious of attempts to understand ancient combat in a mechanistic fashion ie you do that, I do this . . . We simply don't know alot of the answers and can't be reasonably epected to.

What we can do is have a fair idea of the overall strength of troop types versus each other and the likely results of there interactions. From details provided by ancients we get clues as to the fashion in which one troop type defeated another and Dom does a reasonably good job of resolving a the combat in a way related to the details and still (hopefully) giving the right result.

The repel rules are an abstraction which represents the advantage of longer weapons. the main advantage of repel other than the morale hit is canceling the incoming attack which is huge. It is quite reasonable that the success of the repelling (or is repellant?) soldiers attack is resolved in their phase as they have just canceled their enemies attack and should they survive till their turn we will find out wether they managed to impale their opponent.

My doubts around the repel rules are wether or not weapons used in a largely irregular fashion should repel at all. Say barbarians with two handed swords vs men at arms. I find it difficult to imagine what the barbarians repelling the men at arms represents here? I tend to think repel is a function of a formed, drilled unit using weapons which utilise reach as part of their way of fighting - or even legionaries using their shields. But hey its not like I'm seriously concerned and if you changed this you would have to strengthen the weakened troop types in other ways . . . and so I think the existing abstraction is fine.

Cheers

Keir

[ November 06, 2003, 04:48: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

[PvK]

Hmm. My main concern is a basic one - a significantly longer weapon should usually have the first opportunity to strike. This is generally a deterrant to closing ranks, so the repel morale check is nice.

One big weakness is if you take say units with strong attacks and high morale. In the current system, the high morale tends to let a strong attacker with a short weapon move in and attack, shrugging off a measely 1-point hit even from something like a magic giant-wielded flaming two-handed sword, and get the first real blow with the shorter weapon.

The artificial "1-point damage" and the "infinite repel attempts per repeller" seem to me like they don't model the basic situation very well, unless accidentally and abstractly in certain (perhaps many) situations.

Another thing that could help the whole combat resolution, would be to shuffle the moves of all melee units, rather than having an entire side all move at the same time. Missile units could still all fire in Groups. This would help reduce an entire mob getting to attack before their enemies, based on an accident of which entire group moved into range first.

PvK

[ November 06, 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: PvK ]