Qm said

[OmikronWarrior]

Alright, I must have gone through a dozen different schemes of various complexities (some requiring four seperate moral checks before doing some attack vs. defense checks). I finally settled on the simplest. First, what my criteria were.

A) It had to make sense "realistically".
B) It couldn't create any new abilities, attributes, etc.
C) It had to be simpler than the mechanics governing missles.
D) It would have to employee similar mechanics to those already used by the game.
E) It had to be readily available to any nation thematically.

For A, the obvious solution to being charged by giant creatures would be long pointy sticks that the creature would have to impale itself on to get to you. Hence, weapon length vs. trampler morale became the dominant theme. As for D, I noticed that while the game has "repel" checks for normal attacks, it has nothing of the sort for trample attacks. This doesn't make sense. Therefore, in order for a unit to trample a square, it must pass the following morale check:

(Trampler Morale)+(Trampler Size)+DRN-(Trampler Fatigue)/10

vs.

(Modified Sum of Weapon Length in Attacked Square)+DRN

The "Sum of Weapon Length" is modified the same way presicion is, all points over 10 are doubled. Note that the moral check is based on the INDIVIDUAL trampler's morale, and no survivor bonus is applied, just a fatigue penalty. Which makes sense, the more tired you are the more daunting the task of avoiding a wall of spikes becomes.

What happens next is simple. If the trampler fails the morale check the unit will simply attack normally with whatever weapon it has (trunk, spear, whatever). If it succeeds it now is vulnerable to "attacks of opportunity", much like a normal soldier who succeeds their morale check vs. a longer weapon. Each unit in the square gets a free attack against the trampler (whose defense is reduce by 2 each time it defends against such an attack) which can cause at most an amount of damage equal to the weapon's length (which symbolizes the creature impaling itself on the long weapon). Plus, each such attack will cause a fatigue hit.



The baseline in my head was a squad of 3 spearment (total weapon length 12) should have a "reasonable" chance to parry a low morale elephant, while 3 phalanxes each with length six weapons should stop all but the most determined trampler cold. Meanwhile, isolated and short length weapon fighters should rarely be able to repel even the most uncertain of tramplers.

The match ups.

Mammoth vs. 3 spearmen: The Mammoth has morale 10 and size 6, while the spearmen have modified weapon lengths of 14. Assuming no fatigue, the Mammoth will trample the spearmen 62% of the time. It's enough to blunt a trampler's charge and give the defendants a fighting chance against an amassed Mammoth horde beelining for the capital.

Indie Elephants vs. 3 Spearment: The difference between indie elephants and Mammoths is the elephants have a morale of 8. This means they'll only successfully trample the spearmen 46% of the time.

Indi Elephant vs. Isolate Phalanx (WL6) or 3 short swordsmen (WL2x3)

The Elephant would roll 14 vs 6. A plus 8 difference means it will trample the units 86% of the time. That almost identical to the current situation.

Mammoth vs. 3 Phalanxes (WL6x3)

The Mammoth would still have 16, but 6 times 3 is 18, which would be modified to 26. Thats a deficiet of 10 which only gives the Mammoth a 3% chance of actually trampling.

Finally, SC vs. 3 Phalanxes

I'm assuming a size 6 Commander with 30 morale tries to trample the best anti-trample defense available. Its 36 vs. 26, and the commander will successfully trample 95% of the time. Fortunately, such units don't grow on trees.

Thoughts? Exploits? Understandable?

[Wahnsinniger]

I don't recall/understand what the current system is, but pretty cool and well-thought out. Though it does seem that perhaps the percentages could stand to be slightly higher. (A Mammoth vs 3 Phalanxes should probably have more than 3% Chance. Perhaps add defender fatigue in there as well?)

I don't know if it balances well, but I do like the Weapon Length over 10 doubled though. A good analogy would be building a brick wall against a current of water. The first brick or two would impede it, but only by a marginal amount. But once there's enough bricks, each one would cut the area the water could go through by such a percentage that it would really start to add up (i.e. doubled)

[OmikronWarrior]

The current system is the trampler does 10 + (2xsize) of armor piercing damage to every unit in the square it "tramples". Actually, the defender gets to escape if they beat a defense check vs. 10 with fatigue penalties to their defense, but absolutely must take at least 1 point of damage no matter what. Assuming units have a defense of 10 (which is the game's baseline), they'll get trampled roughly half the time. And with an elephant trampling, thats 22 ap damage, which is death for most infantry.

Beyond the game imbalances that such a system imposes, it just doesn't makes sense to me that a unit can ignore a wall of spears (the most effective military formation through out ancient history) and attack with impunity. And I see Length 6 weapons as being as long as an elephant itself. 3% may be a bit low, but it still makes sense and makes the system very workable.

I considered making the defenders pass a morale check to see if they'd stay "in formation" (including a "chicken game" check where whoever rolled the lower morale would "flinch" and loose, but the reward for the trampler winning was being impaled upon the sticks, so no good there), but ultimately I decided such systems were too complicated with out providing a real improvement for the gameplay. As for fatigue, how would you calculate the fatigue distribution over multiple units? And for that matter, does the defending unit being tired somehow make a row of spears seem less intimidating? No, fatigue will still come in play when a trampled defender attempts their "attack of opportunity" while being trampled.

[Wahnsinniger]

Well, I guess the fatigue doesn't fit realisticly, but It'd hopefully make the numbers more balanced...

In any case, it'll make lesser used Spearmen-type units more useful. Thus you could probably rush a player with a bunch of tramplers, since they'll doubtfully have spearmen units in their normal army, but it gives them a chance to amass some in an attempt to stop you.

Props.

[MaxWilson]

OmikronWarrior said:
Actually, the defender gets to escape if they beat a defense check vs. 10 with fatigue penalties to their defense, but absolutely must take at least 1 point of damage no matter what.

That's what the manual claims, but in fact I have had trampled units with high protection fail to take any damage at all.

-Max

[Chris_Byler]

OmikronWarrior said:
The current system is the trampler does 10 + (2xsize) of armor piercing damage to every unit in the square it "tramples". Actually, the defender gets to escape if they beat a defense check vs. 10 with fatigue penalties to their defense, but absolutely must take at least 1 point of damage no matter what. Assuming units have a defense of 10 (which is the game's baseline), they'll get trampled roughly half the time. And with an elephant trampling, thats 22 ap damage, which is death for most infantry.

Well, maybe before we get into adjusting specific units, let alone making new rules, we might consider just tweaking those numbers a bit. 10 attack for trample seems a bit high to me - how hard is it really to see where the elephant is going and be somewhere else? Even a few points less of "trample effective attack" will lead to more units getting out of the way and fewer getting stepped on... while the trampler still ends up tired and surrounded. A little less damage could make more units survive the first trample, too (meaning you have to trample them again, which is time consuming and fatiguing). At 8+size*2 ap, some heavily armored tough guys like Ulm could have a decent chance to survive the first trample.

Repelling elephants doesn't make much sense to me. If an elephant is heading for your phalanx, you should get out of its way and stab it as it goes by, or after it is past you, not stand there until it snaps your spear like a toothpick.


P.S. Maybe the "must take 1 damage" only applies to people *hit* by the trample (and not lucky/ethereal)? "No matter how heavy your armor, an elephant stepping on you will do *some* damage" makes sense; "An elephant rushing into your square will damage you even if you get out of the way in time" doesn't. Even heavily armored troops could beat 10 attack some of the time.

[MaxWilson]

Note that it's not 10 + (size*2) AP. It's 10 + ((size of attacker - size of defender)*2) AP. That means an elephant will usually have an 18 AP attack, which is survivable by tough Ulmish guys, as you noted.

About the minimum 1 damage: I thought so at one point too, so I specifically paid attention to IIRC a PD commander when he was getting trampled. No Ethereal, no Luck, and it was definitely the same guy. No damage. It's hard to tell exactly how much damage is taken during a trample because of the displacement, so I don't know how common it is to be undamaged, but I know it happens.

-Max

[krpeters]

On the subject of long pointy sticks:

The repell idea makes sense as the best way to stop tramplers. It also would make weapon length more important in the game, esp. if my idea of allowing all units to trample were implemented.

There's no need to make the system complicated. Simply do a "size vs. length" check. A size 6 elephant vs. a length 4 spear, do the 2d5 thing, if the elephant's roll plus size is greater than the spearman's roll plus length, the elephant gets to trample, if not, not.

Spearmen would get stomped with moderate frequency by elephants, but not much by trample-enabled cavalry. Swordsmen, on the other hand, would have to watch out for cavalry. Which adds to the rock-papers-scissors thing (swordsmen beat spearmen beat cavalry)

Jotun would become way cool with this trample rule... which giants should be!

[Wahnsinniger]

Hmmm....everyone could trample....Not sure how that would balance, but that would add a whole new level of cool when your Knights Break through the enemy lines a square or two before ramming their lance into someone.

[Ewierl]

Chris_Byler said:
Well, maybe before we get into adjusting specific units, let alone making new rules, we might consider just tweaking those numbers a bit. 10 attack for trample seems a bit high to me - how hard is it really to see where the elephant is going and be somewhere else?

Here's a question I've never been quite sure of: once an elephant gets past the front lines, it can hit troops that have no free spaces to dodge into. Do they just get crunched, or do they dodge "through" the elephant?