Matrix Games Forums

Also, having the other side lower their rating in response to you lowering yours wouldn't work, because they only hurt themselves in such situations. Lowering a rating never raises the end result. Only cav superiority does, and that would have been taken into account by the commander with the higher rating.

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted

This is not true. Re-read the section above where it states that a commander can do this at the beginning of every round (note, it doesn't say every "day").

ALSO IMPORTANT, notice that the rule is under the STEP NINE section while revealing forces is under the STEP SIX section, implicitly implying (was that redundant?) that this is done AFTER forces are revealed and done each round.

I can see how this might be useful in some rare cases, but why not let the game figure out the best ratio? Anything else seems like excessive nitpicking, espeially when there are bigger fish to fry. Unless this is very easy to do, I suggest this go near the bottam of the Marhall's to do list.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

Another issue I see in this is that you won't know forces until Round 1 of combat, meaning you also don't know if you or your opponent has cav superiority. The computer would in this case, so having the AI automatically make that determination would be unfair for the defeneder. The attacker would have to blindly make the choice to sandbag his leader's rating (via a tick box or something similar) before he initiates combat.

Ted

This is not true. Re-read the section above where it states that a commander can do this at the beginning of every round (note, it doesn't say every "day").

ALSO IMPORTANT, notice that the rule is under the STEP NINE section while revealing forces is under the STEP SIX section, implicitly implying (was that redundant?) that this is done AFTER forces are revealed and done each round.

Good eye, Neverman, I had missed that subtlety. I definitely think this rule ought to be added in then, as it has a big impact on those nations with quality leaders (e.g. a Soult vs. Schwarzenburg minor league battle, as opposed to a Napoleon vs Charles A league duke-it-out

The next question becomes where/when to incorporate it. Do you make it an option during combat, or do you make it a checkbox for a leader counter? Not sure where the best placement for this option would be, but I would lean towards the combat screen.

Ted

The better option would be to auto do this maybe??? When would you NOT want the max bonus effect?
I need to look at this BUT I think it would be easier to simply calc this at the begining?????????
 

I don't think anyone is arguing for this being anything BUT automated.... no one wants yet another file going back and forth.. blablabla....

Exactly, when would you not want to max it, so this can EASILY be implemented each round by the program.

I will take a gander at this...
BTW: What's funny is that I was ignorant to this all along and have never played it! LOL!
 
 

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

The better option would be to auto do this maybe??? When would you NOT want the max bonus effect?
I need to look at this BUT I think it would be easier to simply calc this at the begining?????????

The "max bonus" isn't necessarily the "max tactical"; that's the point (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

It needs to be modifiable every round in which there is a change of leadership (including, of course, the first round).

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I will take a gander at this...
BTW: What's funny is that I was ignorant to this all along and have never played it! LOL!

This option gets used close to every turn (during wartime) in the games I've played in. The three big powers get a 2 tactical rating on their loose corps. So, every time a loose corps gets attacked by a 4 leader, this option jumps into play: 4 leaders are ususally leading a small army, so they usually have cavalry superiority. Thus, the option makes what would have been a +1/0 battle become +1/-1. It's a huge difference.

However, when ones opponent has cav superiority, choosing a lower tactical rating might cause what would have been a +1/+1 battle to be fought on the 0/0 table instead. This would imply fewer casualties and lower morale loss (or, if done in reverse, the opposite). An army with superior troop counts is very interested in keeping the battle going as long as possible. Using a lower table means the possibility of extra days of combat (or even extra rounds). Or, in the reverse case, a low troop count army might want to get it over with as soon as possible.

Jimmer's point here emphasizes the trade-off between casualties and morale loss, where players may want to make a choice? If this is to be automated, it should reflect the "better" choice and the logic should be documented. What should constitute the superior troop count threshold, 2:1?

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

However, when ones opponent has cav superiority, choosing a lower tactical rating might cause what would have been a +1/+1 battle to be fought on the 0/0 table instead. This would imply fewer casualties and lower morale loss (or, if done in reverse, the opposite). An army with superior troop counts is very interested in keeping the battle going as long as possible. Using a lower table means the possibility of extra days of combat (or even extra rounds). Or, in the reverse case, a low troop count army might want to get it over with as soon as possible.

Jimmer's point here emphasizes the trade-off between casualties and morale loss, where players may want to make a choice? If this is to be automated, it should reflect the "better" choice and the logic should be documented. What should constitute the superior troop count threshold, 2:1?

No, it does not emphasize a trade-off of any kind. The most common use is a simple conversion of the final modifiers from what would have been +1/0 to +1/-1. In other words, the other guy does fewer casualties AND less morale, at no cost to the leader making the choice.

There CAN be a trade-off, but not in this example (which by far the most common use: 4 leader vs. 2 leader, with the 4 leader having cav superiority). It's also the only one that has an obviously correct choice.

It's interesting to note that there is only one pair of numbers in the tables which carry a real choice: 4 vs 2. The example I gave was when the higher tactical side also had cavalry superiority. However, if the 2 leader has cavalry superiority, the guy with the 4 leader is presented with the choice of 0/0 or +1/+1. In this case, he has to actually think about it. Does he want more casualties AND more morale damage (on both sides), or less of each? Normally, lower morale armies choose the lower mods and vice-versa. But, either choice is legitimate. In fact, in these situations, it is very common for the rating to be different during the same battle (i.e. start with a 4, drop to a 3, etc).

Marshall, this point brings up something else: The ONLY time this matters is when one side is being led by a tactical 4 leader and the other is tactical 2. In all other cases, no improvement can be made by reducing ones rating. Which side is attacking or defending is irrelevant, since the table is diagonally symmetrical.

So, really, you only need to offer a choice to the guy with the 4 leader, and then only if he's up against a 2 leader. But, there are three possible situations: 4 leader has cav superiority, 2 leader has it, and nobody has it. Each of the three presents interesting possibilities, although the first is a lot more common (who puts a 2 leader on a real army?)

Does he want more casualties AND more morale damage (on both sides), or less of each?

Sorry, this is what I was trying to get at. Point is there is a decision point as you describe which might require some player intervention or standing orders setting, rather than make it automatic in all cases.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Sorry, this is what I was trying to get at. Point is there is a decision point as you describe which might require some player intervention or standing orders setting, rather than make it automatic in all cases.

Agreed.