Trival combat

[Dancing Bear]

It has come up in other threads, but what is the problem with trival combat? It is quick, easy, does not require a file exchange, part of the original EIA (as an optional rule), and only applies when there are 5:1 odds. There little guy gets a chance to withdraw, and then if he does not, both sides fight on the 5-2 chart, and the little guy gets wiped out.

How does the net result (i.e. the little guy is destroyed) differ from chit choices, other than it is much faster?

I'm a big fan of trival combat. Can you guys provide a survey of results by saying yeah (I like trival combat) or nay to the idea?

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

It has come up in other threads, but what is the problem with trival combat? It is quick, easy, does not require a file exchange, part of the original EIA (as an optional rule), and only applies when there are 5:1 odds. There little guy gets a chance to withdraw, and then if he does not, both sides fight on the 5-2 chart, and the little guy gets wiped out.

How does the net result (i.e. the little guy is destroyed) differ from chit choices, other than it is much faster?

I'm a big fan of trival combat. Can you guys provide a survey of results by saying yeah (I like trival combat) or nay to the idea?

Personally im not in the favor of the 5:1 trivial rule, in history you can see fights with those odds where good leadership, tactical skills, surprised etc actually made a difference.
10:1 sounds more "trivial".

Anyway if Trivial combat should be introduced(As optional rule), corps/depot(withGarrison) should be able to withdraw into city first.

Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

bresh,

I love the trivial combat rule but I agree that it should be optional, though I don't think I've ever played a FtF game without that optional rule.

[Jimmer]

My problem with it in the original game was that it was not playable without wasting time. This is because you can't find out that 5:1 applies until after chits had been chosen. So, you went through all the work of doing the chit selection and outflank possibilities, only to find out you didn't need to have done it. Well, after you've already hit that point in the process, there's no point in changing things just because some magic limit was attained.
 
Another issue I have is the basic concept that some magic ratio means the smaller side will lose (which is almost always the end result). There have been many lopsided battles in history in which the "underdog" either won or at least made its presence strongly felt. In a game, that kind of result has to be an option.
 
But, as an optional rule, I certainly would support it, and I would even live with it in games where the majority wanted it. The advantage 5:1 has in the computer game is that the computer can make the calculation for you without disclosing the results until after combat is done.

[MarshallEllis]

Option? Yes, that's the only way I would code it if I could get to it.

For the record and IMO:

It's a little tricky since a force of 10 could defeat a force of 50 simply by reducing the morale to 0 with proper factors in place. Not all morale, leaders, terrain and chits are equal. If it were combat much like Risk then I can see a 5:1 rule. 50 fedual infantry under the Grand Vizer vs 10 french infantry commanded by Napoleon is not as clear cut as it may seem by the numbers.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Option? Yes, that's the only way I would code it if I could get to it.

For the record and IMO:

It's a little tricky since a force of 10 could defeat a force of 50 simply by reducing the morale to 0 with proper factors in place. Not all morale, leaders, terrain and chits are equal. If it were combat much like Risk then I can see a 5:1 rule. 50 fedual infantry under the Grand Vizer vs 10 french infantry commanded by Napoleon is not as clear cut as it may seem by the numbers.

Yes, your example is true though the possibility of it happening is EXTREMELY rare, at best.

How hard would this be to code? If it's not hard then make it an option, it looks like enough people want it. Like I said, I never played a FtF game without this optional rule and..

...I never had an odd situation (like the one you describe) come up.

[pzgndr]

12.3.10 OVERWHELMING NUMBERS: Field or limited field combats where one side has a 5:1 or better ratio in strength factors _must_ be resolved using trivial combat. EXCEPTION: An outnumbered _defender_ may attempt to withdraw before the trivial combat by rolling the commander's strategic rating or less.

If this is implemented as an optional rule, then the exception should also be implemented as a default? Or standing orders could be used? The entire optional rule should be considered, not just part of it.

[Dancing Bear]

The key part of the trival combat system if the opportunity to have a chance to withdraw before the combat. It is the most common reason for played with trival combat.

We have the option of changing things slightly as well. We could say that the 5:1 rule is automatic unless the superior side has a morale a full two points below the attacker, or the weaker side has at least 10 factors. Although I don't see what having at least 10 factors would do if the larger army is 51 factors or more as the small force will still get wiped out, so maybe just the morale limitation would be implemented.

But really the field comander on the smaller force has to decide quickly to withdraw before he knows his opponents morale. All he really knows is that 50,000 troops are bearing down on his force of 8,000, and he has to high tail it ASAP or be squashed.

[obsidiandrag]

Playing the AI recently I came into the other side of the non-trivial combat..
 
Russia trying to kick Turkey out of Egypt (at war)
 
Russia conquered but trying to eradicate remaining turks spent 6 months attacking and reinforcing to end up with
 
Bagration and 3 Corps vs Ali and 1 corps
 
Russian corps 24 i
Turkish corps Niz 2c
 
Assault chosen by Russia to try and limit withdrawl vs Cordon
 
Russia Lost...
 
with over a 10:1 ratio and better charts - (due to rolling 0(-1), 0(-1), 1(-1) vs 6(1), 6(1), 7(1))...
 
I was not real happy about it but..  it can happen... and did.  having a crap load of infantry trying to chase around a few cav on the battle field...  what sucked was the 3 inf lost to pursuit after the battle...
 
OD
 
 
 

[obsidiandrag]

Tried to add picture but did not make it in.

[Dancing Bear]

I imagine that Russia would have lost with such bad rolls, even if this was fought as a trivel combat. Trival combat does not eliminate the possibility of the smaller force losing. In fact it likely increases the chance of the smaller force winning because on the 5-2 tables, a good roll by the small force can devastate the morale of the large force. So as long as the large force rolls badly enough not to elminate the small force, then the small force can win, at much better odds than one side rolling three "1's" and other rolling three "6's" in the example provided.

The real beauty of the trival combat is the automatic option to withraw before the combat, and if unsuccessful, to fight on a reasonable table. That decision whether to withdraw or not is very hard to pre-select a chit for.

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Playing the AI recently I came into the other side of the non-trivial combat..

Russia trying to kick Turkey out of Egypt (at war)

Russia conquered but trying to eradicate remaining turks spent 6 months attacking and reinforcing to end up with

Bagration and 3 Corps vs Ali and 1 corps

Russian corps 24 i
Turkish corps Niz 2c

Assault chosen by Russia to try and limit withdrawl vs Cordon

Russia Lost...

with over a 10:1 ratio and better charts - (due to rolling 0(-1), 0(-1), 1(-1) vs 6(1), 6(1), 7(1))...

I was not real happy about it but..  it can happen... and did.  having a crap load of infantry trying to chase around a few cav on the battle field...  what sucked was the 3 inf lost to pursuit after the battle...

OD


 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I imagine that Russia would have lost with such bad rolls, even if this was fought as a trivel combat. Trival combat does not eliminate the possibility of the smaller force losing. In fact it likely increases the chance of the smaller force winning because on the 5-2 tables, a good roll by the small force can devastate the morale of the large force. So as long as the large force rolls badly enough not to elminate the small force, then the small force can win, at much better odds than one side rolling three "1's" and other rolling three "6's" in the example provided.

The real beauty of the trival combat is the automatic option to withraw before the combat, and if unsuccessful, to fight on a reasonable table. That decision whether to withdraw or not is very hard to pre-select a chit for.

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Playing the AI recently I came into the other side of the non-trivial combat..

Russia trying to kick Turkey out of Egypt (at war)

Russia conquered but trying to eradicate remaining turks spent 6 months attacking and reinforcing to end up with

Bagration and 3 Corps vs Ali and 1 corps

Russian corps 24 i
Turkish corps Niz 2c

Assault chosen by Russia to try and limit withdrawl vs Cordon

Russia Lost...

with over a 10:1 ratio and better charts - (due to rolling 0(-1), 0(-1), 1(-1) vs 6(1), 6(1), 7(1))...

I was not real happy about it but..  it can happen... and did.  having a crap load of infantry trying to chase around a few cav on the battle field...  what sucked was the 3 inf lost to pursuit after the battle...

OD


 

Thanks for posting this, I think there are some people who didn't understand what Trivial Combat meant.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Yes, your example is true though the possibility of it happening is EXTREMELY rare, at best.

How hard would this be to code? If it's not hard then make it an option, it looks like enough people want it. Like I said, I never played a FtF game without this optional rule and..

...I never had an odd situation (like the one you describe) come up.

True, but other battles could certainly come up. For example, Portugal goes neutral in 1807 due to instability by its owner. It keeps its current forces, however. GB would be very happy to know that if she brings 25 factors and Wellington she will get a neutral combat table.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Playing the AI recently I came into the other side of the non-trivial combat..

Russia trying to kick Turkey out of Egypt (at war)

Russia conquered but trying to eradicate remaining turks spent 6 months attacking and reinforcing to end up with

Bagration and 3 Corps vs Ali and 1 corps

Russian corps 24 i
Turkish corps Niz 2c

Assault chosen by Russia to try and limit withdrawl vs Cordon

Russia Lost...

with over a 10:1 ratio and better charts - (due to rolling 0(-1), 0(-1), 1(-1) vs 6(1), 6(1), 7(1))...

I was not real happy about it but..  it can happen... and did.  having a crap load of infantry trying to chase around a few cav on the battle field...  what sucked was the 3 inf lost to pursuit after the battle...

OD


 

I have another one of those to report, from a boardgame version 20 years ago:

Napoleon and a bunch of corps attacked Blucher sitting on what turned out to be a Prussia "cav corps": A Prussia corps that only had 3 cavalry in it. Nappy had 95 factors, but not cav superiority, and there were a disproportionate number of low-morale boys. The French player already knew what the composition of the Prussian "army" was, having already met it in battle that month.

So, naturally, France chose assault. He figured that if the Prussians picked defend, he was bound to get at least a 2 somewhere along the line.

Prussia not only won the battle (assault vs. defend), but actually killed FOUR cavalry in the combat (losing none), because all of the losses occured during pursuit. In war, NOTHING is for sure.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: obsidiandragon

Playing the AI recently I came into the other side of the non-trivial combat..

Russia trying to kick Turkey out of Egypt (at war)

Russia conquered but trying to eradicate remaining turks spent 6 months attacking and reinforcing to end up with

Bagration and 3 Corps vs Ali and 1 corps

Russian corps 24 i
Turkish corps Niz 2c

Assault chosen by Russia to try and limit withdrawl vs Cordon

Russia Lost...

with over a 10:1 ratio and better charts - (due to rolling 0(-1), 0(-1), 1(-1) vs 6(1), 6(1), 7(1))...

I was not real happy about it but..  it can happen... and did.  having a crap load of infantry trying to chase around a few cav on the battle field...  what sucked was the 3 inf lost to pursuit after the battle...

OD


 

I have another one of those to report, from a boardgame version 20 years ago:

Napoleon and a bunch of corps attacked Blucher sitting on what turned out to be a Prussia "cav corps": A Prussia corps that only had 3 cavalry in it. Nappy had 95 factors, but not cav superiority, and there were a disproportionate number of low-morale boys. The French player already knew what the composition of the Prussian "army" was, having already met it in battle that month.

So, naturally, France chose assault. He figured that if the Prussians picked defend, he was bound to get at least a 2 somewhere along the line.

Prussia not only won the battle (assault vs. defend), but actually killed FOUR cavalry in the combat (losing none), because all of the losses occured during pursuit. In war, NOTHING is for sure.

OR in other words ... "In war, nothing is TRIVIAL"

[NeverMan]

No speedup consideration for this game should be considered trivial, that's for sure.

The speed of this game has literally, for me, been the same as real life. We manage about one game month every real month. How is that even reasonable?