Nihila wrote:I'm in favor of defense canceling a certain amount of the total attacks dealt to a unit. If you just calculate total damage, then allow Warlords to divide it among enemy troops with certain limits (as in, one troop can only attack one enemy troop), then Leadership becomes much, much more valuable... You know, like how it's presented in the comic.
Ok. I think
that what you're saying is what I was saying. I think that what I was thinking (and upon rereading, I wasn't clear at all on -- mea culpa) was that, say, the exploitive defender with 19 Defense might stop up to 19 damage worth of attacks during the... combat round? Entire turn? If it were the entire turn, it would be too easy to take out tougher opponents. Round it is then.
Maybe, instead, damage from unled stacks should be dealt evenly to all opponents. Battles would have higher severe casualties for a "winner" in unled vs. unled, extremely high croaking rates for unled and moderate casualties in unled vs. led, and I don't really want to tax my brain thinking about led vs. led.
What I'm thinking for unled stacks is, each unit in an unled stack attacks a random unit in the other stack (if equal stacks, it's one to one for simplicity). If that unit croaks its opponent it switches to another random opponent (keeping proportional when possible; one won't move to an opponent already engaged with two unless they're all engaged with two).
Back to the topic of led stacks...
What I was thinking about Commander, Warlord, and Leadership, was a way to reconcile the terms. In the wiki there is some discussion about how exactly a Commander is different from a Warlord.
The way I want to reconcile is what I originally wrote (I'll rewrite it to clarify my intent):
Chris Goodwin wrote:If a stack contains a unit with the Commander Special, it is considered led, but gains no additional bonus. A Warlord is considered a Commander, but can lead all allied stacks in an entire hex. A unit with the Leadership special applies a bonus equal to its level to all units it is leading (a Commander with Leadership applies it to all units in its stack; a Warlord with Leadership applies it to all units in its hex).
Hmmm. Reading about Chief Warlord, in this case a Warlord is almost as good. Maybe, for a Warlord with Leadership: bonus applies to all units in its stack, and half its bonus applies to all units in the hex. But all allied stacks in hex with a Warlord are automatically considered led.
Oh, another idea: can a Commander or Warlord or Leader (or Caster...) lead via Thinkamancy? Probably not providing a bonus, and probably not more than a single stack, but if an unled stack is getting creamed, it might prove extremely helpful...
Onto a different topic: Is the dice system I came up with too complicated? I'm thinking maybe it is, and what would be better: for each unit, roll 1d10, and add the unit's bonuses to the die roll. On a 6+ that unit hits its opponent. Once your side has finished rolling, the other side gets to roll, same way. Damage is resolved simultaneously, after all attacks. Once all of the attacks are resolved, the combat round ends, and another begins. A combat ends when one side or the other is croaked, or when one side or the other withdraws -- typically this would be the attacker, because withdrawing units must leave the hex, and defenders can't, but can if they're in a city; they can withdraw to another city zone.
Another idea: if you roll an 11 or higher (because of bonuses) you can attack two different units simultaneously (divide up damage? full damage to each target?). What I'm looking at is replicating what we see here
, where Ansom could have, had he chosen, waltzed into the city and taken it singlehandedly. (With a personal bonus of +33, the lowest he could roll would be 34, which would mean he could attack a minimum of 23 units!) Unbalancing, maybe... in that update, Ansom, Wanda, and their stack could have attacked a minimum of 160 units in one round!