Gull's proposed rule change

[gull2112]

Okay, this one has nothing to do with point costs.

In every game of BG I've played or observed, its always a little awkward when both combatants fail their courage checks and rout simultaneously. Yes, you could come up with some rationalization that what really happened isn't what actually occurs on the board, and I am the first to be 'on board' in that situation if it adds to fun and playability, but in this case, this result just never seems to be a satisfying resolution. IMHO what this represents is a critical balance point in the engagement where neither side is able to get the upper hand.

My suggestion is that if both fail the check, then the results are ignored and neither routs. This includes a case where there are multiple attackers.

This has virtue in its simplicity. When I first started thinking about this I was trying to devise a way of determing who routed first, and what happens to the other combatant, but though I had no shortage of methods, they all were putsey in one way or another. My default judgement is to go with the simplest solution, unless a more complex solution is so superior that it is worth the extra affort and the probable decrease in gaming enjoyment.

This way is more interesting (read fun), because if you fail your Courage check, but you've also caused enough damage to force your opponent to take a courage check, then there is still hope. It is a way of simulating the actual effect of the battle beyond mere casualties. If things are going bad on the ground (you've failed the courage check) and your opponent seems to be getting the upper hand (they passed their check) then the unit bails, but if the both sides seem almost on the breaking point (they fail the check too), then the desperate struggle continues.

[elgin_j]

My suggestion is that if both fail the check, then the results are ignored and neither routs. This includes a case where there are multiple attackers.

No - for two reasons:

1 - What is being represented on the board is entirely in keeping with the history of warfare.  Elements of armies did rout simultaneously as the effect on morale is not taken from the combat in isolation but from that of the overall situation.  Therefore, units could rout from inferior opponents when winning as they see their comrades do likewise or, as in this case, simultaneously.

2 - The isolated result of a single matchup does not take into account the wider factors in play.  If a unit of Peasants rout simulataneously with Celestial Guard, and those Peasants were the single obstacle to HE Knights flank pinching Greatswords on the next turn, all the while the battle is going poorly for the HE and such a flank pinch might be a tipping point, then I think the HE player would feel rightly aggrieved at getting mugged off.

[gull2112]

Thank you for your concerns.

1 - What is being represented on the board is entirely in keeping with the history of warfare.  Elements of armies did rout simultaneously as the effect on morale is not taken from the combat in isolation but from that of the overall situation.  Therefore, units could rout from inferior opponents when winning as they see their comrades do likewise or, as in this case, simultaneously.

That is true, but usually when it happened it was because the army morale broke and the whole force disintegrated. In fact, this is usually what happened in pre-powder eras. However, THAT is not simulated in BG and saying that this represents it, while not completely implausible, makes me go, meh.

2 - The isolated result of a single matchup does not take into account the wider factors in play.  If a unit of Peasants rout simulataneously with Celestial Guard, and those Peasants were the single obstacle to HE Knights flank pinching Greatswords on the next turn, all the while the battle is going poorly for the HE and such a flank pinch might be a tipping point, then I think the HE player would feel rightly aggrieved at getting mugged off.

This is part of the more involved details that might have gone into a more detailed rule set. I opted for the simpler and more interesting route of the 'challenged' rout checks where the opponents essentially roll off against one another.

[elgin_j]

Thank you for your concerns.

1 - What is being represented on the board is entirely in keeping with the history of warfare.  Elements of armies did rout simultaneously as the effect on morale is not taken from the combat in isolation but from that of the overall situation.  Therefore, units could rout from inferior opponents when winning as they see their comrades do likewise or, as in this case, simultaneously.

That is true, but usually when it happened it was because the army morale broke and the whole force disintegrated. In fact, this is usually what happened in pre-powder eras. However, THAT is not simulated in BG and saying that this represents it, while not completely implausible, makes me go, meh.

I don't understand - courage checks are direct representations of unit morale and units failing them represent exactly that.  Are you talking about morale checks having wider implications across the entire army?

[Mexico]

Having gotten knocked around a ton by ranged fire this weekend, I think disruption is what you are looking for.  What if, when both units fail rout checks, (if both players agree?) they can both become disrupted instead?

That way, the fight continues, but in a much more disorganized fashion.  And a good general can run up and whip those troops into shape (i.e. pay the 2 command actions to lift disruption).  Makes sense, since if both units rout then neither are technically engaged with each other, and when you fail an unengaged rout check you become disrupted under the tournament rules...

[Hannibal]

Disrupted is a Standing Order, and IIRC, you can't change standing orders while engaged.

Personally, I have nothing wrong with both units routing away.  Again, remember, units are not static automatons.  They are masses of men that even with the most ideal, well trained troops, degenerate into semi-disordered groups in the whirl of combat.  I don't see it as crazy that some of the unit falls back while other parts press forward, breaking through the enemy.  Then the victorious elements in each unit realize that most of their units are running and they fall back with them.

Or you could just make them both Disrupted and accept that this is going to be a bigger element of the game.  Either works.

[gull2112]

I'm just proposing that if two engaged units simultaneously fail a rout check then nothing changes, it is only when just one combat fails a rout check (which of course happens most of the time) that something happens. I am of the opinion that this would be a more interesting rule to play and we'll call the plausibility of either roughly equvalent.

[BubblePig]

Maybe I am being a bit OCD, here, but I like the way the rule works now i.e. Attacker routs, defender routs, neither rout, or both rout. As it is, both routing is the least frequent outcome, as IMO it should be.

[ChimpMasaki]

Personally I have no problem with both units routing at the same time.

The morale and damage boxes all represent abstractions of what's happening on the field. We call a "rout" a rout" because that is what a failed courage check most often represents.

When both sides fail their courage check simultaneously I see it not that both sides have turned tail to run from each other but, rather, that both sides have become disorganised almost to the point of not being effective. Perhaps too many of the combatants have gotten mixed up in the other fights around them, perhaps a significant amount of troops from either side have decided to pull back before launching a second push while some are still fighting in the middle. In either case it is up to the commander to reorganise these troops so these efforts make a difference to the battle, if the unit is not "rallied" we can assume that what ever the remaining soldiers from the unit are doing, it is not enough to effect the rest of the battle in any meaningful way.

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

[gull2112]

Okay, fine, I can see that.