"Dice swing and casualties in the ACW" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Profile ArticleThis campaign game, begin in 2007, marches on at Gen Con!
Featured Book Review
|
forwardmarchstudios | 02 Feb 2017 6:06 p.m. PST |
I recently posted on here concerning d20 versus d6 and the various reasons for choosing one size over the other. One argument that popped up was dice swing, or the greater disparity possible on a d20 than on a d6. In certain regards this difference is illusory, since a 1-10 result is statistically no more nor less likely than 1-3. However, it did get me thinking… Especially in the ACW period the attack could result in spectacular failures, both through incompetence, new technology, or a combination of both. On the other hand, taking a defensive position seems to have been more reliable, and the results more predictable. So, maybe it would be interesting to represent this relationship by increasing the "dice swing" for higher echelon units on the attack relative to defending units. So, if you are going to committ a brigade to the attack over a given piece of terrain, you will not be certain of the exact result of the attack, but you can be sure that the probability of casualties will be greater than if you were on the defense. In more concrete terms, say one brigade attacks another. In this example each brigade has 10 "hits." The brigade attacking the defender rolls 1d10, thus inflicting 1-10 hits. On the other hand the defender rolls 1d20, which gives him a much better chance of annihilating the attacker. For the purpse of balance stacked attackers might be allowed, so you might have three or four attacking brigades each rolling 1d10 against that one defender. Anyway, what do you guys think? I feel like this puts a dramatic, sort of different spin on combat resolution, especially for the 1860s period. |
Grelber | 02 Feb 2017 6:11 p.m. PST |
If the attack succeeds anyway, I think the defenders would need to roll again to represent their wounded, prisoners, and people shot while fleeing. Grelber |
forwardmarchstudios | 02 Feb 2017 6:55 p.m. PST |
|
Extra Crispy | 02 Feb 2017 7:22 p.m. PST |
Your idea is good if your time scale is long enough. The 10 versus 20 is much too big a gap. On average defender will annihilate attacker, and lose 50% in return. Remember too that "melee" was extremely rare. Instead of charging you end up with close range volley exchanges. So perhaps a system like this: Start with a D10. Elites start with a D12, green troops a D8 Down 25% hits? Down one die type. Shaken? Down one die type. In light works? Opponent down one die type. Flank attack? Up one die type. Superlative general? Up one die type. Etc. etc. Could be very interesting. How would artillery work? |
forwardmarchstudios | 02 Feb 2017 7:50 p.m. PST |
Extra Crispy- great idea on the different dice types. Definitely makes sense. The idea though is that 1:1 the attacker faces the certainty of being annihilated at a much higher rate than the defender. The attackers strength would lie in trying to create overwhelming odds, although some of his units will probably still get mauled. Time-wise I'm thinking 30 min – 60 min turns, so a lot can happen. As I think sbout it, why not only give variable dice sizes like you mentioned to the defender only- for the attacking side the dice roll should be a function of the terrain. An elite unit attacking across an open field in period can still suffer incredible casualties. In the woods, less. Of course that elite unit might still "win" by taking the position, but that would be a function of morale, a separate step. All these considerations will really force the player to consider when and where to attack, since attacking will quickly wear his force down (as was the historical case). Artillery… I'll get back to you on that! |
StoneMtnMinis | 02 Feb 2017 8:33 p.m. PST |
Interesting thread. Keep it up. |
TKindred | 02 Feb 2017 10:39 p.m. PST |
I disagree with the concept of melee being rare in the ACW. Certainly there are stacks of diaries, memoirs and magazine articles by veterans who talk about getting into hand-to-hand combat. |
forwardmarchstudios | 02 Feb 2017 10:41 p.m. PST |
How about this for artillery- Every battery has a strength rating, which can vary depending on year, calibre, weight, etc. Casualties are based on range and terrain, as above. Under 1500 meters (for example, but maybe less), you simply pick a unit, roll a dice to hit it, inflict casualties baed on range and the number of tubes, and apply hits. Simple. However, if the target is past that range, say 1000 meter or further out, or if the target is behind a hill or a ridge, then, instead of rolling for casualties, the player whose unit is being shelled pulls a counter from a bag. The counter shows the number of casualties inflicted by the incoming long-range arty fire. The counter are all a percentile point which you will multiply the strength rating of the firing artillery by to come up with the total number of hits. So, if you're being shelled by a strength 4 arty unit and you pick a chit that says .2, then you take 1 hit on that targeted unit (rounding up in this case). If you get a 1, then you take 4 hits (4 x 1). You do not show the bombarding unit the number on this chit. Instead, the player who owns the unit being bombarded places it, face-side down on the table next to the targeted unit. Each turn the fire continues, he places another marker. Of course, he has the option to withdraw if he wants to, after any turn of bombardment. In any case, until the other side gets within a certain distance, the artillery chips aren't revealed. So, the bombarding player is not certain until he more fully engages the efficacy of his long-distance artillery fire. He could be sowing chaos, or else he could be missing entirely. You won't know until you send General Pickett over to check it out. *** Cross-posting edit: Melee or close-range fire fights would both be covered in the general engagement, at least with what I have in mind. I don't think it helps to differentiate them one way or the other when you go above the regimental, tactical level. |
donlowry | 03 Feb 2017 10:05 a.m. PST |
You could do it this way: The defender rolls 1d10, with the number rolled being the number of "hits." The attacker rolls 1d6. The result of a "hit" depends on the size of the units you're using. Or it could be 1d12 vs. 1d10, or 1d20 vs 1d12, anyway, giving the edge to the defender. Conversely, the die roll could be a morale roll, in which case the attacker uses the larger die (more variable) and the defender the lower (more predictable). Or the attacker could use 1d12 while the defender uses 2d6. Same numbers, but with the 2d6 the results clump more towards the middle. |
Clays Russians | 09 Feb 2017 3:31 p.m. PST |
Lowery has a point, two large regiments are going to lose more men in the approach than three smaller regiments. Frontage of the lines are more continuous on the larger two. Somehow some way I always felt this neeeded to be addressed in all musket period period play, from 1740- 1865. |
donlowry | 10 Feb 2017 9:14 a.m. PST |
I don't see how you got that out of my post. |
|