Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

[NSchwerte]

I think you are misunderstanding the post. What was proposed was the taking casulties triggers a morale check, not that you get a morale check per set number of casulties. Without any specific numbers, I think this would mean exactly 1 morale check per ordinary attack (no longshots or trained units firing into med. range forests). And with artillery being quite expensive, that would still mean morale checks are by default fairly rare (only about 4 per turn via turteling). This makes breaking the enemy line from range decently difficult, especially if they have a reasonable chance of resting and healing stress.

Click to shrink...

I'm really not sure about such a system.

First of all it would mean that an offensive genius elite hobgoblin regiment charging a unit has like a 5% higher chance to deal damage than an incompetent trained hallfing unit, with both of them likely rolling one morale check, cause you only need like a roll of 3 to deal casualties and any higher roll doesn't matter except for degrading enemy damage.

From my POV this also strengthens long range potshots - under the old system you could easily have 4 times as much damage from medium than you would have from long range, under the new system you would still have half as much average damage from long range as you would have from short(!) range.

Spoiler: Quick calcs

Morale damage:

Short ranger artillery:

1d100*9/10=99.8 chance for morale damage

Long range artillery:

1d100-50*9/10=49.9 chance for morale morale damage

Actual casualties:
Short range artillery:

1d100*9/10=45. casualties

Long range artillery:

1d100-50*9/10=11 casualties

Short range deals four times many casualties, but only two times as much morale

In general, such a system would encourage stacking as many attacks as possible without the actual damage really mattering - you rather have 2 artillery units taking potshots from 12 range than 1 artillery unit shooting point blank at 2 range.

The counterattack would also create just as many rolls as the charge unless you can start the charge from 2 tiles away, in which case you will eat a counterattack to balance it out anyway.

With morale rolls being the only thing that matters when defeating the enemy, the ability of artillery to concentrate fire gets stronger too, if you shoot your 4 artillery at a unit you will generate 4 rolls, possible routing them immediately, which could get you 2-4 extra rolls, making that fire almost equivalent to a charge in generated rolls

 

[Photomajig]

I think I was a bit unclear on the role of Casualties here. I didn't mean that taking any Casualties would trigger Morale Checks, but only when you suffer more than a set threshold at once (like 10, but it could be higher - 50? 100, even?). A few of your comrades dying doesn't necessarily mean much, but you get shaken up when there's bodies falling everywhere you look.

And yeah, it makes Stress serve a role similar to Cohesion, except with greater range for uncertainty. Is that good? Maybe?

You raise good points either way. I do want Morale Checks from Charges, flanking, etc to be important and not overshadowed by just inflicting Casualties. But Casualties should matter - especially when they come en masse at once.

Elite Units always making a last stand is not ideal, though sometimes your guys being unbreakable is fine. The exact values right now are a bit too strong vs Morale Checks, I think - a situation where an Unit cannot get Stress from a Morale Check at all should be rare. Generally, you'll start cracking them at least when the Momentum turns badly against their side.

How I was kind of seeing artillery's role: arty allows you to control the battle with its range. It may not inflict huge casualties from a far position, but it will eventually wear you down from a distance. Thus, you are compelled to attack, send cavalry or skirmishers to silence it, or find defensive ground that is impervious to bombardment.

Which may require changes to them. Arty may be a bit too accurate right now, though I'm not sure.

Artillery fire at close range is another matter, and can cause mass Casualties.

Artillery could have a unique demoralizing effect, though I'm not sure it's required. Shell shock is kind of a later phenomenon: these guns are slower, fire at lower velocity and spread over a larger area. But artillery did have a pronounced suppressive effect, even when casualties were low. Agh, too many variables to consider. What serves the gameplay best?

I keep turning all of this round and round, but I really need to sit down and do some testing. Busy Christmas days don't leave enough time for this!

 

[Red Rationalist]

I'm really not sure about such a system.

First of all it would mean that an offensive genius elite hobgoblin regiment charging a unit has like a 5% higher chance to deal damage than an incompetent trained hallfing unit, with both of them likely rolling one morale check, cause you only need like a roll of 3 to deal casualties and any higher roll doesn't matter except for degrading enemy damage.

Click to shrink...

Fair point, though that wasn't quite what was intended. The suggestion would be around introducing a floor to attacks, similar to how 10 casualties were required for your attack to not whiff. But yeah, defensive and offensive genius and anything related to advantage and disadvantage might need adapting, since they should matter for more than just hit guarantees

I think I was a bit unclear on the role of Casualties here. I didn't mean that taking any Casualties would trigger Morale Checks, but only when you suffer more than a set threshold at once (like 10, but it could be higher - 50? 100, even?). A few of your comrades dying doesn't necessarily mean much, but you get shaken up when there's bodies falling everywhere you look.

Click to shrink...

Should be decent enough, yeah. We would be basically establishing a minimal floor on when an attack becomes relevant, similar to the old system. Quick sanity check: A mid-ranged experienced artillery shot has a 79% chance of triggering a morale check, while a long-ranged one drops to a 41% chance. I would need to look at the values a bit more, but a coinflip on doing damage is not worthwile if you put make ammo a bit tighter. And even if not, you could raise the floor up to 15 to discourage needling from afar.

Elite Units always making a last stand is not ideal, though sometimes your guys being unbreakable is fine. The exact values right now are a bit too strong vs Morale Checks, I think - a situation where an Unit cannot get Stress from a Morale Check at all should be rare. Generally, you'll start cracking them at least when the Momentum turns badly against their side.

Click to shrink...

Fair point, we have treated momentum as a null value in our math right now. This would make counterattacks harder, while giving the charge an easier time resisting. I would need to see it in action , but it's a nice balancing element if applied correctly.

How I was kind of seeing artillery's role: arty allows you to control the battle with its range. It may not inflict huge casualties from a far position, but it will eventually wear you down from a distance. Thus, you are compelled to attack, send cavalry or skirmishers to silence it, or find defensive ground that is impervious to bombardment.

Which may require changes to them. Arty may be a bit too accurate right now, though I'm not sure.

Artillery fire at close range is another matter, and can cause mass Casualties.

Artillery could have a unique demoralizing effect, though I'm not sure it's required. Shell shock is kind of a later phenomenon: these guns are slower, fire at lower velocity and spread over a larger area. But artillery did have a pronounced suppressive effect, even when casualties were low.

Click to shrink...

The main issue I'm seeing is that the system doesn't quite distinguish between a devastating volley and an attack that barely hits. Casulties interface with the remaining system in two ways right now, as a floor to the morale check (did your attack do anything?) and via proposed casualty thresholds. In terms of just triggering a morale check, it is inferior to long-ranged artillery fire. Depending on how the casualty system threshold system is implemented, artillery could be quite strong, but I think risk making the game to much of a meatgrinder again (easy to trigger casulties by other methods as well) and this can be done piece-meal, thus making a grinding of the enemy more of an ideal.

Though come to think of it, maybe we could make a general rule about high casulties triggering more difficult for just this attack? This would encourage concentrating on a more on fewer, highly destructive attacks and buff artillery in the mid-range, since they are good at causing a lot of casualties. If we introduced a rule that a morale check is rolled at a -1 per (25) casualties, long-ranged and limited attacks would loose importance and destructive volleys become more destructive.
A strong hit (50+) would result in a harder a check at 1d10-2, meaning your resistance drops off when damage is high, but is not automatically decimated by just receiving a lot of piecemeal damage. A very strong (75+) and perfect (100) hit would both trigger a pretty hefty morale check, leading to higher stress accumalation and long-term damage. I kind of like the of that, since it encourages us to put effort into fewer, well-placed attacks rather than needling. Needling has a low chance of having an impact, but a strong starting attack would be good at getting resistance down. This would also force less changes around advantage, disadvantage and offensive genuis, since casualties also have the possibility of raising the damage done. A 1d10-2 is a lot better than a flat 1d10. Also, if we move the -AP hits towards the upper range and replace the lower range with a different effect, you could have a suppressive effect on less demoralized units that mirrors history.

What serves the gameplay best?

I keep turning all of this round and round, but I really need to sit down and do some testing. Busy Christmas days don't leave enough time for this!

Click to shrink...

I could make a diagramm of the proposed system, if you want. It's only about 5-6 connected points so not a lot of effort. And I'm happy to test any of the provisional values, this is kind of fun.

 

[Pinniped]

Just as a general point: it feels right that higher casualties would give maluses to the morale checks, to encourage doing real damage over chipping. This would cause the system to become more similar to the previous system with Casualties causing Cohesion loss, just with more randomness and the possibility of causing Morale Checks by other methods than damage. I think would generally be good, we don't have to change too much. The old system was robust in the sense that devastating losses had devastating effects on Morale, as they should have.

 

[Red Rationalist]

Just as a general point: it feels right that higher casualties would give maluses to the morale checks, to encourage doing real damage over chipping. This would cause the system to become more similar to the previous system with Casualties causing Cohesion loss, just with more randomness and the possibility of causing Morale Checks by other methods than damage. I think would generally be good, we don't have to change too much. The old system was rodusta in the sense that devastating losses had devastating effects on Morale, as they should have.

Click to shrink...

I was thinking along the same lines, trying to encourage concentration rather than attrition. With a temporary morale check malus from shock (high casulties), a high attack could be qualitatively more devastating than a large number of basic attacks, leading to more focus on preparing the ground work and lining up the a good attack. Under such a system, repositioning your artillery to get the ambush advantage or waiting for a perfect skirmish opportunity has a bonus over raw attrition. One would need to run the numbers again, but I think we have the base mechanics that encourage that. And when lining up your attack just right is more important, this puts a greater emphasis on terrain, positioning and maneuver rather than doing a lot of attacks. The shock value is very helpful with that.

 

[Photomajig]

Alright. I've been doing some testing, and I think changing the Morale Check table to a d20 is the smartest thing to do. I tinkered around with Casualty-inflicted Morale Checks with innate penalties with the d10 table, but I think we can go a long way just with an expansion. As a first draft of the d20 table:

• 0: Rout.
• 1: Take 9 Stress.
• 2: Take 9 Stress.
• 3: Take 8 Stress.
• 4: Take 8 Stress.
• 5: Take 7 Stress.
• 6: Take 7 Stress.
• 7: Take 6 Stress.
• 8: Take 6 Stress.
• 9: Take 5 Stress.
• 10: Take 5 Stress.
• 11: Take 4 Stress.
• 12: Take 4 Stress.
• 13: Take 3 Stress.
• 14: Take 3 Stress.
• 15: Take 2 Stress.
• 16: Take 2 Stress.
• 17: Take 1 Stress.
• 18: Take 1 Stress.
• 19: No effect.
• 20: No effect.
  • Heroic Recovery has been eliminated, as it perversely improved the resolve of high-tier Units when Morale Checked, due to clearing away any Stress that might trickle to them. However, we could assign a natural 20 to do the same as a crit, perhaps - helping inexperienced and experienced soldiers equally.
  • I'm unsure how to spread the -AP effects. They might even be better rolled onto the Critical Hit table instead.

Taking >50 Casualties in one turn triggers a Morale Check. Taking >100 triggers a Morale Check at Disadvantage. Taking >150, x2 Disadvantage. All Casualties suffered on that turn are counted together for the purpose of this trigger.

(We could also convert the Disadvantages to additional Morale Checks instead, which would incur far greater Stress gains.)

The max possible bonus to Morale Checks, not counting Momentum, is +20: Elite Rank, full Army Morale, full Army Drill, and being a Human or Dwarf. This is next to impossible to actually happen, but you can certainly have Morale Check modifiers of around +10. Several of your Human Units would already have that.

• With a +20 bonus, you'll virtually never have to worry about breaking. But if you get an Unit to that point, you deserve your unbreakable legends! On a 1, you'd be fine.
• With a +15 bonus, you're unlikely to rack up serious Stress, with only a 15% chance to take at least 1 Stress from a Morale Check. You are breakable only with bad luck, excessive damage in one turn, and/or bad Momentum. On a 1, you'd take 2 Stress.
• With a +10 bonus, you have a 40% chance to take at least 1 Stress from a Morale Check. Still, you're unlikely to break without repeated shocks and bad luck. On a 1, you'd take 4 Stress.
• With a +5 bonus, you have a 65% chance to take at least 1 Stress from a Morale Check. On a 1, you'd take 7 Stress.
• With a +0 bonus, you have a 90% chance. On a 1, you'd take 9 Stress.
• Conclusions:
  • Humans and Dwarves might be a little OP. Negative Army Morale would quickly render your humies dead weight, that said.
  • Stacking several Morale Checks lets you put a lot of Stress on an Unit at once. The less experienced the Unit, the faster they'll break.
  • Needling an enemy with low-Casualty attacks does little to break it, though enough such attacks can trigger a MC, as well. However, it is more effective to maximize your Hits and Casualties, such as with musketfire at very close range.
  • The Charge is the most powerful type of attack, but if it fails to Rout or disable your target, they are likely to respond with 3 whole counter-attacks. Therefore, it can be prudent to weaken the enemy with sustained ranged fire before committing to one. This also helps reduce their attack if they do survive the charge.
    • Advancing close to the enemy before Charging also ensures you pay the minimal 1 AP cost for the Charge, and can follow it up with attacks using your remaining AP.
    • The best Charge Routs the enemy before it even hits them.
  • Flanking and ambushes also maximize your chances of stressing out your enemy and thus making a Rout likely, especially in conjuction with a Charge. Even ineffective skirmishers can do a lot to unnerve your foe, regardless of the Casualties they inflict!
  • Overall Casualties suffered throughout the battle do not matter in this system. Should they? Probably. -1 per 100 (for infantry, per 50 for cavalry), to track with the attack penalties? Only at thresholds (75%, 50%, 25%)? Or -2 per 100? I'm leaning towards a simple -1 per 100 currently. These would be permanent, not cleared away by Resting. Kind of rearriving at how I'd set it up in the beginning, but oh well.

On the weekend, I hope to come to some kind of conclusion on the points still under debate, draft some patch notes, and then move onto the tutorial battle! While this workshopping is fun, I'm sure most folks would rather move on with an imperfect system and get to action!

 

[The Laurent]

Did we come to a decision involving Turn-based? I remember finding the critique about, like, "How do you open gaps in a line, then" pretty important.

 

[Red Rationalist]

Did we come to a decision involving Turn-based? I remember finding the critique about, like, "How do you open gaps in a line, then" pretty important.

Click to shrink...

Most people were on board with a turn-based system. You would still be able to to open gaps in line via routing units, which would hinder the enemy units from counter-attacking right away. Additionally, the introduction of momentum would make a counter-charge harder if the attacking side is on a roll, so to speak. So we kind of get a small pause and screen from the enemy fleeing that allows us to set up for a further charge or counter-charge. We haven't discussed this in detail, but I don't think making this turn-based would change how breaking a line works too much.

 

[Chimeraguard]

• Humans and Dwarves might be a little OP. Negative Army Morale would quickly render your humies dead weight, that said.

Click to shrink...

Hmm. The question I suppose is how easy is it to reduce Drill compared to reducing Morale. Morale seems to seesaw far more, going up with victories and going down on defeats, or news of friendly defeats. I don't think we've seen Drill be affected by nearly as much.

It kinda makes sense for Dwarves to be more "consistent" than humans, so maybe they could have other flaws to make up for it if we want to balance things without altering Drill too much? I think I had an idea once that negative CO traits for Dwarves are doubled in their intensity, since Dwarves seem to rely heavily on their officers to give them orders.

 

[NSchwerte]

Humans and Dwarves are incredibly strong under the new system yeah and there are pretty much two way to resolve it of course, that is increasing their negative trait or decreasing the bonus.

Buffing the negative trait for humans isn't hard of course doubling the effect of negative momentum would mean that humans need to take the initiative or shatter, if they roll two checks for neighbouring routes or just get flat stress from it then a strong looking frontline can be more fragile than they appear.

Dwarves are a bit more difficult - they've already been the best frontline unit before the rework, having big cohesion pools and also taking less damage. Their current negative trait of taking a turn longer to reform is not that impactful. So possible harsher traits...

Possibly, once dwarves get routes, they cannot reform during that battle? Dwarves can absorb a lot of stress by being rigid, but once they break that rigidity works against them and they cannot easily return to calm. With the new system, reforming will likely be less relevant so it's not actually as bad as it may first appear.


Dwarves have one less ap, being slow but tanky? Though that may actually be too strong of a negative.

Dwarves roll ambush and flank moreale rolls with disadvantage, not being able to handle the unexpected as well? Though I'm not sure just how many of these happen.

Needing the trait bonus would be smoothing the curve I guess - 1-2: -3, 2-3: -2, 4: -1, 5: 0, 6: -1, 7-8: -2, 9-10: -3

If cavalry gets proportional effects, it'll be interesting that artillery wants to hunt it then - cavalry is incredibly dangerous on the offense, but also squishy. That means that cavalry can be the deciding arm in the battle if going in at the same time, but at the same time needs to take care about enemy cavalry and artillery to not get rendered ineffective

 

[Red Rationalist]

• Humans and Dwarves might be a little OP. Negative Army Morale would quickly render your humies dead weight, that said.

Click to shrink...

In regards to Dwarves, my suggestion would be them getting only half the positive effects of morale/momentum. This would give them a cohesion related drawback in return for their cohesion, so the unit is more balanced overall. And also turn them into a mirror unit of humans: Where humans tend to be strongly motivated by morale (good and bad), dwarves struggle to be particularly motivated by emotions. A mainly dwarven unit would have a harder time making use of a particular wave of success considering the dwarven rigidity and reliance on drill. The unit produces very reliable results, toughing out hard times but never excelling in morale like another would.

Justifiying this from a balance perspective: Dwarves benefit from drill, a value that we can't really modify for another army. And since they have a very valueable cohesion bonus, I would advocate for also giving them a cohesion malus like the human vulnerability to despair. So my thinking was that dwarven units have a very solid cohesion baseline if you drill them, but can't really be lifted up much beyond that. So a mainly dwarven unit would gain less advantage when things are already going well, making them less useful as an offensive sledgehammer benefiting from strong momentum. Still a good unit, especially if you need to fight a series of defensive and delaying battles.

 

[Red Rationalist]

Taking >50 Casualties in one turn triggers a Morale Check. Taking >100 triggers a Morale Check at Disadvantage. Taking >150, x2 Disadvantage. All Casualties suffered on that turn are counted together for the purpose of this trigger.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, this does change things quite a bit. So, couple of differences this promotes greater concentration of fire and at closer ranges artillery volleys becomes far more devastating. This is actually quite impactful in a lot of ways, but to focus on artillery and it's effect on positioning: Terrain that provides cover is quite a bit more powerful at providing defense. Where woods previously it just slowed the attacking damage down, now it provides more protection against more difficult shock checks. Just a quick bit of math to show it: A singular field artillery [experienced, mid range, no other modifiers] has a 35% chance of triggering a simply shock check, with no chance of an advanced one. By comparison, 2 field artillery shooting the same unit has a chance of 69%, with a 20% chance of an advanced one. Basically, focussed fire becomes more than the sum of it's parts.

How does this look for defensive terrain? Let's take the simple wood tile in medium range. The single artillery chance of inflicting an additional check drops to 15%, with battery fire shooting only having a 39% chance of a simple morale check and a 3% shot at an advanced one. I honestly didn't expect this, the shock effect makes artillery vastly more impactful against units in open fields and vastly less effective against units in solid cover. Honestly, I like it. Staying in an open field in the range of artillery SHOULD be pretty dangerous, while cover should do more to make units survive. Bombarding a unit out of solid cover becomes a lot more difficult to achieve.

Ok, how does this impact the artillery ambush? Under the old rules, an artillery unit needed at least 3 turns to reposition and shoot again, something that would be changing. Under our new system, artillery could regain their advantage by moving once behind the lines (1AP), setting up (1 AP?) and firing next turn. Horse artillery might become a special case, being able to reposition every (!) turn due to skipping on the set up stage. But to focus on field artillery, the ambush advantage becomes more competitive (1 advantage /3 shots versus 1 advantage/2 shots), but also has a much more solid chance of dealing a shock effect. Those are quite powerful if the enemy rolls with disadvantage (average of 7 [6 stress] versus 10 [4] on a flat dice and become more powerful as stress builds up [44% of routing at -5 versus 25% at flat roll).
Anyways, a battery with both field artillery units having advantage has a 93% of getting a bonus roll, with a 50% of the bonus morale roll at a disadvantage. In terms of sheer rolls, this would 3 normal artillery roles vs. 4.63 shots, but a 50% chance of getting the disadvantage morale roll, which is quite good. I'm not entirely sure if it's better, but it's certainly close to competitive, especially when trying to overcome cover.

Link to my anydice calculations if you want to check my work. The only special thing is including the highest of 0 and damage at the start, since the program otherwise has the habit of modelling missing attacks as healing a unit instead when adding multiple attacks.

---

Speculating on how this would change army positioning and tactics: Horse artillery would become the absolute queen of artillery units, able to very consistently flank and ambush. There mobility would also be better in another way, due to the facing changes: They could provide flanking fire, while the normal artillery would take longer to redirect themselves towards any flank. This makes them pretty good for supporting an offensive from the flank. Aside from that, standoff ranges would probably be a bit increased: If you can charge from up to 5 tiles away (move, move, charge = 2+2+2), there is no need to put yourself directly into medium range. This in turn would probably create a greater desire for posturing and a back and forth, units no longer need to hug the artillery support to win a battle, just pull the artillery into range once the lines really form. Artillery positioning is less permanent, with them being able to move 3 tiles forward and skipping only one turn. (Honestly, maybe we could even increase their movement speed to be on par with infantry or give them half a movement point more? They are already punished by a bunch of terrain penalties and the set-up action and can be pushed decently well across open fields.) Disengaging is possible, though yields more ground. Of course, this also might allow for a feigned retreat.

In my opinion, this would lead to vastly more emphasis on movement, since both a retreat and advance are far quicker (6 vs. 3 movment, if we commit). Repositioning across an open field is quick, though runs the risk of being caught by cavalry and running into enemy artillery. Flanking and ambushes are quite a bit stronger due to greater morale checks and a slower response to the push via rotation [Hmm, assuming we force a movement action for repositioning when already in melee, this would make the reaction to flanking pusher weaker 2 vs. 3 melee attacks, and opening the line to another charge in the rear if not protected]. This does make controlling and securing potential flanks more important and forces both sides to be more mindful of positions and moves. Scouting ahead becomes pretty important, so cavalry would generally ride ahead to catch units on the flanks. Fits their overall recon role. I have to see the system in action to move beyond speculation, but I think it set out what the incentives we want: A faster style of play, greater emphasis on strong attacks and calculated plays rather than spamming attacks for attrition. Additionally, winning becomes somewhat disconnected from raw damage: It's entirely possible to overwhelm the enemy with very few shots fired, if they are inexperienced or unlucky.

This is nice and encourages clever play, since winning a shorter battle results in less ammo and lives being expended. I would generally trend towards desiring a quick, decisive battle. Long battles gain us a lot of XP for artillery units, but reduce the general resilience of our units more due to loosing XP with attrition (far more meaningful, as the rank reduces the general cohesion damage you take). The changes look quite good in theory and provide reasons for making more interesting and immersive choices during battle. I suppose all that remains is the actual testing in the tutorial, but I am optimistic. Both sides have more data and experience with the unchanged parts of the system and we had some pretty good ideas.

 

[NSchwerte]

With higher casualties giving an advantage instead of an extra roll, ideally you want to hit the 50 mark on as many units as you can - an extra roll is quite a bit better, cause that extra roll is like getting both the normal result and the result of the advantage die.

Horse artillery might become a special case, being able to reposition every (!) turn due to skipping on the set up stage.

Click to shrink...

I agree, horse artillery can be incredibly dangerous. Something interesting they could do too is using their superior mobility to pressure one area of the battlefield and then switching somewhere else or dashing into the breakthrough once they put their damage to use, they are great at concentrating force.

Aside from that, standoff ranges would probably be a bit increased: If you can charge from up to 5 tiles away (move, move, charge = 2+2+2), there is no need to put yourself directly into medium range.

Click to shrink...

Interesting, I actually disagree. I would never want to charge from that far away. From my perspective, unless you have a very strong artillery arm you need to move closer while exchanging fire and ensure your charge can be as strong as it can be, ideally with charge, attack, attack. Though you need to be careful that the enemy doesn't decide to charge you first while you manoeuvre into that position.

If you charge from 5 tiles away, you are really hoping to shatter your enemy immediately.

I'm also expecting that the battle will be over very quickly one way or another once that charge gets triggered, with momentum and the high damage creating a bloody brawl whose victor has an incredible strong position, especially if the artillery is supporting the infantry and now exposed.

Scouting ahead becomes pretty important, so cavalry would generally ride ahead to catch units on the flanks.

Click to shrink...

I think cavalry will be very glass cannon esque, so actually disagree. If you can acquire cavalry supremacy, you are incredible strong, so exposing your cavalry with scouting runs is very dangerous.

I'd rather sacrifice infantry for scouting, who are not as important and can take a beating. And if the enemy overextends to chase that Scout, they may find themselves surrounded in enemy land.

This is nice and encourages clever play, since winning a shorter battle results in less ammo and lives being expended. I would generally trend towards desiring a quick, decisive battle. Long battles gain us a lot of XP for artillery units, but reduce the general resilience of our units more due to loosing XP with attrition

Click to shrink...

Once again it's our old disagreement, where I consider artillery xp more valuable than ammo

Infantry xp is definitely more important now so if you let your infantry get melee attacked you will have a bad time, but at the same time you need your infantry to fight to actually get xp - the ideal battle is an extended shooting fight where you charge and shatter the enemy after they are weakened and they can't counterattack.



It's interesting that we can draw quite interesting results from the same circumstances, I would love to fight and see which style would come out superior

 

[Red Rationalist]

I think cavalry will be very glass cannon esque, so actually disagree. If you can acquire cavalry supremacy, you are incredible strong, so exposing your cavalry with scouting runs is very dangerous.

Click to shrink...

This might need some explanation, I meant something pretty specific with a scouting run. Due to ambushes being stronger (+morale roll, higher chance of shock rolling from casulties, and potential attack from the rear), moving our units into an area where enemies might lie waiting for an ambush is actually fairly dangerous. So one of the way of countering this making your cavalry units search (1 AP) and move (1 AP) through the relevant area, trying to catch potential ambushes before it happens. Fairly low risk for them, since their movement speed is easily high enough to avoid getting entangled. An eleven hussar is actually pretty good as a scout (+2 spotting range by default) and cavalry can cover a fair bit of ground during a search action [searching the areas one forest deep]. Plus elves are operationally resilient against losses. I would need closer details to show exactly how likely they are to catch an ambush, but they have a decent shot at flushing normal units out. It's definitively a use for them when you don't plan using them for interception or rapid attacks.

The relative simple switch to a spotting range is something that mechanically creates similar incentives to real life militaries (sending fast moving cavalry ahead to make sure the area is clear).

I agree, horse artillery can be incredibly dangerous. Something interesting they could do too is using their superior mobility to pressure one area of the battlefield and then switching somewhere else or dashing into the breakthrough once they put their damage to use, they are great at concentrating force.

Click to shrink...

Oh yeah! Horse artillery is absolutely brutal if you can pull a good flanking move off. I was a strong supporter of them before, but they could create a lot of strong support for a part of bigger army that is flanking.

Interesting, I actually disagree. I would never want to charge from that far away. From my perspective, unless you have a very strong artillery arm you need to move closer while exchanging fire and ensure your charge can be as strong as it can be, ideally with charge, attack, attack. Though you need to be careful that the enemy doesn't decide to charge you first while you manoeuvre into that position.

If you charge from 5 tiles away, you are really hoping to shatter your enemy immediately.

I'm also expecting that the battle will be over very quickly one way or another once that charge gets triggered, with momentum and the high damage creating a bloody brawl whose victor has an incredible strong position, especially if the artillery is supporting the infantry and now exposed.

Click to shrink...

You are correct that a charge is quite decisive and needs a lot of advantages. I see the potential for a lot of back and forth positioning between units before the artillery actually arrives, trying to potentially push forward just by positioning your troops the best way during a skirmish phase. Artillery is definitively a needed bases for softening a line up for charge, but I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier phase showed a more mobile skirmish, where both sides try to get into the better position and stop the other. With the ability to move up 4 tiles and act, this is basically the deal of our rapid halflings *4. We will see during the test and I need a specific map to think about how this could happen.

Regarding the standoff: The charge at 5 tiles of range is also possible, if you stack enough of a bonus for it. This simple fact would mean the lines could first solidify out of each others medium artillery range, which has interesting results. I mean, theoretically you can charge from a considerable distance if you're able to take turn of artillery fire (Move, Move, Brace followed by Move, Charge, Melee = 7 tiles away). The viability depends somewhat on the exact rules, but the morale check makes artillery fire less certain to outright stop the charge if you overwhelm the first line. I'm not sure where this will go exactly, but I think fighting for positions and a constant pressure forward will happen during the battles more, rather than lines being set in stone and a artillery duel.

Once again it's our old disagreement, where I consider artillery xp more valuable than ammo

Infantry xp is definitely more important now so if you let your infantry get melee attacked you will have a bad time, but at the same time you need your infantry to fight to actually get xp - the ideal battle is an extended shooting fight where you charge and shatter the enemy after they are weakened and they can't counterattack.

Click to shrink...

That depends on the ammo economy, a long artillery duel becomes less great when you are working with a limited supply like during an offensive. In either case, we have an interest in preserving our infantry skill rather than feed infantry into a WW1 style meatgrinder. This is something I definitively appreciate, winning the battle but loosing the war should also be a concern to our napoleon stand-in.

 

[NSchwerte]

This might need some explanation, I meant something pretty specific with a scouting run. Due to ambushes being stronger (+morale roll, higher chance of shock rolling from casulties, and potential attack from the rear), moving our units into an area where enemies might lie waiting for an ambush is actually fairly dangerous. So one of the way of countering this making your cavalry units search (1 AP) and move (1 AP) through the relevant area, trying to catch potential ambushes before it happens. Fairly low risk for them, since their movement speed is easily high enough to avoid getting entangled. An eleven hussar is actually pretty good as a scout (+2 spotting range by default) and cavalry can cover a fair bit of ground during a search action [searching the areas one forest deep]. Plus elves are operationally resilient against losses. I would need closer details to show exactly how likely they are to catch an ambush, but they have a decent shot at flushing normal units out. It's definitively a use for them when you don't plan using them for interception or rapid attacks

Click to shrink...

Yeah I see the plan, but something I would definitely do if long range shots aren't viable is just setting up ready fires with artillery trying to catch these scouting cavalries.

Reading cavalry charges against them probably won't work, but if you make sure to have some units search for them, then you will slowly degrade them.

Oh yeah! Horse artillery is absolutely brutal if you can pull a good flanking move off. I was a strong supporter of them before, but they could create a lot of strong support for a part of bigger army that is flanking.

Click to shrink...

It will also be able to do some skirmishing of itself, shooting and scooting back. They may actually end up as the component that makes skirmishing viable

(Move, Move, Brace followed by Move, Charge, Melee = 7 tiles away).

Click to shrink...

Another possible approach would be move, shoot, brace. You are slow, but it means that both lines actually take the same damage, strengthening your charge further. Moving, shooting and then bracing will likely be a very common action for infantry, useful both for advancing and also retreating.

It's also interesting, if you have a line and don't actually want to charge right now, you may still want to move forward, because it allows you to be the first one who shoots from medium range.

So if you were the first one to step forward, then your charge will have a weaker enemy than the enemy charge, cause they are always catching up to your damage on their turn.

 

[Red Rationalist]

Yeah I see the plan, but something I would definitely do if long range shots aren't viable is just setting up ready fires with artillery trying to catch these scouting cavalries.

Reading cavalry charges against them probably won't work, but if you make sure to have some units search for them, then you will slowly degrade them.

Click to shrink...

Fair, that depends on the geography. Though if we have a state of more fluid army positions with artillery not quite set in place, scouting with the cavalry could be viable. Double search and movement would be rather good, provided you don't run into a ready fire cone. I suppose it depends on how close positions would be anyways and local geography.

Another possible approach would be move, shoot, brace. You are slow, but it means that both lines actually take the same damage, strengthening your charge further. Moving, shooting and then bracing will likely be a very common action for infantry, useful both for advancing and also retreating.

Click to shrink...

I think firing takes 2 AP according to the latest version of the prototype, so that wouldn't be feasible. And if it was, I'm not sure why you would do it over charging across a larger distance. Any action of shooting could be used moving three tiles further, which means you can position yourself for the charge without running into enemy med. artillery range. Shooting is only really effective at medium range (2 or less), with long-ranged shots yielding little chance of even getting a morale check. I don't know, i think I prefer setting units up for an extra melee attack over a shot, seems like too much of a risk of exposing yourself to the enemy charging for limited gain. Though this logic changes somewhat if both sides operate with limited artillery support.

 

[NSchwerte]

I think firing takes 2 AP according to the latest version of the prototype, so that wouldn't be feasible. And if it was, I'm not sure why you would do it over charging across a larger distance. Any action of shooting could be used moving three tiles further, which means you can position yourself for the charge without running into enemy med. artillery range. Shooting is only really effective at medium range (2 or less), with long-ranged shots yielding little chance of even getting a morale check. I don't know, i think I prefer setting units up for an extra melee attack over a shot, seems like too much of a risk of exposing yourself to the enemy charging for limited gain. Though this logic changes somewhat if both sides operate with limited artillery support.

Click to shrink...

Ah, thats our disagreement about whether a long range charge is good or not. Moving while shooting is a way to get into short range charge positions without losing out on the damage exhange. If you want to just charge the enemy at all costs its not worth it.

Though yeah, i think im too bound up in the old system, infantry shooting is hard to use with the infantry speed being faster, cause they are so short ranged. Rifles may be better now tho cause you can stay just out of close charge range and medium range and still shoot at medium

 

[Red Rationalist]

Ah, thats our disagreement about whether a long range charge is good or not. Moving while shooting is a way to get into short range charge positions without losing out on the damage exhange. If you want to just charge the enemy at all costs its not worth it.

Though yeah, i think im too bound up in the old system, infantry shooting is hard to use with the infantry speed being faster, cause they are so short ranged. Rifles may be better now tho cause you can stay just out of close charge range and medium range and still shoot at medium

Click to shrink...

Yeah, fair enough. All of his probably have to unlearn the old system a bit. My general thinking would be to use shots when we don't want to commit to a charge (and be stuck in melee afterwards), meaning we still want to move afterwards. And they are ok as a defensive tool, ready fire could weaken the initial attacker somewhat.

 

[NSchwerte]

Yeah, fair enough. All of his probably have to unlearn the old system a bit. My general thinking would be to use shots when we don't want to commit to a charge (and be stuck in melee afterwards), meaning we still want to move afterwards. And they are ok as a defensive tool, ready fire could weaken the initial attacker somewhat.

Click to shrink...

as a defensive tool you usually would want to brace i think, though that has the question if you could do ready fire- brace

 

[natruska]

Re: dwarves, I like the idea of them not getting positive effects from momentum. It's a bit situational but so is the human malus (which I assume would be 'adjacent unit routing = two morale checks instead of just one' in the morale system)? And I think the consequences would be appropriately 'alien' for how they've been characterized. A Nornish general watching in disbelief as his decisive victory turns into a stalemate thanks to the dwarven regiments looking around and deciding that they've Done Enough for Today, Actually.

If that's not enough, I like the idea of adding something to take AP away. Cutting their base AP would probably be too harsh but 'lose 1 AP at a certain Stress threshold, regain by Resting' or something like that could work to represent them shutting down and getting even more rigid under pressure. They're still just as tanky, but their damage/movement drops off in a drawn out battle.

 

[Photomajig]

REVISIONS 2.0: Patch Notes

General

• Introduction of Action Points (AP) system.
  • Units have a base 3 Action Points. These Action Points can be used to complete Orders in any order.
  • Most Orders cost 1 AP. Some Orders cost 2 or 3 AP.
• Introduction of Turn-Based Round Resolution (with some simultaneous-resolution aspects).
  • Orders for one side are resolved on their turn, followed by the other side's turn. Readied Actions may be resolved on the other side's turn.
• Introduction of Facing system.
  • Units now have a Facing, which consists of a Hex that they are directly oriented towards and the two Hexes adjacent to it and the Unit.
    • Ex. An Unit oriented to the West would have a Facing that covers W, NW and SW.
  • The sides of the Unit opposite to those covered by the Facing are its vulnerable Flanks.
    • Ex. An Unit oriented to the West would have Flanks of E, NE and SE.
  • Facing can be changed as part of a Move or Charge action.
  • Artillery Units, while Set-Up, must spend 1 additional AP to change their orientation by Moving.
• Changes to Spotting and Concealment.
  • Spotting range is no longer unlimited. The Unit's Spotting stat determines how far they see in Hexes. Concealment works by increasing the range at which you can be seen.
  • Some Terrains continue to block line of sight altogether (Hill, Urban, Fortified, Forest), while others decrease effective Spotting range (Woods, Wetland, Village).
    • A Woods Hex might provide +2 Concealment. An Unit standing in front of it that would see 4 Hexes over Plains Terrain would only see through 2 Woods Hexes (4-2-2=0). Units that have a bonus to Concealment are also effectively "further away".
      • Ex. A Halfling Unit with +2 Concealment would only be seen at a distance of 2 Hexes on Plains (4-2=2) and only when adjacent in Woods by an Unit with 4 Spotting. (4-2-2=0, min 1).
    • If an Unit has insufficient Spotting to see into a Hex, they do not. Partial Spotting is ignored.
      • Ex. A Unit with 5 Spotting stands next to Woods. They see 2 Hexes deep into the Woods and have 1 effective Spotting range remaining (5-2-2=1). They cannot see into a third Woods Hex in line, as that would require 2 effective Spotting range remaining.
  • Units are always revealed when they attack or end their turn adjacent to an enemy Unit.
  • Hills now increase your Spotting. Units on Hills no longer automatically see over most Terrain.
• Cohesion system replaced by Morale Check system.
  • Morale Checks are a dynamic way of testing the resolve and cohesion of a fighting formation. They are primarily triggered by falling prey to hostile maneuvers or suffering a great many Casualties at once.
  • Morale Checks incur Stress for the Unit if failed and may cause it to Rout. Each point of Stress penalizes subsequent Morale Checks by -1.
  • The following trigger a Morale Check in an Unit:
    • Being Charged.
    • Being attacked in a Flank.
    • Being Ambushed.
    • Suffering a Critical Hit.
    • Adjacent allies Routing.
    • Suffering >50 Casualties in one turn.
  • The following trigger a Morale Check with Disadvantage:
    • Being Charged by Cavalry.
    • Adjacent allies being Destroyed.
    • Suffering >100 Casualties in one turn. Every additional 50 Casualties adds another level of Disadvantage.
    • Certain Critical Hit results.
  • Morale Checks are done on a d20. This roll is affected by the following:
    • Unit's XP Rank: +1 per Rank above Trained (+1 to +5).
    • Army Morale.
    • Army Drill.
    • Momentum.
    • Stress: -1 per 1 Stress.
    • Casualties: -1 per 100 Casualties.
    • Certain CO Traits.
  • Morale Checks use the following table:
    • 0: Rout.
    • 1: Take 9 Stress.
    • 2: Take 9 Stress.
    • 3: Take 8 Stress.
    • 4: Take 8 Stress.
    • 5: Take 7 Stress.
    • 6: Take 7 Stress.
    • 7: Take 6 Stress.
    • 8: Take 6 Stress.
    • 9: Take 5 Stress.
    • 10: Take 5 Stress.
    • 11: Take 4 Stress.
    • 12: Take 4 Stress.
    • 13: Take 3 Stress.
    • 14: Take 3 Stress.
    • 15: Take 2 Stress.
    • 16: Take 2 Stress.
    • 17: Take 1 Stress.
    • 18: Take 1 Stress.
    • 19: No effect.
    • 20: No effect.

Melee Engagement

• Units are now considered to be Engaged in Melee if:
  • They attack a non-Routed enemy from the direction that the enemy is Facing;
  • They attack a non-Routed enemy in a Flank and end their turn adjacent;
  • They are attacked by an enemy in melee, as above.
• Units which attack a Flank side in melee and then Move away, ending their turn non-adjacent, are not Engaged in Melee.
• When Engaged in Melee, Units may only Move, Charge or Attack. Ending Melee Engagement requires an Unit to Move to a non-adjacent Hex. They may take other Orders as normal once Engagement is broken.
  • Routing on either side also cancels Melee Engagement.
• Moving while Engaged in Melee costs 2 additional Movement. While Facing can be changed as part of the Move action as normal, this may expose a Flank to an enemy you are Engaged with!
• Artillery Units Firing into a Melee Engagement risk hitting friendly Units. Artillery Units roll Hits against any friendly Units Engaged in Melee with their target in addition to the original attack roll.

Unit Stats

• Infantry base Movement is now 2.
• Cavalry base Movement is now 7. With modifiers from equipment, Hussars have a base Movement of 7, Lancers a base Movement of 5, and Cuirassiers a base Movement of 4.
• Artillery base Movement remains 1. Horse Artillery has a base Movement of 4.

Orders

• Move costs 1 AP. As part of a Move Order, you can change your Facing.
• Fire costs 2 AP.
• Charge costs 1 AP. As part of a Charge Order, turn change your Facing towards your target.
• Attack costs 1 AP.
• Brace costs 1 AP. You can only Brace once per turn and lose its benefits if you take another action after it. Brace lasts until the start of the Unit's next turn. Bracing only applies against attacks on your current Facing.
• Rest costs 3 AP. It clears the Unit's current Stress. Being attacked or suffering a Morale Check on this or the previous turn prevent Resting.
• Hide costs 1 AP. It adds +1 Concealment to the Unit until the start of its next turn and may be taken multiple times.
• Search costs 1 AP. It adds +1 Spotting to the Unit until the start of its next turn and may be taken multiple times.
• Ready Fire and Ready Charge have been replaced by Ready Action. Ready Action costs full AP. The Unit will not act on its turn, but instead try to act conditionally on the enemy's turn. You must specify a set of Orders and a trigger. If the trigger is fulfilled, the Unit will execute the set Orders simultaneously on the enemy's turn.
• Disengage has been removed. Mechanically, it can be replicated by the Move and Brace Orders in combination.
• Set-Up costs 1 AP.
• Supply costs 3 AP.

Traits

• CO Traits:
  • Unsteady now inflicts Disadvantage on Morale Checks.
  • Demoralizing now makes Rest only remove half of Stress.
  • Optimist now reduces Rest AP Cost by -1.
  • Inspiring now grants Advantage on Morale Checks.
  • Feared now inflicts Disadvantage on enemy Morale Checks triggered by the Unit, but makes Rest only remove half of Stress.
  • Lucky now prevents suffering consequences from Critical Hits (save for the triggered Morale Check).
• Racial Traits:
  • Human Units now double the Morale Check modifier from Army Morale.
  • Human Units now suffer a Morale Check at Disadvantage when adjacent friendly Units Rout.
  • Dwarf Units now double the Morale Check modifier from Army Drill.
  • Dwarf Units lose -1 AP for the duration of the remaining battle when Routed.
  • Nymph Units now ignore Movement Costs from Woods, Forest and Wetland as well as having Advantage in those Terrains.
  • Nymph Units now reduce the Stress of adjacent Units by 2 when Resting.
  • Nymph Units now make Morale Checks at Disadvantage and cannot Rest in Village, Urban, Bridge and Fortified Terrain.
• Unit Type Traits:
  • Cavalry Charges now trigger a Morale Check at Disadvantage.
  • Horse Artillery Units may Set-Up for free during their turn.

Critical Hits

• The Critical Hit table is now the following:
  • 1: Slowed: Unit's Movement is reduced by -1 for 1 Round.
  • 2: Ruined Munitions: Unit loses 1 Munitions.
  • 3: Ruined Supplies: Unit loses 1 Supplies.
  • 4: Distracted: Unit loses -1 AP for 1 Round.
  • 5: Shaken: Unit makes the Morale Check from this Critical Hit at Disadvantage.
  • 6: CO Wounded: Unit loses any effects from their CO, loses -1 AP, and makes an immediate additional Morale Check.
  • 7: Disrupted: Unit loses -2 AP for 1 Round.
  • 8: Standard Lost: Unit has Disadvantage on all subsequent Morale Checks.
  • 9: CO Killed: Unit loses any effects from their CO, loses -1 AP, and makes an immediate additional Morale Check at Disadvantage.
  • 10: Disorganized: Unit loses -3 AP for 1 Round.

Correspondence Corner

• Soldiers receive and write letters, so why not let you write letters to them? Essentially, you'd be able to send questions or other notes to any named character we've encountered, and I'd answer in-character on a regular-ish schedule. The canonicity of such correspondences might vary, since I expect cheeky letters, but they'd be a fun way for me to flesh out characters and the world, and you to have more engagement beyond voting.
• Proper, immersive letters from an in-universe perspective could even count for omakes and get those sweet, sweet omake rewards.
• To send a letter through Correspondence Corner, simply:
  • Write a letter of any length, post it in the thread under a spoiler titled after the recipient, and tag the QM!
  • Letters will be answered in between regular updates - the specifics of this schedule will be figured out later.
  • The recipient can be any named character that has been featured in an update. They may not even need to be alive.
  • You cannot use the CC to try to get intel out of enemy commanders that you are fighting, or anything in that vein - they simply shan't discuss operational details with their admirers, no matter how polite.

Probably forgot or misrepresented something here, but this is what I'm currently working with. Details may change based on the results of the trial battle! Which shall follow tomorrow or the day after, probably?

 

[Red Rationalist]

Hmm, alright. Nice to have the full patchlist in one place, let me see if anything sticks out:

Changes to Spotting and Concealment.

• Spotting range is no longer unlimited. The Unit's Spotting stat determines how far they see in Hexes. Concealment works by increasing the range at which you can be seen.
• Some Terrains continue to block line of sight altogether (Hill, Urban, Fortified, Forest), while others decrease effective Spotting range (Woods, Wetland, Village).
  • A Woods Hex might provide +2 Concealment. An Unit standing in front of it that would see 4 Hexes over Plains Terrain would only see through 2 Woods Hexes (4-2-2=0). Units that have a bonus to Concealment are also effectively "further away".
    • Ex. A Halfling Unit with +2 Concealment would only be seen at a distance of 2 Hexes on Plains (4-2=2) and only when adjacent in Woods by an Unit with 4 Spotting. (4-2-2=0, min 1).
  • If an Unit has insufficient Spotting to see into a Hex, they do not. Partial Spotting is ignored.

Click to shrink...

Ah, alright. So effectively each tile has it's own "stealth" value, while the unit concealment is added on at the end. Hmm, that would make concealment modifiers actually quite potent and limit visibility overall [very difficult to see through woods, so wooded areas block your sight]. Hiding in forests and woods is much more possible. That's a pretty nice addition, makes the battlefield less completly certain. Setting up an ambush is reasonable possible, especially if you're willing to take some time. Also, the turn based system makes regaining stealth easier.

• Units are now considered to be Engaged in Melee if:
  • They attack a non-Routed enemy from the direction that the enemy is Facing;
  • They attack a non-Routed enemy in a Flank and end their turn adjacent;
  • They are attacked by an enemy in melee, as above.
• Units which attack a Flank side in melee and then Move away, ending their turn non-adjacent, are not Engaged in Melee.

Click to shrink...

Huh, that is effectively a cavalry nerf on front attacks. Still doable, but it reduces the hit and run range a bit.

• Artillery Units Firing into a Melee Engagement risk hitting friendly Units. Artillery Units roll Hits against any friendly Units Engaged in Melee with their target in addition to the original attack roll.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's fair. Napoelonic infantry shouldn't be engaging in close quarters fire support, though you can still set up a pseudo-rolling barrage before the charge if the action order remains.

Brace
Ready Fire and Ready Charge have been replaced by Ready Action. Ready Action costs full AP. The Unit will not act on its turn, but instead try to act conditionally on the enemy's turn. You must specify a set of Orders and a trigger. If the trigger is fulfilled, the Unit will execute the set Orders simultaneously on the enemy's turn.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, this does prevent the ready fire + brace combo that made ready firing a default choice. So I guess firing is something you really only do if you're unwilling to charge the enemy, making it pretty limited. We will see if it has it's use cases, it's probably alright in dealing some damage out of the woods and for skirmishes.

• Infantry base Movement is now 2.
• Cavalry base Movement is now 7. With modifiers from equipment, Hussars have a base Movement of 7, Lancers a base Movement of 5, and Cuirassiers a base Movement of 4.
• Artillery base Movement remains 1.

Click to shrink...

Ok, that's still mobile while not excessively fast. If you're advancing carefully, our units would effectivly move as fast as rapid units in the old system while being braced. Artillery can catch up 3 tiles over a turn across open field, if they are freely able to move. This does make positioning more important and creates a lot of pressure around maintaing control of the movement corridors.

Racial Traits:

Click to shrink...

Dwarfs are pretty bad once shattered, humans are much the same. Nymphs are the absolute queens (?) of difficult terrain, really want to get some of those as special forces. They would be great scouts.

CO Traits:

Click to shrink...

I'm surprised rapid didn't get a change. They would be quite fast with their up to 8 movement (4*2 movement points).

Unit Type Traits:

Click to shrink...

Cav is a bit stronger, horse artillery zooms around. Actually, the movement of horse artillery hasn't been specified, it's presumably not 1.

Seems good, though I'm slightly unsure about the full rest system. This is somewhat mitigated by restrictions and casulties, but being able to fully heal cohesion after a turn might be too strong. Though they still have the return behind lines, so who knows? And we might have nerfed infantry ranged attacks a bit too much, though that depends on how vulnerable charges are.

Overall, in line with my expectations. The slight spotting changes add some more strength to stealthy actions, though this is also mitigated by the firing ap costs doubling (allowing only move, then fire). I think scouting is going to be much more deliberate, which is nice to see.

 

[Pinniped]

I love most of these changes. However, a nitpick:

Artillery Units spend 1 AP to change their Facing when Set Up.

Click to shrink...

Fire costs 2 AP.

Click to shrink...

Was the intent that artillery can only Fire in the direction of their Facing? I don't think that is mentioned?

In any case, Facing for Artillery that is setup does not seem to matter with these rules? Since artillery that is setup is most likely Firing every turn, which costs 2/3 AP, that means Artillery can always change their facing without decreasing their damage output. So it looks like to me that the "omnidirectional artillery" problem that was mentioned remains?

 

[Lukepop]

Human Units now suffer a Morale Check at Disadvantage when adjacent friendly Units Rout.

Click to shrink...

I have a question. There are two possible meanings to this, since this was the only mention I found in the patch list of units taking a morale check when adjacent friendly units rout.
1. Humans are the only race to take a morale check when adjacent friendly units rout. They do so at disadvantage.
2. There was a missed patch note. All races take morale check when adjacent friendly units rout. Humans just do so at disadvantage.

Which of the above is correct?

I have an additional question. Does routing adjacent enemy units do anything for a units stress? If not, may I suggest that it heal 1 stress or something?

 

[MrRageQuit]

Probably forgot or misrepresented something here, but this is what I'm currently working with. Details may change based on the results of the trial battle! Which shall follow tomorrow or the day after, probably?

Click to shrink...

So, what is the trial battle? Are you resetting the Daurstein fight, or doing something else?