Combat Charts - how deadly do you like them

[Dave Baughman]

Combat Chart #1 (FGC "even fight" chart)

Simple Resolution
2 Deal 30% of FP to Opponent¹
3 Deal 35% of FP to Opponent¹
4 Deal 40% of FP to Opponent¹
5 Deal 45% of FP to Opponent
6 Deal 50% of FP to Opponent
7 Deal 60% of FP to Opponent
8 Deal 65% of FP to Opponent²
9 Deal 70% of FP to Opponent²
10 Deal 75% of FP to Opponent²
11 Deal 80% of FP to Opponent²
12 Deal 85% of FP to Opponent<sup>2

1</sup> Defender has a chance to score one or more critical event.
² Attacker has a chance to score one or more critical event.



Combat Chart #2 (Flashpoint Simple Resolution Chart)

Simple Resolution Table
2d6
2 Deal 10% of FP to Opponent^EC
3 Deal 15% of FP to Opponent^EC
4 Deal 20% of FP to Opponent
5 Deal 25% of FP to Opponent
6 Deal 30% of FP to Opponent
7 Deal 40% of FP to Opponent
8 Deal 50% of FP to Opponent^C
9 Deal 55% of FP to Opponent^C
10 Deal 60% of FP to Opponent^CD
11 Deal 65% of FP to Opponent^CD
12 Deal 70% of FP to Opponent^CR
13+ Deal 75% of FP to Opponent<sup>CR

EC</sup> – Defender has an opportunity to earn one or more critical event.
^C – Attacker has an opportunity to earn one or more critical event.
^CD – As C, plus the defending force is disrupted and may not be issue orders for one operational round.*
^CR – As C, plus the defender is routed and must use Withdrawal orders in the next operational round.*

*Additional effects do not apply if the attacker is destroyed during the course of the battle (though
critical events should still be rolled for).




Some further explanation:

Next turn I am planning to get rid of the 3:1, 2:1, etc variable force size charts and go to a single standard simple resolution chart. The current arrangement provides an incentive to engage in "stack of doom" combat which isn't neccessary from a game perspective and which arguably is promoting a style of gameplay that is less fun than battles where both sides have some degree of a chance.

However, I honestly don't like the "even" chart; I think the casualty levels it produces are too high, and I feel that it makes it too easy for a slightly larger enemy force to just beat down anything smaller than it.

I felt the same way when I was writing the Flashpoint rules, and I designed the Flashpoint simple rez chart to provide for less deadly (but still intense) battles. I also replaced the overly complex forced withdrawal mechanic from FGC with a more streamlined system built right into the SR table.

My gut reaction is to just switch over to the Flashpoint SR table, but I want to get everyone's opinion before I make a final decision. Please note that if the FP simple resolution table is adopted, the current Forced Withdrawal rules will be eliminated since the table already factors in forced withdrawal.

At this time, I am not considering importing the Flashpoint critical events table, since it will require 'localization' to bring it into compliance with FGC rules and game balance concepts.

This poll will stay open for 72 hours.

[Daemonknight]

I like the FP more than FGC, because everyone is on the same playing field with their chances. Being outnumbered shouldn't lessen your ability to cause damage: if anything, it should make it easier, as you have a target rich enviroment, and its difficult to bring 3:1 odds to bear all at one time(theres only so much space on a battlefield).

[GreyJaeger]

What if you kept the 2:1 and 3:1, but lowered the effects? For example the "3" roll for 2:1 is 15%, and at 3:1 is 20%. This represents both the fact that all these troops cannot necessarily be fighting the whole time without being in each others way, but their weight is still felt by the constant pressure put on the outnumbered troops. An example would be how Grant kept the constant pressure on Lee by just cycling units on and off the line, so Lee was always facing fresh(er) troops.

[Fatebringer]

I like the FP more than FGC, because everyone is on the same playing field with their chances. Being outnumbered shouldn't lessen your ability to cause damage: if anything, it should make it easier, as you have a target rich enviroment, and its difficult to bring 3:1 odds to bear all at one time(theres only so much space on a battlefield).

Situationally, this could be true, but generally, not. The reason why having odds reduces enemy attack power is generally because you die quicker when your being triple teamed. Isn't that the way it works in Megamek?

Perhaps Zell matches should roll on the "Even" chart to represent duals instead of saying the other charts are wrong.