Re: [Slope: Ch 11] Yet another idea on how to improve Defending

The modern US Army doctrine reflected in TFT would be plate armored archers shifting and firing while dragons swooped in from above blowing fire on their enemy. This perhaps isn't an effective comparison for winning sword on sword battles (Well, maybe it is, but it is unavailable to most PCs as an option despite the fact they'd probably all love to have it).

I also think you are several levels abstracted above the defend option scenario if you are quoting Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu said "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight" He's providing much higher level guidance than tactical combat scenarios. Sun Tzu would have told us not to get on the boat and not to run the blockade. ;-)

If you look at the current Slope battle the PCs are in, I think the most applicable comparison for the modern US Military is Mogadishu. A smaller group is being overwhelmed by a stronger force (numbers, not necessarily quality for them -- both numbers and quality for us). The tactics the US Military chose in that scenario were to hunker down, conserve ammo, stay alive and let helicopters shoot up the enemy until they were re-enforced or had an opportunity to escape. Based on the "Combat" load carried by US Soldiers, had they elected to go full offense and try suppression, they'd have been out of ammo in minutes and they'd all have been killed. The lesson's learned from this encounter were not that they should have been more offensive. The lessons learned were to be better prepared so you don't get yourself into dumb situations.

Our PCs need time -- time for the archers to kill, time for the enemy boat to sink. So choosing defend becomes an attractive option even though it sucks. But there is a spectrum of when some level of defend is useful, and if defend were a more realistic/effective option, I think that spectrum would better reflect reality. Which is why I support Rick's effort to reform Defend, despite the fact this particular proposal has some issues to consider/work out.

--Thomas

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:39 PM Angelina Defense <angelina.defense@gmail.com> wrote:

Totally theoretical and ooc:

Most battles are won by those who keep their opponent on the defensive. Only the highly skilled fighters are able to count on their invulnerable defense to allow them time to parry and repost. True, Sun Tzu's advice is for warriors to make themselves invulnerable because he rightly asserts that it is not possible to manufacture victory by forcing your opponent to be vulnerable. But the vast majority of fights are fought by unskilled combatants. In these fights staying on the attack normally wins the day. The US Army's current strategy for victory is: "fire suppression through fire superiority." What they mean by is is literally to throw so many bullets down-range at your opponent that they are unable to maneuver, while your side is free to flank and gain advantage. We do this in Mele as well when we focus many on one, throwing overwhelming force at single targets, and removing them from the board. You'll note that Angelina, in the next round will be directing the archers to focus fire where our fighters need assistance. This round, she thought it more prudent to sure up the aft line, and possibly save Smiles, who will in turn have a chance to save the other two isolated over in the forward starboard corner of the main deck. But we will have fire superiority going into the next round, and we should use it to remove targets, or force them to dodge.

Good Fortune,
Richard

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:28 PM, <gosel@tutanota.com> wrote:

I'm not particularly an expert on combat or TFT math. But as opinions go, I often have those.

I think in real combat, it takes longer because most people are more interested in surviving than killing (There are probably many exceptions to this general rule such as Berserkers). "No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country. You win it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"

If you assume most people are more interested in surviving than killing, most turns are probably spent doing either:
Defend and wait for/make opportunity (better fighters)
Defend and jab weapon wildly to try and hit something (lower skilled levies)

If both sides on the Slope Runner battle were taking defend and aim options for even half their time, the battle would be progressing much slower.

Marianne

--
Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
https://tutanota.com

16. May 2018 20:37 by angelina.defense@gmail.com:

I'm saying that the game doesn't adequately cover critical roll totals for 4 or more dice, and it should. There should be a triple damage and automatic miss, break and drop roll for any number of dice rolled. I don't know what those numbers should be on 4 dice. But, if your DX is 16 or greater, then it is to your advantage for an opponent to try to defend if you don't have automatic miss, drop and break rolls.

Off topic, we had a similar debate with +4 or more to damage. Since the average on 1d6 is "3.5," most GM's I knew would translate a 1d6+4 weapon into a 2d6 weapon. The debate raged for years. Changing the number of die changes the ranges in that case in a similar way to the DX roll problem. So, there's never a perfect way to deal with it, but the right solution (for me) is to still enforce triple damage, double damage, automatic miss, automatic miss, drop weapon and break weapon rolls.

Richard

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Rick <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying you do not like my
suggested rule?

Warm regards, Rick.

On May 16, 2018, at 4:39 AM, Angelina Defense <angelina.defense@gmail.com> wrote:

We played the numbers for "saving throws" on the Fantasy Master's Screen.

         Min   Success        Max
Dice Triple Double Fail   Break
3       3 5 16    18
4 4       8       20    24
5       5      11          24    30
6       6      14          28    36
... etc

The advantages of high DX were just too great, and seemed like a bonus every time someone would elect to defend against your character. So, the automatic miss and break rules needed to remain, although adjusted for the totals.

Good Fortune,
Richard

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:02 PM, Rick <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
In TFT, if you defend, the opponent rolls 4 dice. Triple damages
become impossible, (since you can’t roll a 3 on 4 dice), and the
chance of getting a double damage becomes almost impossible.
(Rolling a 5 (an automatic hit), is also very difficult on 4 dice.

The rules do NOT say that triples happen on 4 or 5, and double
damages happen on 6 or 7’s. (Normally, the chances of critical
successes and failures scale with the number of dice, but not
critical successes for defending or dodging.)

Now defending is a fine option against people with a 14 DX or less,
but for figures with very high DX, defending is a wasted action, you
defend (losing your action), and they will likely hit anyway.

My suggestion is that when you defend, 16 or higher rolls to hit you
STILL count as automatic misses.

The chance of a 16+ on 4 dice is, 33.56%

So if you defend, even against an opponent of very high DX, you
have about a 1/3 chance of getting an auto miss.

I was going to leave dropped weapons at 21 & 22, and broken
weapons at 23 & 24.

I am running a fight in my pbem game, and a bunch of the good guys
are defending vs. skilled opponents and I’m finding it is just a waste
of time.

Thoughts?

Warm regards, Rick

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The_Slope" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to The_slope+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.