Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. evilgong
   instigator

   Hi gang.

   What am I missing in the 'subcommander tactics' concept. I can see the advantage of having a Good one personally direct a combat and get the bonus.

   However a Poor one only gives away and advantage so no player will ever use him. An Average commander can gain only over a Poor, but as poor will never be commited there will never be a chance to use your Average one.

   (If there's a blanket bonus for personally directing combats for officers of any Tactical ability I've missed it.)

   If I'm right, players will just roll for their sub-commander with a hope of getting something for nothing ie a Good one.

   The Vigor roll for genrals is an ugly 'snakes and laders' rule and probably unusable outside of friendly home games. Handing one player anything up to a 33% relative bonus just on a dice throw, with nothing to compensate, is not good.

   In any thing other than a home game the Vigor roll should be optional with players either accepting an average quality or taking their chances on their dice roll.

   (As an example of a compensating factor you could have the +1 vigor oficer being required to keep one of his units off table and roll for arrival as if a reserve, rationalise it as him marching perhaps recklessely and causing stragglers. -1 Vigour officer can get one extra unit of the first bonus type available to an attacker, rationalise it as the chap is obviously a court apointee, dumb but politically well connected).

   regards

   David B

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   ["However a Poor one only gives away and advantage so no player will ever use him...."]

   I'm assuming you're referring to *Not* using the army lists? Because if you're playing with the Army Builder, then you don't have a choice regarding the skills of your subordinates: you have to roll them on the tables, and each army has a slightly different table.

   ["Handing one player anything up to a 33% relative bonus just on a dice throw, with nothing to compensate, is not good."]

   They're one part of the play-balancing. How can a French "Empire" core army list - 6 BNs - be "fairly" balanced against, say, a Prussian "Conquest" core list (9 BNs)?

   * The French have better SK
   * The Prussians have the "Linear Tactics" limitation
   * The French are more likely to get better-quality subcommanders

   ["As an example of a compensating factor you could have the +1 vigor oficer being required to keep one of his units off table and roll for arrival as if a reserve,"]

   In general, my recommendation would be to play the game prior to changing it, but of course you're welcome to alter it in any way you see fit. Be advised, however, that the "Vigor" modifier is a very important way to modify many of the key rolls of the game, such as Reactions and the arrival of reinforcements. All of that is (hopefully) balanced against things like the relative numbers and qualities of units in different armies. There are reasons why one army is more likely to get more "Vigor" than another, and those factors have been weighed and connected to other things like: basic army size, other army-special rules, and the +/- Defend/Attack modifiers for that particular army choice.

   ["The Vigor roll for genrals is an ugly 'snakes and laders' rule and probably unusable..."]

   Well, we had four playtest groups in two countries playing dozens of games over the course of nearly two years, so I'm reasonably confident that it's "usable."

   I realize that with some games one has to scratch one's head and wonder if something was adequately playtested or edited, or just thrown into a book without much thought. But everything in Lasalle is in there for a reason, and works in concert with other things that are there for a reason. Again: you bought the book - it's yours now to alter as you please. You may, however, want to play it as written a couple of times prior to making changes.

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. evilgong
   instigator

   Hi there,

   I guess Sam's off on his drive, can anybody else tell me if they have found a reason to ever have a poor or average Tactics officer personally direct a combat? All I can see is a downside, the chance of death or wounding.

   Yes, I am mindful that I've not long had the rules and will not rush to final judgement on them (but I can draw on 35 years experience in miniatures games).

   Playtesters can be a mixed blessing, you want the biggest bunch of hard-nosed co*ks, fudgers and tournament tigers attempting to mangle your rules, civilised chaps may lead you a false sense of security.

   I don't know your playtesters, so they could be in either of both groups.

   However, back to officer's Vigour, I think Sam is making my point, if the mechanism is important to the game and meant to balance other items why leave it to a dice throw.

   In the French v Prussian example Sam gives the concrete balancing items, more bodies for the Prussians vs the linear tactics handicap + French Skirmisher advantage.

   However in the General's Vigour dice contest the French have a 53% chance of having a relatively better officer, 30% equal, 17% the Prussians will be relatively better. So as a balancing item it will work roughly half the time and backfire one in 6.

   I accept the army construction and composition is a broad-brush pastiche and there may be no sense looking for perfect balance, but I reckon making the roll for Vigour optional would be a good rule for competition style games.

   Regards
   David B

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. thom216
   Member

   I believe poor vigour generals are invoked by the enemy. I guess you could leave a poor general out of range.

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. Shecky
   Member

   I think you're missing another aspect of the tactical bonus. An officer has to test for a casualty every time he uses either his or his enemy's tactical bonus. (p. 73, Officer Casualty Test).

   So if you decide to use your opponent's tactical bonus then you have to test to see if your officer becomes a casualty.

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. evilgong
   instigator

   hmmm

   So one function of a poor Tactician is to act as a tethered goat, commit himself to directing a combat, entice a better officer to direct the combat, give away tactical factors and hope the other general dies and you don't.

   David B

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. EagleSixFive
   Member

   Don't use your General, order a brigade commander to do it! 8-P

   Anyway, If a commander falls off the perch AdC's of 2iC's take over.

   Mark

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   I hope this response doesn't have the effect of putting other people off from asking legitimate questions about the rules, to help them understand and play. That is the purpose of this Forum, and I welcome it.

   But David, it really might be a good idea for you to play the game, or at least to read the rules carefully, prior to generating all these complaints, suppositions, and accusations that the game is "broken" or "unusable."

   Surely you can imagine how tiresome it is to be asked to address all of these complaints and questions about a game when the other person can't be bothered even to read it thoroughly, much less to have played the game?

   Not to mention that because the game is new, this forum is currently populated primarily with people who are just grappling with the rules for the first time, and probably could benefit more from informed counsel, rather than speculation and supposition.

   In this particular case, as the others have noted:

   1) You don't "choose" to have a Poor tactician.

   2) It's not "just on a dice throw, with nothing to compensate..." It's built into the army-list play balancing.

   3) The Poor tactician bonus is something taken advantage of by your opponent, at his discretion. It is not mandatory. It is up to him to choose whether he feels the opportunity warrants the risk.

   Unless you think I'm completely irresponsible or stupid, then surely you must assume that I wouldn't release a game without years of playtesting, both FTF and "blind".

   However, there are a great many new Napoleonics games currently available, many designed to a high standard. If your initial impressions of Lasalle continue to be so thoroughly negative, then I strongly suggest you move to a different game.

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. evilgong
   instigator

   Hiya Sam

   E-mail can be such a bad communication method, this isn't me being thoroughly negative.

   I guess I come from a background where robust debate is usual and challenging people to defend their position is the norm.

   There's a lot to like in these rules, and if I didn't like them I would walk away and not post here.

   I've got beter things to to with my time, and have no desire to exasperate you, I appreciate your prompt and detailed answers here. Actually I don't expect you to answer each straight away, letting us kick the issue about for a while before you comment (or not) is more than fine.

   I've played some great rules, thoroughly playtested, that still throw up major glitches when upen to the unwashed public.

   As Mark Twain said, praise never improved a work of writing.

   I'll re-read my questions, your answers and the rules to review the few outsanding questions I have.

   Regards

   David B

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.