End game rules - Inspired or Broken ?

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Other

End game rules - Inspired or Broken ?

(47 posts) (21 voices)

Started 2 years ago by evilgong
Latest reply from mfarl2001

Tags:

12 Next »

evilgong
instigator

Hi gang

The end game rules make interesting reading.

Firstly p67 in the Army morale check section talks about an objective marker being needed if playing a scenario that uses one, I guess that's all standard games as p91 seems to make it an aspect of set up.

Now games will end when turns are exhausted but also when an army fails its Army Morale Check having lost 1/3 of your strength (Breakpoint), the chance of passing is harder (one fewer dice) if you are a defender and the attacker has control of the objective marker. An overrun objective point also casuses the defender to check Army Morale regardless of losses.

Iv'e seen similar random game end systems, you just don't need them, you have enough random component in combat and command. No need for another random layer on top.

Back to the rules, so if both armies get to Breakpoint and start checking Army Morale, the game is now decided on a coin flip. I can't see players who spend $big on figs and hours driving to a game enjoying that.

Indeed losses after Breakpoint not relevant excepting that it _may_ affect your ability to control the objective marker.

Once beyond Breakpoint your army becomes undead zombies - push them to any silly or suicidal or fudgy position to try to take / hold the objective and push the coinflip in your favour.

Here's a lark. Your army is dead, 100% lost for the purpose of example, but passes its Army morale check, the other guy at Breakpoint, say 33% lost, dices, fails, and gives victory to you with 100% losses.

Did I get all that right?

If so, I'd suggest that the Army Morale test only be taken at 1/3 losses (Breakpoint) and if your losses are greater than the enemy. And that the first side to reach 50% lost (or similar number) loses the game.

Regards

David b

Posted 2 years ago #
rusti
Numero Deux

I'm sure you can play the game anyway you want.

Posted 2 years ago #
marke
Member

For friendly games all is fair to one extent or another and as rusti states you can play the game as we like.

The instant loss at a % of losses can have it's issues as well in games.

I don't have the rules yet <sigh> but I would guess in a tournament style of game there would be points awarded for various things other than just a win. A win is obviously worth something, but keeping objectives and breaking opponents are usually worth pts as well - in some tournament rules anyway.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

"Once beyond Breakpoint your army becomes undead zombies - push them to any silly or suicidal or fudgy position to try to take / hold the objective and push the coinflip in your favour."

Dave, that is just rot! (pun intended)

Seriously though, if in a tournament or a campaign doing that would be ludicrous, as you are just handing your opponents a decisive victory throwing away Pursuit and Shock cavalry you may have to stop Pursuit.

How is it so random when:
*You can choose to go Attacker or Defender and main army lists get a bonuses for that choice.
*The objective has been taken by your opponent because he/she wupped yer pants.
*Rolling four or five D6 adding up to 8. If the game does not extend or end before that.

You may be over reacting to the disease wargamers fear most:

'faeces datum morbidus'

Symptoms:
High blood pressure
Cold sweats
Mumbling incoherently
Throwing objects (dice)
Fantacising about how large a sledge hammer is required to shatter a D6.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

"Once beyond Breakpoint your army becomes undead zombies - push them to any silly or suicidal or fudgy position to try to take / hold the objective and push the coinflip in your favour."

Dave, that is just rot! (pun intended)

Seriously though, if in a tournament or a campaign doing that would be ludicrous, as you are just handing your opponents a decisive victory throwing away Pursuit and Shock cavalry you may have to stop Pursuit.

How is it so random when:
*You can choose to go Attacker or Defender and main army lists get a bonuses for that choice.
*The objective has been taken by your opponent because he/she wupped yer pants.
*Rolling four or five D6 adding up to 8. If the game does not extend or end before that.

You may be over reacting to the disease wargamers fear most:

'faeces datum morbidus'

Symptoms:
High blood pressure
Cold sweats
Mumbling incoherently
Throwing objects (dice)
Fantacising about how large a sledge hammer is required to shatter a D6.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

"Once beyond Breakpoint your army becomes undead zombies - push them to any silly or suicidal or fudgy position to try to take / hold the objective and push the coinflip in your favour."

Dave, that is just rot! (pun intended)

Seriously though, if in a tournament or a campaign doing that would be ludicrous, as you are just handing your opponents a decisive victory throwing away Pursuit and Shock cavalry you may have to stop Pursuit.

How is it so random when:
*You can choose to go Attacker or Defender and main army lists get a bonuses for that choice.
*The objective has been taken by your opponent because he/she wupped yer pants.
*Rolling four or five D6 adding up to 8. If the game does not extend or end before that.

You may be over reacting to the disease wargamers fear most:

'faeces datum morbidus'

Symptoms:
High blood pressure
Cold sweats
Mumbling incoherently
Throwing objects (dice)
Fantacising about how large a sledge hammer is required to shatter a D6.

Posted 2 years ago #
peteywa
Member

Considering you don't seem to have found ANYthing in the rules that you like, I'm surprised that you bothered buying them in the first place. Why don't you publish Evilgong's Definitive Napoleonic Wargame Rules and enlighten the rest of us rubes?

Or...PLAY a few games and THEN report back to us with practical feedback.

Posted 2 years ago #
evilgong
instigator

Hi there,

There's a lot to like in these rules, and in another place I've described them as the best of the recent half dozen or so rules recently released.

I bought the rules unseen and don't regret the purchase.

I have issues with some parts that I think could be fine tuned, some parts I think don't work as intended and some I think just don't work.

By my count the above totals, officers' Vigor (fine tuning), officers' Tactics (possibly not working as intended) end game (not working).

So I've got issues with 3 rules in 136 pages.

This is a forum so I'll ask questions and make comments about the rules but not the people on it(but take Sam's hint on another thread to wind back a bit).

The eagle-eyed will have spotted that the official errata now includes two points I raised here, which I think fits a reasonable definition of practical feedback.

Regards

David b

Posted 2 years ago #
peteywa
Member

Cheers David. I apologize for griping at you. We all approach these things from different backgrounds and experience levels. It's natural that with your experience you will have noticed things from reading the rules that set off "red flags" in your mind, that more inexperienced players like myself would not have considered.

It would be great for us to meet in person and answer these questions on the battlefield, in some head-to-head Lasalle battles. In my mind a good set of games rules will stand up to rigorous interpretation and modification by experienced/advanced players while still retaining the intent of the designer. They should also still be approachable for beginners and most of all, fun to play.

I hope that you get to play a few games soon and will post your battle reports on this forum. I am looking forward to hearing your observations. Again, I'm sorry to have offended you.

Peter

Posted 2 years ago #
Howie
Member

I too thought the End Game rules are very abrupt. To keep the game duration down for comp games perhaps?

Posted 2 years ago #
roundie
Member

Here's a lark. Your army is dead, 100% lost for the purpose of example, but passes its Army morale check, the other guy at Breakpoint, say 33% lost, dices, fails, and gives victory to you with 100% losses.

Did I get all that right?

Not if you play a guard army you lose and even if you play a no-guard army the best you'll get (if the other guy has cavalry left) is a marginal victory

well thats what it looks like to me after a quick read

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

David, if by some miracle you ever play a game in which *every single unit* in your army is eliminated, and yet somehow you still haven't lost as per the normal morale rules... Then I will think of some suitable reward for you.

Posted 2 years ago #
Roger Taylor
Member

David's "undead zombie" issue seems valid to me. Once your army reaches its breakpoint, force preservation can go out the window -- there is incentive to attack all along the front and hope to break enough enemy units to drive him over his own breakpoint. A disincentive for such banzai behavior would be to add to the Army Morale Check roll for excess losses; say, +1 for over 40%, +2 for over 50%, etc.

But then, I've played Lasalle twice so far. I respect Sam and his playtesters enough to play the rules as written for a long while before I modify them.

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

If you're the attacker, and your army is now Undead Zombies, then Sure: I can see you becoming a Mad Dog Michel Ney and howling about how a Marshal of France should die as you fling the remnants futilely against the enemy line. I wouldn't put money on the odds of your success, but you can try. It's only a 2 hour game. Why not.

But if you're the Defender and your army has become Zombies, then the crucial thing is to protect the Objective, because if that falls you're all but guaranteed to fail morale and lose the game. Whereas if your remnants can defend the Objective until game-end, then you still have a decent chance of surviving on the 5-dice morale tests, and perhaps pulling out a Draw.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

"Iv'e seen similar random game end systems, you just don't need them, you have enough random component in combat and command. No need for another random layer on top.

Back to the rules, so if both armies get to Breakpoint and start checking Army Morale, the game is now decided on a coin flip. I can't see players who spend $big on figs and hours driving to a game enjoying that."

Is it so random?
Rolling four or five D6 adding up to 8. If the game does not extend or end before that.
4 x D6 = 97% probability
5 x D6 = 99% probability

"Once beyond Breakpoint your army becomes undead zombies - push them to any silly or suicidal or fudgy position to try to take / hold the objective and push the coinflip in your favour."

That is just rot! 8-)

In a tournament or a campaign doing that would be ludicrous, as you are just handing your opponents a decisive victory throwing away Pursuit and Shock cavalry you may have left to stop Pursuit.

If your army reaches "breakpoint" in a tournament and all is lost, invoke the Surrender rule. I'm sure you and your opponent would welcome the free time between games.

Mark

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"Is it so random?
Rolling four or five D6 adding up to 8. If the game does not extend or end before that..."

What is the significance of the odds of beating 8? Are you doing what I did in my first game and assuming a turn is where each player goes through their sequence of play? 8 turns is only 4 turns for each player - which is only around the mid point of the game. The odds of surviving each turn afterwards drops rapidly.

The wording on game length on p66 for me is unfortunate "the standard basic length for all games is 16 Turns (eight turns for each player). Using the word "turn" in two different senses is confusing. Even worse it uses "Turn" and "turn" with and without capitals - and on p67 it uses no capital on the turn number for the score to pass - which could be interpreted as the player's (not total) turn. But the italic example uses turns 13 and 14, which can't happen for player turns in a normal game.

A player who breaks in turn 8 has a 99% chance of passing with D5 (97% with D4), but they will then test in turn 10 (97%/83%), turn 12 (90%/66%), turn 14 (80%/45%), turn 16 (62%/23%), probably in turn 18 (42%/10%) and potentially in turn 20 (23%/4%).

If you did break in turn 8 (your turn 4), the odds of surviving to the end of the game (say turn 18) are pretty slim. Since you need to pass ALL the tests above, the chance of passing all the D5 tests till turn 18 is only about 18%, with only 0.5% chance of passing all the D4 tests.

Given the way the numbers work, breaking early in the game is not that significant - since if you break in an early turn you have a very high chance of passing the first few tests. What does matter is how many bonus turns you will have to test in - your odds of passing those tests drop dramatically. Not losing the objective is also important - and becomes very significant in the bonus turns.

"In a tournament or a campaign doing that would be ludicrous, as you are just handing your opponents a decisive victory throwing away Pursuit and Shock cavalry you may have left to stop Pursuit."

This obviously depends on how the tournament works - what is the significance of a decisive victory, a marginal victory, a draw, a marginal loss and a decisive loss. Depending on their relative value you may or may not want to take the chance of giving up a decisive loss to eke out a win, or play for a draw instead. In general I prefer tournament scoring that encourages players to have a go and try to win, rather than turtle up and play for a draw (or lesser loss). May not be historical, but it is more fun.

My gut feeling is that (as in FOG) a more refined tournament scoring system would be needed to more finely grade scores, and reward players for killing the enemy rather than running away.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[The wording on game length on p66 for me is unfortunate "the standard basic length for all games is 16 Turns (eight turns for each player). Using the word "turn" in two different senses is confusing.]

I'm not sure how it's confusing. The word "Turn" is clearly defined on page 23.

[ Even worse it uses "Turn" and "turn" with and without capitals - and on p67 it uses no capital on the turn number for the score to pass - which could be interpreted as the player's (not total) turn. ]

With all respect, I think you're really reaching here. The word "turn" is clearly defined early in the book, with an example given, and I can't imagine how you'd draw the conclusion that it means something else just because there's a capital "T" on page 66.

[If you did break in turn 8 (your turn 4), the odds of surviving to the end of the game (say turn 18) are pretty slim. ]

I agree. That is intentional. If you got whomped that early in the game, then there should be a pretty good chance that you will lose.

If the results were otherwise, these boards would be filled with people lecturing me about how the game is broken because somebody got whomped on his 4th Turn, and yet had such a good chance of surviving and NOT losing.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"With all respect, I think you're really reaching here. The word "turn" is clearly defined early in the book, with an example given, and I can't imagine how you'd draw the conclusion that it means something else just because there's a capital "T" on page 66."

I guess my point was I misinterpreted turns in my first (solo) game and I wondered if eaglesix did the same by picking 8 turns as his example. If 2 people have, would not be surprised there will be more...

"If you got whomped that early in the game, then there should be a pretty good chance that you will lose."

Although breaking very early in the games does not seem to much change your odds of losing - the chances of passing tests early in the game are close enough to 100% that it does make much difference to the overall chance of passing all the tests.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[Although breaking very early in the games does not seem to much change your odds of losing ]

Again, that depends upon whether or not you're the defender. If you've lost more than a third of your units that early in the game, you are mostly likely going to lose the Objective, too, and thus start rolling with four dice.

But I may have lost track of your argument. You appeared initially to be worried that it was too likely to break before the end of the game. Now you appear to be arguing that there is not much chance of doing so?

[I guess my point was I misinterpreted turns in my first (solo) game and I wondered if eaglesix did the same by picking 8 turns as his example. If 2 people have, would not be surprised there will be more...]

I'm not sure how I could make it any more clear or plain than I did on page 23:

"A game is divided into Turns, each of which represents one side's activity. One side plays a turn, then the other side plays a turn. Thus, Turn 1 might be a French turn, then Turn 2 an Allied Turn, then Turn 3 a French turn, etc."

And on page 66:

"For pickup or competition games, the standard basic turn length for all games is 16 Turns (eight turns for each player.)

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"But I may have lost track of your argument. You appeared initially to be worried that it was too likely to break before the end of the game. Now you appear to be arguing that there is not much chance of doing so?"

Wasn't actually making any argument at all - eaglesix said that when breaking on turn 8 there was little chance of an army breaking. I pointed out that since the player will have to pass a SERIES of increasingly hard tests until turn 16+bonus, the chance of them surviving is pretty slim (and effectively non-existent if they lost the objective).

On the other hand, whether you break in turn 1-9 will not actually change significantly your overall chance of losing - since the tests at turn 1-9 all have nearly 100% pass rates.

Again no point - just trying to explain how the odds look to me. At first play, this seems quite a nice mechanism.

I really think this thread should die - too much history...

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[I really think this thread should die - too much history...]

It's okay.

I wish you continued success in your work developing Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"I wish you continued success in your work developing Field of Glory Napoleonics."

You been spying on me? I really need to use better usernames.

Before anyone draws a conclusion from this that I am an important FOGN person, alas my only role is a standard beta tester, who has played the princely sum of three test games. My contribution to FOGN has been a lot of posts but zero impact on the rules - nobody ever listens to me...

On the other hand, I do look forward one day to finding out the real story of Sam's contribution to FOGN...

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[I do look forward one day to finding out the real story of Sam's contribution to FOGN...]

As do I !!

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

I assumed posters here knew what I meant equaling eight. I had no idea it had been misinterpreted.

Cam, you did better than me getting that many games of FOGN in.

Mark

Posted 2 years ago #
evilgong
instigator

Hi there

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
Cam said

Again no point - just trying to explain how the odds look to me. At first play, this seems quite a nice mechanism.

I really think this thread should die - too much history...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Brown

I think it's important, I find it odd that you can still get new rules these days that don't have end-game rules.

Sam should be congratulated for including rules that say when an army has given up the ghost and the game is over, one side has won and the other lost. Stop, pack up your figs.

As I mentioned some place, comp organisers will probably want to / have to tweak the rules for that purpose, because of the real-world consideration of time.

It's intersting to note that one of the first AARs posted here ended in what I projected as a 'coin-flip', both sides past 1/3 and dicing each turn to determine a victor.

My suggestion in an earlier post was that this rule would be improved if only the side with greater losses took the dice test. As a practicle measure 'losses' here would mean the absolute simple 3-2-1 unit value lost, rather than have each player reach for calculators to work out % lost.

(I did a quick investigation of the 3-2-1 power of armies and there is a deal of variation in the totals, however this could be a feature rather than a bug as a smaller elite army might get to 1/3 losses quicker if the dice prove unkind, however they may have killed more unit values of poor quality enemy and thus avoid the dice test. It may even be a ballace to the 'send in the guards rule')

The effect of this suggestion would be to increase excitment when both armies near or pass the 1/3 loss - depending on losses in any given turn a different army could be forced to test each turn, and more to the point it gives players something else to attempt, you can try to capture the objective if that helps or is possible, but if not you can attempt to kill some enemy units to make the other guy test.

I hope to run a comp in Easter, if not earlier, and will take advice about using the above suggestion.

Regards

David b

Posted 2 years ago #
SteveM
Member

I know this has been discussed above.......

We played a game last night and it became very clear that once an army has lost 33% then there is little else you can do to it. That army's main objective is then no longer to maintain cohestion, but primarily to inflict 33% losses on the opponent irrespective of own further losses.

I would suggest that consideration be given to a adding further lowering of status when 50% (or perhaps 66%) is lost, at which stage the number of dice rolled is reduced by one (from 5 to 4).

Any thoughts?

Steve

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

You could always add a "sudden death" house rule, in which an army that loses more than 50% is decisively beaten right then and there - no need for pursuit, etc. "Game over," as they say.

I suppose, though, that there is a slight possibility, in a weird multi-unit combat result, that both armies might reach that status simultaneously, so you'd probably have to adjudicate it in the upcoming Status Phase.

Posted 2 years ago #
Otherdave
Member

Well I had a rather strange situation last week where I broke my opponent's army on Turn 13, then took out a unit per turn until the end of the game. He passed his Turn 14 and 16 morale checks, and the game ended at the end of 17 before he needed to take a check - at which point I had eliminated 2/3 of the opposing force.

I guess I felt a little cheated that continued successes through the latter part of the game seemed to have no effect on the outcome. I'll propose the 'sudden death' rule and see how it pans out.

Posted 2 years ago #
zel
Member

The sudden death House rule at 50% also incentivises a continued attack...the current rule sees the attacker breaking off the attack (or only conducting v.safe attacks)once he achieves the 33% losses on the defender.....(as happened to us the other nite where the French effectively went into reverse once they knew the Brits were over 33% and the Brits went into a mad headlong charge as it didnt matter if they lost ....NB yes yes I know it can be justified but IMO it shouldnt be encouraged )

Oh and on the issue of unlikely results on one of the five exhibition games (Ottomans vs Austrians) I managed to capture the objective unopposed on turn 12...dave made the army rolls on 12,13,14,15 (we erroneously made him roll on all turns)..he made them all on 4 dice...turn 15 I failed my first required roll on 5 dice....definetely felt cheated....(though the 50% rule wouldnt have helped here)...obviously the Ottomans didnt care the Austrians were plundering the Harem.

Posted 2 years ago #
Clay
Member

I have experience this exact situation....my army hit the magic number and started testing, and passing, every turn. So my side when hell bent to kill X number of enemy units (we counted them!) even though we lost quite a few units. But they failed the roll first and we won.

It was an exciting GAME, but I'm not comfortable with that strategic situation.

One suggestion I have is to ONLY test when you have lost a unit that turn, and test once for each unit lost. After you reach 33% of course.

As for fighting for a draw...it ain't happening with me. I'd rather go for the win.

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.