|
Post by bruce on Jun 6, 2019 1:30:14 GMT
Hi Everyone: I am looking at designing a CRT for a fast, simple game I am working on - casualties, retreats, melees, morale are all in one results table using 3 d10s. I have looked at a quite a few CRTs on lineand they have come a long ways since the old Avalon Hill days. I am looking at developing results based at least somewhat on historical casualty rates for attackers and defenders, lots of falling back or running away (takes the place of morale tables), simple modifiers for terrain and flanking advantages, elite units. Rather than including the traditional odds based calculations, I am allotting dice for attackers based on numbers of stands and how close they are to defenders, with results for both sides coming from each action based on my modest research.
Does anybody use such tables anymore? There are lots of Quick reference sheets with all kind of tables on them for modern gaming. Some WW2 games even use multiple CRTs, including separate ones for different nationalities. but I would like to try for one simple easy to use old style CRT that covers most of the bases and isn't far from reality.
How do you feel about a single CRT that gives you all your results? Do you like some complexity or prefer a simple approach? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Jun 9, 2019 21:36:08 GMT
We use in our group playing a modified version of Black Powder. It is very simple. Modifiers for nationality and troop types are accounted for before we ever get to the CRT. It's based on a 2 dice outcome. One of the group who understands probabilities showed how this could be reduced to one dice with no significant effect on outcomes but the first few times we tried that everything seemed to rout. This was almost certainly the result of runs of poor dice rather than the mathematics but experiment was abandoned!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 17, 2019 4:39:11 GMT
Thanks for this Prof, you are right about Black Powder. It does indeed seem to keep things easily managed. I also like the Age of Eagles CRT. I am now beginning some final edits for mine, adjusting the casualty rates down to help them conform to what I hope are realistic outcomes.
Modifiers are easy to get carried away with, trying to do to much with them can bog down play. I am trying to prioritize and edit them as well. I am also looking at circumstances which raise morale and increase effectiveness, a somewhat neglected concept, I think. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Jun 17, 2019 21:58:52 GMT
I like the idea of raising morale / effectiveness and you're right this is less commonly found in rules. Would you be thinking about e.g. presence of a charismatic general with rhe unit. These things are fascinating - the Osnabruck Landwehr's behaviour in the final throes of Waterloo for example. Also sometimes counter-intuitive - one British regiment in square at Waterloo sent its colours to the rear which, as you know means that they thought they would shortly be unable to defend them and a Lieutenant's memoirs recordnthat when they saw them being moved to safety they all got a new charge of determination. I'll be interested to see some of your thinking on this and also how to represent nationalities and troop types without being over sophisticated. In Black Powder Russian infantry appears more or less in readable for example and certainly when I've played Russians mine have taken massive punishment (once I've got them moving - which is their downside!)
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 18, 2019 3:47:37 GMT
Yes, good points, good examples, Prof. I am working on an easy to figure system of officer modifiers. Most importantly, they are needed to rally troops who have fallen back. I am presuming that most field officers have at least some capacity for this.
I am still figuring out what type of advantage to give troops rallied by an extraordinary leader, both in being more likely to hold a position, and more likely to rally to counterattack. Also considering some kind of revenge response for elite units taking casualties. All of this may require a second CRT, perhaps with columns for different nations. Not too much detail, but something reflecting certain performance characteristics of national armies and their officers. Black Powder does pretty well with this. The safeguarding of the colors at Waterloo giving troops a boost also reminds us of the impact of seemingly small things. Perhaps a table for chance events, fun for solo play.
And, I have some different notions. I think the Russians were remarkable in many ways. Their general officers do not get enough credit. The 1809 Austrians were as good as anybody, tough fighters, but spotty leadership. Charles was much better than he gets credit for as well. The Prussians ended up the equal of any troops, Blucher a bulldog. The French after 1812 were not very good in many ways, the British were quality, solid and consistent, well maybe not the cavalry! Generalizations for easy gaming, with some sort of generalized effect. Not every might agree. I will stay in touch. Bruce
|
|