Repel attempt bonuses

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by PvK:
It would be interesting for the long-weapon fighter to sometimes try to back away.

I think it would be easier to program the original suggestion, but maybe you think that it's not a realistic suggestion?

Actually, what I don't understand is why (if I'm right about how it works, and I'm not sure I am) the repel attack doesn't do full damage. It seems to me that usually the way an incoming foe is repelled is by hitting them (with full strength).

PvK

Because that would give the guy with the longer weapon twice as many attacks - once on his turn, and again on the enemy's turn. (More than twice as many, if the repel succeeds and cancels the enemy's attack.)

This would be a bit unfair.

Worse, if one supercombatant with a pike were attacked by 12 guys, he could theoretically kill them all with his repel attacks - and then do it again the next turn - without paying any fatigue (IIRC). For some supercombatants this wouldn't be all that theoretical - one of the demigods with 6-8 Fire could easily have 25+ in both attack and strength, and a long armor piercing weapon (30+ armor piercing damage will reliably kill most normal troops).

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack).

[Calanor]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Because that would give the guy with the longer weapon twice as many attacks - once on his turn, and again on the enemy's turn. (More than twice as many, if the repel succeeds and cancels the enemy's attack.)

This would be a bit unfair.

Worse, if one supercombatant with a pike were attacked by 12 guys, he could theoretically kill them all with his repel attacks - and then do it again the next turn - without paying any fatigue (IIRC). For some supercombatants this wouldn't be all that theoretical - one of the demigods with 6-8 Fire could easily have 25+ in both attack and strength, and a long armor piercing weapon (30+ armor piercing damage will reliably kill most normal troops).

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack). [/QB]

Have I missed something? Do successful repel attempts lower the opponent's morale? I know that morale is used to determine whether or not a repel attempt is ignored, but I assume that this was not what you were refering to?

[Edit: So many typos, so little time..]

[ November 03, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Calanor ]

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Calanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
[snip - multiple full-strength repel attacks would be too powerful]

So Dom (I/II) compensates by not allowing the extra attack to deal too much damage. It still counts toward morale though (as well as cancelling the guy with a short weapon's attack).

Have I missed something? Do successful repel attempts lower the opponent's morale? I know that morale is used to determine whether or not a repel attempt is ignored, but I assume that this was not what you were refering to?

[Edit: So many typos, so little time..] [/QB]

---

Successful repel attempts may wound the would-be attacker, which reduces his morale.

Edit: Unless it drives him berserk instead, of course. I don't know if berserkers automatically pass their morale check to continue with their attack after a repel attack is made against them (because they are wounded by the repel attack and thus immediately become berserk and have 99 morale). They probably should though (and have the increased att/str).

[ November 03, 2003, 01:11: Message edited by: Chris Byler ]

[Calanor]

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Successful repel attempts may wound the would-be attacker, which reduces his morale.

Edit: Unless it drives him berserk instead, of course. I don't know if berserkers automatically pass their morale check to continue with their attack after a repel attack is made against them (because they are wounded by the repel attack and thus immediately become berserk and have 99 morale). They probably should though (and have the increased att/str).

Hmm, the more I think about it, the more odd it sounds that morale would be the only thing that determines whether or not you'll manage to avoid a repel attempt. The most obvious "problem" is that undead, mindless beings, berserk creatures (as you mentioned) and such will completely ignore the greater reach of the opponent. While I can understand that morale might be a factor, one would assume that it would not be the only factor. Oh, well, regardless of how one might feel about that, it's probably not likely to change.

[ November 03, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Calanor ]

[johan osterman]

The difference between attack and defense skill is also important. I think it is perfectly reasonable that morale factors in, and also that zombies march straight into the pikes spears or whatever.

[PvK]

I assumed that one repeller would only get one repel attack per turn. It would be silly to be able to shish-kabob 12 guys on one pike in that way.

In other words, I'd suggest this sequence of events:

1) When someone tries to move in range of someone who is "ready" and has a longer-reach weapon, do the current repel mechanic, but without the chance to do a puny amount of damage.

2) If someone succeeds in overcoming the repel, the repeller gets to attack them first. However, this makes them "unready", and unable to repel anyone else that turn.

3) Assuming the moving fighter survives the repeller's attack, they get their attack.

4) On the repeller's turn, he becomes "ready", but if he attacks, he becomes "unready". Therefore, he never attacks twice in a row, nor more than once per turn.

PvK

[Calanor]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
The difference between attack and defense skill is also important. I think it is perfectly reasonable that morale factors in, and also that zombies march straight into the pikes spears or whatever.

Should they not suffer the appropriate damage if they show no regard for their own safety, then? I have no problems with zombies not caring whether or not a pikeman skewers him or not - and that outlook might very well be bad news for the pikemen (especially if there are several zombies around), but if this is the case the damage inflicted should not be as symbolic as it is now. A combination of, say, Defense and Morale would IMHO perhaps be more reasonable. A nice little formula (which I do not intend to construct now ) would determine the exact effect. Three different outcomes might take place - the target was either repelled as usual, managed to avoid the repel attempt or managed to close in, yet suffered the full damage of the attack in the process. The latter would happen if the Morale check went just fine, but the Defense was too low. Thus, zombies and berserkers would tend to manage to close in, yet might get impaled in the process, unmotivated troops would be frequently repelled as per the current rules, and light, fast and preferably disciplined troops (i.e. with high Def and reasonable Morale) might find themselves quite able to completely avoid the repel attempts. This would also mean that light infantry would have a certain advantage not usually shared by heavier troops, although a failed attempt might be serious news due to the frequently quite low Protection level of such units.

[Psitticine]

The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly.

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Psitticine:
The sequence goes like this:

When the defender's weapon is longer than the attacker's, there is a chance to repel.

The first thing that is checked is the attack vs. defense, as if the defender is attacking the original attacker (and, well, he is!). If this is successful, the defender has gotten his weapon in between himself and the oncoming aggressor.

In that case, the original attacker must decide if he is really willing to run right onto a spearpoint in the name of his cause. This is where the morale check occurs. If he succeeds, he proceeds with his attacks. Otherwise, the attack is aborted with nothing else occuring except the end of the attacker's turn.

If the attacker continues, there is a damage vs. protection check, just as in normal combat. If this results in penetration for the defender's repel, the attacker takes a point of damage.

1 point seemed rather low to me, until I saw a group of knights clash into a group of pikemen for the first time. Those little cuts add up pretty quickly, and the aborted attacks are extremely costly.

Speaking of knights: if their lance attack is cancelled by a repel, do they get to try again to use it next round? What if it's cancelled by failing an awe check?


Anyway, it looks from this sequence that berserking wouldn't help against repels (not immediately anyway) because the morale check is made before damage is potentially done to the attacker. But if the berserker makes his morale check once, and then takes damage from the repel, he will go berserk and automatically pass the repel morale tests in future rounds (and possibly have increased att/str this round?)

It also looks like mindless regenerators can ignore repel attempts (they automatically pass the morale check, and 1 hp won't seriously hurt a regenerator generally), and nature-9 blessed sacred troops can too.

[PvK]

Not if they are advancing against many enemies with pikes. Sounds like each one would have to overcome a repel from every defender, possibly taking one damage from each.

It'd make a lot more sense if it were changed as I mentioned below - only one damaging repel per repeller, but at full damage.

I guess it sorta comes out in the wash on average, but it doesn't make much sense on a literal level to have everyone repellable by everyone, at one damage each. Not a huge deal, but I always like things to make good sense. So, a suggestion.

PvK