Combat Resolution Question ...

thanks for the response! I really think that it makes sense that the force with greater numbers would win, however, I want to build some suspense into it... Do you think that the idea would be blunted a bit if there was a limit to the number of rounds combat occured?

For instance, if the space is still contested after, say, 2 rounds of combat, the attacker must withdraw. This makes it possible for a counter-attack by the defender or to reinforce a position. Or the pieces co-mingle in the space and combat resolved at some later point (another action phase, for instance).

I understand your central point: the defender can only strike blows equal to the number of blows the attacker can strike. The difference is potency: 1's and 6's are kills, where anything else is a "withdraw". The defender could "kill" 3 attacking pieces and the attacker only force the defender to withdraw 3 pieces. Although the attacker wins, the "attacking force" is in a weaker position now down 3 pieces. Although withdrawn, the defender retains his pieces for a counter-attack later.

Thoughts on that?

My thought was into another, friendly controlled area. A retreat. I didn't specify that...I'm sorry. Defenders would move into friendly controlled areas; attackers would move back to the space where the attack originated.

Here is a full example:

1. Attacker moves 6 pieces into an enemy controlled area
2. Defender is holding the area with 4 pieces

**Round 1**
Attacker rolls: 1,2,5,5,3 (max 5 rolls)
Defender rolls: 2,3,5,6 (total defenders)

Results:
There are two matches: one "3" and one "5". Each of those are removed from the roll. This leaves the attacker with 1,2,5 and the defender with 2,6.

The Attacker may now eliminate one defender (for the "1" rolled) and may select two pieces (for the "2" and "5") to be "withdrawn".

The Defender also eliminates one piece (for the "6") and may select one attacker to be "withdrawn" (for the "2").

**End of Round 1**
Attacker now has 4 attacking pieces left (one was eliminated and one has been "disengaged" or "withdrawn")
Defender now has 1 defending piece (two were "withdrawn" and one was eliminated)

From here, a number of things could happen, I'm interested to see if anyone has thoughts about this.

AH! Keen eyes. Ya' know, maybe I should give up on game designing...attention to detail and all...

You are right, those 2's would have been cancelled out. To edit my example:

1. The defender got a kill shot - eliminates 1 attacker.
2. The attacker gets a kill shot (the 1) and withdraws one defender (the 5).

Net Result:
Defender now sits with 2 (1 killed , 1 withdrawn)
Attacker now sits with 5 (1 eliminated)

The more I look at this, the more I think there should be one round of combat.

Just wanted to thank everyone for the good comments. If you have anymore, please share!

Thanks again,
Hawaii Irish.

Makes sense. Completely arbitrary. 5 and 6 would work just fine. I agree.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. My change is this:

<br />
Each side rolls dice equal to the number of units in the area (up to a max of 5)<br />
note: Defenders receive one additional die for defense (up to max of 5 dice)</p>
<p>After rolling, the dice are compared</p>
<p>any Attacker dice and Defender dice that are matching are ignored (the shots have been blocked)</p>
<p>if any dice remain, the following hits are applied:</p>
<p>for rolls 1 - 4, the player may choose which opponent piece to "withdraw" or retreat to a neighboring territory.</p>
<p>for rolls 5 or 6, the player may choose which opponent piece to eliminate</p>
<p>The Following Exceptions Exist:</p>
<p>Armor may only be destroyed on a 6<br />
Armor may never be retreated on a 1<br />

Thoughts?

I thought of one other thing, related to my example:

By assigning the hits as efficiently as possible, it opens interesting tactical decisions for the attacking/defending player. For instance, in the example above, Orange *could* select to use the "5" to disengage an armor and then use the "1" to disengage an Inf.

Instead, by committing the "5" to the causualty, he was forced to withdraw a non-armor piece (INF, in this case) (The "1" can not disengage an armor).