Current rules:
First rule.
Attack from a terrain with cover, gives a 1 time penalty to the enemy.
Result is that with a terrain with 50% cover, allows 50% of the dice to hit. But also that there is only 50% units allowed to be present.
How does this look in numbers?
If a normal open region may contain 12 soldiers.
The mentioned region with cover may contain only 6 soldiers.
Firing into that region with reducing the number of potential hits from 12 to 6. Attacking from that same region remains 6.
Second rule.
Take cover in a terrain with cover, gives a 2 times penalty to the enemy.
Result is that with a terrain with 50% cover, allows 25% of the dice to hit.
How does this look in numbers?
Firing into that region with reducing the number of potential hits from 12 to 3.
End results?
12 man squad deals 6 or 3 damage. This equals 2 or 1 kills.
The 6 man squad deals 3 or 0 damage. This equals 1 or 0 kills.
So, 2 versus 1 or 1 versus 0.
***
I don't see a reason of why a player would go into cover anymore.
Attacking or returning fire from such a region is ill adviced. Keep your squads as big as possible is the advice. I want to get rid of this. And have players make more use of the terrain.
Taking cover in certain regions doesn't cost an action point. However, you aren't dealing any damage. And you still can loose units.
***
Any idea is welcome.
Here is my idea for now:
The penalty is applied once by default. Then added 1 or 2 times depending on the action the player takes.
This means that attacking and returning fire from such a region, gives 50%^2 cover. Aka 75% cover or 25% potential hits. This will make the result equal. 1 versus 1. But remember, the squad hiding has only 6 men. So, the end result is 11 vs 5 after combat.
If the same squad takes cover, 12.5% potential hits.
Now, when 2 snipers are hiding in a dense forest. The penalty is 67%, or 33% potential hits. It is 11% potential hits when the snipers return fire. And a little less than 4% potential hits when they take cover.
A full squad of riflemen will have only 1 hit on average if snipers take cover. Thus they cannot even kill a sniper that way. And the snipers, if they attack, can roughly kill 3 riflemen. But, if they return fire, they will receive roughly 3 hits. Potentially losing 1 sniper.
Taking cover sure is usefull. And then take action afterwards. It is a risk though. But a risk that is worth it now.
As counter to taking cover. Well, I have a set of weapons ready already. They need to be revised though. But only the end region part, where the penalty will be taken twice. I have been reading through it. And I think I need to rewrite it as well. After all, a 0 ranged weapon that can hit 100% needs to have a maximum factor. And not just an attack range of 1 added. The factor is not going to be 2 anymore either. Yeah, this needs to be rewritten.
More expensive weapons should be a better choice in a crowded map. But obviously bad in an open map.
Enter: Flamethrowers, Gas attacks and Napalm.
What map?
Either way. Not every picture shows the entire game.
The picture you have seen. Was a 3600 per player skirmish. It was a playtest.
Rifleman, 100
Sniper, 600
Hummvee, i think it was 400
Tank, 600
What you didn't see where the little whiteboard cards. Indicating how much units 1 picture represented etc.
1 "unit" could potentially be 36 riflemen.
Either way. The topic is cover mechanics.
The feedback from my potential players, so far, was this time positive.
A 50% force taking 50% damage sounded perfect. What thus happened was that some considered the 50% cover to act as if they were 50% fictional targets. And the other 50% would have the cover. I don't know how to describe it in a better way. But the game feels much more logically now in case of "taking" cover.
The cut in your force, will be the penalty on the enemy as if they use an equal force.
Ah yes, that one sniper going in a 1/6th space location. With 5/6th cover. Yes, this sniper takes only 1/36th number of hits....But....could even take cover and take only 1/216th of a hit. hahahaha. But here comes mr.Fart. And he farts a gas canister into the caves. The gas ignores the cover... Byebye mr. campy sniper.
There is one "uh oh..." moment. I just realized that a smaller squad gets a bonus on damage. This means, those that take cover actually are more effective. I completely forgot that. And I suspect the others as well.
- Smaller units get a bonus
- The smaller squad gets a bonus
A bonus is +50% firepower. Or a damage die going from -2 to only -1.
This is troublesome. I should compare a full squad to 3 smaller squads. Then do the same for when the smaller squads are in cover. And do that latter again for when I apply the new rule.
It is a lot of math. And I can get several different situations.
Smaller squads; all in range/1 at a time
Terrain; open/cover/newcover
Bonus; no/+50%
***
The bonus damage is more or less the opposite of cover. Less units, but they can deal more damage. I had chosen this, so that the game would progress.
We don't want a smaller squad to survive longer. But.... in a sense, I am doing the same with the smaller squad that takes cover. Perhaps. I should change the bonus damage into giving the opponent a penalty. The game is already fast enough. And the penalty system works well in a stack. Accuracy, terrain and then now, being the smaller squad. Sounds good to me.
Then again, the bonus damage never sat right with me. But having less hit chance on a smaller squad. While good, how to make this fair? At least, the bonus damage could be with the damage dice. Thus, you roll them, and when the targets seem to be bigger. You apply this. The other way around would be -40%. But a double penalty now would be -70%. I don't want that.
There is too much to think about. I should return to this subject after I got some NEW maps done.