with the hope that nobody me away permanently in the community of CCA,

I am tempted by a couple of novelty, which I submit for discussion:

1. who would you say if every army had a deck of cards right?
(which could better reflect the mechanical and strategic tactics that have historically characterized the army in question)

2. the only sore point of the game, I think it is the roll of dice to which it was absolutely powerless many times and heavily completely cancels the tactics adopted by the player!

that How about a d10, as follows:
LDR, MED, LIT, HVY, BAN, SWX, XXX, NOT, NOT, NOT!

XXX = affects in the close combat if supported;
NOT = not strikes;

in this way, more luck to strike, rather it has less likelihood of strike;
Paradoxically, who favors more launches dice, and then drives stronger!

with XXX is one advantage to units that move together, then who moves better, discouraging actions suicide bombers, while always possible.


who do you think?


Good game, Aringarosa

Hi Aringarosa.
You don't have to worry about your proposal. I think that discussing toghether will improve every ideas. Maybe someone could not agree completely with it, but could also give some interesting advice.

After that I'll proced commenting your ideas.

1. Building a deck for every Army (I suppose you are talking about Don Clarke's Armies) will be very interesting. I'm used to cread "modded" deck of cards for my games and I've also created (with precious help by zatopek) Italian Version of the CCA cards, so I'll be really happy to create also these ones. Let's start brainstorming about it. If you are ok with this we could start a dedicated topic in the forum to group all ideas about "SceanrioX Army Decks".

2. For this point I don't agree completely with you. I think that your proposal will not limit the "terrific effect of die rolls, but it could even increase it.
For example ranged combat will be extremely penalized: 1/10 Hit possibility + 1/10 BAN possibility.

Hoping to hear some other reply soon.

Ave Cesar,
thanks for your understanding and I are obliged to get compliments on the exceptional and always punctual amount of work you are doing for the fun of CCA.

1. the proposal of decks of cards of course refers to the various armies, which are outside the scenarios x.
because of different eras, tactics, strategies, the conduct of battles was different for different peoples, and for various periods.

are available to help if there is a dedicated area for discussion, although is very hard for me to follow English language ...


2. personally, since that is the crucial node of the entire system,
I do not want to surrender the idea of creating a dynamic more likely.

The main point is to leave intact the system: this fundamental rule can not be violated.

I've played hundreds of matches, with several opponents, and have come to this conclusion: Many times, (a few times you can accept) the dice have won on tactics better than a player could implement. Sometimes even the launch of the dice are comedians.
Plus, with players of equal value, the dice decide the game, always.
The game is too good to accept a similar situation.

How can improve the mechanics of battles, without betraying the spirit of the fund, we want to remain intact?
Mathematically the way is very simple. Just increase the luck factor necessary to mitigate the imbalance of launches lucky!

Let me explain: I'm playing with d10, other battles.
Here's the nut: LDR, HVY, MED, LIT, BAN, SWX; XXX, NOT, NOT, NOT.
where XXX = a hit if the unit is supported (I believe that the unit sustained, should have an advantage in close combat, to be taken into account in effects);
NOT = coup failed;
the rest is common knowledge.

In this way, you get two consequences:
1. much more luck if necessary strike, the lucky roll are decreased a very great!
It becomes much more important to send a larger number of dice.
It 'more likely that the units most powerful make the difference in a clash.

2. becomes almost impossible to break down a unit at full strength, with a single launch.
It 'more likely that in a clash, both units can inflict blows to your opponent, or at least react to the enemy.

Alessandro (Cesar) notes that the units would be read very disadvantaged, especially in shot from distance.
The criminalisation of the shooting with a bow, can be mitigated while, in my opinion, BAN 1 \ 10 is more than enough (there were few to retreat when faced with an attack of arrows, and the retreat is fatal in many occasions, not storical!) ... then reduces also unlikely loss of entire units with simply launching 1 BAN ...

plus, you can introduce a symbol "arrow" (AWS = arrows) to increase the capacity to strike from afar.
with 2 hit on 10 (the symbol and arrow), the possibility of hitting the distance seems quite balanced ...
... indeed, 2 \ 10 is more powerful than 1 \ 6!
In this way, the units read, they become more dangerous by the distance (as it was in reality), while in the close combat used to annoy the enemy without engage seriously with the ability of evasion!
Even these mechanics is likely!




Now, many will say that CCA is not a simulation, and becomes useless create mechanical plausible!
I do not understand this statement!
scenarios are historic; figures reported are historical; the evasion mechanics, support, the elephants, the leaders are all mechanical plausible!
It is hard to understand why the mechanics of the battle must not be likely or simulation models!

Of course, it becomes difficult to strike a LDR, but overall the game becomes more balabced and stretches from 20 to 40 minutes!
An acceptable time for a good old battle of the period.

Of course, we must be very lucky to eliminate an opponent, or to hit completely in a single attack, but happen many times infinitely less than what is happening with the current system!

Ultimately, it becomes more important to move well, the right units,
very appropriately mitigating factor luck.


.. I invite you to play a dozen battles with this system, to get a better sense of what I described ...

... then maybe that ia have mistake ...
.. or maybe that intuition was not wrong .. who knows?

good game, Aringarosa.

Perhaps a simpler way to smooth the luck is to follow Joe Bisio's approach in many of his scenarios: you may only score a maximum of one 'helmet' hit with a Leader, and a Leader may cancel a 'flag' OR a 'swords' hit. That will smooth out some of the luck, and make it harder to vapourise at least some of the units.

Additionally you may wish to play a rule that no unit may lose more than one (or two?) block in one combat. In other words although a unit hits on 'swords' and 'symbols' it doesn't get to count more than one hit at a time. Ditto for 'flags' (I too find that Light Cavalry is ahistorically brittle). To really beat up units you'd need to have several fighting against one, a situation that occurs only if a unit gets "flanked". So now you get positioning being vital as well, without rules for flanking.

It still gives heavier units a big advantage, but eliminates the possibility of blowouts.

You could call that "Tame Combat".

I've posted into DOWNLOAD SECTION a new Vassal Module modified to playtest Aringarosa Variant proposal.
CLICK HERE to download and give it a try.
The more people plays it and test it, the more it could become better and better.
(don't forget that feedback is vital for development and improvement)

One thing I'd be concerned about is that you'll "de-magnify" the defensive benefits of ignoring SWX for instance, or ignoring one SYM hit in CC. For that matter support will be less valuable on defence. Although the hits can come thick and fast (HI are often deadly in CC) in the standard game, ignoring SWX is quite nice (Elephants for instance). I suspect this variant makes Elephants and Chariots very weak.

If you find the d6 combat too crazy, another thing to do is to allow a foot unit (perhaps only HI, MI) to also ignore one SYM hit (in CC only) if supported. I've tested this rule, and it makes the combat a bit more tame, but in the end the HI still win most of the time, which is as it should be!

However the idea of improving your chances of hitting while supported yourself, is intriguing.