 |  |  |
| Move to Overlapped Front Contact | Move to Double Overlapped Front Contact | Move to Supported Front Edge Contact |
The first move is the Move to Overlapped Front Contact. Essentially this put the attacker at a -1 disadvantage. Compare this to Move to Double Overlapped Front Contact. Although this move results in a -2 disadvantage, does it warrant being treated separately? The last is the Move to Supported Front Edge Contact, resulting in a +1 advantage to the defender.
Consider the following:
| Move | Combat Factor | Difference | |
| Attacker | Defender | ||
| Move to Front Edge Contact | +3 | +3 | +0 |
| Move to Overlapped Front Edge Contact | +4 | +3 | +0 |
| Move to Double Overlapped Front Edge Contact | +5 | +3 | +0 |
| Move to Supported Front Edge Contact | +4 | +4 | +0 |
Given that the difference in each combat is the same, should the moves still be ranked separately or do they have equivalent weight, as they all result in a single element coming into front contact with a group of elements and resulting in a combat at +0? Put another way, which is more important: the move itself, or the resulting combat?
One factor in weighing the Move to Supported Front Edge Contact more heavily is that, unless the supporting element is a Pike, there is the potential for destroying two elements in this single combat. That alone warrants weighting, and thus differentiating this move from the others.
Summary
In my mind I have only found one case where the movement of a single element into combat is materially significant; all others seem to indicate that the resulting combat factors are the differentiator. I would like to hear your thoughts on this, either here or preferably on the Solo DBA Yahoo forum.
One thing to keep in mind is that the outcomes from a +4/+4 combat are different to those from a +3/+3 combat because it's easier to double a 3 than a 4. The "difference" in attacker/defender doesn't sum it all up.
ReplyDeleteSo the +4/+4 combat is less risky for the attacker and the defender than the +3/+3 combat is. If you're scoring moves and one side is risk averse they will prefer the +4/+4 as they are less likely to lose a unit.
The other thing to think about (and I'm sure it's on your list) is that attacking into an overlap situation makes you vulnerable to having the door closed on you in subsequent rounds unless you spend pips to control that space using ZOCs.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Yes, I am aware that the odds change. Scoring a +4/+4 combat differently than a +3/+3 combat is possible with a computer program, but probably too clunky without it. I have chosen to score the combat on differentials (+0, +1, etc.), but you bring up a point for consideration: higher factor combats can be the tie-breaker.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I was thinking of chucking the tie-breaker table...