Writing Rules for Feudal Japan Part 2 - Core Mechanics

[mmcv]

Following on from the introductory discussion in http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,20150.0.html, here's a more in-depth look at some of the mechanics I've been experimenting with for these rules, along with a pencil and paper battle report.

https://mmcvhistory.home.blog/2020/10/15/rules-for-the-sengoku-jidai-core-mechanics/

Got sale agreed on our house yesterday, so hopefully, with not having to keep everything pristine for viewers, I'll be able to unpack some of the hobby stuff and try this out with some bases on a table in the near future.

As ever, thoughts and comments are most welcome!

[ianrs54]

Just a quick skim but they look workable

[Ithoriel]

Great write up and play through!

I make commanders changing from mobile to static spend a turn to do so. I plan to have two versions of the Daimyo's sonae, the advantage of 3mm!

Mobile commanders issue fewer change of stance orders rather than none, though any general can find themselves issuing no change of orders in a turn. Once issued, a stance remains in force until countered by a new order or by circumstances.

I'm toying with the idea of getting a hex gridded mat .... The Horror! The Horror!

[mmcv]

Just a quick skim but they look workable

Great write up and play through!

Thanks!

I make commanders changing from mobile to static spend a turn to do so.

Yeah, I'd actually added something to that effect to the rules document itself though don't think I mentioned it in the above post. In the sample game, I had the conversion instant and it felt a bit too gamey. Under the current rules, I've got it that Encamping takes a turn out, though I've still got Mobile as an "instant" option at the start of the turn. I don't generally want the Daimyo recamping all over the field and moving the camp in the midst of a battle is likely not a common occurrence, so I may make it that you can only Encamp once. Something I need to experiment some more with.

I plan to have two versions of the Daimyo's sonae, the advantage of 3mm!

Ditto! 3mm will likely be my first outing with these to assemble things quickly. Maybe save 10mm for kumi level battles. The 6mm I've seen do look very good though.

Mobile commanders issue fewer change of stance orders rather than none, though any general can find themselves issuing no change of orders in a turn. Once issued, a stance remains in force until countered by a new order or by circumstances.

I am intrigued by the stance idea, though I wonder how often a change of sonae formation itself was in battle, or where they fairly fixed? My idea is unit stats (+1 Melee, -1 Firing, special clan traits, etc) will cover similar considerations to this, though they would be fixed throughout.

My Mobile General can still issue orders directly to units under command, they just lose the ability to send out messengers to boost the authority to give orders of other commanders. I'm not sure yet whether the General can issue orders to units in other commands than their own. I'm inclined to say no given the decentralised nature of the armies, it would need to go through a commander.

I'm toying with the idea of getting a hex gridded mat .... The Horror! The Horror!

To be honest, I've been enjoying the pencil and paper for quick experiments, so may pick up a hex notepad as some point and try it out. Square grids are a bit clunky, especially with diagonal movement and attacks on the diagonal, though hexes have their own challenges - translating front, flanks and rear for instance, would probably need to designate front 3 hexes as front, then a single hex each for flanks and rear, but that makes units a bit less vulnerable than a square or free movement setup. I definitely see the benefit of grids for speedy movement, but need added considerations.

[Nick the Lemming]

Excellent! When I get chance, I'll have a good look at them.

[paulr]

Interesting following this process

good news on the house sale

[mmcv]

Thanks!

Had a bit of an idea last night around rebranding the morale mechanic as a loyalty system, which is a bit more flavourful and lets me bring together some of the interplay between the General and the Commanders. Been fleshing that out a bit. Only bit that doesn't feel quite right with that is using a loyalty check to test for if a unit is fatigued. Might need to tweak that.

Started a new test game on the paper again, rolled for random terrain and forces and ended up with a breakout scenario where one side must traverse off the opposite edge. Hitting the limits of grid based movement in this as it does limit movement range so lot of bunching up of units, so will want to see if free measurement movement makes it feel more fluid.

Haven't yet found anything in my reading about whether or to what extent units could interpenetrate each other, or perform any sort of line exchange style maneuver. Given the types of formations suggested they used they must have had some level of maneuver training, though I suspect quite basic.

[FierceKitty]

"You look a bit treacherous, men. Have a two-hour nap!"

[mmcv]

"You look a bit treacherous, men. Have a two-hour nap!"

Seems legitimate.


Because a unit can be given multiple orders I want something to counter balance that to have some consequences for a unit overstretching itself. I suppose is could be seen as "digging deep" and overcoming the weariness to push onwards. Because of fanatical loyalty and all that. Clearly.

I'm also still experimenting with the decisiveness of close combat and multi unit combats. Was a bit much seeing most of a command wiped out in a single engagement.

[mmcv]

Bit of a follow up on this, you may have seen my latest battle report using these rules. Since then I wanted to experiment with modelling combat outcomes to stimulate a lot of combat rounds. Like really a lot. 100000 at a time. Some thoughts on the results and how it relates to the rules here:

http://mmcvhistory.home.blog/2020/10/27/rules-for-the-sengoku-jidai-number-crunching/

Some further reflections on the battle report at the end also

[paulr]

Interesting read, good to see you have done some statistical analysis to ground your thinking

[Ithoriel]

Wot Paul said!

[mmcv]

Did a little bit of statistical modelling on the ranged attacks. They play out reasonably well. They're more straightforward than melee as while both sides fire in it the results are independent. It works out about the same number of combat rounds as a melee for two standard units, though as there can be more ranged attacks per turn than melee this could take less time. This seems fair given that melee can be accelerated with additional units while firing remains an individual action. Between two standard units the chance of a ranged attack causing damage is around 30% each.

This means using closing fire has around a one in three chance of stopping the enemy charge. Under current rules this also results in the charger being hit, meaning using closing fire will result in advantage to the defender 60% of the time. There are some tweaks I could make that would flip the advantage to the attacker again while still giving that chance of knocking the charge back. Or slightly larger changes that would balance things back towards 50/50.

Though what I have to think about now is how effective I want closing fire to be. I want it to be a gamble to trade knock back for melee efficiency, but I'm not sure the balance is right.

Think this is something I'll need to play out on table a bit to get a feel for it. Statistics can only take you so far. I am leaning towards moving the advantage to the attacker still though.