Should kills also inflict shock?

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

hedgehobbit
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:49 pm

Re: Should kills also inflict shock?

Post by hedgehobbit »

One thing to consider is that unlike other games the important factor isn't the total amount of shock but, rather, the ratio of shock to men. So even removing a man but not adding shock tilts the unit closer to routing. That's how I rationalized it.

siggian
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Should kills also inflict shock?

Post by siggian »

That's how I look at it. Also, a kill isn't necessarily a death for me. It also could represent a man who is so shocked that he's effectively out of the battle and no amount of leadership will make him do anything useful in this battle.

nikjen66
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:20 pm
Location: Cambridge UK

Re: Should kills also inflict shock?

Post by nikjen66 »

I think it does normally work well. But, the few times it has caused some scratching is when we've played Japs v Russkies (or actually Manchurians v Mongols)
- huge squads which have little tactical flexibility but are 12+ in men so can soak up lots of deaths and at the same time stay in the game as they are easier to rally than two teams. End result has always been heavy casualties on both sides. This is a complete contraction to 44 type games where a few casualties can see a platoon off ( especially when you're using green Germans with low morale and your CO gets caught in a barrage on his own, wounded and the killed- I dead man game over, oh the cruel dice)

Post Reply