Quick opinion poll / thoughts inquiry for those of you who have played TROS yet (or at least mucked about with combat).

Situation - two fighters of equal skill both with sword + shield and no armour (lets say 10CP each). One declares white and one red.

The red guy declares an attack. He's being careful because it's only the first exchange , so he uses 4 dice to attack and saves 6 for exchange 2.

Fighter 2 can now declare his defense, yadda yadda. However, he has the option of attacking instead. Now, stealing initiative is expensive, but who says he needs to - he declares a sim block/strike. To be careful he puts 8 dice into defense and 2 into attack. Doesn't matter that he goes second, because he still gets his block, and it's an almost guaranteed hit on the first guy as long as he doesn't fail his block (8 dice at TN5 versus 4 dice at - probably - TN6 or 7 is no contest really) and he doesn't fluff the attack (2 dice at ATN6/7 means one should probably hit). Probably not a killing blow, but enough to hurt the other guy, and as we all know, the first hit in TROS combat usually decides it.

Evasive attack works just as well, btw.

I've been over this situation trying it out both with a mate of mine with dice, and in the combat sim (v2 will be available in a couple of days, btw, and it has about 20 different weapons, all the maneuvers, armour, double attacks, initiative stealing, etc etc - but I digress) and the result is pretty clear that the defender who attacks instead of defending (as long as he has armour or a decent shield) wins the combat almost every time, because he has the chance to defend as well as attacking, but the attacker didn't. The attacker basically has no defense against this tactic except passive defense i.e. wearing armour.

Yes, you could allow the attacker to declare an evasive attack or sim block/strike just in case, but that eats up dice and the defender just wouldn't do it that round. Not really a solution. Likewise luck dice can help, but you only get a few per entire session.

Any thoughts?

BrianL wrote: Quick opinion poll / thoughts inquiry for those of you who have played TROS yet (or at least mucked about with combat).

Situation - two fighters of equal skill both with sword + shield and no armour (lets say 10CP each). One declares white and one red.

The red guy declares an attack. He's being careful because it's only the first exchange , so he uses 4 dice to attack and saves 6 for exchange 2.

Fighter 2 can now declare his defense, yadda yadda. However, he has the option of attacking instead. Now, stealing initiative is expensive, but who says he needs to - he declares a sim block/strike. To be careful he puts 8 dice into defense and 2 into attack. Doesn't matter that he goes second, because he still gets his block, and it's an almost guaranteed hit on the first guy as long as he doesn't fail his block (8 dice at TN5 versus 4 dice at - probably - TN6 or 7 is no contest really) and he doesn't fluff the attack (2 dice at ATN6/7 means one should probably hit). Probably not a killing blow, but enough to hurt the other guy, and as we all know, the first hit in TROS combat usually decides it.

Evasive attack works just as well, btw.

I've been over this situation trying it out both with a mate of mine with dice, and in the combat sim (v2 will be available in a couple of days, btw, and it has about 20 different weapons, all the maneuvers, armour, double attacks, initiative stealing, etc etc - but I digress) and the result is pretty clear that the defender who attacks instead of defending (as long as he has armour or a decent shield) wins the combat almost every time, because he has the chance to defend as well as attacking, but the attacker didn't. The attacker basically has no defense against this tactic except passive defense i.e. wearing armour.

Yes, you could allow the attacker to declare an evasive attack or sim block/strike just in case, but that eats up dice and the defender just wouldn't do it that round. Not really a solution. Likewise luck dice can help, but you only get a few per entire session.

Any thoughts?

So don't do a weak first attack. Attack with 9 dice, saving one for the next exchange. Go for the lower leg or arms to get the bonus.

-Jeff

As I understand it, you canNOT attack if you threw white unless you use the Buying Initiative option. This only applies to the first exchange of blows following initiative, however, and beyond that you can choose to attack or block as you wish. Remember, however, that if you do get nailed, you're likely to go down... and in a case like you described (only not on the first EoB after init)I would make any penalties due to getting hit apply to the dice spent on the strike before those which sit uncommitted in the pool.

That'll make someone think twice about splitting attack and defense.. It's a nice maneuver, but it's a gamble.. I did it once, and died because of it, but another time took the advantage because of it.

Hi Brian,

This thread has some comments from me about the pre-emptive attack, from a slightly different perspective:
The Riddle o'Steel 'n' me.

Best,
Ron

BrianL wrote: Quick opinion poll / thoughts inquiry for those of you who have played TROS yet (or at least mucked about with combat).

Situation - two fighters of equal skill both with sword + shield and no armour (lets say 10CP each). One declares white and one red.

The red guy declares an attack. He's being careful because it's only the first exchange , so he uses 4 dice to attack and saves 6 for exchange 2.

Fighter 2 can now declare his defense, yadda yadda. However, he has the option of attacking instead. Now, stealing initiative is expensive, but who says he needs to - he declares a sim block/strike. To be careful he puts 8 dice into defense and 2 into attack. Doesn't matter that he goes second, because he still gets his block, and it's an almost guaranteed hit on the first guy as long as he doesn't fail his block (8 dice at TN5 versus 4 dice at - probably - TN6 or 7 is no contest really) and he doesn't fluff the attack (2 dice at ATN6/7 means one should probably hit). Probably not a killing blow, but enough to hurt the other guy, and as we all know, the first hit in TROS combat usually decides it.

Evasive attack works just as well, btw.

I've been over this situation trying it out both with a mate of mine with dice, and in the combat sim (v2 will be available in a couple of days, btw, and it has about 20 different weapons, all the maneuvers, armour, double attacks, initiative stealing, etc etc - but I digress) and the result is pretty clear that the defender who attacks instead of defending (as long as he has armour or a decent shield) wins the combat almost every time, because he has the chance to defend as well as attacking, but the attacker didn't. The attacker basically has no defense against this tactic except passive defense i.e. wearing armour.

Yes, you could allow the attacker to declare an evasive attack or sim block/strike just in case, but that eats up dice and the defender just wouldn't do it that round. Not really a solution. Likewise luck dice can help, but you only get a few per entire session.

Any thoughts?

Is this realistic? Shouldn't there be more of a feeling out period, an initial probing and testing of defenses before a character should feel confident in launching an all out attack?

Valamir wrote: Is this realistic? Shouldn't there be more of a feeling out period, an initial probing and testing of defenses before a character should feel confident in launching an all out attack?

So given the comments by Bob and Jaif and Psycho above, which seem to indicate weak (i.e. low dice) first attacks are a mistake...what are they missing...

If you want to go for a quick kill, and hopefully, your opponent doesn't have a larger CP pool than you, blitz attacks are a gamble you may want to take. On the other hand, if your opponent has a better DTN than your ATN, a bigger pool, and Counter, you're in trouble.

Say I drop 8 dice on the attack, and my opponent puts 9 on the defense, and still pays for the counter. No matter how little they had left, if they successfully block it, then they get 8 dice back at me on the next exchange!

Can you get wasted on red? Sure, but there are a few tricks that will help you do it...

•Manuever...if both of you are throwing red, it may not hurt to take high ground, work your way around some debris, a chair, or a table...
•Diversion...toss something, bat it at your opponent, use intimidate, acting to act like something is important over there that you're looking at, etc.
•Get your opponent to hesistate... In real life, that's what the circling is about... that one moment the other person's attention slips, and you slide in. Of course, this is less likely to happen in RoS simply because the concentration involved in real life is way more intense than throwing dice...

Chris

No, none of you (except maybe Jake) understood my point.

You can declare sim block/strike on defense, because a valid defense is an attack. You can then try to steal initiative, but you're not forced to, as long as you're happy to take the hit from the other guy first. This isn't a biggie if you have a defense (via sim b/s or evasive attack) and he doesn't. Essentially, the other guy is screwed. And not necessarily because he threw a red - the defender could do it at any point in the combat, even after several rounds of back-and-forth strikes between them.

My point is that at any point of any combat, the attacker is screwed if the defender wants, because he just has an attack, while the "defender" can also be attacking (not red/red but just because attack is a valid defense), and has defensive dice as well as attacking ones. And that goes for no matter how many dice the attacker does or does not spend - if he goes light, the defender can do this trick. If he goes heavy, the defender just defends and doesn't, but going heavy every time you have an attack is suicide because it's starving yourself of defense dice for the next exchange if the defender takes initiative (by blocking you, or whatever). As the book says "attack conservatively, defend rigourously" (or words to that effect).

Bankuei wrote: Say I drop 8 dice on the attack, and my opponent puts 9 on the defense, and still pays for the counter. No matter how little they had left, if they successfully block it, then they get 8 dice back at me on the next exchange!

Jake Norwood wrote:

Valamir wrote: Is this realistic? Shouldn't there be more of a feeling out period, an initial probing and testing of defenses before a character should feel confident in launching an all out attack?

Absolutely. When I fight in TROS, I rarely go all out to start. I throw a little attack, saving lots for defense, just to see how big their CP is, so that I can wisely allot dice. Depending on how you run it, an aggressive opening can be very lethal, but you have to play your cards right (just like for real).

Jake

I think this thread is showing some of what I've been saying all along...there's a lot of ways to play the odds and strategies in TROS combat, much to a Gamist's delight, and most of us haven't even scratched the surface. I came up with what I thought to be a flawless attack strategy which worked a dozen times (I used it to kill two players, even, but their deaths were important to the story)...until it got broken by something I didn't see coming. For the record, agressive fighters seem to do very well for a few fights, then the aggression ends up being their deaths. This was true of the Germanic hordes vs. the Romans, as I understand it, and is certainly true in what I've seen of IRL sparring. I am a pretty defensive fighter IRL. Sure, I initiate attack sometimes, but usually to lure so that I can defend, counter, or whatever. And I'm very hard to beat. I think there's something there. We've got another guy who is definitely my superior in the element of attack, but my defense and counter-techniques are very good, and he only sometimes beats me. I've got him about 70% of the time or more...and he's in much better shape than I am, with 2 blackbelts and a Free-scholarship (the same WMA rank I carry). I'm not bragging, but showing that this really is the way it works.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: I think this thread is showing some of what I've been saying all along...there's a lot of ways to play the odds and strategies in TROS combat, much to a Gamist's delight, and most of us haven't even scratched the surface. I came up with what I thought to be a flawless attack strategy which worked a dozen times (I used it to kill two players, even, but their deaths were important to the story)...until it got broken by something I didn't see coming. For the record, agressive fighters seem to do very well for a few fights, then the aggression ends up being their deaths. This was true of the Germanic hordes vs. the Romans, as I understand it, and is certainly true in what I've seen of IRL sparring. I am a pretty defensive fighter IRL. Sure, I initiate attack sometimes, but usually to lure so that I can defend, counter, or whatever. And I'm very hard to beat. I think there's something there. We've got another guy who is definitely my superior in the element of attack, but my defense and counter-techniques are very good, and he only sometimes beats me. I've got him about 70% of the time or more...and he's in much better shape than I am, with 2 blackbelts and a Free-scholarship (the same WMA rank I carry). I'm not bragging, but showing that this really is the way it works.

Jake

On this line of thought. If you have a shield why not throw red?

With the simulataneous attack/block manuever if your opponent throws red you will have a defense. If he throws white you will have tempo in the fight and with a bit of luck be able to keep initiative.

Oh there are nasty tricks your opponent can do if he also has a shield but I would think the presence of a good shield would make a huge difference in fight pacing.

AFAICT it allows a lot more attacks to be thrown than being armedwith just a weapon.

Ace wrote: On this line of thought. If you have a shield why not throw red?

With the simulataneous attack/block manuever if your opponent throws red you will have a defense. If he throws white you will have tempo in the fight and with a bit of luck be able to keep initiative.

Oh there are nasty tricks your opponent can do if he also has a shield but I would think the presence of a good shield would make a huge difference in fight pacing.

AFAICT it allows a lot more attacks to be thrown than being armedwith just a weapon.

That's part of why shields were so prevalent. They're relatively easy to use and effective. On the practical side, they're heavy, a pain to use for long periods of time, and not so much fun to travel with (also true of armor, especially leg armor, which was largely discarded by the Landsknechten and other career infantry.

Also remember that simultaneous block/strike is an offensive action, and doing one from a defensive stance gives you -2 dice (that's 8 dice instead of 12 for our example in the beginning). In this event, he'd have to attack with at least 3 dice (one can't be more than twice as large as the other), leaving him 5 dice to defend with. That's really, really gutsy. Especially considering that, if he screws up the attack (which is possible), then his opponent will have a nice 8 dice to attack with... basically for free.

Simultaneous block/strike is NOT the be-all, end-all of "defensive" moves. Mostly, this is because it's an aggressive move.

Lyrax wrote: Also remember that simultaneous block/strike is an offensive action, and doing one from a defensive stance gives you -2 dice (that's 8 dice instead of 12 for our example in the beginning). In this event, he'd have to attack with at least 3 dice (one can't be more than twice as large as the other), leaving him 5 dice to defend with. That's really, really gutsy. Especially considering that, if he screws up the attack (which is possible), then his opponent will have a nice 8 dice to attack with... basically for free.

Simultaneous block/strike is NOT the be-all, end-all of "defensive" moves. Mostly, this is because it's an aggressive move.

Wolfen wrote: And again, I reiterate, and will continue to do so until Jake says otherwise, that you CANNOT declare an offensive action after throwing white unless you attempt to steal initiative. In and of itself, that is a balancing factor. You can, however, declare a simul. block/strike on any round thereafter, even if you do not have initiative. It is a risk though, becauseif you fail to block, you will almost certainly lose.. I know, I have used this technique to both good and ill effect.

Unless I am totally reading the rules wrong, Simultaneous Block and Strike can only be used when you are the aggressor. If you throw white you have to steal initiative in order to use it. As it says, offensive maneuvers are only done when you are the aggressor (red dice) and defensive only when you are the defender (white dice). This is stated pretty clearly on pages 59, 64, and 74.

Also, in the description of Simultaneous Block/Strike itself it says, "This maneuver is obviously only useful in situations where both you AND your opponent are attacking at once."

If you want to knock your opponent's weapon aside and then counter attack when you've thrown white, the maneuver to use is block open and strike.

Now, all that said, if you do throw red Sim B/S is a good maneuver, and can be lethal -- until you miss. If you've used all your dice and miss then chances are you die in the next phase. Trust me on this one, I've been playing RoS for months now and anytime someone puts too many dice into one maneuver too many times they end up dead.

BrianL wrote: Page 77 of the rulebook: "Finally, should the loser wish to attack in the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack.

Announcing one's moves goes in order from least reflex to greatest.

Thus we see the strategic importance of a high reflex.

Okay Brian, you've not proved me wrong, but simply reinforced my point. I *know* that you can opt to attack rather than defend any time during the fight, except after throwing initiative. I've done it, many times. MY only point is that it cannot be done when you've thrown white. At other times, I totally agree that it is an effective maneuver, and so we have no contention. To be perfectly clear, I will requote the passage you quoted back at you.

"Finally, should the loser wish to attack in the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack. The winner attacks and resolves damage first; if the loser has any dice left he can attack. This is a foolhardy maneuver. The second choice is to buy initiative, as per Setp 2..."

You're right about the attacl/defend raio however, although you can still do 6 block / 4 attack with 10 dice, and assuming uour opponent only attacked you with 4-6 dice, 6 blocking dice (at DTN5) would make me feel pretty safe.

Wolfen wrote:

You're right about the attacl/defend raio however, although you can still do 6 block / 4 attack with 10 dice, and assuming uour opponent only attacked you with 4-6 dice, 6 blocking dice (at DTN5) would make me feel pretty safe.

No you can't. 6 is not twice the size of 4. 6 is a safe number if your opponent is attacking with 4-6 dice and you are using a shield, but the attack of 4 is a No Go. Of course, an attack of 3 can be effective, esp. if you are using a weapon with reach issues, like I do. Any successful attack, whether or not it does damage, will get you inside their range.

I think, Brian, that ratios other than 66/33 (as long as they are not less uneven) are acceptable.

I also think that, if you simply keep playing the game (perhaps with this strategy in your mind), you will find something that can beat this strategy. It's all a big game of paper-rock-scissors. Many people just throw out scissors, and you found the rock.

The ruling I've done with sim block/strike is that it must be at least 1/2. I'm not Jake, but I'm betting that the reason the rules were written with the limitation was to force you to be very uneven: either a large commitment to offense, or one to defense.

Another interpretation, and entirely inline with the rules, is that you can only do sim block/strikes with 3, 6, 9, 12... dice.

I agree with Brian that there's a big advantage for a shield guy going second. The only counter that I've found is to attack with a lot of dice in the first exchange, and that's not perfect by any stretch. Certainly attacking with a small amount of dice is suicide - you won't get through the armor, and the other guy will get through yours.

Frankly though, I'm of the opinion that a shield/armor guy should always toss red and declare a simultaneous block/strike if double-red. I can't see one reason not to do so.

-Jeff

Jaif wrote: The ruling I've done with sim block/strike is that it must be at least 1/2. I'm not Jake, but I'm betting that the reason the rules were written with the limitation was to force you to be very uneven: either a large commitment to offense, or one to defense.

Jaif wrote: Frankly though, I'm of the opinion that a shield/armor guy should always toss red and declare a simultaneous block/strike if double-red. I can't see one reason not to do so.

Don't you mean exactly the opposite? :-)

After some thought on the topic, I decided how I personally will interpret the Simo Block/Strike dice divisions. This is my take on it, so feel free to ignore it or debate it, as you decide.

I will strictly enforce the 1/3:2/3 split. The reason I will do this is because it promotes a bit more thought on the decision. If you want a stronger attack, but want it to be the lesser of the two, you will have to bump up both of them. For instance, if you are going for a 3:6 attack:defense, but decide you would like to raise the attack number, but still keep it the lower value, you will have to raise the upper as well, for instance to 4:8. The more aggressive your attack, the stronger defense you'll have to mount to avoid being hit, or the tougher your defense, the more effort you'll need to put into the attack. It's a matter of what level you are committing to the maneuver on. It also avoids a bit of twinking by allowing a better attack for a lower level of commitment. (4:6 or 5:8 for example)

However, I will note that even with a very high level of commitment (say, the aforementioned 8:4 defense:offense) you risk leaving yourself open. This is how I will interpret the rule. Any flaws in my reasoning? Feel free to point them out.

BrianL wrote: It's a pity Jake's gone away actually, since I have sent him the Combat Sim v2 which I think you guys will like, there's about 20 weapons, full maneuvers etc.

I've got the sim, and I can vouch that it is very nice. I was thrilled when I saw that he'd put in arming glove, just for me. There are a few things which I still think need tweaking, but either didn't feel important enough to mention, or simply forgot, but overall, it is a very, very nice program. I can see that it will be very useful in trying out strategies and techniques. Only major problem I have is attempting to play both combatants to their full capability by myself. Once he gets the link-capability up and running, this will be an unparalleled piece of software... Get it while it's free, folks.

Wolfen wrote: I've got the sim, and I can vouch that it is very nice. I was thrilled when I saw that he'd put in arming glove, just for me. There are a few things which I still think need tweaking, but either didn't feel important enough to mention, or simply forgot, but overall, it is a very, very nice program. I can see that it will be very useful in trying out strategies and techniques. Only major problem I have is attempting to play both combatants to their full capability by myself. Once he gets the link-capability up and running, this will be an unparalleled piece of software... Get it while it's free, folks.

BrianL wrote:
As for link capabilities.. hmm.. that's going to be a tricky one. The most likely thing that'll happen is that V3 will have a computer AI for you to fight against, and then V4 will have the matchmaking/link to other human players across IP feature.

Furious D wrote: Pick up the DirectX SDK from Microsoft and use their DirectPlay. Most of the work is done already. If you've used a Microsoft SDK before, it's actually quite a bit easier than writing a challenging AI

BrianL wrote: I've done all the fixes you *did* mention. Anything else can be tweaked while I wont on V3, so let me know whenever.

BrianL wrote:

Actually, the IP linking isn't that hard, it's the redesign of the combat sim (which is 17,000 lines of code) to accommodate it that takes a lot of work :-)

Brand_Robins wrote:

BrianL wrote: I've done all the fixes you *did* mention. Anything else can be tweaked while I wont on V3, so let me know whenever.

Gah! I can't wait for Jake to get back. I must have this now! Please, please, please!?

Furious D wrote:

BrianL wrote:

Actually, the IP linking isn't that hard, it's the redesign of the combat sim (which is 17,000 lines of code) to accommodate it that takes a lot of work :-)

Heh, I'll give you that. Hacking in stuff that wasn't an original design consideration can be a serious, serious pain. I can imagine that alot of the code which would be expedient for a single computer combat sim could be a pain for a multiplayer version.

If what I've got is the final V2, I can e-mail it out to whomever wants it, with permission from you. It doesn't cost me anything.

Wolfen wrote: If what I've got is the final V2, I can e-mail it out to whomever wants it, with permission from you. It doesn't cost me anything.

BrianL wrote: Get that guys - ask Wolfen for a copy, Get it from Wolfen (in 24 hours),

Brand_Robins wrote:
You guys both rule.