(02-17-2018, 12:52 PM)Michael Murphy Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that all fractions are rounded up, not down. That would recalculate as 6, plus (5/2=2.5) which rounds up to 3, plus (10/4 = 2.5), which rounds up to 3. In short, the total equals twelve. In this example the final outcome is unchanged. Sometimes that extra factor does come in handy!
Shouldn’t we round up the total instead of rounding up each individual contribution ? This would give 11 not 12.
(02-17-2018, 09:12 PM)leonard Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2018, 12:52 PM)Michael Murphy Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that all fractions are rounded up, not down. That would recalculate as 6, plus (5/2=2.5) which rounds up to 3, plus (10/4 = 2.5), which rounds up to 3. In short, the total equals twelve. In this example the final outcome is unchanged. Sometimes that extra factor does come in handy!
Shouldn’t we round up the total instead of rounding up each individual contribution ? This would give 11 not 12.
No, Michael's correction of my post was appropriate:
Fractions: Many game functions require that numbers be halved or quartered. All fractions are rounded up by individual unit. For example, 2-1/2 becomes 3, as does 2-1/4.
4th Ed (cite)
This could be another possible change for 5th Ed.
Why? It's been that way since the first edition. I don't see any reason to change it at all. I'm not trying to be a d!ck; I just want to know why this should be changed.
Peace. Michael
(02-18-2018, 01:28 PM)Michael Murphy Wrote: [ -> ]Why? It's been that way since the first edition. I don't see any reason to change it at all. I'm not trying to be a d!ck; I just want to know why this should be changed.
Basically, most units with an odd numbered direct firepower already have some advantage since reduced platoons of the same units get more than half of the full firepower. Ex: 5-3 becomes 3-3 when reduced. Moreover having multiple such reduced units seems far better than having one full unit.
Ex: 5-3 vs 2 x 3-3 (+ 20%)
When you’re adding individual FRU, it gets worse : 5-3 disrupted (=3) vs 2 x 3-3 disrupted (=4) (+33%)
Now, if you are considering a leader (disrupted) with a 1 combat modifier, it gives : 3-3(disrupted) + leader (disrupted) = 3 ( because leader is 0.5 but upgraded to 1 FRU).
Isn’t it a bit too much ?
I believe it is a feature, however. A 5-3 is not only a 3 when disrupted but a 2 when demoralized (for assault). A 9-5 is a 5 when disrupted and a 3 when demoralized. When I compare these totals to the fire and assault tables it is easy to see that the results of disruption and demoralization are either serendipitously aligned with the columns or directly assigned to do so.
(02-19-2018, 09:09 PM)Matt W Wrote: [ -> ]I believe it is a feature, however. A 5-3 is not only a 3 when disrupted but a 2 when demoralized (for assault). A 9-5 is a 5 when disrupted and a 3 when demoralized.
That is way we play. A weird consideration is when the round-ups happen. If there is more than one reduction, say a half of a half. Usually it does not matter if you halve, then halve then round-up; as opposed to halve round-up, the halve round-up again.
I had this exact same question and the reason for the confusion is, I suspect, the line in 7.6 that specifically references the surviving unit in an attack taking an M2 test. If all units in the hex take an M2 test then the reference isn’t needed.