Newbie Questions

[Green]

Thanks a lot. As your "5 casualties on average" example demonstrates, the different methods of firing (if they're actually in use by the engine!) can lead to significant differences (for the chance to force a morale check on the target). In your example, letting units fire individually had a 7.6% greater chance (57.8%) to force a morale check on the target than letting the same units fire in a combined manner (50%). 

Then again, you'd probably also have to consider that if, e.g. 3 units fire individually, there are 3 randomization rolls/processes (random number between cv*low/high threshold), rather than just one? In other words, the result of a 3x "combined fire" would be more random than the result of 3x "individual fire".

As far as I can tell, there is only one Morale Check for an attack, whether by a single unit or a group. If this was not the case then an attack by a group could result in multiple checks and multiple failures. I do not recall seeing an attack that caused a unit to become Broken when it was not already Disrupted. But obviously you can achieve this by attacking multiple times with single units.

The only other explanation I can think of would be that there are multiple checks but the effects are not cumulative. In other words if there were multiple checks that gave one or more Disruption results then the the unit simply becomes Disrupted.

But the key thing, regardless how the engine does it calculations, is that firing individually results in additional chances to cause a Morale Check. When the casualties are higher than the example I gave of 5 men, then this becomes more pronounced.

The issue of whether the losses are more random when firing as a group does depend on how the engine does it calculations. A combined combat calculation would result in a more variable result, as you say, but they difference would not normally be great. Anyway, more variable is not necessarily bad. Depends if you are feeling lucky!