Review - Empire of the Ghouls (5e) - Richard Green, Wolfgang Baur, others

[Blakely]

This is why I switched my games over to milestone levelling (*audible gasps*) - I know it's "infamnia" to do so among this crowd, but it honestly makes for healthier game play at my table. As a result there's no muderhobos, no squeezing every drop of gold out of a hole, and no combat for the sake of combat... and as a plus, I don't have to budget for XP or do a bunch of post-battle tabulations, which is a win-win. Another bonus: it helps me control the pace of power creep. My players simply level up when I've decided they've done enough to level up - not difficult to implement at all (easier than using the default, actually).

I've found that when you detach players from the addiction of XP gathering, you make room for more interesting things to develop. They end up chasing their whims rather than hunting for gold or kills, which uncoincidentally makes for a more immersive campaign (because they are acting as actual characters, and not as min-maxed monster-killing/gold-collecting machines). It doesn't suit all game types - some folk need that high of XP collecting to keep their interest in a game going (which is a thought that depresses me) - but milestone XP sure suits mine.

The reason I don't milestone is that a lot of characters die (like 0 hp = dead). A player makes a new character, but there has to be a consequence for dying because it's a game. My consequence is to start their new character at a lower level than the ones who didn't die. If I milestone, the new characters can never catch up unless I give them more than one level at a time.

I think my negative feelings about 5E and the mindset that often accompanies it has driven me to this punishing style of play. Possibly too much so. Idk, I haven't playtested the rules I'm writing yet, so all this stuff is still on the table for me, but I think I'm going to be XP for killing (or parleying with, sneaking past, etc.) monsters, saving NPCs, solving quests, finding new locations, finding quest items, etc.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

That's a little anal, but if you're just arbitrarily deciding when people are ready to level up, you've gone to the opposite extreme and robbed the players of agency by rendering the rules of the game opaque to them.

I disagree, because agency is about the freedom to make decisions. When detached from the grind that is XP, players have more decisions to make, not less. They don't just bee-line for whatever gets them XP, and the common complaint that grogs have against non-gold-for-XP systems incentivizing combat too much evaporates entirely.

In essence, I exchange one goal (get XP) for many goals (players are free to chase whatever they want, regardless of the XP reward). If players really want something to track, well, that's what gold is for, except now they even get to set their own goals for gold (one guy wants to buy a warhorse, another wants to fund a rebellion, another wants to buy a wizard tower, etc.).

The reason I don't milestone is that a lot of characters die (like 0 hp = dead). A player makes a new character, but there has to be a consequence for dying because it's a game. My consequence is to start their new character at a lower level than the ones who didn't die. If I milestone, the new characters can never catch up unless I give them more than one level at a time.

The consequence for death is that the character's story ends. Yes, they can be revived (at penalties and expense), but ultimately a player wants to see their character grow in power and become something great, and death squashes that dream. Believe it or not, a lot of folk playing modern D&D aren't playing "Sam the Swordsman" or "Generic the Cleric"; they have characters which they make plans for and develop over time, so they avoid death because it ends their run.

If you think of it in videogame terms: XP setbacks for death is like dying in an FPS and restarting the level with a pistol - it's tougher and sucks, but you're still where you were in the overall story of the game. Dying in a milestone game is like having to play an entirely new game from the start, although you might get to keep the weapons you had (DM-dependent).

 

[Beoric]

The reason I don't milestone is that a lot of characters die (like 0 hp = dead). A player makes a new character, but there has to be a consequence for dying because it's a game. My consequence is to start their new character at a lower level than the ones who didn't die. If I milestone, the new characters can never catch up unless I give them more than one level at a time.

One of the things I've had to adapt to in playing 4e in an older style, is the way XPs work if you have characters lower than the average party level. With earlier editions, the way XP requirements scaled for level increases made it possible for new characters to catch up, at least until you hit "name" level. So if you take two 1e clerics in a party who have reached 4th level at 6,001 XP, and one dies and the player starts again as a 1st level cleric, by the time the older cleric gains 7,000 XP to reach 5th level, the new cleric who was adventuring with the party and also gained 7,000 XP is now 4th level. And he will reach 5th before the older one reaches 6th.

XP progression in later edition games follow a much flatter trajectory, so new characters started at 1st will never catch up. My fix is to award double XP to characters that are below average party level until they catch up (with the odd adjustment to make sure that doubling doesn't give them more total XPs than the old characters have). And if a character is above average party level, I cut awarded XP in half.

I don't use milestones for the same reason you don't, but also I prefer to award XP in a more granular way, so players know what they are getting XP for. So awarding XP for achieving goals may superficially look like milestoning, but the goals are smaller - often encounter sized - and can change more than once before the PCs are able to level. So "hold the bridge" is an encounter goal, and probably not the overall goal for the module. And the players can set their own goals.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think my negative feelings about 5E and the mindset that often accompanies it has driven me to this punishing style of play.

I'm of the mind that there are two types of folk who play roleplaying games, and neither is better or worse, just different.

There's the ones who play roleplaying games, and there's the ones who play roleplaying games.

The former are more in your camp; players who play against the DM. The DM is a creator of obstacles, the players are the overcomer of obstacles, and the overcoming of obstacles is the game.

The latter are more in my camp; players who play with the DM. The DM builds the world, the players alter the world, and playing around in the world is the game.

I think this is probably the biggest shift between old and new school mindset, because D&D started more as a game (one built off traditional tactical games like Chainmail and Braunstein and what have you), and only later was fleshed out into a roleplaying game focused on singular character perspective (by literally inventing the genre).

They're different at this point, which is why we see people put so much emphasis on separating OSR D&D from mainstream D&D whenever they can.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I don't use milestones for the same reason you don't, but also I prefer to award XP in a more granular way, so players know what they are getting XP for. So awarding XP for achieving goals may superficially look like milestoning, but the goals are smaller - often encounter sized - and can change more than once before the PCs are able to level. So "hold the bridge" is an encounter goal, and probably not the overall goal for the module. And the players can set their own goals.

I used to do the same thing in 3e, and I don't think it's a bad thing. And although I listed a series of advantages by using milestone levelling, honestly the main reason I do it now is because my players asked for it. They just plain don't like the hassle of tracking all those numbers, and outright requested at the start of my more recent campaigns that we stop using XP. So I did stop. Just so happens that there's a lot of other little benefits that come along with it.

Ultimately, the best decision is the one that's best for your group, because RPGs are a group game and the DM is only another form of player in said game.

 

[Beoric]

I disagree, because agency is about the freedom to make decisions.

Agency is about the freedom to make informed decisions. Usually with inadequate information, but players can also take steps to try to get more information. I would have more use for milestoning if the milestones were for XPs, not levels, so players get a more granular sense of progression. It also allows players to set the direction of a campaign by making choices that aren't necessarily moving toward the milestone that you have set.

Using milestones incentivizes the DM to push the players in a different direction, and incentivizing the players to figure out which direction you want them to go. So you aren't really liberating the players to "chase whatever they want", you have locked them into particular goals. That or you let them do what they want, but you also then choose the milestones arbitrarily, which is not more neutral.

[H]onestly the main reason I do it now is because my players asked for it. They just plain don't like the hassle of tracking all those numbers, and outright requested at the start of my more recent campaigns that we stop using XP. So I did stop.

Fair enough.

This conversation reminded me that the framework I use for my VTT has an option to add up XPs for all the NPC/monster tokens that were killed, and distribute them among the surviving PC tokens. I should really see if I can tweak it to include goal XPs, and maybe automatically increase the token's level, so the players don't need to track much of anything.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Agency is about the freedom to make informed decisions. Usually with inadequate information, but players can also take steps to try to get more information. I would have more use for milestoning if the milestones were for XPs, not levels, so players get a more granular sense of progression. It also allows players to set the direction of a campaign by making choices that aren't necessarily moving toward the milestone that you have set.

Using milestones incentivizes the DM to push the players in a different direction, and incentivizing the players to figure out which direction you want them to go.

Agency, by dictionary definition of the term, simply means having the capacity to act in a situation with a desired outcome (informed or uninformed). If you know exactly what you'd do to get revenge on the Duke who defeated you, it means nothing if you're bound and gagged in his inescapable oubliette; there's no agency because no action can be taken, regardless of how many plans are generated. Plot railroads don't remove player agency just because the players are uninformed of the plot; it removes player agency by giving the players no other choice but to follow the singular plot.

XP is good at guiding the players to more XP. If the DM in an XP game wants to remove player agency, all he has to do is say "doing that will award you no XP", and the players generally won't do it. By removing that sole XP motivator of the game, and allowing players to generate their own character-based motivations, you do in fact give them more agency. They set their own goals, choose their direction based on those goals, and act according to whatever they believe would be most successful to achieving those goals. However, if you say "you need to get XP to advance in the game", then you are ipso facto setting their goals for them, which in turns robs their ability to act in their own way, and so robs them of their agency.

To you secondary statement, the possibility exists of that happening, sure, but it's on the DM making a bad decision to run the game that way, not on anything inherent to a milestone levelling game. The DM pushing players to different directions is entirely a choice of the DM to make, and I'm of the mind that a good DM should only hint at directions, not state them outright.

 

[Beoric]

Uh huh. "You find yourself in an area that is entirely white. The ground is white, the sky, if there is one, is white. Every direction you look in is white. You can see no distinguishing landmarks in any direction, nor can you detect anything with any of your other four senses. What do you do?"

It is possible that the dictionary definition of "agency" is not sufficient for an RPG context. If you have no means distinguishing between choices, they are no choices at all. You think the above example is absurd? Consider if you are exploring a dungeon and a teleport trap drops you in the middle of a four-way intersection, with nothing to distinguish any of them. Choosing one at random is not a meaningful exercise of agency, because you have no way of knowing how, or even if, one choice is different from another. Arguably you have a choice between taking a random path and just sitting in the intersection forever, but assuming you have found no way to reverse the teleport or otherwise change your situation, the choice between picking another branch and simply sitting there until you die of thirst also isn't much of a choice.

Hopefully the random branch you chose will resolve into something you can more meaningfully interact with, and then you can start making interesting choices. In fact, as a player you may choose to travel until the branch reveals something about itself, and then you can go back to the intersection and choose another branch to see if it reveals something different, and then you have some basis, however small, to distinguish the choices. But if the path you chose prevents you from backtracking, then you really never had a meaningful choice at all. For all you know, the DM might have put the same obstacle in front of you regardless of which branch you chose. And I know you do this, because you have told me you do this, in so many words.

The nice thing about most dungeons is that you generally don't have to go far from an intersection to get to more interesting choices, which bring to mind something Bryce used to complain about a lot: symmetrical dungeons.

But even if you want to stick to your semantic argument about the meaning of "agency" in RPGs, uninformed choices are not interesting. The players are not engaging their faculties to try to distinguish among the available choices. And players will try to find an edge, and if there isn't one apparent in-World, they are going to look to the DM's metagame. My metagame is relatively transparent. Your metagame is relatively opaque, mostly because you won't admit that you have one.

You always tell us about your skill as a DM, and your impartiality, and how you follow the players' lead, and that is not nearly as true as you think it is. You have a bias, the fact that you regularly advocate in favour of quantum ogres shows that you have a bias - in that instance, a bias towards making certain encounters happen - and it is very likely that your players have some idea of what your biases are. Since you deny having any biases, it is likely they know your biases better than you do. And make no mistake, if the players aren't getting enough information in-World, and if your metagame isn't transparent, your players are going to game you. They aren't going to make choices they think you will invalidate (I don't beleive that your players don't know you use quantum ogres), and they likely have a sense of what kinds of games you like to run.

And you can't have a bias-free approach, you are always stressing how you improvise everything, except quantum ogres I guess, and there is no way you can run a game as fast and loose and fiat-heavy as you say you do without your biases creeping into your game. If you remove all the game elements that are designed to mitigate DM bias - reaction checks, morale, defined timekeeping and random events like random monster checks linked to that timekeeping, no to mention non-quantum ogres - then it is pretty much a guarantee that there will be bias creeping into your game. And the thing about bias is it leads to consistent and predictable decisions, which your players will absolutely recognize.

And I'm sorry that this went a bit personal, but you kind of personalize it whenever you take a position that relies on your superior qualities as a DM to support it. Like, whenever your argument boils down to "these things don't happen because a good DM doesn't let them" there is just no way to argue with you without poking holes in what a "good DM" is capable of. And everyone here knows that the "ur-good DM" is meant to be you. Plus I'm not letting you "acktshually the dictionary definition is ..." at me, that shit is weak.

 

[The1True]

If I milestone, the new characters can never catch up unless I give them more than one level at a time.

Sorry, trying to understand this: So, are you creating new characters immediately and working them into the game as soon as they're rolled up? Which would mean that they get less or no experience when it's rewarded so now they might be TWO levels lower?
Could they just play one of the henchmen until the party gets back to civilization and trains etc. at which point the player could roll up a new character one level lower than the new party average?

This leads to another question. Are you awarding different experience to each character? My group quit doing this after fights broke out between players over Thieves cashing in tons of stolen loot for extra XP, and support builds got sick of watching the tanks and cannons collect all the monster XP.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Uh huh.

The Forum is being a bitch again today, I will post a proper reply when I get home.

 

[Blakely]

Sorry, trying to understand this: So, are you creating new characters immediately and working them into the game as soon as they're rolled up? Which would mean that they get less or no experience when it's rewarded so now they might be TWO levels lower?
Could they just play one of the henchmen until the party gets back to civilization and trains etc. at which point the player could roll up a new character one level lower than the new party average?

This leads to another question. Are you awarding different experience to each character? My group quit doing this after fights broke out between players over Thieves cashing in tons of stolen loot for extra XP, and support builds got sick of watching the tanks and cannons collect all the monster XP.

I have the player with a dead character roll up a character a level below the group average and work them into the game. Not sure what you mean about them being two levels lower. They do start getting XP after joining the group. I've never had a player request to play an NPC who's already with them, but I would be good with it. They will level faster so they close the gap, but it's at least a consequence of dying. No, I split XP evenly. If they have (unpaid) NPCs with them, I divide them into it to and let them level up when they can.

Re henchman: I'm trying to decide if it actually makes sense to divide henchman into XP rewards. I think DMG says count henchmen as half a person each. But, since I don't do gold for XP, and the gold is used to pay the henchman, then the labors of the henchmen are actually the fruits of the PCs' treasure. What do you think about henchman affecting XP in a non-Gold-for-XP game?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

@Beoric

Nope, forum is still being a piece of shit, won't let me post a proper detailed response. Short form:

White room example is flawed - it is a void, we both agree there is no agency to be found there, by either of our definition. 4-way corridor example still demonstrates agency, because it doesn't restrict the player's actions (they can rest, mark with chalk, backtrack, etc.). Uninformed as they may be when choosing said action, they are nevertheless free to choose an approach, which is the literal definition of the term "agency". I know you are trying to convey that giving players information to make better choices is important - I am not denying that fact. But what I am denying is that it does not constitute the definition of "agency", at least in the literal sense.

I use myself as an example DM because it's what I know best. I'm not trying to convert people or shame people who do different; I use the terms "good DMing" and "bad DMing" to indicate "effective proven practice" and "janky problematic practice" respectively, it's not meant in shaming way. Impartiality is a separate metric which fluctuates according to the group's dynamics, and it works for us.

My issue with Quantum Ogres stems mainly from the janky way in which it's been originally defined - I see it as meaning nebulous unsolidified information floating in my mind that only crystallizes into a tangible thing when the party interacts with it, the way that things in quantum state can only be observed/measured when the quantum waveform collapses. I have no problem with that premise because my encounter ideas only become real when the party encounters them, so shifting an idea down the line is not a sin in my eyes. Quantum Ogres are just ideas until they are encountered, at which point they just become Ogres, not ideas. Hearing an Ogre and choosing to go another way but encountering it anyway is not what I'd call a QO, because in hearing the Ogre, you've effectively made it tangible and thus "collapsed the quantum waveform". It also works with an improvisational game style, because ideas are improvised. Again though, this is merely my gripe with the way the term was originally defined, because I find that definition inaccurate to the term "quantum".

As to my players "gaming me", I don't know what to tell you - my players respect me and our game enough not to pull those kind of shennanigans. If "agency bias" is something the comes up in your games, that's something to get sorted with your group. But I know for a fact that it's not a universal trait inherent to agency, or a lack thereof. It's a personal choice made by the player.

 

[Beoric]

What do you think about henchman affecting XP in a non-Gold-for-XP game?

If you mean it is an XP for combat game, I think the presence of henchmen affects the difficulty of the combat, even if it is just acting as a distraction, or being another target. It's an easier fight for the PCs, so it should be less XP for the PCs. You could argue that the henchmen should get a smaller share of XPs, but from the standpoint of the henchmen, at any rate, they are at much greater risk than the PCs.

If it's XP for something else, I think it depends on whether the henchmen materially contribute to the gaining of XP.

Here's the language in the 1e DMG (p. 85):

Example: A party of 12 characters encounters monsters; in the ensuing battle all characters fight, 2 are slain, and the x.p. for monsters killed total 4,300, so each survivor gains 430 — adjusted for difficulty and for being actual player characters or halved for henchman characters.

My read on that is the henchman takes an equal share out of the XP pool (430), but only benefits from half of it (215). So a henchman counts as a full person for the purposes of dividing XP, but only half a person for the purposes of gaining XP.

Not really fair from the henchman's point of view, but likely necessary if you to prevent the henchman from catching up to the PCs in level, which is what would happen otherwise in a game that uses early edition level progression. Assuming you don't want them to catch up.

 

[Blakely]

If you mean it is an XP for combat game, I think the presence of henchmen affects the difficulty of the combat, even if it is just acting as a distraction, or being another target. It's an easier fight for the PCs, so it should be less XP for the PCs. You could argue that the henchmen should get a smaller share of XPs, but from the standpoint of the henchmen, at any rate, they are at much greater risk than the PCs.

What you're saying makes sense, and I think that's the way almost everyone does it. But there's possibly another way to look at it: (Keep in mind I'm doing XP for winning combat, avoiding combat, solving quests, finding new locations, finding quest items, rescuing prisoners, etc.)

The players risk their lives and resources and discover a treasure hoard. They use the treasure to hire henchmen who help them win combat more easily. The henchmen get a share of the XP because they affected the difficulty of the combat. Another group of players finds a treasure hoard and uses it to buy magic items that will help them win combat more easily. They keep all shares of the XP. Thus, the rules are encouraging buying magic items over hiring henchmen to achieve a similar goal. Do you think I'm looking at it the wrong way? I'm rewriting the rules for my own games, and I'm really trying to examine everything I can before playtesting, so I'm really looking for some advice.

 

[Ineffective Voulging]

If you want the players to have henchmen then give henchmen a half a share of xp.

If you dont want players to have henchmen then give henchmen a full share but rhen they flush half of the xp down the toilet

 

[Beoric]

Thus, the rules are encouraging buying magic items over hiring henchmen to achieve a similar goal.

Well, being able to buy magic items is a significant divergence from the assumptions of early edition rules, so they might not be the best model. If magic items do the same job as henchmen, and magic items are cheaper/less hassle, the net effect is to discourage the use of henchmen.

How you resolve that depends on what role you and/or your players want henchmen to play in a game. I you want them to be cash and XP neutral, and you don't want to discourage their use, you could lean into the things that henchmen can do and items can't. For example, if you drop in combat, your healing potion isn't going to hop out of your belt pouch and administer itself to you. Your +2 sword isn't going to have contacts in the local thieves' guild. Your magic helm won't put itself in danger to rescue you. Your magic shield isn't capable of independent action.

I guess what I'm saying is, items will only be the point of comparison if henchmen are treated like items. There are mechanical ways of differentiating them (e.g. making them cheaper), but also non-mechanical ways of making them more appealing.

The ally-as-item thing is done expressly in 4e, although probably by accident. Things like familiars, a ranger's animal companion, and mounts, are treated the same as figurines of wondrous power; they can't act on their own, they can only do something if you tell them to, and they share the same action economy as their wielder/master. As a rule, on your turn you can attack, or your animal companion or mount can attack, but not both. So these get no share of experience.

An NPC ally is statted like a "standard" monster (much simpler and more fragile than a PC), and can act independently. I'm not sure is this is the official rule, although I am sure I have seen it somewhere, but the rule I use is to subtract the NPC's XP value from the XP pool of team monster. So a level 2 monster worth 125 XP is effectively cancelled out by a level 2 ally of the PC's worth 125 XP. Not an item, can act interdependently, rarely lasts more than two combat encounters without dying or being so banged up they pretty much have to withdraw from future battles for the day, doesn't get a share of XP or treasure and can't gain in levels, but reduces the available XP for the fight because it makes the fight easier. And mechanically, PC allies are way more useful than magic items.

A third mechanic is the "companion character", which is more or less statted like a monster, but is much more durable and can probably get through an adventuring day without dying. A companion character can act independently. Per the rules, companion characters do not expect to receive treasure (and actually can't benefit from a lot of magic items - note this makes their use much more appealing to players). They get an equal share of the XPs and can gain levels at the same rate as PCs. But a 6th level companion character will never be as powerful or versatile as a 6th level PC, so like the 1e henchman they are not an efficient use of XPs, and will forever be less powerful than their PC patron. For the player, their PC doesn't level as quickly but ends up with more treasure than they would otherwise have for their level.

(A nice thing about companion characters is they don't have to be sentient humanoids. I could make a warhorse companion character which is more durable than regular warhorses, levels with you (well, probably not quite unless you are taking it into dungeons so it can share all XP), can act independently and (with a slight rules tweak) can attack in the same round you do. The same goes for a hunting dog, guard drake, etc.)

I think for me, the ultimate question is: why should PCs get the same XP for a fight made easier, not by their actions or clever planning, but because of the actions of others?

 

[Ineffective Voulging]

they dont get the same rewards, because the xp is split between more heads

Henches and allies get a share of xp and treasure

Basic Hirelings are a low level phenomenon and eat money

Animal companions are cozy bullshit.

 

[Blakely]

Ok thanks guys. Seems like the right mechanic is pretty obvious. Give henchmen 1/2 XP. Only take that 1/2 share from the group. You have to give them XP or a party with gold could hire a small army.

What I was overlooking is that henchmen are way cheaper than magic items. So there's no comparison.

 

[Blakely]

Now I'm looking at retainers' morale, or monsters' morale for that matter. I don't like tables that have to be looked up during the game, which is one of my problems with ad&d. I think 5e uses a wisdom check, which doesn't make sense either. Is it wise or unwise to keep fighting when things start going badly?

I never played Lamentations, but I've looked at the rules. It's simpler but seems like creating the morale score is arbitrary. If I'm reading it right, it's a random number between 2-12. Then you roll 2d6 and adjust it to fit the situation. If your roll is higher than the morale score, they flee.

It seems like ideally, if there is a base morale score for retainers or groups of monsters, it should be modified by an ability. Maybe wisdom, maybe intelligence, maybe charisma? Then it makes sense that the situational modifier would be based on the charisma of the PC who hired them or the party leader (or the leader of the monster group).

 

[Beoric]

Animal companions are cozy bullshit.

Yeah, not old school like find familiar. Or animal friendship. Or charm monster. Or a paladin's warhorse. Or a ranger's black bear, brown bear or lynx followers. Or the druid Jaroo's black bear bear in The Village of Hommlet. There is practically no precedent.

Now I'm looking at retainers' morale, or monsters' morale for that matter. I don't like tables that have to be looked up during the game, which is one of my problems with ad&d. I think 5e uses a wisdom check, which doesn't make sense either. Is it wise or unwise to keep fighting when things start going badly?

I never played Lamentations, but I've looked at the rules. It's simpler but seems like creating the morale score is arbitrary. If I'm reading it right, it's a random number between 2-12. Then you roll 2d6 and adjust it to fit the situation. If your roll is higher than the morale score, they flee.

It seems like ideally, if there is a base morale score for retainers or groups of monsters, it should be modified by an ability. Maybe wisdom, maybe intelligence, maybe charisma? Then it makes sense that the situational modifier would be based on the charisma of the PC who hired them or the party leader (or the leader of the monster group).

If it is a loyalty issue, I would have the employer make a charisma-based check. If it is a morale issue, in 5e (which I admittedly don't know that well) I think I would use a wisdom save, because wisdom seems to be a proxy for willpower, i.e. the guts to stand and fight. Or if you don't like that, make some other check, and use wisdom as a bonus or penalty, depending on whether it would be wise or foolish to continue fighting.

I have added "cohesion" to my loyalty/morale tables. Loyalty is owed to the employer, morale is a measure of the will to fight, and cohesion is what the retainers each feels they owe to the others, and determines what happens in the event of a loyalty or morale failure. Do they flee in panic, every man to himself? Or do they ignore orders, but fall back in an orderly fashion while protecting each other? Theoretically cohesion could also affect unit effectiveness during combat, but I haven't really worked on that yet.