What you haven’t made clear is
a) how do I make the compromise less nasty by doing something other than Attack?
b) how do I make the compromise less nasty if my opponent is doing Attack non-stop?
It seems like, dice being equal, the best course to achieve the best chance of winning, the least compromise offered to your enemy and the most compromise from your enemy should you lose is Attack, Attack, Attack.
Manuever also seems much too weak. Disarm sounds cool but can take a long time to add up to worthwhile. The other aspects are basically trading one success now for +1 die next action. +1s is worth about +2D though, so that’s a bad trade in general.
Attack v Defend - Basically a dice-off, but there are some structural factors favoring Attack: disposition can’t go over starting, so Defend can waste successes early on, and Defend can’t make progress so repeatedly Defending gets you nowhere. (And worse, it’ll just get you hit with a Feint if you’re predictable about it.)
Attack v Feint - Attack wins, 100%
Attack v Manuever - Basically a dice-off, but successes of Manuever are basically half the value of successes of Attack. Disarm is the exception, with disarming using a knife being the only way I see to actually come out ahead. Obviously repeated Manuevers doesn’t get you anywhere, but it seems like using Manuever to set up another action should be more effective than taking that other action twice, and it’s not clear it is (especially not dice being equal).
So Defend loses to attack by a small margin, manuever by about 1/2 the margin of success, and Feint outright. Nothing beats it.
Feint v Attack - 100% fail.
Feint v Defend - 100% success.
Feint v Manuever - Dice-off, but see Attack v Manuever.
Feint is clearly risky, but the rewards about match the benefits… if the enemy was equally likely to chose any given action. If the enemy does nothing but attack, however, Feint is a sucker’s game. And Defending is a sucker’s game, so Feint loses much of its value.
Defend v Attack - See attack v Defend. A dice-off, but favoring Attack structurally.
Defend v Feint - 100% lose.
Defend v Manuever - A dice-off, but each has drawbacks. If you are sufficiently low in disposition, Defend wins because each success clicks back a full point of dispo. Manuever again trades each success for 1 die next action, which is a bad trade. (But no cap, so there’s that.)
Defend basically loses all around, except that it kinda beats Manuever.
Manuever v Anything else - A dice-off, but you only get about half benefit of your margin of success.
All around a losing game.
It sure seems like Manuever needs to be greatly strengthened, Attack needs a weakness (Manuever?) and Defend needs a strength (v Manuever?). I mentioned in another thread that I’m thinking Manuever should have its dice benefit doubled (i.e. -2D or +4D next action), then v Attack the successes should both count toward manuevering and cancel Attack, while v Defend the Defend dice should both count toward regaining dispo and cancelling manuever dice. That gives every action a strong v and a weak v in a neat little circle, with an opposite action (Attack v Defend / Feint v Manuever) that is basically a dice-off. Attack is still sort-of dominant (other than Attack v Attack, you can’t reduce dispo on someone who is Attacking), but has an obvious counter. (Manuever, probably in the form of Manuever, Manuever, Attack as a counter to Attack, Attack, Attack).