|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 22, 2011 12:52:44 GMT -9
Hello all you ERA WARRIORS! I have been doing my playtesting and I have came across some interesting problems. I have considered some solutions, but I thought I would take this opportunity to get some thoughts from you. OK. I have put myself in a hucklebuck (That is a "fix", a "mess" for Parduz). I am trying to include ALL options for EVERY and ANY type of weapon there is out there. This isn't the issue, the problem is I can across a particular situation, and I am not sure how to handle that. Here's the situation. I have come across more than one occassion where a squad of warriors fire off several shots. I am not talking about 5 or ten... I am talking about 60! Now, I have a friend that we will call "Auzzer." His thoughts are that you have to roll ALL 60 rolls, and then roll EVERY save. I have found that about 2/3 of each attack hits, and then half of those hits generate damage. Now, if I were to have to fire of 60 shots, then I figure 40 of those would hit, and then the defender would have to roll 40 saves, and 20 of those would go through. Now these numbers are a little steep. We'll cut it down (although in the case of Tommygun's ABC Warriors, this has happened MORE than once). Let's say that we have a squad of 5 soldiers firing off a barrage of sub-machine gun fire. Now, if they DON'T move they can fire twice. So, 3 sub-machine guns firing twice is 6 shots. For every "6" rolled, that adds one hit. Let's say I roll a straight (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). If the shots were at medium range, then any rolls 4 or higher hit. In this case, the 4 and 5 would make one hit, and the 6 would generate two. So you are looking at 4 hits that must have saves made against it. Now, assuming that the target is wearing traditional non-powered armor, then they will need a save of 4+ to save. Out of four saves, at 4+, we'll say two save. That means that two soldiers are dead. That isn't too hard to follow. Now, if each soldier had three SMG's on each gauntlet (which I call "Cluster Weapons") in the same example, they would fire 6x the shots. Assuming that the results were the same, then you now have 36 hits (assuming that there were exaactly the same results). I don't know about YOU, but I don't want to roll 60 dice to hit, NOR do I want to have to spend 10 minutes resolving the hits. Then to have the target roll 18 saves, really eats up time. Here is my thought. If there were a way to round off the numbers, it could speed things up. I was thinking that in the case of a large number of shots, you simply assign a certain number of hits per volley. So we'll say, that for each 4 hits scored, 1/4 of them scare a hit and the save automatically fails. So, if you score 20 hits, then you remove 5 wounds (1/4) of the targets. I call this "Mega Damage" (or something similar). What do you think? Does it sound fair? If you were playing a game, would you agree with that rule? Let me know. (Or if you think every attack and every save should be rolled). I am anxious to hear your feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Dec 22, 2011 13:39:45 GMT -9
I think i have understood almost everything (uh.... prepare for a big snow storm!) but not what you're simulating: - suppression fire? so the air is saturated by lead but no one is precisely aiming at an enemy - Unlucky Ambush? So the targer are just outnumbered by a whole lot of enemies which are precisely aiming at the targets?
Just to get the picture, then i'd slowly go thru the math.
- edit - Are you "tied" to d6? Or you can use other kind of dice, like d10 or d20?
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Dec 22, 2011 18:52:16 GMT -9
At first I was with you but I tried to do the math and the more I looked at it the more uncertain I became. Then I started googling "dice probability" and found some sites that seemed to reinforce the uncertainty. Then I opened my dice box. Turns out I own 41 d6s So I rolled 40 of them. I rolled 12 6s and 18 4s & 5s Boom baby! ;D that means 42 hits! So I rolled ALL my d6s (and re-rolled one) and 24 out of 42 made the save for a total of 18 wounds. Note that the saves were a bit above average but it didn't make up for the awesomeness of the attack. I think your "take the average" method would result in 10 wounds and I'm thinking the difference of eight wounds could be significant in your game. Now I grant you 40 is not 60 and somewhere the average is going to assert itself but I'm thinking the "6 means 2 hits" really adds to the uncertainty. Also, even if you use average for the hits; there are so few "saves" that you really should do those rolls. BTW if you have enough dice on hand it doesn't take too long to sort them into miss, hit, double or save/fail. Sorry dude.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Dec 22, 2011 19:15:18 GMT -9
Did a few more rolls of 42 dice (found one more). One was 19 hits and 8 saves, 11 wounds next: 41 hits (15 doubles!) and 23 saves for 18 wounds again. next: 48 hits (10 doubles) and 27 saves for 21 wounds.
It is crazy how consistently above average I am rolling (I wish I was gaming tonight!) but it goes to show how we can't rely on the "laws of probability" very much.
As my GM friend says, you can build a balanced encounter, but you still have to roll the dice.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 23, 2011 6:07:16 GMT -9
Thanks for taking the time to do that CBL.
I was only using that as an example... the odds of rolling a straight 20 times in a row is impossible odds. I was just saying...
I am kinda tied to D6. I considered the whole D20 thing, but I feel opening up other dice really takes away from what I am trying to do.
Ok. Parduz FINALLY understood something I said! Satan's building a snowman! ;D
So, to show you HOW much I value your opinion, CBL, I am officially going to abandon my thoughts on the "auto-kill" wounds. The bad thing is that every unit has 3 wounds or 5 wounds (for a squad). So, even if you have more than 5 "wounds" hit, the unit or squad is toast.
But in the case of "Auzzer," he can't come back later and say, "I coulda saved 34 wounds on my guy with level 5 (flak) armor!"
Ok. Now I have ANOTHER idea.
My game focuses on the concept of a "1" ALWAYS misses, at short range needs a "3+," medium "4+," and "5+" for long range. Now, I came up with this concept during my last playtest.
How does this sound:
Since there is a maximum range on weapons, I was considering this. In order to hit at long range you need to roll a 5+, why not extend the range BEYONG long, and say that you can fire OUTSIDE your range, and on a roll of a six, you can hit it.
Now my thoughts behind this is a Colt Delta Elite pistol has a range of, what, 600 - maybe 650 feet. In my game, pistols have a maximum range of 9 inches (12 for lasers). Now, if I were to point it up "correctly" then I would be looking at measuring ranges in FEET instead of INCHES.
Now, I am not big on "Line of Sight" weapons. Since I have given each weapon an actual long range, it made it easy to point up the weapons and make them balanced.
I like the fact that when you go to fire, you can say you are out of range. If I eliminated that, it would mean ANYONE can shoot at anything. It does make it a little more realistic.
This means that a "6" will always hit, no matter what the range.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by okumarts on Dec 23, 2011 6:26:12 GMT -9
Yes I agree that you should keep it simple. I like the elegance of 1 always missing and 6 always hitting. It makes for an awesome game moment when a six is rolled and the game table goes wild.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 23, 2011 6:49:27 GMT -9
So is that a "Yes, the 6 hits at 'extended-range?'" or "No, keep it simple and stick to the pre-set ranges."
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 23, 2011 7:16:58 GMT -9
Generally I’d say, leave weapons so that they are only effective within their range. Especially if you are planning to use some kind of odds based, I don’t have to make a roll mechanic (rolling 60 dice and getting 10 auto hits at any range, even in the first round of combat) might really change the strategy of your game.
It doesn’t necessarily make for extra simplicity, but that might be the kind of thing to keep for a special ability. Something like Sniper: this unit can fire at targets that are beyond extreme range, hitting only on a natural 6.
As for the avoiding rolling a ton of dice and relying on the “odds” to figure out the results. I am usually leery of such things. I like to trust my dice to save my rear or decimate my foes; it makes for more dramatic situations. Though there are others that take the exact opposite view. I had several play testers for ITF lament that they had put themselves in a position to roll like 17 dice (which is quite a few for ITF) and flubbed the roll. They wanted a way to cash in dice for hits to ensure their big attack at least bore some fruit.
This isn’t necessarily bad, but I would caution you that it may change the nature of your game. By having the “auto-odds” stand in for dice rolls you may generate a viable strategy in using the odds instead of rolling dice. It may be that by getting rid of the die rolls you have players that decide that the best way to win is to put themselves in the position to roll as few dice as possible (in order to fully embrace the odds).
Once again this isn’t necessarily bad, but it does provide a different flavor for the game. I have a player that hates dice. He feels like he is the best tactician in the world (which may or may not be the case) but his dice always ruin it (like burning 20 armies in risk to take the one lonely troop who just always seems to roll a 6). He loves options where he can count on a specific number and never roll. Me, I like the dice. Why can’t my one lonely troop who can always roll a six be the most elite luckiest troops in my army (like “300,” Rasczak’s Roughnecks, etc.).
Anyway there is my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Dec 23, 2011 7:28:20 GMT -9
I once tried to design a realistic SWAT-like game. The scale was so little (an house often was the whole map) that i thought that the details should be very high, so i tried to put the real weapons differences in game terms. It is a died project, but i learn that weapons have a "deadly range": over that range, admitted that you can still hit the target, more often than not you'll not score anything useful, from a tactical point of view. So, while at some scale an assault rifle may hit anything, small arms often are useful under 25m.
What i want to say is that your "ranges" should be a representation of the effectiveness of a weapon (so a mix of bullet speed + caliber + accuracy + handling + MOA + max. shot distance), not just how far a bullet can travel.
|
|
|
Post by okumarts on Dec 23, 2011 7:38:19 GMT -9
Yes as in 1 is always a miss and 6 is always a hit.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 23, 2011 9:02:22 GMT -9
Great! Thanks again for your input! Sammo, You really have a feel for what I am going for! (Are you reading my notes?) I had planned if I went this route that a "marksman/sniper" would have extended range hit on a "5+" instead of just a "6". I actually just considered this... instead of allowing ALL weapons to have an "extended range," why not just limit it to "sniper rifle." A sniper rifle is a heavy weapon, and basically has LOS. In many of the games I have designed over the years, the sniper rifles have had similar stats. I think this will work well. Afterall, the game table/battlemat the game is designed for is only 3' x 3'. (That is basically a square meter for you metric folks...) Since they are limited to Elite squads, then that works well. By making the "ability" part of the weapon, then that will allow them to also have abilities like "Recon" (similar to "Deep Strike" in that ONE game) or "Stealth." That is great! Actually, more than a "6" being JUST a hit, it also has a trigger effect. Projection cannons that hit with a "6" score hits that ignore armor saves, auto weapons (as described above) score an additional hit, and so forth. OK! I am SO glad I posted this, and am very thankful for your input. I now have all of my "technologies" covered. If you can think of it, then I have it covered (at least I think I do). Just a few more things to go, and then we are closing in on getting this puppy ready to have the rules written out! This has been invaluable info. Thanks, guys!
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 23, 2011 10:02:12 GMT -9
I also forgot to mention when a player rolls a "1" in my "Crawl" version of this game, you are out of ammo.
That is impossible to track at this scale, but in a small game, it works well.
|
|