Is this overkill on my vision mechanic?

Reducing the severity is a very hard job. I had an idea about adding up the points of reduction. Then divide it by 2 or 3 or more. I even tried 5 and 10 for simplicity. But I don't feel this is the way to go??? Right? It is in the option box.

When regarding terrain in between.
A field of snow hexagons would give an accuracy of 5/6th. It doesn't matter how many hexagons are in between. The weapon always had 5/6th.
With the reduction of range, it would now be -1 range on a distance of 5. If I use the division of 5. Thus a weapon with range 5, would only have 4 here.

A dense Forest would have -0.8 per range when the division is 5. That is still ridiculous high on a Forest planet. But one bush in a normal game, reducing the range by 1 isn't that much of a problem. Right?

***

An older approach perhaps??
In older versions, I had the player roll 5/6th for each hexagon. This was a tedious task. But the effective range would be 5 when the weapon itself had infinite range over open terrain. I often wonder if I shouldn't go back to this system. Because a lot of high d6 rolls can be combined in less d6 rolls of a lower test.
So perhaps I should return to the old ways?
No range reduction would be present.
Since the average range of that same snow world would mean 5. And the Forest world would mean 0.5.

But balancing this is still a no go. I am dealing with infinities here when looking at the numbers. The linear range reduction is.... linear. And linear is easy to balance.

Tell me if this does any good.

You consider from shooter to target.
You select the hexagon with the lowest accuracy.
This same hexagon will NOT reduce the range.

Each step is reconsidered.

The "remaining range" is multiplied by the accuracy value of the current hexagon.
And rounded upwards.
Facing a next hexagon with a remaining range of 1 means that you use 0 for the next test.

This way, countering a 0/6th hexagon will immediately halt vision as well.

***

I understand this idea.
You have an accuracy roll of just one d6.
The rest is again translated to range reduction.
But like how we did things in the old days.
Exponential, but linear at the same time perhaps.
I guess it needs testing as well.

***

As practical result on the Forests.
Again considering a Forest only planet.

The first hexagon indicates the accuracy of 2/6th. Then each additional hexagon will reduce the range by a factor 2/6th.

Let's see what a range 12 can do here.

Hexagon; Range remaining
1; 12 becomes 11. Accuracy hexagon.
2; 11 becomes 10 and then becomes 10*2/6=4
3; 4 becomes 3 and then becomes 3*2/6=1
4; 1 becomes 0. So the max range is 4 on a forest planet for a range 12 unit. With an accuracy of 2/6th.

In the previous post the last point system, this was 6.

Now again for snow.
In the previous post the last point system, this was 8.

Hexagon; Range remaining
1; 12 becomes 11. Accuracy hexagon.
2; 11 becomes 10 and then becomes 10*4/6=7
3; 7 becomes 6 and then becomes 6*4/6=4
4; 4 becomes 3 and then becomes 3*4/6=2
5; 2 becomes 1 and then becomes 4/6=1
6; 1 becomes 0. So the max range is 6 on a snow planet for a range 12 unit. With an accuracy of 4/6th.

Why do I care so much about having this correctly done?

I don't like designs that cheat.
Or are cheated against.

6/6th can have infinite range. Yet 5/6th accuracy will result in a 5 range average.

The accuracy for every region of 5/6th literally goes like this:
5/6
25/36
125/216
625/1296
3125/7776
etc.

Of course there are other regions that give 6/6. So a 5/6th weapon could reach very far.

But there are also weapons that have this 5/6th on any type of region.
The weapon can't reach that far, yet would cost more and more due to adding range.
A super expensive, super ineffective weapon.

It is unfortunate to say that even with a point system basis. Range is indirectly limited. And this limit on range is causing the unfairness of certain designs against their own.

While I am working on my point system. And I have some good idea's on how to implement this.

I also pondered about other mechanics in the game. Are they still balanced the way when I apply a point system? Should they be adjusted, integrated or remain unchanged? These are the ones which trouble me:

- Air/Ground/Sub
I am not sure. I think this mechanic will remain unchanged. The worries are if weather or not, I should integrate this in the point system.
If I do, a rocket that can hit both ground and air would be twice as expensive. This is a no go for a choice. So unchanged, which means only +33% to the weight costs.

- X-ray and Ballistics
Are to be integrated into the point system. These can't be used any more as a separate mechanic. On the other hand, it will be balanced exactly the same. Which is a good thing.

- Minimum Range
I have no idea, what to do with this one. This one can be integrated. But I am troubled by the balance and abusing of this mechanic.
The main issue is that a minimum range of 1. Would remove all points on 0 range. Of course, the weak point would be moving in to 0 distance. But due to other game mechanics, this feels not right.

I am using the doubling system 0, 2, 8 and 32.
I can only allow players to add up the points.

Determining that 16 is the answer between 8 and 32 is a bit too hard and also unlogical.

The points are altered now into 0, 1, 4 and 16. For simplicity. Players have to divide by 10 any way, since full regions count double. :)

It actually worked out all fine.

***

The most used objects in the game are forests.
Thick was 5, now 40 or 4.
Normal was 4, now 16 or a bit below 2.
Thin was 2, now 8 or a bit below 1.

The range went from:
1 to 1,
1 to 3 and
2 to 6.

The accuracy list from ranges 1 to the max range are:
2
4, 3, 1
5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1

***

I am happy with this. And rounding prices of units/buildings, is allowed within a 5%? I think, I need to make a separate topic about this.

An old hobby
We are already playing it for years. But the last year, we got too busy with life.

It developed well. We had a lot of RTS games translated to this game. And we thought of new mechanics to make things more fun, or add idea's from RTS, or make things easier.

It is a hobby game. Not meant for public. However, I do have a "public" version gathering dust and perhaps being fixed by the newer mechanics.

The public version is such simplified, that the core mechanic that makes us love the game is almost non existent. Which is a shame. I put it on the shelf for the time being.

***

Ask away
You can ask me anything about the game or my idea's. Also, what worked, didn't work or where discarded for other reasons. I think a PM would be the best approach.

***

Hobby versus Public
The calculations are sometimes indeed a bit too much. For example, the hobby version demands from players to track health. Which can go in the hundreds for the big guys. The "public" version would not have much health tracking, and an idea is there to remove it completely.

The vision mechanic is one of the oldest problems we have. We used to have a simple mechanic that used a lot of dice rolls. It showed imbalance. So we changed it in a 1 time roll.

Then it was "perfect" in balance. But not a copy from reality. We played a year or so with the 1 time roll. But decided to have a change. After all, 1 forest of 100 forests would yield the same die roll.

The "public" game has a simple yes/no situation, only mountains are in the way. And it will remain a 1 time roll. But in the public game it is a very logical reason to keep it a 1 time roll.

***

The calculation on the "fly"
True, that it takes some effort in some situations.
The main math is behind the curtains, and my job only.

But the players would see something like this:

An unit A, targets unit B. At a range of 8.
Within that range are 4 regions present that can reduce the accuracy.

The unit starts with a vision of 6, which means a 6/6th roll is needed to hit. But 6/6 is always a hit.

What does the unit see?
A forest [TT]; 2*(4+4) penalty
Only the side of a crumbled mountain [CR]; 0+16 penalty
2 snow fields, each [SS]; 2*(1+1 + 1+1)
That is a total penalty of 40. Or divided by 10 gives 4. 6-4=2. The unit needs to roll a 2/6th for a hit in this example.

Unit B decides to return fire and has the same objects in its field of vision.
However, it has infrared vision. So the snow fields don't count.
The penalty is only 32, or 3.2 subtracted from 6. Which is 2.8 but rounded means a 3/6th roll for a hit.

B has 50% more chance to hit than A. B is better, but pays more for it's weapon. The reward is better than the pay. Unless both end up in an open clear field. Then A would be better. So this way, I create a RPS system between vision and terrain.

I don't know which is faster. Rolling multiple dice, or calculation a 1 time roll. I think the latter.

But as you can see, it still has some clumsiness.

I am considering levels for penetrating debris terrain. A level 1 can only go through 1 terrain that blocks vision. (It took me a week to figure this out)

However, X-ray and Ballistic weapons (that ignore higher terrain). Once as addition to the normal weapons. Are now in the same league. Ballistics are a bit cheaper than X-ray. But both suffered from terrain effects.

I think, I did them wrong too. Ballistics can ignore terrain effects as well. Only for the target region has influence. So I need to make these more expensive, which is ok. They need to consider all range in between as effective range from the penetrating weapons.
If the terrain is one higher, the terrain has influence again.

X-ray, while not losing range. Will still be blocked by debris.

Either way, I need to re-consider penetrating weapons first, before modifying my other 2 weapon types.

But in the big overview. I now see that I am putting higher terrain in the same field as debris.
A mountain and a high terrain are different. But ballistics can ignore them both if the terrain is in between.

Factors on the weapon effectiveness will also remain. Making a normal weapon a 100% and a water weapon 20% again. But hey, that artillery torpedo sure gains a lot more weight costs when ignoring all that land in between. Which is going to be effective range by penetrating weapons instead of ballistic weapons.

Effective range doesn't work well here either. Torpedo's start low, but abuse the rules. A torpedo as normal weapon should cost the same as a normal, but is still several times cheaper. I need to stick to simply counting the total damage.

But by making use of levels. I could make it so that certain normal weapons, already can ignore certain terrain. Making it a nice round number at the range they use. If I succeed in this, the ballistics and x-ray will follow.

The down part is that each different range might get it's own system of accuracy.

Edit:
Scrap that, too much work. I need to cut more to get a decent system. Or simply start working with a different system for the weight factor. Something along the lines of the weight to the power of 2 or a sum or sumething. Thus water is 1, and normal was 5, but now 15 or even 25 or something.

Edit 2:
Another way would be, considering the factor as a one time event again. But allowing longer ranges to have more effect from the terrain in a sense of multiple weakness. This will make them cheaper. Which in turn leads me to having water weapons being a negative effective range. Which would strife players to get normal weapons. And only choose the "cheaper" ones if they are absolutely sure.

This way, water would be 60 percent instead of 20 percent. The -80% if you will, would be divided by 2 as well. Thus -40 percent.
It is still a factor though. 20% for range 0 and 1, but 2 and beyond will be +0.12 instead of the old +0.04, normal has +0.2. Air weapons will have 160% for range 0 and 1. Then +0.26 or a 30% increase per range.

Its rather complicated, finding a good weight system to allow for an "analog" game.

Air has no reduction.
It will go on forever.

A "shotgun" type has reduction on all terrain types.
The maximum range is 5.

A 'shotgun' type has reduction on all terrain types except for 1. It will go on forever, but only for 12,5%.

---

If the map is a good looking, all clear. Then 'shotgun' will be just as effective as an air weapon.

But if the map is a good looking, perfect mix of the 8 terrain types. Then 'shotgun' is almost as effective than "shotgun".

Maps are designed in such a way. That certain weapons will be as if they are air in that spot. Only the vanilla range is the limit.

---

Pretending that each terrain, is the only terrain on the map. Gives me a point system that looks very fair. But it is impossible to work with since I would need to round a lot. And these rounding will exceed 5% on a regular basis. This is a no go, because the game would be less balanced. Out of the boundaries of practical balance.

Pretending that each terrain might pop up once. And then the weapon gets a clearance. This only works for 100% obstruction. But partly obstruction would yield a lower score for all the remaining ranges. A "shotgun" could get any range, while it can't reach that far.

Making use of a maximum accuracy alongside the latter pretending. Would fix the "shotgun". But 'shotgun' has 6 flavours that each are different in effectiveness on a perfect mix map. Where the first and second are literately 100% apart.

***

Having different obstacle types will not work in a multi subtracting system. I have to single one out.
- Different obstacles.
- Multi subtracting system.

The old system (that worked) had no multi subtracting system. But it is my goal. So my last bet is removing the different obstacles. And making only one.

Which means that a yes/no is all that remains.
And the only way to make this work is to use 5/6th for every point.
Where 6 snow would first yield 5/6th.
And with linear just the 0/6th (which was still fine by me).
It now will have roughly 1/6th * 4/6th (which is also good for me).

Rocks/Mountains, will be worth 6 points? This means that 1 mountain between the combatants would result in a 33% hit chance.
With an army of 36 rifle men. With about 12 making a hit. Only 4 would die. A normal death count is 12.
I think that I could live with that. But it sure requires a small new topic. Just to see your opinion. I bet you don't read this at all. Which is ok. I don't reread it either :D

YES!!!
Finally, I have a working mechanic.

I had to change the thought of some terrain types. But it works and shows practical balance.

YES!!!
Not only that, but it also removed math anxiety for when targets or attackers move. I never thought of that before, only noticed it during the play test.
Both, vision obstruction and movement penalty, work the same. So, all players have to do, is add up the penalty points with the vision obstruction points at several possible target locations, when this target moves.
The lowest number is the best.

YES!!!
The factors neatly follow up the movement factors. This by sheer coincidence??

Only sub terrain movement has a small advantage over sub terrain vision.

The game has only one demand from me now.
If a certain weapon has a certain range. Than there must be somewhere on our world map, a spot where it would be most optimal. Thus giving this weapon the range it deserves by shaping the terrain. A hallway protector if you will.