A reboot of the game nights (wargame, hobby variant)

Answer 1: A river runs through? It is an entire water hexagon. The banking doesn't matter. It is for water units only.
Although, if a river contains sand, grass or a bridge etc. Then this is a chokepoint for both land and water units. Of course, depending on the design.

Answer 2: A lot, really a lot of wargames, have a river going over the "ridges". I could still do this.
As for the rules. I guess those units that can cross small bodies of water. Can cross these rivers as well. And crossing a river or ridge does mean, that the unit moves INTO that region. And the SMALLEST space counts for the movement.
As for the graphics. Well, I don't see any other way than simply not having answer 2 in this regard? Well, that is wrong. I realized that I SHOULD have these rivers as well.

I will design in a digital way. But the graphics would certainly be a challenge.

Answer 3a: Both!
River through hexagon? Body of water.
River over the borders of a hexagon? Simply a wall.

Answer 3b: If I really want to be nitpicking. I could always have little tokens in the players colour. And have them stand on the side (the border) of where the army is standing.

***

A river as body of water would have been 100% water.
A river that splits the terrain in 2? From N to S. 50% water, 50% ground. Of which, both are 25%.
Well, that sounds all logical. But If we observe the way where the river goes. It would be better if I cut the hexagon in 6 portions here. And 2 portions are mostly water. The 4 other portions hardly have water. This "mostly" is what counts. It means that here there is also "ground". In a sense, I could say that a river the has 1 entrance and exit. Counts for 2/6th as water.
If multiple sides are water, then each side counts as a 1/6th portion. This way, it would even be possible to have a hexagon with a pointy spot that counts as only 1 portion. Thus 1/6th of land. On which 600 worth of value can be. A little token for that player would be on the side. Just for the funs I guess.
Then, because they cannot move into water. They can a bonus range of 1 in this direction. A small hexagon that can server as a sniping spot.

Well, I guess I post them here.

While the designing of a map goes slowly. The design of units is all planned out.

The plan is easy. We choose an existing RTS faction. Copy the pictures of those units. Then I put in the numbers in for the balance calculation.
And we co-op against 2 ai factions.

And maybe, just maybe. We use the terrain editor or a copy of that particular RTS. And simply give an overlay of squares instead.

Horizontal and Vertical is 1. Diagonal is 1.5. With the 2 squares touching the diagonal, counting as both 50%.
(We could do the same for the hexagon grid)

Now then, the numbers that I was searching for.
We got some design ratio's. And I am picking those that are usefull for my other wargamer to understand quickly.

A design has a body portion and a weapon portion.
And of course a cost. Which I went for a minimal step.

But a portion is a portion. So... a:b can also be b:a.
And the imbalance is always less than 0.1%.
I sort them on the cost step from low to high.
An * will indicate if they have perfect balance.
A <== will indicate if I like to use it.
Coststep => Portion : Portion

_1*=> 0 :_6 <====
_2*=> 1 :_1 <====
10 => 3 :_8 <===
11 => 2 :13 <=
13 => 1 :26 <=
19 => 2 :32 (with 11 or 21?)
20 => 7 :14 <===
20*=> 3 :27 <====
20*=> 1 :49 <==
21 => 4 :24 <=
23 => 3 :34 (with 37?)
25*=> 6 :24 <===
25 => 2 :49 <==
29 =>14 :15 (with 11 or 31?)
31 =>15 :16 (with 29?)
31 is the last to mention with 1 difference in the ratio
32 => 7 :33 <==
32 => 6 :37 <==
32 => 1 :94 <=
33 => 1 :98
34 => 1 :102
35 => 1 :106
37 => 3 :72 (with 23?)
38 => 3 :75 (with 2x11?)
41 =>16 :26
41 =>11 :36
I should stop expanding now. Only a step cost, based on a prime number will help. But.... there are some more.
Example:
50 =>20 :31 <=
50 =>13 :45 <==
50*=> 1 :169 <=

And thus... I should have a cost as goal in mind and then search. Higher costs will also have more balanced options. Shall I revisit the cost of 1300?

Well, with 1300 in mind. There are a lot of options. All 650 except 1 are balanced according to my rules. But it is the divider that counts now. If I can divide the numbers of the costs and the portions. I am able to see how flexible the numbers are. I don't know how to automate this though. But if the cost step can be lowered to 325, 260 or even 130 or 65. Then I am dealing with a lot of flexibility. Because the dividers are 4, 5, 10 or even 20. And that is what counts.

Hence, I should go back to that 130. And I got 15 options for that one.

I will put the sorted combinations here:
From low to high in terms of "support".
Of course, this is from high to low in terms of "tanky".

Suitable for beginners; 3600, but also 6000 squad designs.
Suitable for advanced players; 4800 squad designs.
Cost - A - B - Support Factor
_1 - _0 - _6 - na
_2 - _1 - _1 - 1.000
50 - 20 - 31 - 1.550
20 - _7 - 14 - 2.000
10 - _3 - _8 - 2.667
32 - _9 - 27 - 3.000
50 - 13 - 45 - 3.462
25 - _6 - 24 - 4.000
32 - _7 - 33 - 4.714
32 - _6 - 37 - 6.167
20 - _3 - 27 - 9.000
25 - _2 - 49 - 24.50
20 - _1 - 49 - 49.00
32 - _1 - 94 - 94.00
50 - _1 -169 - 169.0

If I allow 11 and 13, I can add the following 2:
11 - _2 - 13 - 6.500
13 - _1 - 26 - 26.00

All other factors are of no use.
I added one that escaped my attention?

Seems that a triangular grid offers so much more than a hexagon grid. Yet with less design troubles.

A hexagon exists out of 6 triangles. And I figured that having ridges. Doesn't work in design.

This is my current plan:

-I make the triangles that I need.
-I make it all top down.
Shadows should appear as if the sun is really at the highest spot. This will help with higher terrain.
- A ridge of rocks is THE way for indicating higher ground. The terrain at the base will be darker. The terrain on the higher ground will be lighter.
-A triangle will be 1 of the 8 pure terrains.
-Each triangle will add points to the space a hexagon offers.
-A squad flag will indicate where the squad is on the hexagon. In case a river runs through.

A river could touch 4 out of 6 triangles. And the other 2 are grass terrain.
It is also possible that 2 rivers go through a hexagon.
Either way, if we got 4 river triangles and 2 grass, then the river triangles should have a grass like edge. If a river goes through other terrain, it will need another picture.
2 grass would suplly the player with 2x2. The maximum total can be 18. We got a 4/18. Or 800 space, for a squad.

Now, for a 4800 game. I am thinking about javing levels. The maximum space per triangle goes from 3 to 4. And a 6000 game even has 5.

Or I change this all to a 200 per point for 3600.
250 per point for 4500 and 300 per point for 5400.
Hey, I could even try 225 per point and get 4050...maybe not.

I could have 1 tree on a triangle. It would be 1.5 in a sense. While a forrest triangle is only 1 space. And a rock within the forrest makes it 0.5.
I feel i am going back to a very old version this way. Not sure if I should.

Researching on getting pictures from the internet. I will have them in a folder and simply drag them to a hexagon with triangles grid.

Option 2 is just draw them myself. With a pencil I can already do a lot. Although, I need to pre-print the same said grid.

Then set up some rules for drawing the map.
I really like my new idea of not having the "ridges". And simply have them drawn "inside" the hexagon instead.

Rock formation will look the same all the time. And a bit of shadow work at the base with extra lighter tones at the top will do wonders.

I have yet find time to get the grid done in paint. It must be done by hand. But physically doing them by hand with a pencil will certainly give me much better idea's on what I want. Before I spend time and energy drawing them on my pc.

What I need to draw, is the following:
- Rock formations, as terrain, as height differences.
That said, the hexagon that allows units to travel from low to high will have reduced space. Thus a certain rule of movement reduction can perhaps be removed from the rules. This will make the game easier to learn.
- River and water, as terrain, NOT as height differences?! I do have a stormy sea map. Where one hexagon is a big wave, compared to adjacent regions. This meant that ships would have a reduced movement. So, scrap that NOT. I will make a height difference here as well.
- Grass, as terrain, as height differences. While I mentioned the rule of less movement being removed. It should still apply here. And with the water as well.
- Desert, as terrain, as height differences. yeah, the rule should stay.
- Forrest, as terrain, NOT as height differences?! I got a challenge here. Should I find a way in how to draw this?
- Snow, as terrain, as height differences. Maybe have ice ridges? That would be cool. Then again, snowy ridges are also cool. I always loved those in the few C&C td maps.
- Roads and Concrete, as terrain, as height differences. Well, going up and down, still the same way with darker and lighter colours. Remember, it is a top down view.
- Urban, as terrain, as height differences? Well, the latter would be difficult, just like the forrests.

I have not mentioned here that while I indicated height difference with a number. I would like the terrain to show it to the player. The thing is. The ridges would be just enough to fit in 3 at a time if I want the height difference to be 3. I even have 6 or more in some old maps. Thus, perhaps making very special designs here, later on? Where the picture is half the width. So I can stack a double ammount? It makes sense, right?
That said, some "textures", would be difficult.

I need to research more in this regard.
But the title of this post being randomness. I think that I need to draw a triangle shaped forrest to begin with. That scale should be used for the others as well. Then also, the forrest extending to the other triangles in the 3 ways.

So, we got a number of 0 to 3 connections.
0 is 1 way
1 in 3 ways; bottom or left or right.
2 in 3 ways; open at bottom or left or right.
3 is 1 way

8 ways for the tree's.
But we also got to include a basis. This could be any of the other terrains. Thus 7. We got 8*7=56 different terrains with the forrest attribute. Unless we have the terrain change on that triangle as well. So, a triangle could consist of 4 different terrains? 8^4=4096 different drawn triangles. OMG... the triangles got borders this way as well.

Also, this particular forrest would have different value's? That is, if you exclude forrest on one of the sides?
No, I don't think I should. Nor should I reduce the forrest effects.

This makes me think. Perhaps I should allow to offset a unit formation by 1 triangle. Such that they can occupy a different 6 triangles. No more hexagon grid then?

8^4 <<< 8^8 though. And the border between equal terrain should automatically be the same as that terrain. I should keep reminding myself. Roads etc. would be a thing as well. Thus, I should just start making those triangles that I need for a map. Hand drawn first.

I need to organise the textures that I will make too...?
KISS is without flexibility that I long for so badly.

I found a map where I had plans for a simple way to make terrain. The ridges are present, even for outlying regions of that print.

The thing missing here are separation lines for roads etc. I called this version "L supreme". Since it was a little upgrade to the previous prints I used. I still remember having a gap in time back then when everything just had to go south at work and life. O well, I has returned I guess. But I sure forgot this work that I made in the...those last 2 weeks. A fog clouded my memories. I honestly cannot remember making this one.

Janurari 2017, is the save date of the file.
May 2020, for some reason I made a copy of the file.

Another file, called "Q" is the one I used to make roads and...ahem tree's etc. It looked less like a gaming map. But more like !@#$. I still remember that someone wanted to make an example education out of that map. It was just an experiment though.

Either way, I should find a smaller version of that supreme L. Or at least make it. And make it such, that I can start making proper pictures in it. Then, each unique tile can be fitted in the bigger print.
Only problem is, I cannot turn a picture for 120 degree's in the basic paint. I guess, I pay a visit to a bigger but slower program later on. I know that all my hexagons could be turned 120 degree's without problem.

While making drawings. Please note that I will not use much shadow. It has to be top down views. I am still going to use numbers for indicating the height differences. I just want that spire to work.

I will use them as examples. But it seems I am stuck with drawing stuff myself. I showed old pictures from the past. While I was not happy with that concept. I do feel like it is a possible way.

As for making it a "kids drawing". This way I will make sure that it is in 1 style. I think I will go down this path. And a true artist would simply use their own style. If I ever were going that road.

Speaking of roads. Did you know there is hardly anything on top down dirt roads? The best examples come from C&C td and ra..... wow!

The flower is ready. The 1 hexagon is also ready. I got 3 versions of each.
- Black hexagon grid on White background with Grey assistance lines. Great for printing and drawing idea's by hand.
- The same, but then with a pink background outside the grid. Great for drawing on the pc.
- The same, but the Grey assistance lines are removed. The pink stayed. This way, I can print the proper hexagons/flowers.

I just realised that 1 hexagon is actually an option. This one could be placed on top of a map as mutation.

I am going with my flower concept for the one reason: We could 3D print the hexagons. Fold the borders in half of one flower, while the other one easily shifts in. Not sure how to do this in the future though.

KISS isn't simple, or I am really just stupid
Perhaps I should find a way. To not use borders anymore.... but I have no idea how to do that.

A border has a functional purpose. And I start to believe, I should only have the border fixed that is inside the hexagon. Not outside. But then we get connections that are 50% rock and 50% water or something like that. And we then get very ugly graphics.

A sudden stop to a river would also be the case. Since I want to prevent that by having the stop on the outside of the border. And the other hexagon that gets close and says, No, to that. Will provide river. But, if the river does stop outside the flower. It should be in the border region outside of that flower patern.

I don't know how to describe it otherwise. But lets say, my current OCD is 99% on the graphics.
I am almost considering using a ridge by having a line of hexagons being rocks. And if that is the case. I could downgrade the grid in size. Which means more hexagons to move on.

I don't like that road.
What we get is that certain hexagons become obsolete by nessesary means. We see this in RTS like C&C td. Where we don't see this is in RTS like Starcraft 2. Where a ridge is literly a vertical situation.

But, perhaps I should focus on making some hexagons first, by hand. Then consider going to a hexagon grid only. And "F" it all. I don't know anymore. What I want, perhaps I should not try to get proper graphics. That is a plan.

Plans

A - Handdrawn graphics. We have proper borders.
B - Bad graphics. We have only functional borders.
C - Bad graphics. But not that bad. We still have functional borders. We got 3 variants in this. The one map that looked "digital" and some other maps where the curves are roundish. But sharp. And lastly, we got a very fluent graphics. But the textures still don't match up much. But.... I think the last one is also still a good option.
D - No borders. We use an entire hexagon for this.
E - No borders. And the graphics are also shit.

I got plenty of B plan material at home.

So yeah. Going from a factor of 2/6th to 3/6th when hiding is a huge difference. The 3/6 comes from (5/6)^4

On 36 riflemen shooting. We get losses on side B going from 9 to 15. This means that the remainders go down from 27 to 21.

This is huge. Because the B action entitles them to 12 losses for A. Which now is

9<12 but 15>9.

Yeah, I can clearly see now how much of a difference the rule of obstruction meant to my players.

Back to the drawing board?

No, simply increasing the penalties I guess.

I am going to make the following the logic:
If you want to go through a region with projectiles and hit behind it. You roll for going through the obstruction.
A force that returns fire. Is on the other side of said region. Thus we take the obstruction points one time. This removes an extra roll for "adding" these obstruction points.
A force that hides. Can be anywhere in said region. Might be at the end, might be in the front. The attacking player has logically speaking a guess here as well. Thus we take the obstruction points twice.

Now then, we go from a factor from 3/6 to 1/4 (actually less than 3/13) when hiding.

36 riflemen can now kill 3x5=15 when B returns fire. And return fire means the 12 men squads will deal 5 kills each.
After that, 2 B squads can kill an additional 3 for a next round. So, this situation is a 15 kills vs 15 kills.

And when they hide, B has only 6 losses. Then they can deal a total of 13 kills.

So, we went from 15>9 to 6<13.

***

We should also consider if A flanks. B has no other option than to return fire all the time. And yes, bonus damage has been applied so far and will still be applied. Here is the best A can do now:

-#.## is an injury to the next target.

36 -0.00 vs 12 -0.00
31 -0.00 vs 7 -0.00
29 -0.92 vs 3 -0.31
27 -0.17 vs 0 -0.00
9 losses vs 12 losses

27 -0.17 vs 12 -0.00
22 -0.17 vs 9 -0.75
19 -0.92 vs 6 -0.81
16 -0.42 vs 3 -0.45
15 -0.67 vs 1 -0.67
14 -0.09 vs 0 -0.00
13 losses vs 12 losses

14 -0.09 vs 12 -0.00 (2 bonus for B)
11 -0.70 vs 11 -0.94 (no bonus)
8 -0.76 vs 9 -0.47 (1 bonus for A)
5 -0.26 vs 8 -0.65 (3 bonus for A)
3 -0.48 vs 7 -0.55
1 -0.42 vs 6 -0.18
0 -0.00 vs 6 -0.39
14 losses vs 6 losses

In the first skirmish. A clearly has an upperhand here. But despite having 3 times more forces. The difference in losses is only 33%.
In the second skirmish. A starts with less forces. But still the upper hand by a factor of 2. But you can tell this isn't right when looking at the first turn. The losses are 5vs3, 3vs3 (by sheer luck), 3vs3, 1vs2 and finally 1 vs 1.
In the third skirmish. Despite having +2 in forces. It is clearly that B will win this. The situation reverts quickly for the bonus damage. Which was 50% for all units of B in the other 2 skirmishes.

While camping in a dense forest is tactically not a wise idea. It is also not a wise idea to continue your conquest with the remaining forces. You need to regroup.

And thus, it is best to keep flanking with reïnforcements. So you have that advantage of 3 less losses. Which is a value of 300 every 3 turns.

How would round 1 go if player B throws in a hide?
36 -0.00 vs 12 -0.00
36 -0.00 vs 10 -0.50
34 -0.77 vs 10 -0.50

Believe it or not. But if A attacks B and B hides first. Despite less bonus damage. The total damage on average is slightly better for B.

So, what does this mean when the third skirmish takes place and B hides first?

14 -0.09 vs 12 -0.00
14 -0.09 vs 12 -0.97
11 -0.42 vs 12 -0.97

From almost 2 kills, it went down to almost 1 kill for A. And B simply keeps making the 3 kills. Although the damage is slightly less than a return fire.

***

I don't know if I should do it like this. To me, it starts to sound like that players will need the special weapons anyways.

Should I design riflemen with an infrared scope? And simply see what happens?

No matter how you look at it. Splitting up and then hiding in a dense forest is certainly worth it in all situations.

Cut in half, but rounded....up? Down?
More tests incomming.
But the goal would be, going close to the original value's.

As you can see, I will not stop.

I put this in one of my personal manuals. It is to remind myself that I researched it.

Then, I thought, lets revisit the annihilating weapons.

Main purpose, a one time damage that is 4 times that of normal weapons. H/D-ratio + 1.

These have a refund on some remaining health. Once they exploded. Yes, these self sacrificing units also have a ghost variant. These have no body, but only a limited movement. So, no refund. And the movement is added to the original source body...or weapon? idk anymore. But then it is really a shot that is bought like the...

Reaver (Starcraft: Protoss) Mechanic
The Reaver costs a decent ammount of resources. Then it can buy scarabes and store 10 of them.

I don't do storage. But my Reaver should act as a production facility? And produce 1 scarab per attack.
It should cost only a little bit.

And the Reaver itself should be cheaper.

I have a lot to say about the Reaver in my personal manual. But this is so chaotic. I decided to make it simpler.

***

Note: a projectile cannot be stopped.
While selfsacrifice weapons could. A projectile will NOT have the root calculation. It is simply like a modular weapon having only a factor of 2 on top of its costs. This means. A projectile that is bought, will cost only 12.5% of its normal weapons value.

Example:
A tank costs 800, because it is a body of 400 and a weapon of 400. The weapon would be removed. Thus the tank costs only 400. And each shot that is bought, will cost 400/8=50.

While the game has a H/D-ratio of 3. A normal tank or a Reaver tank would cost the same after 8 attacks. After this, the normal tank is more efficient.
The Reaver tank starts at only 400 here. And you use it if you expect it to die.
With a H/D-ration of 3, the average costs of a Reaver would be 550. This is a 69% cost, compared to the tank.

With saving 250 with each exchange. After 2 losses on both sides. The Reaver side easily can affort a 3rd Reaver.

***

This is an old rule, that I doubt
Projectiles being bought this way. Act as objects that need to move through the terrain. The rules of movement are applied. Not those of attacking.

I doubt this rule is valid. Projectiles that act as units, can ignore terrain effects in one way. But not another.
An example is firing over water. This is a no go. But firing through a forest, well, this is ok.
Although, the projectiles do have a size. And thus, a rocky terrain that has 0 space for normal objects. Will block these completely.

In the example of the reaver. The size of the projectiles are 50 each. And with a cost of 400. We could put 9 of these in a normal squad. And a total size of 450 can easily avoid even 5 obstruction. If not, well, the projectiles also can easily move around obstruction regions. They simply cannot jump down ridges. Or climb them. Or go through 0 space regions.

Yes, perhaps I should keep this in. Because it adds flavour to the game. And it is still balanced too.

Let's say, tanks and reavers in this topic. Both can take advantage positions. Reavers behind medium obstruction. Tanks behind maximal obstruction and ridges and water.

Any movement or attribute to movement for the projectiles. It is added to the main body. I need to think about this with a fresh mind tomorrow.

***

Another question right now, what if the Reaver type unit is a tank or support type.
The costs for these, include a root factor.

_70+35=100=35+_70
_80+30=100=30+_80
_96+24=100=24+_96
135+15=100=15+135
etc.

Let's pick the 24+96. Where the body is only 24 instead of 50. And the weapon is 96, instead of 50.
A weapon having 96 in cost, would cost only 12 each.
Should I pick the body value as main Reaver cost?
Then we have a Reaver that costs 24, and each projectile 12.
Recalculating this to the previous examples.
The support Reaver would have a body and cost of 192 instead of 400. The projectiles...would cost 96 each instead of 50.

It would take only half the shots for destroying this Reaver. But the costs is also only half.
The damage output on the other hand is much more, it is almost twice. But the costs of course is also twice.
After 7 shots, the total cost would exceed a normal tank again.
During its lifetime, compared to the other reaver. It lives 48% and deals 92%. During this, the costs are 330 instead of 550.
Well, all math asside, the true efficiency is then comparable with a cost of 360. While the other is 550 or 800.

As for the costs per turn?
0: 192 - 400 - 800
1: 288 - 450 - 800 First relative costs
3: 480 - 550 - 800 H/D-ratio
5: 672 - 650 - 800 Reaver support > Reaver now
7: 864 - 750 - 800 Reaver support > Normal and Support now
8: 960 - 800 - 800 Reaver >= Normal and Support now

The damage the support does grows with 1.92 per turn. While the other 2 grow with 1. So, how much does 1 damage cost? On the right side, we also see a similar support tank without the Reaver attribute.
With 768 within its weapon. It deals 1.92 per turn as well.

1: 150 - 450 - 800 - 417 - RS>S>R>N
3: 250 - 550 - 800 - 417 - RS>S>R>N
5: 350 - 650 - 800 - 417 - RS>S>R>N
7: 450 - 750 - 800 - 417 - S>RS>R>N
8: 500 - 800 - 800 - 417 - S>RS>N=R
14:800 -1100 - 800 - 417 - S>RS=N>R
15:850 -1150 - 800 - 417 - S>N>RS>R

The costs are illusions. If we look at the dealt damage.
Also, the Support is always more damaging than the Normal. And we need to keep in mind that 48% of 96% is 92% efficiency for support. Also, initiative is a big factor in the combat.

The Reaver Support is also more damaging than a Reaver. But over time, this growing cost makes the relative difference smaller. In the game itself. We pay more and more for the actions.

I hope to post some KISS rules regarding designing Reaver units tomorrow.

I previously had the projectile that is being bought. Have stats of its own.

But it would be better to put it all on the unit that builds these projectiles.

And only "projectiles", that have a body. Can act on their own.
Still, if I have the "projectiles". Have no health, but still move around. They also could have their own attack range.

The "movement" allows to go differently through the map. Then the projectile itself could go in a completely different direction.

The "attack range" would then be the "movement" and its own attack range. And these 2 can have different attributes.

***

As for new examples of these units...

If I have a Reaver with a cost of 800.
Then 400 would be put into the Build Points.
With an attack range of 3 movement, it would be similar to an attack range of 2.
I could ignore this for now. And simply apply the default of 2. Where the projectile is simply fired as projectile. And not as something that moves through the terrain. Thus, over the terrain.

400 into BP is a lot. What does it mean?
1. The cost of the Reaver starts at 800 as well.
2. Depending on the weight I choose for these projectiles. I can fire 1, 1.5 or 2 of these. And each projectile is multiplied by 4 and costs 400.

In case of combat with a normal tank of 800. The normal tank has only 1 projectile.
The Reaver, for a cost of an additional 400, on top of the 800. Would fire 4, 6 or 8 projectiles.

If you want to compare, a tank with 2.2 projectiles, would also cost 1200.
Then, if you want to know how much a Reaver would cost when doing 1 attack. The body stays the same, but the BP gets cheaper.
The BP would be 212, the initial cost of the Reaver is then 587. And buying 1 attack brings the total to 800.
The 212 is equal to 0.53 normal projectiles.
But with the factor of 4, 6 or 8. We actually could get:
2.12, 3.18 or 4.24 projectiles.

***

Ok, so, if I use the 2.12. Then this Reaver simply deals twice the damage than the normal tank. If the Reaver wants to attack once more, it would cost 1012 in total. And then deals 4.24 in damage. While the tank then deals 2 in damage.

I think this is fair. I do not know if it is balanced.
Since we have an initial cost close to 600. We could have 8 of these, while there are only 6 normal tanks.
Depending on the resources.
With a lot of resources, we have 16 vs 8 projectiles. Maybe 5 kills versus 3 kills. What remains are 5 Reavers and 1 Normal Tank. That is after just 1 round. But the Reavers do pay an additional 1600 here. That is on top of 4800.
Now then, if we don't have infinite resources.
And only 4800 to spend.

We get 6 normal tanks. 4800
We could go for 6 reavers. 3600
4 vs 2 kills. And thus we have 2 normal tanks left and 4 reavers. But if there are no more resources, these reavers will die as well. It will just be very slowly.

What if we get 6 normal tanks. And test with less reavers.
VS 5 Reavers, 3000. 3 vs 2 kills.
3 normal and 4 reavers remain. But also 800.
Another 3 vs 1 kill.
Now we have 3 reavers remaining.

This calls for a special mission explaining the reaver mechanic :D

Well, i am convinced now, that the weight should be 100. Thus there should be an attribute. Called projectile.

I looked at what 2 tanks could do.
The tanky reavers are so durable. That the first 4 can easily win with enough money in stock. The last one doesn't deal damage quickly enough. And thus looses anyway in the long run. Even if it is just by a very small margin.

But if we limit to only 500 to spend. Then all 5 reaver designs cannot defeat 2 normal tanks. They need more credits to spend.

I also looked at 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 3. It looks like that when you have more reavers. The cumulative effects take over. And the lower end has a higher increase.
1->2 is a factor 3.
2->3 is a factor 2.

Or better yet, the sum effect is 1 vs 3 or 3 vs 6.

So, you can use reavers. But in a moderate fashion. Just like the other annihilating weapons.

As for other effects. A reaver deals much more damage than a normal unit in the field. Because the reaver builds its own "reinforcements" on the spot.

If we look at the 780/240 design. We can have just as many as the opponent has normal tanks. Then give both sides a lot of money. And the reaver will win by a landslide. Since it isn't 1v2 or 3v6 or something. No, it woul be 7 vs 7. And while both sides deal roughly the same damage. That 780 for the body is indirectly 3 times as durable. Meaning, that 7 normal tanks cannot defeat even 1 reaver in the first round. While the normal tanks have 2 losses.

I am satisfied with this.

We are getting somewhere. I just rolled 20k dice and see that the average is 3.4796.

Also, there are 8 outcomes. And they are different than I assumed.

Lol, now the average is 3.5144.

+3=1+2 Reaver wins, 1 credit remains.
+2=0+2 Reaver wins, 0 credits remain.
+1=1+0 Both die, 1 credit remains.
=0=0+0 Both die, 0 credits remain.
-1=1-2 1 Normal wins, 1 credit remains.
-2=0-2 1 Normal wins, 0 credits remain.
-3=1-4 2 Normal win, 1 credit remains.
-4=0-4 2 Normal win, 0 credits remain.

Alrighty, 3.50695 as average.

***

Ok, while typing this all. I tested the program on my workpc 3 times. I googled a lot to learn. And I don't need to know much though...

I am going to timetest the program now.

It seems that Integers can only go to 32767.

30000 takes 52 seconds.
I can make loopyloops. Just made a 200x200. Which is 40k instead of 30k. And it took 70 seconds.

But that is ok. The time duration.
Once I get a macro working at my own pc. I can get to simulating. And simply have my pc run
It for 10 minutes for accurate results.
I could simulate 200k.

The average is now 3.494475
I guess, I will round to whole percentages in the future. You know, the "noticable gameplay limits".
After all, one, bigger, simulation, simply takes longer.

So....bonus damage.
Bonus can occur if the target is at least twice as big.
And/or, (yes, and/or) bonus can occur if the target region has more units in terms of "stats".

So, Bonus?! I have 2 options:
d6-1 instead of d6-2. (10/6 -> 15/6)
Or a 50% chance that an extra die is rolled.

But with the Reavers, this is...different. By default, they can get that bonus relatively easy?

1 Reaver costs the same as 1 Normal tank.
But one Reaver shot, costs 0.5 that of them in this test.

1 Reaver vs 2 Normal tanks is exactly the difference of 1. But once the Reaver shoots, it gains temporarily 0.5 more.
Because the "scarab" and reaver together are the attackers.
The Reaver is temporarily worth 1.5. This is something we need to keep an eye on.

1 Reaver vs 3 Normal tanks will certainly have some effect.
1.5 vs 3 means that there is room for 1.5 more. The dice will now gain 50% bonus.
We apply the bonus to all projectiles. We don't do semishady buisness for a decade now.
So, we either allow the Reaver to shoot 4 dice with d6-1. Or we allow the Reaver to shoot 6 dice.

***

This very last choice is important for the simulation.
If I choose 6 dice. I should expand my list.
If I choose 4 dice with d6-1. I should build in a different calculator.

Now.... this sounds like a challenge!!!
I actually want to build both. I think I start with the one with extra dice. Because cutting is easier than adding in these kind of simulators.