Skip to Content

Still in search for a proper vision mechanic (When a new player joins)

7 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Complaints, complaints, complaints.
Well, just 1 major one.

The vision in my game is a one time factor. Depending on the worst terrain that stands in the line of sight.

If it is for example a thick forest. The vision is 2/6th. Players roll 2 or 1 for a hit per projectile.
However, if the range is 2, 7 or even 15!!!. It is still 2/6th, and rolled only once, per projectile.

He didn't like this at all. And didn't understand why the rules where like that.
He suggested having this 2/6th roll per region crossed. Resulting in my friends chuckling. Since, well, we did it like that 2 years ago.

I honestly don't know how to change this, without wrecking the game balance.

These 5 options are what I tried so far, including my findings:

-Range reduction (by subtracting with 0, 1...6);
fast play
illogical
hard to balance?
yes/no fact check

-Range reduction (by multiplying with 0, 1/6, 2/6...6/6);
fast play
logical
hard to balance?
yes/no fact check

-Damage reduction (by multiplying), rolling per region;
slow play
logical
proven impossible to balance!
maybe fact check

-Damage reduction (by multiplying), 1 roll only;
fast play
illogical!
proven easily to balance!
maybe fact check

-1 roll only + any range reduction;
moderate play
logical?
hard to balance?
maybe fact check

***

Of course, I prefer something logical. That is possible to balance. The play should be at least moderate. And it should be a "maybe fact check". Meaning, I want players to take a gamble. Not a simple check if it is possible to target another player.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Just a couple quick ideas

For a screen of level N, there is no range reduction but you can only have up to N of them before the visibility gets one level worse. So the thick forest gives you a 2/6 chance to hit. Up to two of them can be in your line of sight and remain 2/6, a third lowers you to a 1/6. A second 1/6 (which might be three other 2/6's) makes it 0/6 and the shot becomes impossible.

So seven 6/6's becomes a 5/6. Over that kind of distance, even small problems accumulate.
Six 5/6's becomes a 4/6.
Five 4/6's becomes a 3/6.
Four 3/6's becomes a 2/6.
Three 2/6's becomes a 1/6.
Two 1/6's becomes a 0/6 (impossible).

The other idea is to sum up the screening points and do something with that. Assuming 6/6 for clear terrain the heavy forest's 2/6 becomes "4 screening points" for passing into or through that space. Maybe each N points reduces the range or lowers the hit probability. So shooting into an adjacent heavy forest has little or no penalty, but any combination of terrain can quickly ruin your day.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Its an direction, thanks FrankM

In a sense, you are suggesting Damage reduction by subtracting.

It is strange that I didn't mention that one in the list. I went looking through my papers. To see, if I tried this in the past.

Apparently I did. And the mechanic was too extreme in a way. For a thick forest and then a snow plain. I had -4 and -2 = 6-6=0. Thus back then, I said NOGO to that mechanic.

But with these screening points, I might come up with a softer way. I don't mind using "rounding upwards/downwards" for this mechanic.
However, I need to be very careful to think something up. That can be balanced. And only uses d6.

More suggestions are still welcome.

Adam Leamey
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2017
As a suggestion why not group

As a suggestion why not group terrain most wargames keep terrain simple so it's easier for players to understand how they work.

You could have say light cover that provides a small bonus to defence and then increment it based on how good the defence is. Of course if the defence blocks los that's simple enougth as they can't be shot at.

You could also have terrain affect accuracy so let's say a forest your harder to hit and you have a bonus to defence if you are hit. Hope these suggestions help.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Adam Leamey wrote:As a

Adam Leamey wrote:
As a suggestion why not group terrain most wargames keep terrain simple so it's easier for players to understand how they work.

You could have say light cover that provides a small bonus to defence and then increment it based on how good the defence is. Of course if the defence blocks los that's simple enougth as they can't be shot at.

You could also have terrain affect accuracy so let's say a forest your harder to hit and you have a bonus to defence if you are hit. Hope these suggestions help.


That is what I already have. But I am happy that you suggested it as game designer. This will help me, "showcase prove" my design choice.


-Damage reduction (by multiplying), 1 roll only;
fast play
illogical!
proven easily to balance!
maybe fact check

It works by looking at all the terrain. Choosing the worst reduction. Then applying this reduction by a 1 time accuracy roll.

The problem here is that 1 forrest has the same effect as for example 12 forrests. Henceforth the "illogical!". That is the argument that he had given.

***

Meanwhile, I was working on a point system. But immidiately discarded a couple of tries. Since I was kinda following the same rules as "slow" projectiles.

So, in a sense, I followed this one:

-Damage reduction (by multiplying), rolling per region;
slow play
logical
proven impossible to balance!
maybe fact check

One also might wonder why I say; "proven impossible to balance!"
You keep rolling, while the answer is close to 0.
Mathematically, you need a lot of rounding numbers.

What I need is:

-Damage reduction (by subtracting), rolling 1 time, considering all regions;
fast play
logical?
can it be balanced?
maybe fact check

Despite everything, I am currently pondering this list:
6/6: 0 points, costs 0
5/6: 1 point, costs 1
4/6: 2 points, costs 2
3/6: 3-4 points, costs 4
2/6: 5-7 points, costs 6
1/6: 8-13 points, costs 10
0/6: 14 or more points, costs infinite

4/6 x 3/6 x 2/6 was 11,1%, But is now 16,7%

There is a lot of rounding. But I am sure it is a 1 time roll only this time.
The function is a lot like the subtracting method that I used before. But also looks a lot like the version where rolls are stacked.
But the big difference is that is it less severe. Instead of 2 forrests, you now need 3 forrests for 0% chance. On the snow planes this goes from 3 to 7.

Not sure how to continu. But I need to see if it can be balanced. I need to reconsider the basic projectile now. But how to view them is very important. Which is now a new mystery for me.

Adam Leamey
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2017
I ithnk I would need to see

Seems like you have an interesting game I hope to hear more about it.

I think I would need to see how your game works to fully understand your system as for advice I have the following.

You could have tthe forest effects be static and always provide the same bonus regardless of how many firsts there are having large forests just means you have more advantageous terrain to use.

As an example of a game stystems forest rules I'll use warhammer fantasy
While in forest missile attacks are at a - 1 penalty but the unit also can't get bonuses for being in a group as they have to spread out in the forest.
Also the forest slowed down units

If you keep your terrain effects set it won't cause Issues while it's illogical it's also simple and from experience simple is better rather than having to check countless charts and remember countless bonuses.

I used to go d&d 3.5 it's painful to run as players need to track so much information it can take them ten minutes to figure out their end modifier and damamage roll.

This also depends on your audience if it's a wide audience then defiantly keep it easy to remember if it's aimed at a more niche gamer market then I can see the advantage of having more complex rules.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Adam Leamey wrote:Seems like

Adam Leamey wrote:
Seems like you have an interesting game I hope to hear more about it.

Working on it for years.
Despite some issue's that I work on. It is indeed an interesting game. But it will not be meant for public publisment. For that, simplifying is key. Right now, I keep it the way it is, for some friends.

Adam Leamey wrote:
I think I would need to see how your game works to fully understand your system.
The full game tries to follow RTS as much as possible. This includes "fog of war", for the units. Of course, the real time aspect has been translated to an semi-turn based, "simultain" resolution. Slow game aspects are in the resolution phase. Where things are not depending any more on the speed of players.

Adam Leamey wrote:
You could have the forest effects be static and always provide the same bonus regardless of how many firsts there are having large forests just means you have more advantageous terrain to use.
Another great reason, not to change my game.

Adam Leamey wrote:
Also the forest slowed down units
This is also the case. Which, in my defence is also the reason why vision has the same effects as movement. The worst terrain decides the ammount of units that can go through.
Also, placement is key. A dense forrest doesn't allow for much units to stand in, except for exceptions.
If an army decides to hide, it receives full effect of the terrain. If it fights, only half. If it is one of those exceptions, then they have still more cover than the opponent.
Adam Leamey wrote:

If you keep your terrain effects set it won't cause Issues while it's illogical it's also simple and from experience simple is better rather than having to check countless charts and remember countless bonuses.
Thanks! This adds up to the reasoning.

I guess, I keep it the way it was. It worked well.
The new way, didn't work well. I have been pondering for the last hour about it. And I don't see, how it could be balanced. In fact, it was certainly worse than the infamous infinite re-roll.

Perhaps, I should listen less to new players??

Adam Leamey
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2017
While player feedback is

While player feedback is valuable and should be considered sometimes as a designer it's best to go with what you feel works.

I'd most of your playtest have been fine with the old rules perhaps keep those rules as always keep testing it's hard to find the balance that works.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut