Skip to Content
 

How to call this weapon?

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

For my wargame. We are designing a new type of weapon.
This because we discovered that "special" weapons had some flaws in balance. AND certain body designs simply where a cheat against normal weapons.

A normal weapon is basicly a d6 -2.
Other weapons have a higher or lower subtraction.
We want to prevent that players use a lot of d6 -5. Since there would be a lot of dice involved.

The new weapon is simply 1 damage.
There is no dice roll. You simply do 1 damage, always...

***

This is showing many imbalances that we are trying to shape into a nice RPS. But this topic is not about the math and the RPS. This topic is about a name.

A name for this new type of weapon.

"Piercing" is already in use. But then again.
The Piercing weapons consist of: Volatile, Arc, Flow and Seeker.
Those weapons kinda ignore the terrain.
Maybe give the name "piercing" to the new type of weapon. And think of another name for the set of weapons that ignore the terrain effects?

shokunin
Offline
Joined: 09/10/2020
I'm not sure how far you are

I'm not sure how far you are diving into the paranormal/fantastic in your game, but you could try thinking of it as a ghost weapon that can float through armour, as opposed to pierce it. Try using immaterial weapon names:

Spectral, ethereal, ghost, phantom, etc.

You could also tie flat damage to an elemental effect, such as minor shock or corrosion, but I imagine that is probably also in use already somewhere in your game. You could also go the "sounds cool put means nothing" route, attributing the 1 flat damage to any name:

Ancient, plasma, Steve.... doesn't matter really.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about "Blunt" with different options as to the weapon???

X3M wrote:
"Piercing" is already in use. But then again...

How about "Blunt"? Like a War Hammer or Giant Mace or a Wooden Club??? Is this a Melee weapon, if so you can have "piercing" and "blunt" as two different STYLES of Melee weapons.

Piercing weapons have a tendency to try to rip through armor and protection, where as Blunt weapons have a tendency to transferring physical trauma through might... Sort of like "winding" the opponent... by BRUTE FORCE.

This is my suggestion that you have a Blunt weapon that deals 1 Damage. If you are looking for TYPES of weapon that match this "category", I've already mentioned the War Hammer, Giant Mace or Wooden Club (as three different types of specific weapons that deal BLUNT force).

So War Hammer can be +3 Damage, Giant Mace +2 Damage and Wooden Club +1 Damage... Now I've designed three (3) BLUNT force weapons that deal different damage based on their design and capability to transfer might into physical damage.

Enjoy and cheers!

Note #1: "Blunt" weapons are all about FORCE transference. How much of your strength can you transfer using your Blunt weapons and HIT your opponent. You could have a special trigger with a dice like rolling a six ("6") causes your opponent to become "winded" (out of breath and taken aback) such that he cannot respond with an attack of his own. For example!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I agree that blunt seems like

I agree that blunt seems like the best keyword. Or non-leathal weapons.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I see some suggestions.

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

The certain damage can also be used on rifles, grenades, flame based weapons, cannons, snipers, etc.

I like this "spectral". But I am not sure if it is a good name for all of the weapons.

This "1" damage is a weapon that ignores the effect of 0 and overkill from a normal die roll.
If a normal damage, is a roll of 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. Then you have 2/6th that an enemy will not be taking damage.

Soldiers have normally 5 health. But these days, we allow designs that have more, or less health. The infamous 1 hit point soldier entered the battle field. These guys are ridiculous cheap by the rules.
As you can tell, a normal die roll has a 67% chance of killing this soldier. But the rest of the damage is also lost.

Not to drown you in math. But the 1 health soldier is practical speaking twice as strong as a 5 health soldier. Simply due to the effects of how damage is distributed.

Perhaps the "piercing" is very wrong as well.
Since the list of 4 weapons that ignore terrain are carrying this title. Which is false?? Sure the weapon pierces through terrain. But I think the common name for these weapons should be different as well?

So, what I am looking for is:
- A name for damage that is certain, done by modern weapons.
- A name for projectiles that can ignore terrain effects.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
On a side note

The weapon that is certain to do damage, has a better effect on low armor units.
Talking about counter intuitive.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Immaterial Weapons & Waves

shokunin wrote:
Try using immaterial weapon names:

Spectral, ethereal, ghost, phantom, etc.

This is an interesting idea, and it clearly distinguishes the weapon from the others.

For a more hard-science-fiction angle to this, you might consider radiation waves, or even variations on lasers that heat instead of pierce. You could rationalize that low-armor units are more effective because the waves are not absorbed before they impact the unit.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
:)

let-off studios wrote:
shokunin wrote:
Try using immaterial weapon names:

Spectral, ethereal, ghost, phantom, etc.

This is an interesting idea, and it clearly distinguishes the weapon from the others.

For a more hard-science-fiction angle to this, you might consider radiation waves, or even variations on lasers that heat instead of pierce. You could rationalize that low-armor units are more effective because the waves are not absorbed before they impact the unit.

This is going in a good direction.

It also covers super weapons based on nuclear arsenals.
The uranium aspect to certain rifle's is a good start. The same can be said about cannon shells of anything else.
Of course, heat is the choice against heavy armor that has low health.

Still, how to put them all in the same category? Because when I start describing these weapons. It should have a title, right?

Right now, the weapons that ignore terrain. Lost their "piercing" name. But are called terrain Ignoring weapons.
Volatile itself is now Spread.

Still guessing, since my only other source is another dutch fellow.

Once I got proper names, I can adjust the manual on this part.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Blunt doesn't have to mean boring...

larienna wrote:
I agree that blunt seems like the best keyword...

Of course if it is a Sci-Fi game, well then you could spice things up a bit like "Electronic War Hammer" or "Fusion Battle Mace" or "Pulse Power Club" and make them ALL "Melee" weapons with a Futuristic spin on them... Again Melee but they can have an "EFFECT" such as "shocking" or an "explosive/burst" type of attack.

They don't need to ONLY suit a Fantasy Theme.

Like the "Electronic War Hammer" could have a "shock-wave" effect which disburses a field of electric energy which can affect an area and not only a single unit.

Or the "Fusion Battle Mace" can have an explosive "charge" when it comes into contact with an enemy, it makes the weapon "explode" upon impact.

Or the "Pulse Power Club" can inflict multiple "blows" using a vibrating effect which is like a punching effect that can inflict several wounds in only one (1) hit...

That's the kind of weapons that I would picture that have a CONSTANT type of hit power. Like a +3, +2 or +1... Maybe add some dice play like 1d4 to see how many strikes the "Pulse Power Club" does in one hit (for example)...

Anyhow this is my version, you might be looking for more esoteric weapons and their names. Still I'm in agreement with @larienna, a "Blunt"-type of Futuristic weapon may be a good idea/solution. Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm getting the feel for it

shokunin wrote:
Try using immaterial weapon names: Spectral, ethereal, ghost, phantom, etc.

That makes me think of things like "Spectral Drain": a plasmic discharge which weakens an opponent/unit or disintegrates his armor/protection level. Or "Phantom Strike": a attack that targets mental thought and affects ones sanity. Maybe "Ethereal Charge" which does some kind of "Fusion" damage which could be random each attack...

Again trying to put a "futuristic" angle on these weapons to make them less about "Ghosts"/"Fantasy" and more about Futuristic Types of UNIQUE weapon types...

Cheers all!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
hmm

Of course the few name changes don't sit entirely well.

I am more specifically searching for a name for a group of weapons. Not separate weapons.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
There is more

To work on...

I think I need to change the whole list of weapon mechanics. This in order to make the manual easier to read.
I want to avoid sentences where I describe the weapon workings, then... describe how they work.
And to finish it properly. A symbol to go along with them.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
results

The weapon that has a certain hit:
"confirmed hit"

What remains are the weapons that flow around objects like gas and flames. I think that if there is a list of suggestions, these will spark a class name.

On a side note:
Testing so far seems to prefer the cheat guys...

Meaning that 0.2 roll damage seems to overpower 1 confirmed hit despite a cheaper cost...

This is the test:

Soldiers who have 1 health and do 0.200 rolling damage (bonus damage and a roll, meaning 5 health is 2.5 durability on average) versus:
Soldiers who have 5 health and do 1.667 confirmed hits

The soldiers with 1 health win...

While all aspects fight the imbalance. They do not succeed. However, they make a difference. And perhaps....

The costs of 67% of a confirmed hit should be lowered to less than 60%. This only to make sure that a confirmed hit wins over a roll.

It occured to me that all confirmed hits would win over a roll. In that case the whole confirmed hit would be imbalanced from start to end...

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
Hi X3M, this is not really

Hi X3M,
this is not really answering your question, sorry if I seem to go off topic and possibly you don't want this kind of suggestion :)

I recently read somewhere a couple of quotes "Any problem in game design can be fixed with a rule written on purpose. This is rarely the best option" and also "look for solutions which solve two problems at once".

I don't think there are universal rules in game design, but I thought of these quotes while reading that you added this special damage to fix other problems and balancing with the current system. And the new solution carries new complications with it.

I cannot know what could be a better solution, nor if there is any, but have you considered changing something more at the core to remove the problem entirely without having to add new mechanics?

Just a thought, I might be completely off. Good luck with the design :)
Antonio

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, primarily, I asked for

Well, primarily, I asked for if someone could rename the classes. Because some names are weird. This because my english is not my first language.

In regards to new mechanics. I could throw lower and higher health units from the table. Originally, I didn't had them. But players where constantly asking for shields like in Star Trek Armadda and the Protoss from StarCraft.

I thought that if extra health is allowed. Then so should the lower health.

I made a list of concequences for when a design has higher and lower health in the game. So far, lower health is better.

And seeing as how normal health is the lowest health when adding higher health (you still follow me?) It would mean that if I scrap lower health, I should scrap the higher health. And thus things like shields are the past.

On a side note. I could still go with the default and separate the basic health into up to 5 types of armor. Meaning, the health remains 5 for all units. But some units have a changing armor. This is actually still balanced and correct.

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
I don't necessarily mean

I don't necessarily mean changing the health in your troops, what I mean is identifying your real problem and remove it instead of adding another component.

From what you said (but probably there is a lot more you haven't said, so my analysis is likely not correct), the problem here is troops with 1 health requiring more effort into being killed than they should. If I had to point a finger at something, I would say it is the high variations in your dice rolls, as a d6-2 has 2 misses, and then if you roll a 6 you feel as if you wasted it on the lower health troop.
Maybe you could consider giving a base damage to your weapons and just a modifier to the die roll? e.g. a tank has a base damage of 2 but if you roll a 1 it misses and if you roll a 6 you get a +1? This gives you a 0-2-2-2-2-3 distribution with almost the same average as a 0-0-1-2-3-4 but with way less swing.
As I said I might be completely off, you may want the swing in numbers for many reason so please do ignore my solution. What I am hinting at is simply that there could be a neater way to solve the problem than adding another component to do the job!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The beauty of the maximum randomness

It is due to overkill.

If health remains 5 and the armor can change. Then the overkill has a good effect on balance.

The same can be said about having more health.

Another option is that health is in sets of 5. Meaning each set has its own armor type. This is taking a step backwards, but has been player properly before.

***

I made a list of effects some weeks ago. Where lower health is compared to higher health.

Lower health has:
- Durability by rolls and overkill.
- Smaller units.
- Theoratically gains the D6 -1 ability.
- Has an easier time taking cover before a battle starts.

Higher health has:
- Realistic durability, thus can retreat.
- Realistic durability, thus can take cover after a hit.
- Realistic durability, thus can get healed/repaired.
- Armies follow a squared patern instead of triangular (2 triangles fit in a square)

I am studying how the RPS works in this regard.
1 Health > 5 Health.
But 5 Health > 25 Health.
And perhaps, if the unit has enough health, due to getting closer to a squared effect. That same unit might be better than the 1 Health units.

I need to calculate that.

I have to say, it is to bad that the suggestions for class names has stopped. I guess we go with "confirmed hit" for now. And the other class shall keep the same weird names.

terzamossa
Offline
Joined: 09/24/2020
I think my point is not

I think my point is not really coming across but that's fine, it's not what you wanted anyway.

To make up for driving the post off the original topic I'll get it back on track :)

I am not sure I like "confirmed hit" as confirming is something that you do after the shot has hit the target. It would be weird to activate a hit which is already confirmed (I am not native though, so take this as my personal perception of the word)

I would prefer "guaranteed hit" thematically.
Or maybe just "sure hit", as it is shorter and simpler to remember?

Something like "easy target" would be an attempt to show thematically that you are aiming at some part of the enemy which is easier to hit, although probably more armoured (that's why you always hit but only deliver 1 damage). But I am not sure if the name is good enough to pass the message effectively.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
terzamossa wrote: I am not

terzamossa wrote:

I am not sure I like "confirmed hit" as confirming is something that you do after the shot has hit the target. It would be weird to activate a hit which is already confirmed (I am not native though, so take this as my personal perception of the word)

I would prefer "guaranteed hit" thematically.
Or maybe just "sure hit", as it is shorter and simpler to remember?

Something like "easy target" would be an attempt to show thematically that you are aiming at some part of the enemy which is easier to hit, although probably more armoured (that's why you always hit but only deliver 1 damage). But I am not sure if the name is good enough to pass the message effectively.


Well, this is much better.

These weapons are supposed to hit the enemy that have low health and are small. But simply not due to splash damage or any of that kind.

I like the "Guaranteed Hit"

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
terzamossa wrote: Maybe you

terzamossa wrote:

Maybe you could consider giving a base damage to your weapons and just a modifier to the die roll? e.g. a tank has a base damage of 2 but if you roll a 1 it misses and if you roll a 6 you get a +1? This gives you a 0-2-2-2-2-3 distribution with almost the same average as a 0-0-1-2-3-4 but with way less swing.
As I said I might be completely off, you may want the swing in numbers for many reason so please do ignore my solution. What I am hinting at is simply that there could be a neater way to solve the problem than adding another component to do the job!

I think I do get your point.

Here are some reasons for the aspects.

The swing in numbers:
We wanted to create situations where there is a gamble when only a few units play.

Base damage:
We had this. But we started noticing imbalances. Even with the normal units. So we decided to have only 1 type of roll for when a weapon hits besides of accuracy. And that is the one and only swing in numbers roll.

+1 -1:
Some weapons are still adjusted. But to keep the same type of randomness without destroying balance, All dice have the same swing in numbers.
0-0-0-0-0-1
0-0-0-0-1-2
0-0-0-1-2-3
0-0-1-2-3-4
Etc.
The balance of these is based on the total score.
We tested this and confirmed it works properly.

And then they wanted higher and lower health units...
So we needed another type of weapon.
It would be the same as a base damage if you think about it.

I still have some tests to do. But if I find the RPS balance (of 4 designs). Then we are good to go.

I will post again when I have the results.
If I fail, then lower health and higher health might be scrapped again. Or I look for another solution. Eg. If target has base health lower than normal, +1. Stuff like that.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Going to make a separate post for it

Let's see what I can get out of others.

Edit:
While trying to type a new topic. I realized that Math is non done. I thought of describing the mechanics and the results. Then tell you guys about the results of the problem.

But it would make such a big post that no one is really going to read it. Let alone, understand it in order to help.

I think that doing the math and testing should be done by me and with my game group.

And from there I decide to add the new weapon type or remove the altered health value's.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
How about concussive

Originally I was thinking Pulse Weapons. Like Pulse Rifle or Pulse Canon.

Then I was thinking Flash Weapons. Flash Grenade, Flash Bang, Flash Bomb, Flash Mob (last one is a joke).

How about concussive or concussion weapons? Concussive Rifle, Concussion Grenade.

Just thinking out load to go with some of the ideas already discussed. Other words that might fit:
Impact weapons
Radiation/Nuclear Weapons
Thermal Weapons
Frag
Energy Weapons

If you have piercing you also see, slash and/or bludgeoning/blunt.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Translations

AdamRobinGames-ARG wrote:

How about concussive

This one is interesting.

Some weapons against small units in the game Starcraft, got the concussive ability. Meaning they do 100% damage against small units, yet less against other,bigger targets.

It would perfectly fit the type of weapon that would get this ability. In fact, if I give it to the Ghost (sniper), my 'Starcraft fan' player would be thrilled.

I once looked it up. And thought the translation never felt right. This due to my english not being my first language. But then again, I know there are dutch words that can't really be translated either. "Donkey Bridge" "Butter Ham" "Is Isn't".
That is what concussive is for me I guess.

I think I had the wrong picture with concussive.
So how would you describe "Concussive" exactly?

(It is just one word again. This is great!)

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Definition

Well there are several, but in terms of weaponry:
1. Having the power or quality of shaking by sudden or violent stroke or impulse; agitating; shocking.
2. Of, pertaining to, or causing a concussion.

Concussive weapons are intended to stun or incapacitate. So they explode at the target area, but they do not send shrapnel. Still potentially lethal though.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think it is done

AdamRobinGames-ARG wrote:
They explode at the target area, but they do not send shrapnel. Still potentially lethal though.

This perfectly describes the effect of the mechanic in the game.

Can the same be said/possible for cannon type weaponry against vehicles that are very low on health?

Thank You.
I got renewed trust in the word concussive.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
As noted above

As noted above, I know of concussion grenades and concussive rifles. (Though with rifles it's really the explosive round). There are larger weapons that do similar, like Bunker Busters. It's a rocket or bomb that doesn't explode until it becomes uncompressed. Basically it buries itself into the target and if it hits a cave or other open space, then it explodes. I'd be willing to bet that same tech has been applied to anti-tank rockets or missiles too. I tried googling, but there is too much war tech to wade through.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
An excerpt

Here's something I turned up which may be of interest:

What is Anti-Tank Guided Missile?

It is a medium or long-range missile whose primary objective is to destroy tanks and other armoured vehicles. As we know that various rockets and missiles are employed against armoured vehicles, but the most sophisticated are Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM). They can be directed to the target by several different guidance systems like laser guiding, television camera, or wire guiding.

In fact, ATGMS can be launched from aircraft or land vehicles or by infantry. It can also be used against fortified positions or low-speed aircraft.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the first ATGMs were developed. They employed with manual guidance systems that require the operator to steer the missile to the target by wire with a joystick or similar control device.

In September 2019, the indigenously developed low weight, fire, and forget Man-Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) were successfully tested. In February 2018, Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM), Nag, was successfully tested in desert conditions against two tank targets at different ranges and timings. DRDO has indigenously developed NAG ATGM.

How Are Laser-Guided Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) different?

On 22 September and later on 1 October, the laser-guided ATGM was successfully tested and is different from other ATGMs developed till date. It is designed to be fired from tanks. It employs a tandem HEAT warhead to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) protected armoured vehicles in ranges from 1.5 to 5 km. Here 'tandem' basically refers to the missiles that use more than one detonation in order to effectively penetrate the protective armours.

Source: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/anti-tank-guided-missile-16...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That is nice

AdamRobinGames-ARG wrote:
As noted above, I know of concussion grenades and concussive rifles. (Though with rifles it's really the explosive round). There are larger weapons that do similar, like Bunker Busters. It's a rocket or bomb that doesn't explode until it becomes uncompressed. Basically it buries itself into the target and if it hits a cave or other open space, then it explodes. I'd be willing to bet that same tech has been applied to anti-tank rockets or missiles too. I tried googling, but there is too much war tech to wade through.

It is good to know that this story can be applied to bunker busters and of course, anti tank missiles.

I already had another system where I use attributes.
Units versus Structures and then Organics versus Mechanics.
Well, it was the original design where the exact 1 damage weapons took part of.

A bunker buster would have an adjustment of +1 to structures and to mechanics.
And anti tank missiles would have an adjustment of +1 to units, again +1 to mechanics.

You might find in interesting to know that the concussive ability will fit well with the adjustments. But this time I will have it organised.

I also have a multiplier of 0 or 2 to the attributes. Meaning I could have the exact 1 damage only pop up against certain attributes in cooperation with other adjustments.

I am absolutely sure that having the "1" pulled from the pool. And giving it a new lable. Will help me greatly in balancing the adjustments of weaponry in general.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut