# New weapon properties needed

12 replies [Last post]
X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I have a list of weapons for one of my games. That are different in accuracy. But in the long run, they are all alike.

The following 4 weapons are worth the same:
Dice, d6, needs to roll X or less for a hit.
1 x d6<=6 certain
2 x d6<=3
3 x d6<=2
6 x d6<=1 uncertain

Sure, players can choose for certainty over randomness. Or the other way around.

But most of the time (95%). Players have so many soldiers. That the difference in the long run is almost non-existent.

At a low amount of soldiers, 3 or less. The win chance of certainty
(1 x d6<=6) is about 55-45 pitted to the most uncertain
(6 x d6<=1).

If the certain one wins, XP spending is in big chunks.
If the uncertain one wins, XP spending is in smaller chunks.

But with a big army, XP doesn't matter as well.

If a lone unit has an high inaccuracy. It still can manage to kill a lot more opponents than a certain one. They have a better chance when being outnumbered. But this too has only a slight advantage in a useless battle. The only reason why one would choose inaccuracy would be if you attack from a range.

***

Something that can increase the Obvious to a choice.
Who can help me?

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Need More Explanation

X3M,

I am not sure if I am understanding your post.

"x3m" wrote:
The following 4 weapons are worth the same:
Dice, d6, needs to roll X or less for a hit.
1 x d6<=6 certain
2 x d6<=3
3 x d6<=2
6 x d6<=1 uncertain

For the first weapon, are you saying you roll only one d6 and on a six or less you score a hit? Why even roll a die? I am assuming the d6 only has faces with values 1-6 on it.

For the other weapons, because you roll more dice, you can score more hits? For example, with the second weapon you can score a maximum of two hits and with the fourth weapon I guess 6 hits?

I think you can calculate the expected value statistic that will tell you which is the best weapon to take in the long run.

Are you trying to make interesting decisions for players on whether to take a weapon that has a guaranteed probability of hitting but low damage versus a weapon with a low probability of hitting but can result in a high amount of damager?

By the way, I don't really like an idea of a weapon with a 100% probability of hitting. Nothing in life is 100% :)

--DarkDream

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, of course we don't roll

Yes, it is indeed my intention in making interesting choices of weapons.

Well, of course we don't roll d6 with an accuracy of 6. It was just for comparison.
And there is a second roll that is depending on the number of hits. But shows no difference in influence thus far.

I could call the 4 weapons 1x 6/6, 2x 3/6, 3x 2/6 and 6x 1/6 if that is easier to understand.

I tested in my simulator. And the score of the 1x6/6 against all other weapons are:
111% against 2x 3/6
115% against 3x 2/6
121% against 6x 1/6

That was for a 1 on 1. (I simulated 100,000 times) Obvious the lower accuracy means a better chance in killing. But also in doing overkill. That is why they are actually worse in the long run.
That effect goes away when I have like 30 vs 30 soldiers. Where the end result is only 104% for 1x6/6 versus 6x1/6.

While you need only 3 hits against the weakest soldiers. Having 6 hits is indeed overkill.
It is not really a choice. If you like to go for a long run, you go for the best accuracy.

So my guess is, that I need to have more reasons for players to choose the weapon they like to equip their soldiers with.

Surely,
the way of upgrading a weapon,
or the soldiers that take opportunities,
cannot be the only 2 reasons for this.

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
X3M wrote: I tested in my

X3M wrote:

I tested in my simulator. And the score of the 1x6/6 against all other weapons are:
111% against 2x 3/6
115% against 3x 2/6
121% against 6x 1/6

That was for a 1 on 1. (I simulated 100,000 times) Obvious the lower accuracy means a better chance in killing. But also in doing overkill. That is why they are actually worse in the long run.
That effect goes away when I have like 30 vs 30 soldiers. Where the end result is only 104% for 1x6/6 versus 6x1/6.

While you need only 3 hits against the weakest soldiers. Having 6 hits is indeed overkill.
It is not really a choice. If you like to go for a long run, you go for the best accuracy.

This is key, right now based on your simulations having the 100% accuracy beats everything else. So there is really no decision here. Players will pick the 100% accuracy weapon.

A suggestion is to tweak some of your parameters or allow weapons to do damage to multiple soldiers.

So how does the simulation run, for example, if the soldiers have 10 hits? I would imagine the percentage of wins on the 100% accurate weapon goes down.

Also what if you allowed the lower accuracy weapons overkill hits go to other soldiers. For example, I have 2 soldiers with 100% accuracy versus soldiers with lowest accuracy but most hits. The first 2 accurate soldiers score 2 automatic hits off the lower accuracy soldiers. However, one of the soldiers with the lower accuracy scores a hit with all six dice! All six hits are applied to one soldier killing him with 3 hits with 3 hits overkill. These overkill hits are applied to the remaining soldier who is killed resulting in the second group of soldiers winning.

Thematically this seems to make more sense. For example, a bazuka is less accurate than a rifle but can score more damage.

--DarkDream

andymakespasta
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2015
I don't see what the point of

I don't see what the point of having so many choices along the "random" vs "deterministic" axis is.

Seems to be a lot of work for something that doesn't matter a lot.

I feel only the extremes matter, as they have more flavor.

A weapon that has huge damage, but low hit rate. Upgrades for more damage.

A weapon that always hits, and can keep rolling for extra hits. Upgrades for extra hits/higher chance of extra attacks

A weapon that is extremely average on all aspects. Starts cheap, but cost of upgrading increases quickly.

Some other possible weapons:

Setup weapons/charge weapons. Can only fire after n turns of idleness/non attacking.

Demoralizing weapons. Affects the enemy in different ways.

But really, after extra thought, modern game design would prefer you design weapons around the gameplay, rather than having weapon types before you have a game. So I would suggest designing weapons specialized for in game situations and actions.

Soulfinger
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
Well, it seems like you are

Well, it seems like you are wanting wild card secondary effects. For example, plasma weapons in Warhammer 40K have high damage output but a 1-in-6 chance of overheating and inflicting self-injury. Alternately, critical effects. Roll again if you roll a 6 to determine if the secondary effect triggers. Hard to say exactly how anything would be implemented with so little to go on, but . . .

You have a sure thing gun that hits on any result, but on a roll of 1, the gun is slagged, the unit suffers a hit, etc.

A gun that only hits on a 5 or 6, but if you roll a 6 then you roll again to determine the number of hits.

A shielded unit that only hits on a 6 when its shields are activated, because the unit has to coordinate its fire with the shield's flicker rate, but hits on 3+ when it is unshielded.

Different to-hit values for different ranges.

Choices between a sure hit that jams the weapon, preventing fire next turn, or a flat 3+.

An expendable one-shot 2+ that is followed from there on by 5+ attacks.

Tracer attacks that increase the accuracy of subsequent attacks against the same unit.

Head shot-style criticals. Roll to hit, roll 4+ on a second die for an instant kill.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Thank you for responding

And the reply is some sort of TLDR. Although in blocks. I tried to respond to as much as possible as short as possible.

DarkDream wrote:

This is key, right now based on your simulations having the 100% accuracy beats everything else. So there is really no decision here. Players will pick the 100% accuracy weapon.

Exactly the problem. While the inaccurate weapons have 2 subtle advantages. Players won't see these.

DarkDream wrote:

So how does the simulation run, for example, if the soldiers have 10 hits? I would imagine the percentage of wins on the 100% accurate weapon goes down.

The percentage of wins goes down. With increasing the number of soldiers. And increasing the health for each soldier. But it never goes exactly 100% or below 100%.

DarkDream wrote:

Also what if you allowed the lower accuracy weapons overkill hits go to other soldiers.
This is already the case. Every projectile will hit something. And it seems to be balanced out by the fact that all 6 can easily miss too. Especially in a long run. Which surprised me.

***

Origin of the less accuracy.

The previous main purpose of less accuracy was: Making the expensive weapons cheaper. It also created more balance to the game. But it only had this purpose when the weapons had different RPS effects. Breaking through armor has its price, but it was ok if it occasionally missed. In the long run, a rocket would win against a tank, but not against a soldier.

***

andymakespasta wrote:
I don't see what the point of having so many choices along the "random" vs "deterministic" axis is.

Well, I named 2 subtle ones. Apparently their effect on the game was less than I imagined. And that is why I am troubled right now with having this "choice".

andymakespasta wrote:

Seems to be a lot of work for something that doesn't matter a lot.

It had an origin. And that purpose will remain. All I want to tackle now is the "Why even do that on the smallest weapons?" part. Because this question of yours is exactly what we are having right now.

andymakespasta wrote:

I feel only the extremes matter, as they have more flavor.

Agreed. Some sort of extra mini RPS could help? But I have no idea where to begin with in this case.

andymakespasta wrote:

A weapon that has huge damage, but low hit rate. Upgrades for more damage.

A weapon that always hits, and can keep rolling for extra hits. Upgrades for extra hits/higher chance of extra attacks

A weapon that is extremely average on all aspects. Starts cheap, but cost of upgrading increases quickly.

The current situation is:
The 1x6/6 has 100XP for that one bullet.
The 2x3/6 has 50XP for each bullet.

If both gain 150XP, than the second weapon has 1 more upgrade. That is the current advantage for the second weapon.

It is the second weapon that can kill in the first turn. But in the long run it is weaker despite the kills.

andymakespasta wrote:

Some other possible weapons:

Setup weapons/charge weapons. Can only fire after n turns of idleness/non attacking.

Setup; like my artillery, which need 1 turn to deploy. Fast enemies have plenty of time to run.
Cooldown; is something that requires a lot of handling. I already have to trouble them with tracking health and upgrades for the units. Which both are by the given situation. Cooldown is always.

andymakespasta wrote:

Demoralizing weapons. Affects the enemy in different ways.

Please explain. I am curious. Because I think it could help me with my current problem.

andymakespasta wrote:

But really, after extra thought, modern game design would prefer you design weapons around the gameplay, rather than having weapon types before you have a game. So I would suggest designing weapons specialized for in game situations and actions.

The game is there. I am trying to cut this current branch that has sprouted. Due to other branches that I helped growing.

***

Soulfinger wrote:
Well, it seems like you are wanting wild card secondary effects.

Lets just say, the game is to big to be described here. (In practise with the board it is still an hour of explanation) Therefore I only described this one part. Sorry for that. But I appreciate that you answer any way. Because blind answers might give the best idea's/solutions!

These secondary effects. I think they have some merit.

Soulfinger wrote:

You have a sure thing gun that hits on any result, but on a roll of 1, the gun is slagged, the unit suffers a hit, etc.

And the very next turn, these guns don't fire? I can see this work. It would mean, - 1 bullet. Thus 6x1/6 would become 5x1/6 for 1 turn. While 1x6/6 would become 0x6/6. A; it needs ALOT of tweaking for balance. B; a major part of the problem is still the long run.

Soulfinger wrote:

A gun that only hits on a 5 or 6, but if you roll a 6 then you roll again to determine the number of hits.
I already got this one in the form of upgrades. But the problem remains unchanged with this. Linking it more to the problem might show interesting results. But I have no idea in how to do that.

Soulfinger wrote:

A shielded unit that only hits on a 6 when its shields are activated, because the unit has to coordinate its fire with the shield's flicker rate, but hits on 3+ when it is unshielded.

A fast firing gun would benefit from this. It is some sort of the same as the slagged gun. But I think that if I add shields to certain units. This might actually work. And there is some sort of RPS effect in it. Again, a lot of tweaking, but it makes sense.

Soulfinger wrote:

Different to-hit values for different ranges.
I got this one covered. But I find it cool that I am not the only one thinking of this.

Soulfinger wrote:

An expendable one-shot 2+ that is followed from there on by 5+ attacks.

A weapon that needs to warm up? That is a cool idea. It would work like having an average of 3. Starts with 2. And at top it would be 4. This is an excellent idea. And works very well with the inaccurate weapons. Actually, it only works with the inaccurate weapons since they have so many bullets to work with.
The simulator that I have cannot work this out. Because this effect is influenced by micro management on the troops. The inaccurate have to move in close to the enemy. Then they need enough time to warm up their weapons before it has a positive effect. This clearly is an additional choice. And worthwhile.

Soulfinger wrote:

Tracer attacks that increase the accuracy of subsequent attacks against the same unit.

5 hits and he is dead. With numbers working in 30 soldiers. It will not be much of use. Only when you have a 1 on 1 battle. But it is sort of the same as the warming up weapon. How could this one be applied? A temporary upgrade is the only way I see this. Which is a good idea as well, no doubt. But it doesn't help tackling the problem.

Soulfinger wrote:

Head shot-style criticals. Roll to hit, roll 4+ on a second die for an instant kill.

I already have this covered. But are you saying that the chance on inaccurate weapons should be even higher?

ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Wow, that was a lot of text.

As I've been thinking about this response, I have come to the following conclusion: if you want a super-fiddly wargame with a lot of rules and game-state maintenance, then you don't have to read what I have to say.

That said, as I read your posts, you seem to have created a board game where you have a lot of soldiers (to which you're assigning XP?), but that also allows you to have different "weapons" for each of them, which each grant either more dice with less chance to hit, or fewer dice, with a greater chance to hit.

However, I think that you're overcomplicating things.

One thing that I've noticed when playing games is that the most agonizing downtime in the world is when you're waiting from your buddy to find enough dice. What's inevitably going to happen in this scenario is that you're going to have a lot of multiplication to figure out the right number of dice, a whole minute while you gather them up, then sit there counting your results. While there is a rush in rolling a lot of dice at once, it can get old rather quickly, so if the game is long, then the downtime might become unbearable.

Have you considered tightening up the process a bit, and maybe leaving out unique weapons in favor of a static "unit strength" which could be a static number that might be increased with a good single die roll? Alternately, how about attacking with the whole army at once using cards to add combat bonuses simultaneously with your opponent? What if you took a similar strategy to Eclipse/s upgrade strategy for determining how much damage/attack each one has?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Well, I did read what you had to say. And making my game faster and faster is a good thing to do. Don't mind me scrapping things. I do overcomplicate things. And this is obviously one of them.

***

Last month, we scrapped individual XP. It is gathered on a big pile now. And players kinda create 3 groups of soldiers. Those without upgrades, and those with the same upgrades on armor, and those with the same upgrades on damage.

***

Now to scrapping dice.

We are dealing with an exceptional exception situation here. That is.
6 dice, a bleeding out amount. Happens 40% of the time.
12 would be with a normal army. Happens 20% of the time.
18 would be more or less at the beginning of a war. 10% of the time.
The infantry and anti infantry groups have 18 to 36, which are exceptions. This is rather large, about 25% of the time. And for these we already have the rule that dice count twice. Our current upper level is 18 dice.

With this exceptional exception situation. We would divide by 12. (36*6/12=18). And use 18 dice.

Is 18 still to much? I'll do a survey amongst my fellow warriors to see what they have to say about it.

Something for you all to know is that each turn, about 1/3th dies. And in one round, 3 of these turns can be played. Each turn is max 5 minutes. And goes down when the number of units goes down.
In case of infantry we have:
36>24>16>10>6>4>2>1>0

This game is a long one if you have multiple armies to play with. And ehm, somehow they like it. But if we can reduce the time of one turn. That would mean a lot.

***

Well, leaving out the dice? That is a rather odd suggestion. But if I where to do so. That would mean simply counting the soldiers and reduce the enemy with them. There would be no randomness.

Having just 1 die roll for adding up. I understand this method. But that would mean that the complete army is depending on one die.
Should terrain influence also be done with this one die?
I could try, but I am not sure how to go with this.

Can you give me an example with an army of lets say 23 soldiers?

***

There is this event card that does exactly as you have described. [Teamwork] makes each group type of die roll depending on just 1 die roll.

***

On a side note. I have noticed how players rather play on the board, where the number of soldiers and tanks is less. In case of infantry, the 18 pops up again. Perhaps I should halve the number of units then?

Soulfinger
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015
There are a few old

There are a few old rpg/wargame books that I'd recommend taking a look at to get an idea of how to give your weapons some flavor. I expect that you can find PDFs of these with a simple Google search.

For starters, the old Rogue Trader rulebook, which was 1st edition Warhammer 40k back before anything was really formalized. It is weighty, unbalanced, and a joy to browse through. Then the 2nd edition wargear book that came with the boxed set.

Next, the old Mutant Chronicles RPG and Warzone wargame (haven't had a chance to look at the new edition). They did a really good job of making relatively generic small arms with minor stat differences look interesting and appealing. FASA tended to do this with their Battletech and Renegade Legion lines as well, providing backstories for mechs and such that could evoke an emotional response so that a player might opt for a sub-par vehicle because of the background story or some gimmick. Good fluff distracts players from the math, so that they are making emotional decisions instead of rational ones when force-building.

One other thing. I'd characterized it as tracer rounds, but more accurately you could have the option to paint targets. It's an attack that causes little or no damage, but it increases the odds to hit for every unit attacking the painted one.

Another option is to provide victory point bonuses for players who elect to take subpar gear. You incentivize disadvantages. Also, there could be weapons categorized as "experimental." You roll to determine their effectiveness at the start of the battle. Again, early WH40K ork source material offers up tons of examples for how to interject random weapon effects.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I will take a look in the

I will take a look in the books you mentioned.

Soulfinger wrote:

One other thing. I'd characterized it as tracer rounds, but more accurately you could have the option to paint targets. It's an attack that causes little or no damage, but it increases the odds to hit for every unit attacking the painted one.

This too is a valid option to add to the game. But I need to be careful with it. Or else it would imbalance the game greatly.

This rolling at the start of the battle is an idea. But I think there is already plenty of guessing for the players.
Before we start, we have each our own deck of cards. Each card has the information of the unit that we want to use. We select those that we deem worthy for the battle of that day. They added their own fluff and pictures :) Which is actually fun.

***

Dice

I asked 3 players about the number of dice. They think 18 is doable. But it might just be us thinking that. More is too much. But sometimes they feel it is needed to play with 36. This surprised me.

They also said that a group of maximum 18 units to play with is plenty. But they don't mind having a second army standing right beside it.

Thus plenty of dice, but divided amongst the turns.

---

Weapons

I asked them how they feel about the 4 different versions of 1 weapon.
They had yet to notice the difference in the long run (except for the simulator supplier).
It seems my game actually forces players to look only 1 to 3 turns ahead. In that case, 3 of 4 versions are valid for the small arms.

They like 1x6/6 and 3x2/6 a lot.
2x3/6 is also often used.

Somehow they add more and more range to their weapon of choice when the accuracy is less. Perhaps because these weapons are "easier" to upgrade.

[1], it has the biggest chance on overkill when you overpower the enemy. Which is a lost cause and the reason for the 21% inefficiency.
[2], in a one against two fight, this overkill is actually the lowest if it comes to making 2 kills. The chance is there, but now very very low. 1/46656. And for one kill we are talking about 26%. Which is a good chance.
[3], since 18 dice is the maximum. The desired effects of rolling are actually not there. Unless we are talking about the big glass cannons. Which the army only has 3 of. (3x6=18)
Snipers too require 18+ dice for better effects. There are 6 snipers in one army, yet each requires 6 dice.

They too think that I am overcomplicating things. But they suggest to leave it the way it is. And letting the game evolve at our own pace. They said that I should stop being little miss princess perfect. (I am sorry, I laughed at this comment :D )

In short.

1x6/6 yes
2x3/6 sometimes
3x2/6 yes
6x1/6 only for the glass cannons

***

No matter, the suggestions given here are good ones. I simply put them in my box of mayhem. And I will pull idea's from the books that you have mentioned too.

Soulfinger
Offline
Joined: 01/06/2015

X3M wrote:
I asked 3 players about the number of dice. They think 18 is doable. But it might just be us thinking that. More is too much. But sometimes they feel it is needed to play with 36. This surprised me.

They also said that a group of maximum 18 units to play with is plenty. But they don't mind having a second army standing right beside it.

It's good to look into Warhammer stats and feedback from those players because there is so much out there already about quantity of dice, to-hit ratios, and what-not. It's very easy to extrapolate data and get a feel for player preferences.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

I have a little successful update to this little issue.

Seeing as how one weapon has one high accurate bullet and another has 6 inaccurate bullets.

Several additions described down here in the TLDR post. But also summarized.

The first addition gives more progress to the game. And is problem related.

The second addition is a mirror of the first one. Slows down the game, but is useful for half of the players. And is also problem related.

The third one, is some prototype regarding super weapons. Their design. And the combination of warm up weapons.
Not problem related. But adds flavour to the game for small arms too.
Does not speed up the game if done wrong.

***

There are already Event Cards that add 1 more bullet to the list for 1 round.

Meaning that the accurate weapon doubles, while the inaccurate weapon has a factor of 1,17.

So I thought of simply adding a new Event Card that adds 1 more accuracy to each bullet.

Where 1/6th becomes 2/6th and
6/6th becomes 7/6th (remains 1, but has a new bullet with 1/6th).

Both weapons can now enjoy the same 200% effect from a certain event card.

Of course is a 1x1/6 (special weapon against the highest tiers of armor) enjoying the possibility of 2 different Event Cards. Giving it 400%.

Further notice, since the 6x1/6 has 121% against it. I simply put the new Event Card 6 times in the pile while the other card is 5 times in the pile.

OR

6/6 is the limit, no new bullet with 1/6 for high accuracy weapons. Thus rendering the Event Card useless for the high accuracy weapons. And making it more valid for the other weapons. But I don't like that. A little survey amongst my players will do, I hope.

Now for a good name for this card. (And the other one since they compliment each other)

Tracer/Tracker?

***

2 More Even Cards.
This idea sprouted from Soulfinger.

1 Reduces the amount of bullets by 1 for 1 round.

The other one reduces the accuracy by 1 for 1 round. And this one is the mirror of the first addition.

Still be needing a good name for these.

I can't use Lucky and Unlucky since those 2 are already in use.

***

Warm up. Also an idea sprouted by Soulfinger.

A lot of imbalance was lurking around with this one. But with another ingredient (cooldown). I got an excellent idea.

Instead of 2-3-4. I simply had the idea of a weapon that has 2 all the time.
But has 1 extra bullet with cooldown 2. And another extra bullet with cooldown 3.

I also can use this on other weapons like Snipers, where they aim, but not fire immediately. Or super weapons.

((True cooldown is equal to other weapons when it waits until it may fire. False cooldown is what you see in ALL rts games.))

Even though this is an addition. It does not help making 6x1/6 more useful or needed.

And tracking cooldown is something you rather only do with super weapons. But if your small arms are already firing. This is nice to do.

***

Should I, or NOT?
Allow players for an extra upgrade on accuracy through XP?

***