Skip to Content

Damage reduction, only one way?

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

So I have 2 ways of damage reduction, that are possible for my wargame.

Both are based on the damage die roll.
Which can result in 0 to a maximum of 4. The die itself has 001234.

By plating:
With a number of maximum 3 to any negative number is possible. The weight of the health would be as following;
Plating 3, weight 10
Plating 2, weight 10/3
Plating 1, weight 10/6
Plating -1, weight 10/15
Plating -2, weight 10/21
Plating -5, weight 10/45
Just to give some general idea's.
Plating requires less health points. Which would make the game simpler. All the player has to do is adjust the ammount a damage die rolls.

By weapon modifier:
Some weapons can have modifiers against certain attributes.
These work in the same way. Also from 3 to whatever negative number it wants.

Both?
Seems to be impossible. Since it would bring imbalance. Unless I keep track of a limited set of possibilities. The weapon modifier has multiple uses. But the plating is a much simpler concept.
Maybe consider the plating as an attribute? Only effective if a weapon has a certain attribute?

What would you advice?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
So far

Both is not an option.
But keeping that in mind. I have to design from the basics in baby steps.
In other words. I start with normal weapons and a plating of 0. Then slowly add small modifications.

For a first impression:
Plating levels range from 0 to 3.

I know the weights now for my weapons. But the numbers aint beautiful.
If the default weapon weights 40.
1 tier lower is 14 1/3.
1 tier higher is 81 2/3.

If I change the plating levels. The default level changes predictable. But the tiers of weapons are strange.
0 to 1, default 20, other 2 tiers 11 and 31 2/3
0 to 2, default 30, other 2 tiers 14 1/3 and 51 2/3

I figured that if I remove plating 1 and 2, yet leave 3 in. The numbers are nice and round.
If I change the weights, this too, is the case. But the default weapon will have preferences towards certain plating. Namely 1 and 4 OR 2 and 3.

It is all complex. But it is obvious that BOTH, will not work.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Modify Weapons

I suggest you modify the weapons. Personally, I think it would be easier to modify the damage from different types of weapons if you had basic armour types, because then the weapons can be designed to cause different types and different magnitudes of damage. This can also be consistent with your mention of "modifiers against certain attributes," above.

For example... If someone is wearing a heavy coat over casual street clothes, consider that "Cloth Armor."

  • A pistol or crossbow will do full piercing damage.
  • An arrow does 1 rank less piercing damage.
  • A slingshot will do 1 rank less bludgeon damage.
  • A flamethrower will do persistent heat damage.

Another example... If someone is wearing combat-ready armour of metal, plastic, and chemically-treated, synthetic fabrics, this is considered "Combat Armor."

  • A pistol or crossbow will do 3 ranks less of piercing damage.
  • An arrow does 3 ranks less piercing damage.
  • A slingshot will do 4 ranks less bludgeon damage (even possibly rendering this weapon ineffective).
  • A flamethrower will do 1 rank less persistent heat damage, and its time of effect is halved.

For weapons, determine the type of energy/damage, and follow that up with a power ranking. If an attack is successful, it does a certain amount of damage, modified by the type of armour of the target.

What may be lacking is durability of the armour itself (as in, how many hits can it take before it's shredded/useless?), but depending on how your game is structured you may not want to include that in calculations.

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

let-off studios wrote:
I suggest you modify the weapons. Personally, I think it would be easier to modify the damage from different types of weapons if you had basic armour types, because then the weapons can be designed to cause different types and different magnitudes of damage. This can also be consistent with your mention of "modifiers against certain attributes," above.

For example... If someone is wearing a heavy coat over casual street clothes, consider that "Cloth Armor."

  • A pistol or crossbow will do full piercing damage.
  • An arrow does 1 rank less piercing damage.
  • A slingshot will do 1 rank less bludgeon damage.
  • A flamethrower will do persistent heat damage.

Another example... If someone is wearing combat-ready armour of metal, plastic, and chemically-treated, synthetic fabrics, this is considered "Combat Armor."

  • A pistol or crossbow will do 3 ranks less of piercing damage.
  • An arrow does 3 ranks less piercing damage.
  • A slingshot will do 4 ranks less bludgeon damage (even possibly rendering this weapon ineffective).
  • A flamethrower will do 1 rank less persistent heat damage, and its time of effect is halved.

For weapons, determine the type of energy/damage, and follow that up with a power ranking. If an attack is successful, it does a certain amount of damage, modified by the type of armour of the target.

What may be lacking is durability of the armour itself (as in, how many hits can it take before it's shredded/useless?), but depending on how your game is structured you may not want to include that in calculations.


This is the kind of answer that I am looking for.
Well said.
And it is going in the same direction of my thoughts as well.

Indeed, the weapon damage, based on armor attributes is a system. That is easier to follow. But also gets more diversity into the game.
In a sense, the attributes are still a sign of armor diversity.

The other way could have been attributes on the weapons themselves. Responding to the attributes of armor. But in this regard, one would get more to test, before combat resolution.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
System Settings

X3M wrote:
This is the kind of answer that I am looking for.
Well said.
And it is going in the same direction of my thoughts as well.

...

The other way could have been attributes on the weapons themselves. Responding to the attributes of armor. But in this regard, one would get more to test, before combat resolution.

To me, it seems inspired by old-skool RPGs such as Marvel Super Heroes (from the 80's) and even Palladium RPG. In this, I mean that weapons cause a set amount of damage, and armor can soak/resist a set amount of damage. It's the skill and capability of the wielder (and in many cases, the circumstances of the target) that open the door for a weapon's ability to harm.

Happy to hear my words might be helpful. Good luck to you on this project. Test it all like crazy. :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The testing was/is fun! Next issue...

Yes. More testing is needed.
I found another issue.
And I am 100% sure that it would be abused. Game-breaker...

The old weapon system had an accuracy roll. This downtime is removed by adjusting the damage.
However, I already had damage modification through a bonus rule.

This yields +1 or +2, if the army is outnumbered. And it brought huge balance to the game!

The accuracy modification, and the bonus damage modification.
They went well together.

But 2 damage modifications brings a problem to the balance. 0 damage would actually give +2 damage, due to balancing rules.

So, you might understand. That I am having second thoughts about using a damage modifier on the weapons by attributes.
The problem actually remains, if I where to look at plating instead.

Sure, I can calculate the balances. But the numbers are ugly. 31, 46, stuff like that.

In fact, the +1 bonus damage is actually supposed to be +50% all the time.
And the +2 bonus damage is (+100%) +110% all the time.
This should be a factor on the rolled damage.
Having an accuracy roll for a multiplier or something would make no sense. Because then I might as well use the accuracy again on the weapons against attributes.

I don't see any option just yet, to solve this issue...

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Universal Table

Are you familiar with the Marvel Super Heroes RPG? I'll expand on this example in the event you haven't.

On the back of the main rule book they had the Universal Table, and everything was built around using this table as a reference. This is one way to address your issue.

Here's a link to a graphic of the Universal Table:
https://classicmarvelforever.com/cms/universal-table.html

In MSH, you would find out the difference between the ability of an attacker to hit, and its target. If it was difficult, you would "Shift Left," or move to a column or two to the left. If the target was prone, paralyzed, etc. then you would "Shift Right." Finally, a roll of percentile dice would show your result.

For example,

LOS in 7th Grade wrote:
Say I was an expert marksman armed with a fantastic sniper rifle, and my target was a strawbale target about 100m away.

  • My accuracy is Remarkable.
  • My sniper rifle does Amazing damage (looking at the table, it would be 50 points of damage).
  • The target is not protected with anything. It's pretty much defenseless. Because of this, I will Shift Right one column to determine damage.
  • After the Column Shift, if I successfully hit, I will cause 75 points of damage, since that's the number listed in the next column over (the "Monstrous" column).

You can use these same principles to determine your combat results. Make your own version of "Column Shifts" to the left or right on a standardized damage table/matrix, rounding it off with 5's and 10's to keep it easy on yourself and limit the math. Column Shifts can be based on the material/armour being attacked, and how it reacts to the type of attack it is facing.

Again, whether or not they hit isn't connected in any way to how much damage is caused, unless you want to add that level of nuance into the game. MSH allowed players to apply modifiers as much as they wanted to maintain a desired complexity level, but the same principles of Column Shifts applied. For example, prone, inanimate, or paralyzed targets could grant CS to the Right. Full or partial cover, fog, severe windstorms or other adverse conditions, etc. could grant CS to the Left.

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

A percentage roll is indeed an option.
But if possible. I like to refrain from tables, as much as possible.

Seeing as how the bonus damage is supposed to be a factor. Why not treat it as such?

For a 50% bonus, rolling a die before hand. To see if the projectile is doubled.
For a 100% bonus, the die is doubled.

All dice, will follow the same adjustment rule.

Thus if a weapon does only 30% damage. But there fore can be applied twice. Players would roll 2d{0,0,0,0,1,2}

A 0% damage, will remain 0% damage. Since 2 dice, both doing 0, remains 0.
:)

***

The fun begins:

The only info that a player will get is.
The Sniper does
+2 damage against biological.
-1 damage against mechanical.
-1 damage against structures.

The average damage is
(100%(default)+210%+60%+60%)/4= 107.5%

On a side note, damage against:
Biological structures will be +1 (150%)
Mechanical structuree will be -2 (30%)

I still need to tweak some numbers.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Reward Experience, Not Lady Luck

X3M wrote:
Seeing as how the bonus damage is supposed to be a factor. Why not treat it as such?

For a 50% bonus, rolling a die before hand. To see if the projectile is doubled.
For a 100% bonus, the die is doubled.

I'd prefer there being a greater chance of bonus damage if the attacker were an experienced unit. Or rather, a lesser chance of bonus damage if the attacker were a green unit.

That's purely a personal preference. But objectively speaking I do think it will encourage a player to persist on a specific front, with a specific troop or platoon, since it rewards players for experience. It also adds value to units that have seen a lot of war time, building tension whenever these elite units face off with one another in the same skirmish.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
let-off studios wrote:I'd

let-off studios wrote:
I'd prefer there being a greater chance of bonus damage if the attacker were an experienced unit. Or rather, a lesser chance of bonus damage if the attacker were a green unit.

I removed XP from the game. Which reduced downtime by 1/3th.
This bonus damage from being outnumbered is a different set of rules compared to the others.
It is a factor effect. Meaning that stronger units would have a bigger effect.
Although, the chance of being outnumbered for a stronger unit is less.

Here is a brief example of how it goes:
Unit A costs 4, of which the weapon weights 2.
Unit B costs 6, of which the weapon weights 4.
If I where to assume that there are 6 units of A and 4 units of B. Then the total costs would be 24.
If an opponent has 36, the difference is 12.
All 6 units of A can gain a 50% bonus this way.
Only 3 out of 4 units of B can gain a 50% bonus.

12 weapon points become 18. That is +6 for both.
A would go from 12 to 18.
B would go from 16 to 22.
Same reward, but relatively less for B, since it is a stronger unit.

***

I don't think, I will reintroduce XP tbh.
Since XP creates down time:
-Not only do we need to track which units die.
-We need to track their worth.
-We need to track the total XP gained
(A very old version had this on the unit on the battlefield).
-We need to carefully buy the awards for an unit that gets XP spend on.

The diversity was awesome. The same riflemen could divert into any of the classes. Meat/Support/Hit'n'run/Snipe/Steam roll etc.

If I where to reintroduce XP. I think it would only be on new units. That are higher in stats in all regards, for a certain XP price. But then, I need more different pieces. Or stars added to the existing pieces.
An unit would consist out of 2 pieces constantly.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I forgot to add

Weapons that don't do much damage. Gain much more from the bonus rule, when it occurs.
Henceforth, the 0 damage, needs to remain 0 damage.
Because it is worth 0.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
No Experience Necessary

Sure, if it doesn't fit in your model, then it doesn't fit. You have the closest contact with your design, so you'll likely know what's best.

The assumption can be that the scale of the conflict, at least in terms of time, is short and/or condensed, so that there's very little difference between a new unit brought out in round 10 versus a unit that's been on the game board since the start. It still holds together.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
There are many ways to handle

There are many ways to handle reduction of damage or some form of armor. Just a few random ideas:

* Mage Wars: You roll dices which have soakable or armor piercing damage.

* You make a save vs a TN, if you succeed, you receive half damage.

* Armor is like extra hitpoints. But armor piercing can ignore those extra hit points.

* Comparative: If roll > armor value, 2 damage (or instant kill, lower = 1 damage, or wound

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
In the old days

let-off studios wrote:
Sure, if it doesn't fit in your model, then it doesn't fit. You have the closest contact with your design, so you'll likely know what's best.

The assumption can be that the scale of the conflict, at least in terms of time, is short and/or condensed, so that there's very little difference between a new unit brought out in round 10 versus a unit that's been on the game board since the start. It still holds together.

I think, you would absolutely have loved the XP model.
A squad of rifle men, could get each an individual personality. As mentioned above. But like this:
1 rifleman will have much more health. And becomes pointman.
1 rifleman will do much more damage. And becomes the support.
1 rifleman will be much faster. Runs around if needed, to get odd jobs done.
1 rifleman will have much more range. The entire squad sticks together, while this guy shoots the enemy from afar.
Damage and range is a good combination for sniping.
Health and speed is a good combination for running inside/towards.
Damage and speed is a good combination for demolition.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Idea's are good

larienna wrote:

* Mage Wars: You roll dices which have soakable or armor piercing damage.

That is, what I am working on atm.

larienna wrote:

* You make a save vs a TN, if you succeed, you receive half damage.

What does TN stand for?
This sounds like a durability roll.
I removed those, because it caused a lot of down time in combination with other mechanics.

larienna wrote:

* Armor is like extra hitpoints. But armor piercing can ignore those extra hit points.

I am planning (actually already have) to have shields and such.
A tank with a shield that functions as if it is infantry health. Or an infantry, with heavy armor, that would be weak against cannon shells.
In combination with the attributes, some units will be very hard to deal with if you don't have a proper plan.

larienna wrote:

* Comparative: If roll > armor value, 2 damage (or instant kill, lower = 1 damage, or wound

With my bucket'o'dice mechanic. And the picking of the right targets when possible.
These units with comparative rolls, would be super weak.
This is also the case with my damage reduction method that I discarded. It is indeed better to look at the weapons only when using numbers.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
TN stands for: target

TN stands for: target number.

I used it in my wizardry game to avoid having situation where attack lower than armor value always does 0 damage.

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

TN is like a minimum damage.

Only certain units are going to have that. These units are very special to the player. And will mostly be Snipers, Missile launchers with seeker attachment. Etc.
The sure way fire.

While I can go into the math of my game.

Simply providing numbers for comparison might be better. Just know that the average health is 5 for infantry. Vehicles obviously have more health.
Depending on the attributes, let's assume the conditions are met, and the damage roll is the result for both infantry AND vehicles.

The very first weapon, a rifle:
Accuracy 5/6, Damage roll 001234, Miss chance 44.4%.
Overkill vs _5 health: 22%
Overkill vs 20 health: _5%

The smallest of snipers/missiles (+2 on attributes):
Accuracy 6/6, Damage roll 123456, Miss chance 0%.
Overkill vs _5 health: 30%
Overkill vs 20 health: _8%

The sniper/missile (+4 on attributes:
Accuracy 6/6, Damage roll 345678, Miss chance 0%.
Overkill vs _5 health: 47%
Overkill vs 20 health: 13%

Weapon with 5 health instant kill (+6 on attributes:
Accuracy 6/6, Damage roll 56789X, Miss chance 0%.
Overkill vs _5 health: 50%
Overkill vs 20 health: 18%

***

I managed to complete a list with the new weights.
I see bad numbers like 1.55 or 0.925
But also good numbers like 1.5 and 1.0
Time to discard options that make no sense.
Like 1,1/-1,-1 on attributes. Which results into a net-worth of 0 on any piece.
Pieces have 2 attributes. Biological/Mechanical and then Unit/Structure.

I decided, to not add more attributes. Since this would only cause imbalances.
A solid system is easy to track.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
here is a new question

I have the attributes:
Biological/Mechanical
Unit/Structure

A piece has a combination of 2. ALWAYS:
Biological unit
Mechanical unit
Biological Structure (zerg, wood type)
Mechanical Structure

This means that a set of 4 damage modifiers on weapons. Have to be recalculated, when a certain target is met.

Would it not be better to have 4 attributes, act as one. Instead of a combination?

Perhaps, rename them. And keep it at that?
So, in short, a new set of attributes is needed.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
On second thought

I want to add more attributes. It might be better to keep the basics as they are. Seeing as how some weapons can have only one specific modification.

The question about exotic attributes will be in a new topic.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I really need to think of a

I really need to think of a proper system to balance the extra attributes. In such a way. That one is used in combination of its absense.

So, I need to change my thinking about them.
At least i changed my bonus damage into a factor. And my attribute damage for the 4 basics are balanced.

This is my new try:
If weapons have no attribute damage. They remain normal.
Attributes become cheaper. -2X%
Weapons with attribute damage are a little bit more expensive. +X% cost, yet +4X% damage.
The damage will be a fixed adjustment. No extra rolls or anything like that.
I have yet to see how an this yes/no system will be balanced.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Sorting attributes

I guess, I have to sort the attributes.

Basic attributes:
- Organic/Mechanic
- Unit/Structure
Each piece will get 2
The damage is modified by adding/subtracting

Dimension attributes:
- Sub (terrain/marine)
- Ground
- Air
- Another dimension; like cloaked?
The default is ground.
The unit can have only one attribute at a time.
Weapons will increase in weight by 50% for each additional dimension. The reason for 50% is a yes/no principle. Seeing as how the weapon has to choose, a projectile can hit only one target at a time.

Other attributes:
- Like cloaked?

This is the trouble section. I don't know if I even should do this now. Perhaps focus on adding attributes to my "dimensions" list.

I would love to add cloaked as attribute to my game. If the last section fails to reach maturity. Then cloaked will be alongside sub and air.

***

What else? Am I writing off?

Agility. Is still pending. I used to have this as an extra roll that the defender could do on projectiles. But as mentioned before, this is a super down time event. And besides, true agility would be, commanding units to move around. Which reduced hit chances in general for all projectiles. Some simply have more reduction than others in terms of velocity.

Durable is off the list. Simply have more health. "Specific" weapons can't be effective against "durable".
The same goes for massive. I only copied that one from Starcraft 2, as example.

Shields, is something I still wish for.
While I don't have it as attribute. I do have certain units containing 2 armor types (in numbers) And the enemy has to get one type first, before touching the other. A mechanical tier 1 fits with shields. But also, a biological tier 3 could be a swat shield for infantry.

Thick plating was for the reduction effects on all projectiles. This one would be a default effect. While balanced, it cannot be together with the basic modifications. Due to imbalances that might pop up.
Also, the data set would become 3-dimensional instead of 2-dimensional.

Legged/Wheeled/Tracked/Hoover-Wood
These 4 (or 5) are borrowed from other games.
I already have something similar to armor types. Which works with tiers. And I have come to realize that I sort of can make these attributes from the other statistics.

If I want a walker. All I have to do is use the following attributes:
Mechanical/Unit, with armor tier 1, 2 or 3, a lot of health.
These would automatically be weak against mortar, and to some extend flames, in my game.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think, I am done

So far, I have managed to make the system complete again.

Also, using maximums for damage. This gives great effects.

A sniper can have the following effects:
+2 on biological, with a maximum of 4
-1 on mechanical and structures, with a maximum of 2 on structures

The damage rolls are:
123444 on biological units
012222 on biological structures
000123 on mechanical units
000012 on mechanical structures

An average of 9 points for a sniper die.
A normal die has 10 points.

The damage rolls look confusing, when picturing the whole mess.
But if 1 die is rolled. All the player has to do is add and/or subtract. And perhaps even consider the maximum.
Knowing that a die will be good against biological units, the player will most likely do the addition of 2 and consider the maximum of 4.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut