Skip to Content
 

Short question about hitting moving targets, or attack while moving

40 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok, completely from scratch again

I think I have to start all over again. Scrapping; Actions, Action related attributes, and penalties.

***

Both my proto-type game and public variant have the options:
- Attack
- Move

For all units.
This option costs 1 AP.
After this, the unit/structure is exhausted.
If it wants to perform another action. It would cost 1 AP AND the old AP for that round. Thus the new total is 3 AP.

This second action happens in 2 turns (A round can have several turns, depending on how fast AP depletes for the player)

The action Assault would happen in just 1 turn.
It is more effective.

But what if I don't use actions?
What if the option is just a 1 time choice per round?

Then performing both options should mean that both are only used for a part.
An exmaple would be, the weapon does half the damage and the movement is half the distance.

I think, I have to go with that logic for now?

***

Now back to multiple AP and turns per round.
The difference between, a move and then attack (or vice versa), or, assault. Is really a matter of the turns.

In a sense, the AP pay is equal, no matter how you look at it. So there is no need for a partly movement and partly attack.

But the ammount of turns is certainly less.

How much would this weight upon the choice to perform an assault?
And what should the benefit be?

***

History
The weight previously was a penalty on the damage.
It was depending on the attack range and movement speed. If one of the two was 0. The penalty would be 0.

The benefit was that the enemy could be attacked after getting into range. Or you would get out of the attack range after attacking.
The counter was a return fire that would receive +1 penalty. Or afterwards an assault, or a 2 turn move then attack. A heavily exhausted squad could not do this.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Weight of a turn?

The weight of a turn should be the factor here.

Instead of 2 turns. We want to have Assault to be 1 turn.

So, I need to translate the ammount of turns that a player wins, into a penalty.

It isn't a simple cut in half.

I figured that the effectivness of an unit would be 50% on movement and 50% on the attack if it where to try both at the same time.
The Assault makes use of a full move. Thus the damage would be -100% as penalty. But only if the AP cost would be that of 1 action.

The player still pays a full ammount of AP.
For this reason, the penalty should be half.

I conclude here, the penalty on the damage would be -50%.
This is with a maximum movement of the unit.
And I assume the use of the maximum attack distance too.

The unit costs are also linked to how fast an unit can move and how far it can shoot. The more effective an assault is, the more expensive the unit is by normal means.
So, I can't win anything here?

What I can do is that an unit attacking at a shorter distance will receive less penalty.
Or when moving less than it is capable of.

This is somewhat the same as my "history" version.
I want to prevent, making a table per unit design.
So, I don't know what to do here.
All I know is that when an unit makes use of its maximum capabilities, the penalty should be -50%.
And to have less penalty, it can work in a way. Since if you have an unit with a movement speed of 1. It would have -50% damage if it moves and attacks.
But reducing the movement speed to 0 automatically means borrowing the 50% from there and the penalty is 0%.

A maximum movement speed of 2; would have -50% damage on a movement of 2, -25% damage on a movement of 1 and again 0% if it doesn't move.

The penalties would be different for every movement speed...
As said before.
I want to prevent, making a table per unit design.

The same effect can happen with the attack distance. A shorter distance would allow for a lower penalty. Because it is simply simpler to hit something at a shorter distance while moving.

***

What can I do here?
Simply keep the -50% as a one and only penalty option?
Or find a way to have penalties reduced when slowing down or firing from a shorter distance?

-50% is (5/6)^4.
I could say, the basic penalty is 4.
But if an unit attacks at a shorter distance or moves slower, this penalty goes down. A melee attack would have no penalty...
Just like in the History version.

However, what if an unit is already a melee unit to begin with?
While a defence building can't move either.
It would be logically to both have to receive no penalty.
The defence building simply due to the fact it cannot perform an assault.
But the melee unit can perform an assault.

Here we got another paradox, that I need to solve with logic...

Oh... I think I know. But to work it out, it is rather late now.
A quick note for myself. The basis is the H/D ratio.
0 movement speed doesn't count as an assault.
0 attack range is in reality still a basis of 2.
If 1 attack range is the -50%.
Then 0 attack range for that same unit would mean 0,5 * -50% = -25%.
A true melee unit would always receive -50% damage when performing an assault with a maximum movement speed.

Gona sleep now...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Choise or no choice

Defences and units with maximum penalty can't do an assault.
When you choose an assault, the penalty should "balance" this out.

Can I even have different penalties?
I am pondering about that question right now.

I think...that I can't.

Either way, the choice adds a fixed penalty.
If the penalty is different for an unit.
Let's say lower to none, it is most likely that an assault is used. And the unit can be more expensive.

The paradox happens when the penalty is higher.
It should make the unit cheaper.
And not having the choice at all should mean that the costs are the lowest.

Maybe I should think of this again....
But also think of the fact that the history version has more penalty on those units that had more movement AND attack range.
Which automatically made them more expensive in comparison.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The paradox units

I am going to describe the paradox units.
And this will show how complicated the end result will be.

***

The first unit has a maximum penalty when movement is involved.
In other words, there is no damage possible when an assault is used. Assault is never an option.
There is also no damage possible when the enemy moves.
Attack range is sufficient to outrange normal defences and units.

Against the following situations:
- Structures; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
- Defences; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
- Long range defences; no assault possible. There will be no damage. This is not a choice. Damage comes 1 turn later.
- Units that are exhausted; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
- Units that can move; this is declared after the attack. This is a choice by the enemy. There will be no damage.
- Long range units that are exhausted; no assault possible. There will be no damage. This is not a choice. Damage comes 1 turn later.
- Long range units that can move; this is declared after the attack. This is a choice by the enemy. There will be no damage.

***

The second unit has a penalty that allows 1 damage when there is movement involved. Assault can now be a choice for a minimal damage. Attack range is sufficient to outrange normal defences and units.

Against the following situations:
- Structures; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
Assault is possible for that 1 damage. In a 1 on 1 this is not needed. But the choice exists.
- Defences; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
Assault is possible for that 1 damage. In a 1 on 1 this is not needed. But the choice exists.
- Long range defences; chances are that assault is the only way to deal damage. If the defence is too strong, why bother? This is a sub paradox, there is a chance that the choice is not a choice
- Units that are exhausted; can't move. Thus maximum damage.
- Units that can move; this is declared after the attack. This is a choice by the enemy. There will be 1 damage.
- Long range units that are exhausted; chances are that assault is the only way to deal damage. If the long range unit is too strong, why bother? This is a sub paradox, there is a chance that the choice is not a choice
- Long range units that can move; chances are that assault is the only way to deal damage. If the long range unit is too strong, why bother? This is a sub paradox, there is a chance that the choice is not a choice AND This is declared after the attack. This is a choice by the enemy. There will be "less than" 1 damage.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This is it...and now?

I think I am completely stuck on the "proto-type" version in regards to the Action Assault.
I think I have finally completely analysed the problem.

Only because I wanted the Attribute Assault to be added.
Yet slowest projectile velocity in combination with the Attribute Assault doesn't work.

And the logic reason behind it is that the slowest projectile velocity actually made the unit cheaper while it wasn't able to perform the Action Assault anymore.
In other words, the choice was removed for these units.

The Attribute Assault and the slowest projectile velocity cancel each other out. The combination should be the same unit costs as having only slowest projectile velocity.

The Attribute Assault also doesn't work when used on defence buildings. These too should have the same costs as having only slowest projectile velocity.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Is this logical? I feel I am getting closer

For now, lets consider the Attribute and the Action [Assault] to be in the same boat.

The other factor would be the [projectile velocity].

The factor that I exclude for now, is the [dodging penalty].

***

Doing an Assault is a choice.

The penalty is the way to balance this choice.
The reward is that 2 actions are done in 1 turn.

I cannot have a different projectile velocity or penalty when an assault is performed.

It is still optional to have the attack distance and/or movement speed to be of influence.
But I am not going to look into this just yet.

***

Let's assume there is only one penalty possible for when an assault is a choice.
What could this penalty be?

What do I know?
- All designs should be worth 100%.
- Assault is a choice.
Thus half the penalty.
- 2 actions in 1 AP mean -100% damage.
- 2 actions are only in 1 turn, AP is a full pay.
When an extra attack is added, normally a secondary damage counts for 50%.
Thus half the penalty.
But the extra attack can also be added later.
Thus the halving happens only for half, but only as choice, thus between 50% and 75%, which is 62.5%

The penalty should be around -100% * 0.5 * 0.625 = -31.25%. Or a remainder of 68,75%.
This is close to 2/3th.
Thus a penalty on Assault is 4/6th.

***

Once Assault is an attribute.
I must change the costs of units.
Assault can actually be a choice.
This should be considered as an extra weapon cost for 50%.
The AP cost equals to that of a normal action.
Thus the damage is an extra.

Different penalties are possible now.
6/6 is 100% damage, thus +50% in weapon costs.
4/6 is 67% damage, thus +33% in weapon costs.
0/6 is 0% damage, thus +0% in weapon costs.

***

If the penalty is maximal with the attribute assault. The costs are simple equal to defences.
The attribute assault will only cause extra costs for the assault that costs 1 AP.
Every assault unit can do a normal assault and pay 3 AP, while the penalty is 2, or 4/6th.

The extra damage is now NOT depending on the movement speed...
I need to think about this

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Still a bit too complex?

Action Assault:
- Action Assault is a choice. Factor 0.5.
- Penalty for a true equal costs unit is -100%.
= AP costs and Turns needed are one resource on average.
- AP costs remains the same. Factor 1.0.
- Turns needed goes from 2 to 1. Facror 2.0.
= As one resource? Factor 1.5.

-100% * 0.5 / 1.5 = -33%
67% remains, this is exactly a penalty of 4/6th.

***

Attribute Assault:
- Attribute Assault is NOT a choice. Factor 1.0
- Penalty for a true equal costs unit is -100%.
= AP costs and Turns needed are one resource on average.
- AP costs goes from "2" to 1. Factor 2.0.
- Turns needed goes from 2 to 1. Facror 2.0.
= As one resource? Factor 2.0.

-100% * 1 / 2 = -50%
50% remains, this is exactly a penalty of 3/6th.

***

Since the Attribute Assault is not a choice. The player has no other option than always move and attack with these units.
The accuracy caused by the penalty is not as choice anymore either. Thus this one can be changed in design.

If the player wants the Attribute Assault to be as strong as the default unit using the Action Assault. Then the penalty must be 2 instead of 3. The value of the weapon will be 4/3th. If the units have to cost the same, the attribute assault body would be worth only 2/3th than that of a default unit. OR... The weapon does only 75% damage to begin with.

Penalties of 0 to 5 are possible. With 2 as default for the default units. And 3 as default for the Assault units.
The weapon weight goes up in steps of 33%. With penalty 3 on 100%. Equal to the default penalty is thus 133%. And a penalty of 0 would be 200%.
The penalty of 0 would probably be used. Since all units also have an accuracy to work with. A double roll is not always fun to do tbh.

Either way, I simplified it to such extend. That I can feel happy for now. But this is only the Assault version.
I kept cutting. And arrived to this station.
Where HnR units normally needed 9 shots for a job, this increases on average to 12 shots.

Note:
The movement speed is not used anymore in calculating the weapon weight.

I have 2 options now:
- I also rework the dodging mechanic.
- I try to see, if I can add in variable effects.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Rework of the dodging mechanic

I figured, completing everything before testing something with more detailed variables would be best.

But figuring that I could assign any penalty as default, that I want to the dodging mechanic.
It doesn't really matter what I do.

In a sense, if an unit moves away from a target location. The damage dealt is between 0 and 100%.
50% remains the average in this.
The choice is by the target, even if the order of the choice is different in the 2 situations.
So the effect should be 50% of this.
We are now at 75%. Or a 4.5/6th penalty.

It is going to be a roll on top of any Assault roll.
Not sure if I should stick with 4/6th. Or actually make this a 5/6th roll.
I prefer the 4/6th. Since this was applied the most in the original settings.

Also, if the penalty is adjusted due to projectile flying speeds.
4/6th would always be 100%.

4/6th is on top of the 6/6th of a non moving target.
But has to be taken for 50% since it is a choice.
So the default total is 8, which is 100% weapon costs.

Then 12.5% can be added every step.
The costs can range from 50% to 125%.

***

Then again, the faster a target moves. The more expensive it is. In a sense, they pay for movement speed. So, if this is supposed to be a variable, so be it.
I tried some figures again. But they all result in some bad numbers that I can't work with.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
After all the cutting, conclusion?

Action Assault:
- Penalty 2 (4/6th roll)

Attribute Assault (replaces Action Assault):
- Penalty 3 (3/6th roll)
- Weapon cost adjustments:
Penalty 5 - 0; 33% - 200% (1/6th - 6/6th roll)

Target uses Action Move (extra roll on any other action, including Assault):
- Penalty 2 (4/6th roll)
- Weapon cost adjustments:
Penalty 6 - 0; 50% - 125% (0/6th - 6/6th roll)

***

I might rework the terrain accuracy effects too.
Or look at a bit of a more complex system.

But overal, the rolls that are applied here can also be applied in the public version.

We have the following rolls:
- Accuracy
- Action Assault
- Attribute Assault (can be removed)
- Target Moves (can be removed)

Of which only 1 of the Assault rolls is applied.

Maybe I should stop working on this.
I got a very clean and balanced system now.
And also, I already tested all of this. We kinda like it.
The only thing we don't like is that the movement speed and attack range aren't used as factors anymore.

What do you guys think?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What do players see?

X3M wrote:
Action Assault:
- Penalty 2 (4/6th roll)

If you want your squad to use an Action that uses the move AND attack command. Your squad will receive a penalty on its damage.
For each projectile, a die has to be rolled. Roll a 2 or less, and the projectile is removed from the damage pool.

X3M wrote:
Attribute Assault (replaces Action Assault):
- Penalty 3 (3/6th roll)
- Weapon cost adjustments:
Penalty 5 - 0; 33% - 200% (1/6th - 6/6th roll)

If your squad contains units with the Assault Attribute. It will always add the missing command to that unit. If you attack, a movement order is automatically assigned. If you move, an attack order is automatically assigned. Your squad might receive a penalty on its damage.
For each projectile, a die has to be rolled. Roll the penalty or less, and the projectile is removed from the damage pool.
This Penalty is by default 3.
The Penalty linked to the Attribute Assault, is displayed on the Unit Statistics Card.

X3M wrote:
Target uses Action Move (extra roll on any other action, including Assault):
- Penalty 2 (4/6th roll)
- Weapon cost adjustments:
Penalty 6 - 0; 50% - 125% (0/6th - 6/6th roll)

When you order your squad to attack a moving target. Or the target decides to move after you issued your command. Your squad might receive a penalty on its damage.
For each projectile, a die has to be rolled. Roll the penalty or less, and the projectile is removed from the damage pool.
This Penalty is by default 2.
The Penalty linked to the target following a move command, is displayed on the Unit Statistics Card.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut