A reboot of the game nights (wargame, hobby variant)

I needed 1.5 hours to find out how to fix it. It was counting the numbers wrong somehow. I simply reorganised the program. And somehow it is fixed...
I have NO idea, how.

As for results. I only observe how many times a Reaver or Normal squad wins. I do not observe how many credits are left.
But they are still of influence on the outcome.

As for bonus damage. The Reavers get 6 dice instead of 4. And the Normal tanks get a 50% chance each, do add 1 more die.
By how I set up the entire calculator. The Normal can get at most only 4 bonus dice. While the Reavers can all get 2 extra dice, there are only 6 Reavers possible. But there are 18 Normal possible.

I run the program 10K times per situation. And observe whole numbers. It doesn't matter if a chance is 1% or 2%. It is just a bad chance.

As for credits remaining. I could make a separate counter for this. But it should be linked to when the Reavers win, or the Normal. I decided not to do this.

Note: A Reaver and a Normal are both worth 2 credits.
Even 10K seems to show some margin in strange results.

1 Reaver, 1 to 4 Credits, 2 Normal
_3%-25%-27%-27% Reaver
_1%-28%-33%-32% Tie
96%-47%-40%-41% Normal
Middleground is 2 credits: "-22"
No credit limit: "-14"

With sufficient credits, 1 Reaver cannot win against 2 Normal.

2 Reaver, 1 to 6 Credits, 3 Normal
_0%-12%-59%-73%-73%-74% Reaver
_0%-_0%-11%-15%-17%-16% Tie
100-88%-30%-12%-10%-10% Normal
Middleground is 2 credits: "-76"
No credit limit: "+64"

An unfair advantage for the Normal. Unless there are more credits involved. The breaking point is at 3 credits already.

2 Reaver, 1 to 6 Credits, 4 Normal
_0%-_4%-31%-43%-44%-44% Reaver
_0%-_0%-16%-23%-24%-25% Tie
100-96%-53%-34%-32%-31% Normal
Middleground is 4 credits: "+10"
No credit limit: "+14"

The middleground is the breaking point here. Funny enough, the chance on a tie is 24%, when there is no limit on credits.

2 Reaver, 1 to 6 Credits, 5 Normal
"Will continue another time."

This time, the setting is simple:
6 Reavers, have to fight 6 Normal.

Eventually, the Reavers have an upperhand.
And the squad of 6 Normal are defeated.
The chance is practically 100% for the Reavers.

But whats this...? The remaining Reavers have to deal with a fresh squad of 6 Normal?!

I changed my test. And counted how many kills could be made by the 6 Reavers. But also, how many credits they needed.
Turns out, in the long run, if they are not repaired or anything. They need just as much credits as they make kills. And the average is on 13.
So, a total of 39 credits are used for defeating 26 credits.

We start with 18 credits that defeat 12 credits.
The main difference in that first skirmish?
Most Reavers are still alive.
And it is the fact that in the second skirmish, 1 or 2 might have perished, that the Normal get the upper hand.

It really happens in the second round that the Reavers get the disadvantage. So, I guess I take a closer look at the first round aka 1 skirmish.

The results are:
_2%: 6 Reavers remain
30%: 5 Reavers remain
50%: 4 Reavers remain
16%: 3 Reavers remain
_2%: 2 Reavers remain
.1%: 1 Reaver remains

But also important is how much credits are used. In roughly 2 out of 3 of the time. 6 Credits is all the Reavers need. So, you would loose a total of 10 in order of defeating 12. And that is an average good situation.

***

Now then, a new conclusion is in order. It seems that if I have the factor mentioned at the start of these posts for Reavers, to be at 4. Then the Reavers are costly. In a lot of "fair" situations, the Reavers don't even stand a chance.

This result feels very weird in contrary to when you look at the initial numbers.

A reaver, costing as much as a normal tank.
Then, a reaver, being able to shoot 4 times while a normal tank shoots only once.
But the reaver, paying 50% extra. Which is practically speaking, 12.5% per shot.

As for the bonus damage.
1 Reaver is worth 3.
2 Normal are worth 4.
When 3 Normal are present, the Reaver gets +50% extra damage. Which now results in 6 shots.
6 shots versus 3 shots, that is a factor of 2. Yet it is 1 reaver versus 3 normal, that is a factor of 3.

It is clear now. The factor for the Reaver needs to be higher. In other words, the weight factor of a bought shot needs to be lower.

I simply have no idea yet, what it should be.

***

I did say this:
The projectile has costs divided by:
4 if the weight is 100%.
6 if the weight is 66.7%.
8 if the weight is 50%.

4 is now discarded.

And the latter 2 are options for 0 attributes.
So, if I say that the projectile doesn't have attributes for its body, since it doesn't have one. What would be fair?

I think.... I need to adjust my simulators. And change the number of projectiles for the Reaver from 4(6) to 6(9) or 8(12).

But I have to keep in mind that the credits spend will not change much. If the Reavers spend 6 credits because there are 6 Reaveres, then what matters is how many losses they have. And this will also remain as 2. Thus we get the same result in that regard without testing.

Then why lowering the weight?
Another test showed that out of all fair situations, 8.5 out of 28 cases the Reavers win. A global winrate of 30% versus 70%. A first rough estimate would be going for that factor 6 instead of 4. Perhaps we get closer to a global winrate of 50%-50%.

So, next test:
Win-Tie-Loss-settings "fair"
With 6(9) instead of 4(6)

It will not really change the credits spend, but hopefully the global winrate gets improved...

I have a lot to say about this.
But without posting results here, clearly a lot of situations reverse. And a weight of 80% is more reasonable than 67%.

67% is simply a very bad game design.

Reavers have several benefits. Perhaps I should count them at the 100% weight first. Before attempting more testing. Yes, I need to decide if I am even going to test more.

Efficiency in terms of credits
The main test here is having 6 Reavers vs 6 Normal.
I didn't test with less.
The Reaver side looses 1.865 Reavers on average. While the Normal side looses 6 Normal.
Repairing is, in the long term, free. The player needs to retreat for this (or not). So, I really look at losses here.
The loss in credits is 9.73 (10) versus 12.
The Reaver side "gains" 2.27 (2) credits on average per combat.

Efficiency in terms of repopulation
Despite being able to take "credits" with them. The Reavers are best to defend with. And replenish asap. While the Normal need to come travel.

Then again. Rebuild is often only 1/3rd of a force. Or 2 Normal at their base per round. In 1 round, 3 battle's can have taken place. And no doubt, the Reavers are still with 4 present. While they face only 2 Normal defenders per round.
All the Reavers need to do is send 2 more Reavers towards the Normal base.

Battle 1, 6 vs 6.
Battle 2, 4 vs 2.
Battle 3, 3 vs 2...or 5 vs 2.
Battle 4, 2 vs 2...or 4 vs 2...or 6 vs 2.
It depends on the distance too. But that second battle is important to notice that the Reavers better retreat and defend. Since the result might be loosing 2 more credits than the Normal... Or it is one of those moments that the Reavers deal damage on the base asap.

Efficiency in terms of damage
6 Normal? "7.5" dice (3 receive a 50% chance on bonus)
6 Reavers? 24 dice (4 per reaver)
The kill count on average is 1/3rd on the dice.
The Normal kill 2.5.
The Reavers kill 8.

If by any chance there are shields present, lets say 1 per target. The kill count drops to 1.25 and 4.

Another thing to notice is that the total damage is:
10 or 12.5 damage versus 40 damage.
If the Reavers don't target the Normal, they will target something else. And only 2 Reavers bite the dust.

Efficiency in terms of attack range?
This one isn't really fair. But it sure copies Starcraft. And it is only thought of, by inspiration of Starcraft. Projectiles have a 50% increase in their weight on attack range by default. But if they cannot move over water etc. They are the same as moving objects.

Normal units can get this type of projectile too. But a factor on 1 or on 4 is absolutely speaking a big difference.

What is the difference? Here are the weight differences in terms of a factor.

The Range and factor.
0: 1
1: 1.111
2: 1.2
3: 1.25
It goes towards 1.5 at extreme ranges.

1.25x4=5 Is already a huge increase. And fits the outcome of my latest tests.

***

4 benefits. Of which 2 are more or less depending on the other 2.
But still, these benefits should be a reason to choose for Reavers instead of Normal. If the player can recognise the situation.

All that is left now.
1. Artillery and x-ray weight factors.
2. Drawing the Terrain. For this one, I need 100% focus. Because every interruption will reset my train of thoughts.

I realized that I misjudged my table of "fair" fights. It isn't 8.5 out of 28 or something like that.

And "infinite" credits is THE way to see how usefull Reavers are in terms of credits.

But I made it. I made it anyway. The version of 80% weight.
And dare I say. The Reavers are very overpowered with only 80% weight.

(self loathing) Note: I discovered that I also made a mistake in my 6(9) version. This is only noticable at 3 Reaver, 2 Credits, 4 Normal. But I didn't even get that far. The Reavers where overwhelming in that one.

The "fair" table.

Win-Tie-Loss-settings
43-27-30: 1 Reaver, 02 Credits, 02 Normal <+
20-23-57: 1 Reaver, 04 Credits, 03 Normal

39-00-61: 2 Reaver, 02 Credits, 03 Normal
73-16-11: 2 Reaver, 04 Credits, 04 Normal <++
50-23-26: 2 Reaver, 06 Credits, 05 Normal <+
20-19-61: 2 Reaver, 08 Credits, 06 Normal

25-00-75: 3 Reaver, 02 Credits, 04 Normal
71-02-27: 3 Reaver, 04 Credits, 05 Normal <+
79-12-09: 3 Reaver, 06 Credits, 06 Normal <++
60-17-22: 3 Reaver, 08 Credits, 07 Normal <+
42-19-39: 3 Reaver, 10 Credits, 08 Normal <+
18-14-68: 3 Reaver, 12 Credits, 09 Normal

16-00-84: 4 Reaver, 02 Credits, 05 Normal
25-00-75: 4 Reaver, 04 Credits, 06 Normal
90-02-08: 4 Reaver, 06 Credits, 07 Normal <+
90-06-04: 4 Reaver, 08 Credits, 08 Normal <++
78-11-11: 4 Reaver, 10 Credits, 09 Normal <+
63-14-23: 4 Reaver, 12 Credits, 10 Normal <+
37-15-48: 4 Reaver, 14 Credits, 11 Normal

02-00-98: 5 Reaver, 02 Credits, 06 Normal
17-00-83: 5 Reaver, 04 Credits, 07 Normal
58-00-42: 5 Reaver, 06 Credits, 08 Normal <+
93-02-06: 5 Reaver, 08 Credits, 09 Normal <+
92-05-04: 5 Reaver, 10 Credits, 10 Normal <++
82-08-09: 5 Reaver, 12 Credits, 11 Normal <+
70-11-19: 5 Reaver, 14 Credits, 12 Normal <+
55-13-32: 5 Reaver, 16 Credits, 13 Normal <+
33-13-54: 5 Reaver, 18 Credits, 14 Normal

00-0-100: 6 Reaver, 02 Credits, 07 Normal
12-00-88: 6 Reaver, 04 Credits, 08 Normal
17-00-83: 6 Reaver, 06 Credits, 09 Normal
84-00-16: 6 Reaver, 08 Credits, 10 Normal <+
97-01-02: 6 Reaver, 10 Credits, 11 Normal <+
97-02-02: 6 Reaver, 12 Credits, 12 Normal <++
91-04-05: 6 Reaver, 14 Credits, 13 Normal <+
82-07-10: 6 Reaver, 16 Credits, 14 Normal <+
71-10-19: 6 Reaver, 18 Credits, 15 Normal <+
49-12-39: 6 Reaver, 20 Credits, 16 Normal <+
29-11-60: 6 Reaver, 22 Credits, 17 Normal

Big table...
Maybe I should consider another event?

How do the Reavers fair against 6 Normal?

Fair credits:
20-19-61: 2 Reaver, 08 Credits, 06 Normal
79-12-09: 3 Reaver, 06 Credits, 06 Normal <++
25-00-75: 4 Reaver, 04 Credits, 06 Normal
02-00-98: 5 Reaver, 02 Credits, 06 Normal
Clearly you choose for 3 Reavers. And your score is overwhelming.
I have honestly no idea why the 4 Reavers drop so hard. I can only think of that they go from 2 turns, down to 1 turn.
Another thing to consider is 4x5=20. But 3x5=15, yet one of them gets a bonus. The total is now 17.5 for the first roll. It truly is a matter of good allocation of credits.

Infinite credits:
20-19-61: 2 Reaver, 06 Normal "no change"
80-12-09: 3 Reaver, 06 Normal <++ "not really changed"
99-01-00: 4 Reaver, 06 Normal "Reversed"
100-0-00: 5 Reaver, 06 Normal "Reversed"

Ok, so when we compare fair with infinite credits. We see a switch at 4 vs 6 occuring.

***

Another way to look at it? What if we simply consider the losses to be the credits spend?

6 Reavers vs 6 Normal.
00-0-100: 1 Credit
02-00-98: 2 Credit
08-00-92: 3 Credit
25-00-75: 4 Credit
73-00-27: 5 Credit
96-00-04: 6 Credit

How to read this?
With 3 Credit, chances are big that the Normal still win. The loss on the Reaver side is 6+3=9.
Once we reach 5 Credit, there is a 27% chance the Normal still win. And thus we have a 11 loss on the Reaver side, while only 6 at most at the Normal side.

I should dig deeper again. And consider a batch proces of 6 Reavers vs 6 Normal. Then see how much credits are spend against the number of Normals destroyed.

***

80% weight is an acceptable change. But 100% weight was already a good estimate.
However, with 100% weight, the first battle was a difference of roughly 2 credits on 12. In the long run, the Reavers would loose with a inefficiency? I think I read a certain table wrong there. Only Questccg has seen it in discord.
Either way, spend x Credits. And the batch method allows you to kill x Normal on average.
The total credits spend is therefor:
12 (Reavers) + Credits versus 2 times Normal.
With 13 Credits, we are looking at 12+13=25 vs 2x13=26.
Funny enough, the Reavers at 100% weight ARE more efficient in the long run, this way.

Another one, 24 credits for 17 kills?
Clearly we have 12+24=36 vs 2x17=34.
Ah, this one is slightly worse for the Reavers. Neat!!

In a sense, I failed myself, not realizing this sooner.
All those extra tests. Only to discover that 100% was, dare I say?, perfect?

Seems it wasn't 100% clear on when it happens.
This was after explaining it to "a new guy".

When can a squad get +1 attack range?
- The targets are just out of range.
- The targetted squad, has no room for the attacking squad, to move into.

The problem with this was, that attacking water units from land. Always would get +1 attack range. Even if there is only 1 on each side. So, a melee fighter could reach the back of said targetted region?

No, the proper rule should be. Attackers only get +1 attack range if they cannot move into the targetted region. While pretending they can:
- move at all (this includes structures, and was already in)
- the regions are considered accesable to all.

The second portion will now see a water region as a neutral space for anything to move into. Land units, but also air units. Can make use of this rule.
Yes, even dimensions are included now.
Thus a full air armadda can be easier hit by AA. But, the dimension of the target matters. If you have a region with a full air force and some ground. The anti ground will have its own situation anyway.

Another thing to add. Is that only those that "could" attack the region are considered in the equation. Just like how the bonus damage rule works.
This means that 1 AA tower cannot attack just 1 air unit at +1 attack range distance. If the rest of that region is for example a couple of tanks.

The tanks cannot hit air. So it is only 1 AA tower. What you need is that the entire attacking region is AA. And only then, 1 AA tower is allowed to attack 1 air unit.

I should rewrite this rule such. That it is applied correctly.

The numbers used in this, are the normal sizes.

***

Applying bonus attack range?

- Only check for those units that can attack something in the region, when they receive +1 attack range.

- Consider the target region as neutral in attributes for movement:
>Ground, water or any obstruction, are of no concern.
>Ground, air or any sub, are all 3 separate cases. To be considered separately.
>Movement of 0 is of no concern.

- Compare the size of the attacking force to the target force. "Fill" the target region with possible attackers till you cannot fill it anymore. The remaining forces receive a +1 attack range and can now attack said target region. The player can pick which attackers that might be.

***

I hope that clears things a bit.