Skip to Content

Is this overkill on my vision mechanic?

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

I trialled several ways in having vision in my game. NO SPOTTERS!!

So, I was wondering if combining might work. This is what I came up with:

A region can reduce vision, depending on the weapon an unit carries.
The vision is an accuracy hit by 1d6 per projectile.
It can be 1/6th to 5/6th.
0/6th is always a miss, and 6/6th is always a hit.

If you have several regions with different vision modifiers. You pick the worst.
Example: snow has 4/6th, forest has 2/6th and some rocks have 3/6th. The forest wins in this example. So the one accuracy roll will be a 2 or less to hit.

This means a forest that is 3 regions thick would also still supply with just a one time 2/6th.
In an older version I had the player roll this 3 times.
In another version I had the player only range reduced, but the hit was 100%.
Both versions where not fun to play with. After all, a sniper with a range of 22, would still be able to shoot through 3 mountains.

So, what about combining range reduction with the single accuracy shot? The 3 forests will reduce range by 12. And apply an accuracy of 2/6th.

Would it be overkill?
And yes, I have artillery units ignoring terrain effects. But of course they need a redo in balancing if I introduce this kind of range reduction.

I had this idea by playing AoW3. Where certain weapons could still fire into forests. But vision was lower any way.

john smith
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2017
Yeah, in order to see a

Yeah, in order to see a target on the edge of Forrest looking out towards the open you need to get close to distinguish the target from the foliage the target is using to conceal itself. So in a manner of speaking your weapon's range is reduced until you get that close. If you are in the middle of a forest you cant see out nor can you see into the middle of a forest from outside of it. This is the basic reason you can get lost in dense forest.

Modern Artillery uses a "spotter" a slang term for the proper term Forward Observer because the range of these weapons and arc of fire is such that they can fire their shells farther then the men operate the weapon can see and the shells can go over some types of terrain with the arc. IN order to aim a person with a radio is placed forward near the desired target area to observer if the shells are landing on target. If not, they can radio back and give coordinates via a map so the artillerymen can adjust the fire onto the desired target.

Artillery of older design was often direct fired cause of its lack of range, but it was fired level so it could be obstructed by terrain features. IN wargames the distinction was made using the terms "Indirect fire" and "Direct Fire". Direct fire meant the men shooting the weapon could see and aim it at the target. Indirect Fire were weapons that needed a Forward Observer or if a FO was not available a "spotter whom was less trained and less accurate.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Choices. Or not.

You could give the player the choice of taking the range reduction or the hit penalty on a space-by-space basis.

If you really want to hit the player with both penalties, I'd reduce the severity of each... otherwise no one will hit each other.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My head is still chaotic

john smith wrote:
Yeah, in order to see a target on the edge of Forrest looking out towards the open you need to get close to distinguish the target from the foliage the target is using to conceal itself. So in a manner of speaking your weapon's range is reduced until you get that close. If you are in the middle of a forest you cant see out nor can you see into the middle of a forest from outside of it. This is the basic reason you can get lost in dense forest.

This is the general idea.
Although, I have the rules a bit different to give the units hiding in the Forest a better function. After all, in my game, you can't hide that much in the Forest. A sight of 2/6th would also mean a squad of 2/6th.

FrankM wrote:
You could give the player the choice of taking the range reduction or the hit penalty on a space-by-space basis.

If you really want to hit the player with both penalties, I'd reduce the severity of each... otherwise no one will hit each other.


Thought so.
Thank you.

Reducing the severity is a very hard job. I had an idea about adding up the points of reduction. Then divide it by 2 or 3 or more. I even tried 5 and 10 for simplicity. But I don't feel this is the way to go??? Right? It is in the option box.

When regarding terrain in between.
A field of snow hexagons would give an accuracy of 5/6th. It doesn't matter how many hexagons are in between. The weapon always had 5/6th.
With the reduction of range, it would now be -1 range on a distance of 5. If I use the division of 5. Thus a weapon with range 5, would only have 4 here.

A dense Forest would have -0.8 per range when the division is 5. That is still ridiculous high on a Forest planet. But one bush in a normal game, reducing the range by 1 isn't that much of a problem. Right?

***

An older approach perhaps??
In older versions, I had the player roll 5/6th for each hexagon. This was a tedious task. But the effective range would be 5 when the weapon itself had infinite range over open terrain. I often wonder if I shouldn't go back to this system. Because a lot of high d6 rolls can be combined in less d6 rolls of a lower test.
So perhaps I should return to the old ways?
No range reduction would be present.
Since the average range of that same snow world would mean 5. And the Forest world would mean 0.5.

But balancing this is still a no go. I am dealing with infinities here when looking at the numbers. The linear range reduction is.... linear. And linear is easy to balance.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
After some testing

Adding up the points of the hexagons. And then dividing by 5. Leaves me with some decent results.

Shorter ranged units naturally have less reduction as well.
Having only a few regions in between creates a bit of cone blindness. Which is cool and reminds me of some vision in video games.

I observed an unit with 10 range.
On a map with forests here and there.
3 small bushes in between, reduce the range by 1.
5 small bushes by 2.
8 small bushes by 3, however for a range 10 this doesn't matter.
1 forest reduces by 1.
2 forests by 2.
4 are needed for 3.
5 forests by 4.
And 6 doesn't matter any more.

***

I thought of a new option too.

What if I don't make the accuracy linked to the severety of the region. But always a fixed accuracy of 5/6th?? And then apply it to every region in between.

And simply link the range reduction to the balance equation of the units instead??? Because the range reduction is linear. So would the balancing be.

And the fixed 5/6th accuracy can be seen as a yes/no situation. Which is also easier to balance. Instead of a list of different reductions like 5, 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.2.

***

I am wondering about barely touching a hexagon. Sometimes the line of sight only goes through a little corner. Should I include this effect as well for adding up the score??

I could have the players multiply the low end number of corners, with the reduction factor.
Which means that 3 is the highest reduction.
The total score is then divided by 10 instead.

Diagonal vision is more fair this way???

I guess I need to test that as well.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Corners of hexes

Long ago when I was playing games on hexmaps, we would count off hexes in a straight-ish path rather than using a string. This ensures that any of the hexes around a "circle" would be the same distance (pass through the same number of hexes) from the center.

The string would come out on rare occasions just to prove that some thread-the-needle trickshot was actually possible (e.g., shooting obliquely through a window then an interior doorway). Somehow, the dice favored my trickshots and hated when I was firing short distances over flat terrain. Go figure.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
FrankM wrote:Long ago when I

FrankM wrote:
Long ago when I was playing games on hexmaps, we would count off hexes in a straight-ish path rather than using a string. This ensures that any of the hexes around a "circle" would be the same distance (pass through the same number of hexes) from the center.

The string would come out on rare occasions just to prove that some thread-the-needle trickshot was actually possible (e.g., shooting obliquely through a window then an interior doorway). Somehow, the dice favored my trickshots and hated when I was firing short distances over flat terrain. Go figure.

Interesting. You didn't use a ruler or rope or anything. And it worked just fine? I could use that technique. Before going further with my current endeavor.
Can you explain it more in dept? I am not sure if I got the idea right.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
X3M wrote:Interesting. You

X3M wrote:
Interesting. You didn't use a ruler or rope or anything. And it worked just fine? I could use that technique. Before going further with my current endeavor.
Can you explain it more in dept? I am not sure if I got the idea right.

It probably worked because we were using tactical maps and the rules lawyering tended to be around available actions and timing rather than physical positions.

Take a look at the "Line Drawing" section of https://www.redblobgames.com/grids/hexagons/. It's designed for videogames, but basically replicates what we were doing in pencil-and-paper games. Roll your mouse over the example map to see different examples of hex-hopscotch.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
You have shared something awesome.

I find the field of vision an important one. There they simply consider a yes/no situation. And count the whole hexagon. Also, it considers centre to centre, which we always like to apply. I too want to make things easier, yet keep it fair.

The distance is done the same way as path finding. Once determined it is in range that way. We use a ruler or little rope to determine which hexagons are touched.
The maps contain little dots in the centres of the hexagons.

I use modular prints. So there are no coordinates. We use ranges up to 17 these days. We love our mortar. But I think you can guess that our maps are at least that big.

***

That said.
How do you feel about hexagons counting only partly?

I tested my corners method. But going right through the line between 2 hexagons shows that my method is invalid when applying the number of corners on the low end.
After all, you have 3 when going perfectly through a hexagon.
But 2 adjacent hexagons count just as much, yet they show a total of 2 corners in the equation.

***

So I adjusted my rules to make it easier:
0.5 corners don't count at all.
1 or 1.5 corners counts as a half hexagon.
2 or 3 corners counts as a full hexagon.

Now to calculate the range reduction:
The reduction points are multiplied by 2 in cases of full hexagons.
All points are added up and divided by 10.

Do these rules make any sense?

Here is trivia on the game:
Mountains; -6 and 0/6th accuracy
Super dense Forests; -5 and 1/6th accuracy
Forests; -4 and 2/6th accuracy
Hills; -3 and 3/6th accuracy
Snow; -2 and 4/6th accuracy
Ice; -1 and 5/6th accuracy

A target is hiding at a distance of 10. The range of the unit has to be at least this much when facing only the following terrain:
Mountains; 22
Super dense Forests; 20
Forests; 18
Hills; 16
Snow; 14
Ice; 12

For the mountains, it makes no sense. The accuracy is 0 any way. Perhaps another way to apply accuracy?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A friend proposed this idea

Tell me if this does any good.

You consider from shooter to target.
You select the hexagon with the lowest accuracy.
This same hexagon will NOT reduce the range.

Each step is reconsidered.

The "remaining range" is multiplied by the accuracy value of the current hexagon.
And rounded upwards.
Facing a next hexagon with a remaining range of 1 means that you use 0 for the next test.

This way, countering a 0/6th hexagon will immediately halt vision as well.

***

I understand this idea.
You have an accuracy roll of just one d6.
The rest is again translated to range reduction.
But like how we did things in the old days.
Exponential, but linear at the same time perhaps.
I guess it needs testing as well.

***

As practical result on the Forests.
Again considering a Forest only planet.

The first hexagon indicates the accuracy of 2/6th. Then each additional hexagon will reduce the range by a factor 2/6th.

Let's see what a range 12 can do here.

Hexagon; Range remaining
1; 12 becomes 11. Accuracy hexagon.
2; 11 becomes 10 and then becomes 10*2/6=4
3; 4 becomes 3 and then becomes 3*2/6=1
4; 1 becomes 0. So the max range is 4 on a forest planet for a range 12 unit. With an accuracy of 2/6th.

In the previous post the last point system, this was 6.

Now again for snow.
In the previous post the last point system, this was 8.

Hexagon; Range remaining
1; 12 becomes 11. Accuracy hexagon.
2; 11 becomes 10 and then becomes 10*4/6=7
3; 7 becomes 6 and then becomes 6*4/6=4
4; 4 becomes 3 and then becomes 3*4/6=2
5; 2 becomes 1 and then becomes 4/6=1
6; 1 becomes 0. So the max range is 6 on a snow planet for a range 12 unit. With an accuracy of 4/6th.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Still trying to improve here

The idea that my friend had is discarded. To complicated.

I didn't hear any one about the point system.
Especially the part of mountains multiplying the damage by 0 while there is range reduction nonsense.
Also, range reduction itself doesn't make sense on flat terrain. Mountain terrain is flat. I do have real height effects. They have a good system on themselves.

Upwards is -1 range per height difference. And a reduction of 1 in accuracy. With 6 being the limit of course.
Behind this terrain, is always 0 vision, except for artillery.

I want a better idea, failed idea's:
- Rolling 6 times 5/6th is weird, accurate correct and natural, but weird and clumsy. (exponential, no reach of 0, can't be balanced without weird unfair designs)
- (Linear is the goal) But I don't want to remove 1 accuracy per 5/6th region either. Because this results in 0 after 6 regions as well.
- While I now still have an accuracy of 5/6th as a one time roll. This is wrong too. (Constant)
- An old idea was to have a set of 2 or 3 dice as a one time roll. But this required a reference table. So, no go.

Linear is the goal
Multiple flat terrain should not reduce range.
But the accuracy should drop.
Maybe I could use a point system here. And then have the player simply calculate what the die roll will be.
Having 2 or more dice will not work. Because it requires extra rules that complicate things.

It really needs to be linear for balance reasons.
A mountain should give 0 accuracy, with even 1 region.

So the only thing I can think of is a point system that works a bit exponential any way. But the points? They can be considered linear again.

I could use triangular or squared numbers for this. But this complicates things. Nor would the player be able to understand. The triangular is the best example in this.

0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15 and 21 points. A d20 would be perfect for this. Where 20 is reduced by the total of points. The 21 is obviously a 0 accuracy.
Snow would have 3 points, which was previously 2 on a 6d basis.
Where we first had 3 snow regions reducing the accuracy to 0. We now need 7.

This still feels weird though. And the fact that there is overkill in points also doesn't work well for my conscience.

So, how about a double point basis?
0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32.
The total points can be divided by 5. And you have your roll again.
1 mountain equals 2 thick forests, equals 4 forests, equals 8 hills, equals 15!! snow.

So I go from 3 to 7 to 15 regions of the same type. To reduce accuracy.

I still need to figure out if this is truly simple enough to balance. Because a point system requires certain weapons to become short ranged and calculated different.
The damage weight itself becomes triangular per type. Instead of linear.
Triangular is still doable (nice round numbers), even squared numbers (nice round numbers). But exponential is a no go for sure (second step is a decimal already, last step is non existent, round wise undoable).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I don't like cheaters

Why do I care so much about having this correctly done?

I don't like designs that cheat.
Or are cheated against.

6/6th can have infinite range. Yet 5/6th accuracy will result in a 5 range average.

The accuracy for every region of 5/6th literally goes like this:
5/6
25/36
125/216
625/1296
3125/7776
etc.

Of course there are other regions that give 6/6. So a 5/6th weapon could reach very far.

But there are also weapons that have this 5/6th on any type of region.
The weapon can't reach that far, yet would cost more and more due to adding range.
A super expensive, super ineffective weapon.

It is unfortunate to say that even with a point system basis. Range is indirectly limited. And this limit on range is causing the unfairness of certain designs against their own.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The point system has failed me too

Calculating the weight factor by having a point system.
Is too detailed to make any sense. It is worse than my Ballistic calculation. Which is actually within the scope of supplying me with accurate round numbers.

It starts like 24/15.
But ends up with 48/24 towards infinity and beyond.

Maybe I should simplify the terrain first. But I need to ponder on that one.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Does it have to be a single system?

Unless these are terrain-penetrating weapons, range should not really be affected by terrain. Either the bullet/missile/shell/etc. can reach through it or it can't.

Intervening terrain can have two distinct effects anyways:

First, it can reduce the accuracy of a shot (measured from SPOTTER to target, ignoring spotter's own hex)
Second, it can possibly block a shot (measured from SHOOTER to the target, ignoring the shooter's own hex)

For most direct-fire weapons, the same unit will function as spotter and shooter.
For most indirect-fire weapons, the shot travels through open air hexes above the map and therefore can only be blocked by stuff in the target hex (overhead canopy, bunker, etc.).

Fog/smoke/precipitation/night can have an impact by affecting the sight accuracy through open hexes. Gizmos like IR or night vision goggle might mitigate these.
High or gusty wind can have an impact by adding a small chance to "block" a shot within the target hex.

The biggest problem you're having is putting everything on a single six-sided die. Any adjustment gets huge once it's applied two or three times.
If you'd like linear modifiers to yield exponential effects, I'd recommend 3d6. It has a "bell-curve" probability mass function, with a nice intuitive 50/50 spot at 10.
If you'd like things to stay linear, I'd recommend d20 (which will seem D&D-ish) or percentile dice. Percentile dice take a little getting used to for new gamers, but they show the success percentage directly.

Once you are comfortable with a to-hit system, then I'd tackle the idea of where a missed shot actually hits. For hex-affecting area attacks (napalm, poison gas, area-denial mines, etc.) the result is obvious. For pinpoint attacks, you can raise the stakes of firing through a town by putting some chance that the shot was blocked by a civilian's vehicle or body.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I care it to be balanced

The current game is practically balanced. But we have a one time only penalty based on 1 hexagon, the worst to be exactly.

If I manage to keep d6, I manage to keep things simple for the players.
Also, the game is a bucket roll pretending to be projectiles that fly.

I do have an approach at the moment. Simply counting the vision of each weapon.

***

I am still experimenting with several systems. Simply counting penalties given by terrain. And then divide by a number to have the maximum become 6. The result is rounded (all 3 types of rounding need to be tested).

Penalty numbers:
- Doubling; 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32.
- Linear; 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
- Triangular; 0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21.
- Squared; 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36.

I like the doubling so far. It has the right nature logic. And the divider is 5.

Linear is waaay to fast indeed. No divider needed though.

Triangular would be neat for a d20, but players roll with 12 dice tops. I can't do that with d20, right? Any way, with a d20, the divider is not needed.

Squared; fits right in with the other game mechanics. But the divider is 6.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Buckets of dice...

Sorry, I thought this was more like a BattleTech thing with one shot at a time.

One die per shot, got it.

The game Fortress America had a cute gimmick to represent differing unit abilities... using different dice.

So a single system to generate the to-hit number, but something shifts which die is used across d6, d8, d10, and d12. Alternatively, you could use multiple custom d6s to better tune the variation. Custom polyhedral dice cost a bloody fortune, so I wouldn't recommend trying to combine the approaches.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I understand. It is

I understand. It is apparantly rare in games to have 1 die follow one projectile. We do have 3 different colours. But this is to track the type of projectiles. (rifle, grenade, cannon, whoopsy cushion)

A total of 12 are rolled at once, sometimes a battle requires multiple sets. But in such an event, lots of soldiers will die.

We roll the 12 dice, and some fail the test. Then other tests are rolled for as well for the surviving projectiles.

Some tests are by nature a lot of work. But since those tests are not much of influence on balance. And more a yes/no question. These where translated to a list of tests.

Trying to hit a moving target is one of those tests.
Having to roll 4 times a 5/6th can be translated to 1 die of 3/6th.

***

That is why I try to keep a point system for the accuracy by terrain as well. Because this one was the heaviest of them all by nature.
But this one did have influence on balance of the weapons.

Some units had to cross like 22 hexagons with their long shot. That is 22 tests at worst. And having a one time roll of 2/6th, just because those 22 are forests doesn't work either. I want to put it into 1 roll. But as a fair logical roll. and a clear view on the balance.

***

I missed one option to add to the list. The way how I treat movement penalties can also be used for vision.

I could treat any vision like a 5/6th. Because having multiple of these can be translated to another die roll as well. 4 of 5/6th are actually 1 of 3/6th. The list looks like the following.

- "5/6"; 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 14

For the movement penalties, it is adviced to only use the 4 and 10 as replacements. The others are bad news to the player. But with rounding and such, it could still be used as a one time roll. Only the 14 is an estimate. But that one is based on rounding and 14 times rolling 5/6th results in less than 1/6th of a chance.

I can't round upwards. Because there would always be a chance on 1/6th when applying infinity. So it is either normal rounding, or rounding down.

I have 14 lists to observe now.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Adjusting one mechanic discards a whole list

While I am working on my point system. And I have some good idea's on how to implement this.

I also pondered about other mechanics in the game. Are they still balanced the way when I apply a point system? Should they be adjusted, integrated or remain unchanged? These are the ones which trouble me:

- Air/Ground/Sub
I am not sure. I think this mechanic will remain unchanged. The worries are if weather or not, I should integrate this in the point system.
If I do, a rocket that can hit both ground and air would be twice as expensive. This is a no go for a choice. So unchanged, which means only +33% to the weight costs.

- X-ray and Ballistics
Are to be integrated into the point system. These can't be used any more as a separate mechanic. On the other hand, it will be balanced exactly the same. Which is a good thing.

- Minimum Range
I have no idea, what to do with this one. This one can be integrated. But I am troubled by the balance and abusing of this mechanic.
The main issue is that a minimum range of 1. Would remove all points on 0 range. Of course, the weak point would be moving in to 0 distance. But due to other game mechanics, this feels not right.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I tried with rounding

Rounding accuracy is allowed. Example 4.2/6 becomes 4/6. This is completely "legal" in the game.

The accuracy are counted as scores to determine the weight of a weapon. The doubling system works the best so far (most fun and logic). So I will post the results on this one.

I counted these scores. And numbers for normal weapons are:
102
136
168
198
226
254
282
309
336

And thought, maybe this can be practically balanced. That means that I could consider range 2 as 100%. Range 0 and 1 would become 60% and 80% in weight factors. So, range would create a weight factor to use on the damage factors. Which go with the 50 and so on.

Rounding at 2%'s would be the most accurate for € differences of 1 in the design. But I went with 5%'s. € differences of 2.5 are much easier for me to work with. On the other hand, there are some designs that require me to round after the complete design.

I looked at imbalances. And these are below 5% for now. I am unsure if I should rely on rounding the prices of units and buildings in my game. I used to do this, but tracking changes might go unnoticed.

I should search for these.
And also, maybe changing the type of regions that normal weapons allow.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How should players count?

I am using the doubling system 0, 2, 8 and 32.
I can only allow players to add up the points.

Determining that 16 is the answer between 8 and 32 is a bit too hard and also unlogical.

The points are altered now into 0, 1, 4 and 16. For simplicity. Players have to divide by 10 any way, since full regions count double. :)

It actually worked out all fine.

***

The most used objects in the game are forests.
Thick was 5, now 40 or 4.
Normal was 4, now 16 or a bit below 2.
Thin was 2, now 8 or a bit below 1.

The range went from:
1 to 1,
1 to 3 and
2 to 6.

The accuracy list from ranges 1 to the max range are:
2
4, 3, 1
5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1

***

I am happy with this. And rounding prices of units/buildings, is allowed within a 5%? I think, I need to make a separate topic about this.

ArkhamArkhiver
ArkhamArkhiver's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/08/2018
Too Hardcore?

This game seems to be a very earnest attempt at simulating an RTS or modern war-game. Is it overkill? For me, and most of my gaming group, and the mass-market in general, yes, absolutely.

This seems like too much calculation for anyone to do on-the-fly, but perhaps I need more info to make that call.

You don't seem to have a blog about this game of yours, but I'm interested in your views / thoughts / mechanics on simulating fire-fights, artillery, chemical weapons, etc. In that aspect, it is very similar to my own game.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Things happened

ArkhamArkhiver wrote:
This game seems to be a very earnest attempt at simulating an RTS or modern war-game. Is it overkill? For me, and most of my gaming group, and the mass-market in general, yes, absolutely.

This seems like too much calculation for anyone to do on-the-fly, but perhaps I need more info to make that call.

You don't seem to have a blog about this game of yours, but I'm interested in your views / thoughts / mechanics on simulating fire-fights, artillery, chemical weapons, etc. In that aspect, it is very similar to my own game.

An old hobby
We are already playing it for years. But the last year, we got too busy with life.

It developed well. We had a lot of RTS games translated to this game. And we thought of new mechanics to make things more fun, or add idea's from RTS, or make things easier.

It is a hobby game. Not meant for public. However, I do have a "public" version gathering dust and perhaps being fixed by the newer mechanics.

The public version is such simplified, that the core mechanic that makes us love the game is almost non existent. Which is a shame. I put it on the shelf for the time being.

***

Ask away
You can ask me anything about the game or my idea's. Also, what worked, didn't work or where discarded for other reasons. I think a PM would be the best approach.

***

Hobby versus Public
The calculations are sometimes indeed a bit too much. For example, the hobby version demands from players to track health. Which can go in the hundreds for the big guys. The "public" version would not have much health tracking, and an idea is there to remove it completely.

The vision mechanic is one of the oldest problems we have. We used to have a simple mechanic that used a lot of dice rolls. It showed imbalance. So we changed it in a 1 time roll.

Then it was "perfect" in balance. But not a copy from reality. We played a year or so with the 1 time roll. But decided to have a change. After all, 1 forest of 100 forests would yield the same die roll.

The "public" game has a simple yes/no situation, only mountains are in the way. And it will remain a 1 time roll. But in the public game it is a very logical reason to keep it a 1 time roll.

***

The calculation on the "fly"
True, that it takes some effort in some situations.
The main math is behind the curtains, and my job only.

But the players would see something like this:

An unit A, targets unit B. At a range of 8.
Within that range are 4 regions present that can reduce the accuracy.

The unit starts with a vision of 6, which means a 6/6th roll is needed to hit. But 6/6 is always a hit.

What does the unit see?
A forest [TT]; 2*(4+4) penalty
Only the side of a crumbled mountain [CR]; 0+16 penalty
2 snow fields, each [SS]; 2*(1+1 + 1+1)
That is a total penalty of 40. Or divided by 10 gives 4. 6-4=2. The unit needs to roll a 2/6th for a hit in this example.

Unit B decides to return fire and has the same objects in its field of vision.
However, it has infrared vision. So the snow fields don't count.
The penalty is only 32, or 3.2 subtracted from 6. Which is 2.8 but rounded means a 3/6th roll for a hit.

B has 50% more chance to hit than A. B is better, but pays more for it's weapon. The reward is better than the pay. Unless both end up in an open clear field. Then A would be better. So this way, I create a RPS system between vision and terrain.

I don't know which is faster. Rolling multiple dice, or calculation a 1 time roll. I think the latter.

But as you can see, it still has some clumsiness.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Do I need to cut down on terrain types?? How?

I have 3 classes for terrain:
Open-ground/Water/Debris

But 8 terrain types.
And thus 36 combinations in total.

I need to make use of Excel to make sure how heavy a weapon can be. And it is done on those 36 combinations. Which gives different results than the 8 terrain types.

It doesn't feel right!

How many times do I use a certain terrain?
The RPS effect by weapons and terrain are very variable.

Certain weapons do good with certain terrain. And I feel like it is a waste if I remove those weapons.
But it is also a waste if I remove those terrain types.

The problem is within movement types. I have so much more variation with movement than with weaponry.

I checked my list.
And weaponry is often based on debris to a certain degree.
Not by if the terrain has Urban, Mountain, Forest or Snow. The option is there, but not used after all those years. Hmmm.

***

During my night shift, I will be pondering on the next question.

Should I keep the terrain types for movement?
But consider making the system for weapons simpler by using only the classes Open/Water/Debris?

And if so, how do I take in the different levels of debris for the calculations in the shadows?

Should I keep using the symbols for the 8 terrain types? Or see if I can cut on those as well?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My progress is finally showing the goal

I am considering levels for penetrating debris terrain. A level 1 can only go through 1 terrain that blocks vision. (It took me a week to figure this out)

However, X-ray and Ballistic weapons (that ignore higher terrain). Once as addition to the normal weapons. Are now in the same league. Ballistics are a bit cheaper than X-ray. But both suffered from terrain effects.

I think, I did them wrong too. Ballistics can ignore terrain effects as well. Only for the target region has influence. So I need to make these more expensive, which is ok. They need to consider all range in between as effective range from the penetrating weapons.
If the terrain is one higher, the terrain has influence again.

X-ray, while not losing range. Will still be blocked by debris.

Either way, I need to re-consider penetrating weapons first, before modifying my other 2 weapon types.

But in the big overview. I now see that I am putting higher terrain in the same field as debris.
A mountain and a high terrain are different. But ballistics can ignore them both if the terrain is in between.

Factors on the weapon effectiveness will also remain. Making a normal weapon a 100% and a water weapon 20% again. But hey, that artillery torpedo sure gains a lot more weight costs when ignoring all that land in between. Which is going to be effective range by penetrating weapons instead of ballistic weapons.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Re-arange this vision??

While the double system is discarded. I have now use for a cumulative system. Seeing as how I still want to spread the effects of impaired vision. But also want to keep the game playable and fun.

I need a total of 30 points. And the only points that you may assign are 6, 5, 3 and 0. A rare case of 4 also may be used. OR. A new terrain. OR. Putting 2 terrains together into one class.

These are the factors currently, making a sum of 32:
0 Urban
0 Mountains/Rocks
3 Tree's
5 Snow/weather
6 Water
6 Dessert/soft sand
6 Grass
6 Concrete/hardened ground

I need to loose 2 points. I was thinking of water and dessert on 5.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not yet, debris as separate.

Effective range doesn't work well here either. Torpedo's start low, but abuse the rules. A torpedo as normal weapon should cost the same as a normal, but is still several times cheaper. I need to stick to simply counting the total damage.

But by making use of levels. I could make it so that certain normal weapons, already can ignore certain terrain. Making it a nice round number at the range they use. If I succeed in this, the ballistics and x-ray will follow.

The down part is that each different range might get it's own system of accuracy.

Edit:
Scrap that, too much work. I need to cut more to get a decent system. Or simply start working with a different system for the weight factor. Something along the lines of the weight to the power of 2 or a sum or sumething. Thus water is 1, and normal was 5, but now 15 or even 25 or something.

Edit 2:
Another way would be, considering the factor as a one time event again. But allowing longer ranges to have more effect from the terrain in a sense of multiple weakness. This will make them cheaper. Which in turn leads me to having water weapons being a negative effective range. Which would strife players to get normal weapons. And only choose the "cheaper" ones if they are absolutely sure.

This way, water would be 60 percent instead of 20 percent. The -80% if you will, would be divided by 2 as well. Thus -40 percent.
It is still a factor though. 20% for range 0 and 1, but 2 and beyond will be +0.12 instead of the old +0.04, normal has +0.2. Air weapons will have 160% for range 0 and 1. Then +0.26 or a 30% increase per range.

Its rather complicated, finding a good weight system to allow for an "analog" game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut