# Weight of choices, revised (personal calculations)

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

I need to go back to the basics. Before going on with cool-down and stuff.

I need to get my own calculations in order.

I noticed why my choice weapon is so bad, compared to a pure one. And this problem isn't just with the cool-down.

What I need to do is to look at the improvement that a weapon gains. When a choice is made.

This means that having the choice out of 1 damage or 1 damage, isn't a choice. The difference is 0. And this is added to the most expensive choice. Period.

So, what if a tank has a minigun and a cannon?

The minigun shoots 3 bullets. Weight 150.
The cannon fires 1 shell. Weight 300.
An unit that uses both weapons. Weight 450.

The best thing I can do is looking at the most extreme difference there is. And that would be the 2 most optimal RPS targets in this case.
Another important note would be that I may not look at the initial weigth of the weapon. Only the effectiveness.

The minigun does 3 damage on infantry (100%).
The cannon does 1 damage on infantry (33.3%).
The minigun does 3 damage on tanks (8.3%).
The cannon does 36 damage on tanks (100%).

The gain is 91.67% for the cannon and thus the main weapon here. The gain is 66.7% for the minigun, thus a second choice. But certainly a choice.
And since it is a choice. This counts for 50%. The weight of this will be applied to the cheaper weapon. Which is 33.3% and thus 50. The total weight would now be 350.

This method seems fair.
This method is prone to mistakes :(
This method works well for a choice out of 2.

***

Doing the same with a flamethrower and cannon.

Both weapons cost 300 each.
Both weapons at the same time cost 600.

The flamethrower does 6 damage on infantry (100%).
The cannon does 1 damage on infantry (16.7%).
The flamethrower does 6 damage on tanks (16.7%).
The cannon does 36 damage on tanks (100%).

There is no primary weapon now. The gain is 83.3%.

50% of 83.3% of 300 is 125.
The choice version costs 425.

I am kinda satisfied with this.
But this was the "easy" part.

***

The problem with cool down is:
What is the primary weapon? What is the choice?
Should I consider AP consumption as a factor as well?

And what if there are 3 choices? Or even more?
Should I check every interaction?
Pick the highest as primaries?
Are the additions by 50% still?

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It is kinda complicated with cool down

Different AP costs on weapons cannot be combined into one weapon. The weapon itself, no matter how many variations are put together. They always have the same AP cost.

A flamethrower of 300 and a cannon of 300. With an AP of 3, the costs would actually remain 300.

If there is a choice. And the AP would be altered for both choices into 3. Then the total cost of the choice, which is 425, would now be 212.5

If one of the weapon has a different AP than the other weapon. Things get COMPLICATED...

***

For using different AP on the basic choices.
What would happen?

Having the following choices:
1 damage, 1 AP
2 damage, 2 AP

The player starts with 1 AP, and adds another AP if needed. That is the intended design for having a new tactic.

But which one is the primary weapon?
So far, I think that the 2 damage, 2 AP is the primary weapon. Since this one is a bit more expensive due to the advantage that is created for the optimal RPS.

The worth here is based on the future developments.
For 2 AP, this is 125%.
So the main weapon costs 125% and by time is worth 125%. The secondary weapon only 100% and by time will remain 100%.

100 is 80% of 125.
The improvement would be a difference of 20% here.

50% of 20% of 100 is 10.
The main weapon would cost 135 instead of 125.

***

The strange one would be:
2 damage, 1 AP
2 damage, 2 AP

The improvement here is, paying more AP???
Wait, paying less AP is certainly an improvement.
So 2 AP is a bad choice. Do we have an advantage by paying 2 AP? The weapon is cheaper. But this is like choosing between 1 bullet or any amount of bullets.

There is NO choice here. So this situation is invalid.

***

Ok, before I go to 3 different AP choices that ARE valid. I need to look at what happens when 3 weapons are valid in terms of RPS.

Let's do something very balanced.
9*1, costs 450
3*9, costs 450
1*81, costs 450

Using all 3 at the same time would cost 1350. But we want this "super unit" to choose only 1 weapon at a time.

9*1 does 9 damage against infantry.
The other weapons do 3 or 1 damage.
That is 33% or 11%.

3*9 does 27 damage against vehicles.
The other weapons do 9 or 9 damage.
That is for both 33%.

1*81 does 81 damage against tanks.
The other weapons do 9 or 27 damage.
That is 11% or 33%.

There are 3 combinations of 2 weapons each time.
9*1 and 3*9, 9*1 and 1*81, 3*9 and 1*81.

50% of 67% of 450 = 150
50% of 89% of 450 = 200
50% of 67% of 450 = 150

Ok, so I am at the moment stuck here.
- How to go further with these numbers? They are valid if we only had 2 weapons to choose from.
- Imagine the chaos, if the weapons where also different in worth.

I need to solve this, before I can go further with the 4 AP options for my Minotaurus.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
At least I know where the costs should end up roughly

Seeing as how 1 weapon adds 150 or 200.
The weapon will cost at least 650. The maximum is going to be 1350 for sure.

If I don't do 50%, but 33% instead.
Then the total addition looks like a 3x33%=100%.
The additions would be 100 or 133.3. A total of 333.3 on top of 450 is 783.3
(no worries, i can work with this as well)

But the question is, is this the right number?

***

Now that I am thinking more and more. There are several problems with this way of calculating.

What if a weapon is 100% effective against air? Yet the other weapon is a very expensive anti ground weapon only?

The improvement should be on a cheaper weapon for sure.

So, another change again.
We pick the most expensive weapon. And see if it can be a primary choice.
If so, we look at the choices as well.
Can they be an optimal choice in another situation? If so, we pick the most optimal choice for those weapons. (that will be a long search)
Then we look at the improvement that those weapons can offer. And add 50% of the improvement percentage of the price to the total.

This for each weapon choice.
Combinations are considered to be a choice as well.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
With the last set of rules in mind

Let's do some practise calculations...

First the 3 equal weapons again, of each 450.

Against infantry, we have our usual:
9*1=9, 100%
3*9=3, 33%
1*81=1, 11%
The secondary weapon is 33%. Thus 67% of 450=300.

Against vehicles, we have our usual:
9*1=9, 33%
3*9=27, 100%
1*81=9, 33%
The secondary weapon is 33%. Thus 67% of 450=300.

Against tanks, we have our usual:
9*1=9, 11%
3*9=27, 33%
1*81=81, 100%
The secondary weapon is 33%. Thus 67% of 450=300.

This time, every secondary choice is somewhere else a primary choice. And the improvement between the 2 is 67%. 50% of the result of 300 is 150.
So the main weapon is 450, and the secondary weapons are 150.

To make sure, I am absolutely on the right track. I will consider a situation with only 2 of the 3 weapons.

Which should yield cheaper results than a choice out of 3.

9*1 vs 3*9:
100% vs 33% vs infantry
33% vs 100% vs vehicles

9*1 vs 1*81:
100% vs 11% vs infantry
11% vs 100% vs tanks
This one is different.
89% *50% *450 = 200

3*9 vs 1*81:
100% vs 33% vs vehicles
33% vs 100% vs tanks

The costs of the weapons:
9*1 costs 450
3*9 costs 450
1*81 costs 450
Using 2 of the above costs 900
Using 3 of the above costs 1350
choice of 9*1 or 3*9 costs 450+150=600
choice of 9*1 or 1*81 costs 450+200=650
choice of 3*9 or 1*81 costs 450+150=600

Now for the choice out of 3...?
choice of 9*1 or 3*9 or 1*81 costs 450+3*150=900
But if I take 33% instead of 50%.
The costs would be 450+3*100=750

Which one is right?
900 or 750?
If I look at the improvements that this choice out of 3 has over a choice of 2. That would clear things up?

choice of 9*1 or 3*9, which costs 600, against tanks.
We would rather choose 3*9, which is 27 damage. Or 33% compared to the right weapon with 81 damage.

choice of 9*1 or 1*81, which costs 650, against vehicles. We could choose either way. Which are both 9 damage. Or 33% compared to the right weapon with 27 damage.

choice of 3*9 or 1*81, which costs 600, against infantry. We would rather choose 3*9, which is 3 damage. Or 33% compared to the right weapon with 9 damage.

All three show 33%, so an improvement of 67%. Which is once again 150 by the 50%.

600+150=750
650+150=800
600+150=750
Wow, 2 different results with the same logic.
But it looks like that 33% instead of 50% of the improvement, is the better approach.
Also, the middle option of 800 actually receives a new secondary choice.

***

What if we have multiple weapons out of a set?
Like 2 out of 3?
I will try then one another time.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
To see if 2/3 works

We have once again, the 3 weapons of 450 each.
9*1, 3*9 and 1*81

This time, the player may use 2 out of 3 weapons.
The main cost will be 900.
But the question is, what will be added?
Using all 3 weapons at the same time would cost 1350.
If we go above this number with our method, then we still have a mistake in the method.

The choices are:
9*1 + 3*9
9*1 + 1*81
3*9 + 1*81
2 weapons are worth 900
The weapon that changes is worth 450
But perhaps, the improvement is based on 900, no matter how you look at it.

Against infantry:
9*1 + 3*9 = 12 or 100%
9*1 + 1*81 = 10 or 83%, improvement 17%
3*9 + 1*81 = 4 or 33%
Costs 150

Against vehicles:
9*1 + 3*9 = 36 or 100%
9*1 + 1*81 = 18 or 50%, improvement 50%
3*9 + 1*81 = 36 or 100%
Costs 450

Against tanks:
9*1 + 3*9 = 36 or 33%
9*1 + 1*81 = 90 or 83%, improvement 17%
3*9 + 1*81 = 108 or 100%
Costs 150

150+450+150=750
50% would make this 375. Which is more than 50% of 450.
33% would make this 250. Which is more than 50% of 450.

So, either 1275 or 1150 as costs for this weapon.
But another thing popped up.

It looks like, we have a combination.
That doesn't show to be useful.
It is 9*1 + 1*81.
Thus where the anti vehicle weapon is missing.
This means that within the combinations, the 3*9 is always chosen.
So, I guess we have only 2 comparisons here, not 3.

We are back to a simpler choice.
9*1 or 1*81.
The improvement is 89%.
The costs would be 50% of 89% of 450 = 200.
This is finally less than 50% of 450.
So, a valid option now, is 1100 as total costs.

I guess, next is examining 2 or 3 dimensions by choice.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
First simple, then hard again

I looked at percentages of weapons, when going from 2 to 3 choices. With either +33% per extra choice or +50% per extra choice.

For now, I will keep the 50%.
Because I also look at the improvement factors.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What improvements are there?

When I look again at the choice:

1 AP, 1 Damage, costs 100
2 AP, 2 Damage, costs 125

It is better to see the 2 choices in equal costs.

Thus:
1 AP, 1.0 Damage, costs 100
2 AP, 1.6 Damage, costs 100

What are the improvements here?

AP?
Going from 2 to 1 AP is actually saving up 1 AP.
1 AP is twice as good as 2 AP.
The improvement is from 100% to 200%. Or 50% to 100%.
The improvement here is 50%.
Of which, 50%*50% is only 25%.

Damage?
1 Damage to 1.6 Damage is an improvement of 0.6 Damage. Which is 37.5%.
50%*37.5% is 18.75%.

So, it seems that AP is the primary factor here.
The weapon that costs 1 AP is the primary weapon.
It doesn't give me a good number. But in theory, the costs of this choice weapon would be 118.75
It is a small price to pay.

***

1 AP, 1 Damage, costs 100
2 AP, 2 Damage, costs 125

I may not look at the costs.

The improvement from 2 to 1 AP. Is still this 25% of the 100 costs.

Then we have the improvement from 1 to 2 Damage. This is an improvement of 50%. And 50% of 50% is also 25%.
Now, I have a dilemma. We got 2 primary weapons. But one costs 125, the other 100.

It reminds me of having a super small anti air rocket. Or it does a lot of damage on the ground.
In each direction, we have an improvement of 100%.
The costs against air however, is very cheap.

This means that the most expensive weapon should be primary here.
But that doesn't take away, there are other situations where this might arise. And an improvement of 80% being counted as secondary, while being 3 times as expensive. Is also problematic.

Range and other factors will be of influence on the prices of weapons. Yet their damage might be completely different.
So, how should I determine the improvement in those cases?
A short range will do a lot of damage, but will be cheaper.

I have no other choice than having the most expensive weapon, as primary weapon.
And observe how this primary weapon deals with targets that other weapons target.
Compared to the primary weapon, the other weapons show an improvement. And this factor is going to be used.

While fishing to the right answer let me into a labyrinth of guessing on how to do this.
I went full circle to simplicity.
Happy though, that I went full circle. Now I know what other options are out there. Yet don't work. I can skip those traps in the future.

So, the new approach is:
- The most expensive weapon is the primary weapon.
- In case of equal costs; the most effective weapon is the primary weapon. Meaning, the total percentages of effectiveness are compared.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Minotaurus is the goal

Should I really just look at the AP costs to see what the improvement is?

I think, it is a combination of AP and the Damage this time.

If having a cost of 2 AP, means a factor of 1.25 to the weapon. Then perhaps, I should try a couple of things first.

Sure I had...most expensive weapon is primary. But who says that it is true?

What if a weapon chooses between spending 1 or 3 AP:
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200
3 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 100

Both weapons do the same damage? Obviously, the one with 3 AP is not a choice at all.
So, no matter how you look at it, Damage remains a factor here.

If we increase the damage just a little bit for the 3 AP?
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200
3 AP, 3 Damage, basic cost 150

Now we have a little improvement.
The damage improvement is 33%.
That means 16.7% more costs. +25 means 225 for a choice weapon.
If we looked at the AP, it would have been different.

Let's increase to the threshold of equal costs.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200
3 AP, 4 Damage, basic cost 200
We don't know which one is the primary weapon.
We do know that on one side, we have an improvement of 2 Damage. On the other side, we pay 3 times as much AP.

With that. I think I should look at what happens when the Damage is increase as such, that the higher AP weapon becomes the primary weapon:
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200
3 AP, 5 Damage, basic cost 250
How can we determine the improvement now?
Clearly, the secondary weapon is the one with just 1 AP.
But it has less Damage. Would anyone choose this? Yes, the fact that only 1/3th of AP is used here is an important factor.

I should let this sink in for a while.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
delta D versus delta D/AP

But my primary thought is considering the improvement in Damage by the absolute numbers.
And the improvement of the Damage divided by the AP.

If I look at the options from the previous post. We get a neat list to analyse.

A.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 100, D/AP=0.67
Delta Damage= 0 on 2 is +0%
Delta D/AP = 1.33 on 2 is +67%

B.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 3 Damage, basic cost 150, D/AP=1.00
Delta Damage= 1 on 3 is +33%
Delta D/AP = 1.00 on 2 is +50%

C.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 4 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=1.33
Delta Damage= 2 on 4 is +50%
Delta D/AP = 0.67 on 2 is +33%

D.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 5 Damage, basic cost 250, D/AP=1.67
Delta Damage= 3 on 5 is +60%
Delta D/AP = 0.33 on 2 is +17%

E.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 6 Damage, basic cost 300, D/AP=2.00
Delta Damage= 4 on 6 is +67%
Delta D/AP = 0.00 on 2 is +0%

F.
(skipping 7)

G.
1 AP, 2 Damage, basic cost 200, D/AP=2.00
3 AP, 8 Damage, basic cost 400, D/AP=2.67
Delta Damage= 6 on 8 is +75%
Delta D/AP = 0.67 on 2.67 is +25%

***

What can I say?

For starters. Each comparison, has 2 improvements. One of the 2 is going to be the primary weapon. The one with the highest costs should be the primary weapon. As determined in one of the previous posts.

Now to check, if the secondary choice is indeed worthy...

A.
Shows that choice 1 is primary.
That means that delta Damage is the one to use.
It is +0% on 100 = 0.
This means that choice 2 will never be made.

B.
Shows that choice 1 is primary.
That means that delta Damage is the one to use.
It is +33% on 150 = 50.
The total costs is 250.

C.
Despite equal costs. Shows that choice 2 is primary by delta Damage.
That means that delta D/AP is the one to use.
It is +33% on 200 = 67.
The total costs is 267.

D.
Shows that choice 2 is primary.
That means that delta D/AP is the one to use.
It is +17% on 200 = 33.
The total costs is 283.

E.
Shows that choice 2 is primary.
That means that delta D/AP is the one to use.
It is +0% on 200 = 0.
This means that choice 1 would never be made...
Right?
No, wait. Not right. This is wrong.
Choice 1 is still very valid.

And it still shows with G.
Where the improvement by Damage AND D/AP are both for the primary weapon.

Using less AP still means an improvement.
So AP itself too, has to be considered...

But how? Simply saying that in all the examples, from 3 to 1 AP is a factor 3? Thus +67%?
How would this relate to the rest?

I can't use the 3 itself as a factor on the other improvement. This would simply mean a postponed effect.
There should be a moment, where is decided that this +67% on AP itself, becomes a leading factor.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
AP improvement times D improvement?

Another thing occurred to me. What if I simply multiply the improvements of AP and of D?

D/AP will not be used at all here.
The improvement of 3 to 1 AP is +67%. Thus all improvements in D would be multiplied by 2/3th in the examples above.

Results:
A. 0.% x 2/3 x 100 x 50%= 0
B. 33% x 2/3 x 150 x 50%= 17.
C. 50% x 2/3 x 200 x 50%= 33.
D. 60% x 2/3 x 200 x 50%= 40
G. 75% x 2/3 x 200 x 50%= 50

I don't know how to look at this.
So, I am going to look at a more general list.

Where AP equals D again for the weapons:
1 and 2 yields 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5%
1 and 3 yields 67% x 67% x 50% = 22.2%
1 and 4 yields 75% x 75% x 50% = 28.1%
1 and 5 yields 80% x 80% x 50% = 32.0%
1 and 6 yields 83% x 83% x 50% = 34.7%
1 and 7 yields 86% x 86% x 50% = 36.7%

And now, where the weapons are equal in costs:
1 and 2, 1.60 D yields 50% x 37.50% x 50% = 9.375%
1 and 3, 2.00 D yields 67% x 50.00% x 50% = 16.67%
1 and 4, 2.29 D yields 75% x 56.25% x 50% = 21.09%
1 and 5, 2.50 D yields 80% x 60.00% x 50% = 24.00%
1 and 6, 2.67 D yields 83% x 62.50% x 50% = 26.04%
1 and 7, 2.80 D yields 86% x 64.29% x 50% = 27.55%

This shows potential...

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Let's observe the Minotaurus

1 AP, 1 D, costs 100
2 AP, 2 D, costs 125
3 AP, 3 D, costs 150
4 AP, 4 D, costs 175

The goal is to have a choice between the 4. Starting with 1 AP, and increase if needed. Meaning, this unit will spare AP if given the chance.

4 AP, 4 D, is the primary weapon costing 175.
All others are to be compared to this one.

1 and 4 yields 75% x 75% x 50% = 28.125%
2 and 4 yields 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.500%
3 and 4 yields 25% x 25% x 50% = 3.1250%

28.125 + 15.625 + 4.6875 + 175 = 223.4375
This is a decent score.
I know it is with a lot of decimal.
But I have ways around this.

If I am to compare to normal weapons.
I would have the following in equal costs:
A weapon of 1 AP would do 2.23 D
A weapon of 2 AP would do 3.58 D
A weapon of 3 AP would do 4.47 D
A weapon of 4 AP would do 5.11 D

Clearly, the choice weapon is right in the middle. This is a good thing at first. But the players will obviously go for the "normal" weapons.
It is different if a player would choose between 1 AP, 1.75 D or 4 AP, 4 D. And a choice between these 2 for equal costs, would have 0.86 D for 1 AP and 3.45 D for 4 AP.

Maybe I should explore the 33% or 25% options for 3 or 4 choices.
If I apply this rule, I need to make sure it is fair for the other choice weapons.
The Minotaurus would drop down from 223 to only 199.

If I am to compare to normal weapons.
I would have the following in equal costs:
A weapon of 1 AP would do 2.0 D
A weapon of 2 AP would do 3.2 D
A weapon of 3 AP would do 4.0 D
A weapon of 4 AP would do 4.6 D

This sounds even better.

***

I also need to check effects when:
- Charging is involved
- Range is involved
- Other effects that influence weapons

Still lots to do.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Range effects?

Giving the AP choices a little rest.

What happends when Range differences enter the frail?

It turns out that there are no choices for the ranges that are not overlapping.

This means that a weapon with range 2 or a weapon with range 6 are not to be compared for range 3 to 6.

The higher range weapon might not even be the primary weapon here. Nor will the extra costs be based on all ranges.

To make sure all goes well, both weapons are recalculated for those ranges that are overlapping. In other words, the range 6 is recalculated as range 2. Then the primary and secondary is determined. The extra costs. And last, the range 3 to 6 is returned to the total picture as 100 percent.

Example calculation: A ranged light cannon and several short ranged flamethrowers.

Cannon does 1 x 25 damage at range 6.
Basic costs 600
Flamethrower A does 4 x 1 damage at range 2.
Basic costs 240
Flamethrower B has 5 x 1 damage for 300.
Flamethrower C has 6 x 1 damage for 360.

All flamethrowers look as secondary here.
But...
The cannon is re-evaluated to a range 2. This is a cost of 300. And another 300 is set aside for now.

Flamethrower A looks secondary.
C looks primary.

A has a 75 percent increase against infantry.
Thus 0.5 x 0.75 x 240 = 90
90 + 300 + 300 = 690

B is equal. So we need to check the damages.
B is an 80 percent increase against infantry.
The cannon is also a 80 percent increase, but then against tanks.
Thus 0.5 x 0.8 x 300 = 120
120 + 300 + 300 = 720

C is primary. Thus this time the beta variant of the cannon is altered.
The cannon has a 76 percent increase against tanks for that range.
Thus 0.5 x 0.76 x 300 = 114
360 + 114 + 300 = 774

1 x 1 damage with range 2 in this example would normally increase the costs with 60.
The true additions here are 30 and then 54.

Choice versus no choice?
690 vs 840
720 vs 900
774 vs 960

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Accuracy effects?

Ok, so this one got suggested my by cousin.
What does a choice in accuracy do?

An example:
We have 1 die with 100% accuracy. This will do 1 damage on average.
We have 2 dice with each 50% accuracy. They will do 1 damage on average.

The math for these is ridiculous. Even for the simplest of situations. But having extremes like 6 dice with each 16.7% versus 1 die with 100%. It looks valid. But 4.2% for the choice? No!

Not only is the adjustment super small. It also would suggest that choosing between other types, need to have the chances implemented as well.

And therefore, while it makes a small difference. I will forbid these choices. The average damage is to be considered for all calculations!

Henceforth, 1 * 100% or 6 * 16.7% is not a choice for one unit to make.

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Reconsidering accuracy

According to my cousin. The primary weapon is the one with the highest improvement. Which would be the 1 die of 100%, not the 6 dice of each 16.7%.

And he is kinda right. Because the improvement from 0 to 1 is 100%.

It is possible that any other damage is also an improvement of 100%. However, 7 dice of 16.7% versus a 1 die of 100% would mean that by costs, the 7 dice are primary.

Do I have a new paradox here?

Let me consider the following 2 situations:
1 die of 100% against 2 dice of 50%.
1 die of 100% against 2 dice of 50% with a +5% adjustment on damage.

The chance on 0 is 25% in both situations.
The chance on 2 is also 25% in both situations.
The improvement from 0 to 1 is 100%.
The improvement from 1 to 2 is 50%.
That 5% doesn't increase the 50% above 100% at all. No matter how you look at it.

I only see this paradox for accuracy issue's.
So, once again. No!

X3M Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Are considered to not possible.
What I mean is that range differences on themselves are of influence, when a damage type changes.
But anything relying on the balance of range, like for example ballistics. Cannot be used.

Having ballistics and a minimum range already proved very difficult. Players need to set up a table.
So if a ballistic weapon has a choice of effectiveness (anti tank or anti infantry shell) Then this is the only choice it will make.

***

Turn altered weapons.
The ones where a weapon shoots BEFORE all other weapons shoot. Or the ones where a weapon is only fired AFTER all other weapons.
This one looked complicated at first. But turns out to be one of the easiest adjustments possible.

Not only that. But I saw that it needed a re-evaluation. It never sat right with our guts. But now it does. And perhaps it is because it is somewhat linked to range adjustments. Which where not correct to begin with (square root of 2 was missing)

***

Weapons with different velocity.
Which is mechanically an approach for slow moving projectiles.
The balance is determined by modifying the range.
It can simply not be a choice.

***

Weapons with explosive abilities.
I got 2 in this category.
One is a re-roll on a weapon until the target is destroyed, or the re-roll fails. This falls under accuracy.

The other one is where an unit (devastator) or structure (mines are structures (lol)) decides to blow itself up.
This isn't a choice tbh.
It is more of an independent attack.
It already has exception rules on for example, the AP costs. Where a true 4x weapon would have infinite AP. The explosive weapon uses 1 AP and does 4x damage.

***

It feels like, I am done refining this subject :) 