|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 16:38:09 GMT
Okay, I have a rough idea what the dice system could be like. Since the boards use classic 6 number dices the players would roll 2 dices like in older RPs. So the min score would be 2 and the max 12. ... I'm not sure, but there should perhaps be a change to the values needed for different victories when the "tie value" becomes bigger or smaller. (For example if the value was 3, the attacker would annihilate the enemy with all rolls above 8) It could maybe be based on percentages or maybe not. I think you raise good points. Right now we're only just starting to plan out a dice system so it's good to plan out how damage would be calculated and how results would be determined, even if we don't yet have exact values, which we can implement later during gameplay. One thing, I think if the dice rolls are close (eg. 8 vs 7) then the losing side shouldn't be forced to retreat. We could give them the option to retreat and if their army size drops below a certain threshold they could be arbitrarily forced to retreat, and if, say, they got surrounded then they wouldn't even have the option to retreat. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 17:06:03 GMT
Okay, I have a rough idea what the dice system could be like. Since the boards use classic 6 number dices the players would roll 2 dices like in older RPs. So the min score would be 2 and the max 12. ... I'm not sure, but there should perhaps be a change to the values needed for different victories when the "tie value" becomes bigger or smaller. (For example if the value was 3, the attacker would annihilate the enemy with all rolls above 8) It could maybe be based on percentages or maybe not. I think you raise good points. Right now we're only just starting to plan out a dice system so it's good to plan out how damage would be calculated and how results would be determined, even if we don't yet have exact values, which we can implement later during gameplay. One thing, I think if the dice rolls are close (eg. 8 vs 7) then the losing side shouldn't be forced to retreat. We could give them the option to retreat and if their army size drops below a certain threshold they could be arbitrarily forced to retreat, and if, say, they got surrounded then they wouldn't even have the option to retreat. I agree. I was thinking about that too, but apparently wrote the contrary for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 17:21:10 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. -1 means the "tie value" decreases, so better for the attacker and +1 means better for the defender. 1. Armies I was thinking there would be some sort of a quality factor for armies, but that has to be discussed further. Anyways I'll determine the army factor by giving them both an amount of points. If quality won't have any effect, then the points are just manpower, except for tanks and arrillery of course. So each side's army's ability is determined by points. I'd determine the effect on the battle by their relative difference. So if either side has 1.5 - 2.0 times as many points as the other they'll get the tie value better for them by one. If the side has more than 2.0 to 3.0 the value will change by 2. If one has over 3.0 the value will +-3. 2. Defences Simple trench +1 Moderate natural barrier (dence forest or small mountains) +1 Large mountains +2 Fortifications +2 (as Darth Nihilus said these won't be possible to build in a page for all your borders) Heavy fortifications (like Maginot line, very hard to build) +2/3 3. Morale We'll have to finish the morale system, but it would probably have an impact from 1 to 2 (only for really badly collapsed morale) 4. Fatigue Probably +-1 after very long marches or battles (not for a few battles) expect maybe +-2 in extreme situations. 5. Retreating A defending army in fast retreat will give the attacker -1 and a chaotic rout -2
Alright, let's make an example scenario to see how this works, starting from 6: An army of 22 000 attack a series of fortifications (+2) defended by 8000 men of similar quality (-2). Both sides get 2 points so we're still at 6. However the attacking army is fatigued after long battles (+1) - but the defenders are severely demoralised being cut off of their supply lines and by seeing their line break (-2). So, the attackers would need to roll a 6 for a narrow victory, dealing casualties, but not being able to overrun and a 7 to force a retreat. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 30, 2022 17:40:54 GMT
I'm not sure, but there should perhaps be a change to the values needed for different victories when the "tie value" becomes bigger or smaller. (For example if the value was 3, the attacker would annihilate the enemy with all rolls above 8) It could maybe be based on percentages or maybe not. I tend to disagree. How does the tie value even get down to 3 (which means you have a 92% chance of losing)? That should take something like being surrounded by a larger force of better trained and better equipped troops, and that does indeed suggest a pretty high chance of annihilation. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 17:54:04 GMT
I'm not sure, but there should perhaps be a change to the values needed for different victories when the "tie value" becomes bigger or smaller. (For example if the value was 3, the attacker would annihilate the enemy with all rolls above 8) It could maybe be based on percentages or maybe not. I tend to disagree. How does the tie value even get down to 3 (which means you have a 92% chance of losing)? That should take something like being surrounded by a larger force of better trained and better equipped troops, and that does indeed suggest a pretty high chance of annihilation. Yeah, you're right. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 30, 2022 18:03:38 GMT
I also kind of hate giving the attacker an advantage, all other things being equal, because modern history kind of suggests the opposite, but perhaps it's necessary to discourage passive play?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 18:08:30 GMT
I also kind of hate giving the attacker an advantage, all other things being equal, because modern history kind of suggests the opposite, but perhaps it's necessary to discourage passive play? Yeah, but that's easily countered by even light defences like trenches. If the defender had an advantage, German Blitzkrieg would be almost impossible to recreate. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 19:48:40 GMT
As for the different levels of engagement, here's a rough outline that can be definitely improved. These aren't by any means the final values, just something to build up from. Also it is important to notice that engagements can happen multiple times in the same place so if 10% casualties for an all out attack feels little, you can do it 5 times.
The percentages would be of the average size of the sides' armies.
1. Skirmish
Draw: 1% casualties for both sides
Victory by 1: 1% for the winner and 2% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale
Victory by 2: 0.8 % for the winner and 2.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale
Victory by 3: 0.8 % for the winner and 3.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winner
Victory by 4: 0.8 % for the winner and 4.5% for the loser, loser forced to retreat very little, slight morale boost for the winner
Victory by 5: 0.5% for the winner and 7 % for the loser, loser forced to retreat a little, moderate morale boost for the winner, slight morale drop for the loser
2. Attack; causes slight fatigue
Draw: 3% casualties for both sides
Victory by 1: 2.5 % and 4 %, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winners
Victory by 2: 2.5 % and 6%, loser pushed back a little, slight morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 3: 2 % and 7.5 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 4: 2 % and 12%, loser pushed back, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 5: 2 % and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly
3. All out attack; results in significant fatigue for both sides
Draw: 10% casualties for both
Victory by 1: 10 % and 15 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 2: 10% and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 3: 8 % and 27.5 %, loser collapses into chaos and routs, significant morale boost and drop accordingly
Victory by 4: 8 % and 40 %, same effects as above (out of space) --> Victory by 5: 5% and 60 %, chaotic rout, significant morale boost and huge morale drop
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 19:50:20 GMT
Also, I'm gonna roll to see the result of the example situation. The attckers will make an all out attack. If they roll a 6, they win by 1, an 7, by 2 etc.e0upXYQc
Edit: the result is 10, so this battle would have ended in total annihilation. The attackers would have suffered 1100 casualties and the defenders 4800.·
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 30, 2022 20:29:08 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. ... Taking your metrics into account, I decided to make a Google Docs with calculations inside so if/when we code the actual calculations it'll make things more organized. docs.google.com/document/d/1Gjus67aeHaXGJms4XfiPyTdNUkxoOmQ8GbiNWpemjjg/edit?usp=sharingThings of note: In addition to the dice roll, I also added a function that helps determines damage as well. Right now the function's just a test function, so idk yet if it's gonna be the same function or if everything's just gonna be directly determined by dice roll anyway. There's a few things I left blank so you can edit those if you want, just keep the highlighter on. I'm also gonna tag some other people: Theron of Acragas , Eugene V. Debs , Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat Note: If you guys hate boring math then just ignore everything from page 2 onwards and see if we can agree on the stuff on page 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 20:58:52 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. ... Taking your metrics into account, I decided to make a Google Docs with calculations inside so if/when we code the actual calculations it'll make things more organized. docs.google.com/document/d/1Gjus67aeHaXGJms4XfiPyTdNUkxoOmQ8GbiNWpemjjg/edit?usp=sharingThings of note: In addition to the dice roll, I also added a function that helps determines damage as well. Right now the function's just a test function, so idk yet if it's gonna be the same function or if everything's just gonna be directly determined by dice roll anyway. There's a few things I left blank so you can edit those if you want, just keep the highlighter on. I'm also gonna tag some other people: Theron of Acragas , Eugene V. Debs , Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat Note: If you guys hate boring math then just ignore everything from page 2 onwards and see if we can agree on the stuff on page 1.I slightly disagree with some of the player choices on page 1. 1. "Bets"; You said both would have to make a minimum bet of 10%. How would this work? I thought the attacker could commit as much as he wants and all of the defenders would engage, unless some retreat. 2. If I didn't misunderstand, you said the players could choose different strategies that would change the outcome. I think players shouldn't be forced to choose a named strategy (for example pincer attack). It hasn't been a problem to perform them manually and as troop movement would be limited they would be possible to resolve objectively. The two pincers would roll seperately. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 21:09:26 GMT
Also on the type of attack, I think the attacker could be able to dictate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 30, 2022 21:13:30 GMT
Also, also, damage will certainly be hard to calculate and keep track of so I think the thread author and/or RP officers could keep ttack of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 30, 2022 21:20:03 GMT
Here's a rough idea how the value needed for winning could be calculated. I'm happy to hear ideas for improvement. ... Taking your metrics into account, I decided to make a Google Docs with calculations inside so if/when we code the actual calculations it'll make things more organized. docs.google.com/document/d/1Gjus67aeHaXGJms4XfiPyTdNUkxoOmQ8GbiNWpemjjg/edit?usp=sharingThings of note: In addition to the dice roll, I also added a function that helps determines damage as well. Right now the function's just a test function, so idk yet if it's gonna be the same function or if everything's just gonna be directly determined by dice roll anyway. There's a few things I left blank so you can edit those if you want, just keep the highlighter on. I'm also gonna tag some other people: Theron of Acragas , Eugene V. Debs , Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat Note: If you guys hate boring math then just ignore everything from page 2 onwards and see if we can agree on the stuff on page 1.Some thoughts: "Bets" are the amount of troops committed to an attack, right? I'd like to see a little bit more fine-tuning in the formula. 10v10 is not the same as 19v10, and 20v10 is not the same as 40v10. It doesn't have to be super fine-grained, but I'd like to see some reward at least at 150% of the enemy force, 200% and every additional 100. If casualties are calculated as a percentage of the total force, then I don't really see a need for the risk factor. Your risk is determined by the number of troops you commit to the battle, your reward for risking is a higher success chance. About the number of troops - if you attack, you can choose (and both sides should be able to attack). If you defend, all your troops take part, unless you choose to retreat some. If you you retreat your entire force, the enemy should be able to attack as you retreat, with a significant advantage, but if you defend (or even attack) with a reasonable force, then the rest of your army retreats undisturbed. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Oct 30, 2022 21:28:00 GMT
As for the different levels of engagement, here's a rough outline that can be definitely improved. These aren't by any means the final values, just something to build up from. Also it is important to notice that engagements can happen multiple times in the same place so if 10% casualties for an all out attack feels little, you can do it 5 times. The percentages would be of the average size of the sides' armies. 1. Skirmish Draw: 1% casualties for both sides Victory by 1: 1% for the winner and 2% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale Victory by 2: 0.8 % for the winner and 2.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, little to no effect on morale Victory by 3: 0.8 % for the winner and 3.5% for the loser, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winner Victory by 4: 0.8 % for the winner and 4.5% for the loser, loser forced to retreat very little, slight morale boost for the winner Victory by 5: 0.5% for the winner and 7 % for the loser, loser forced to retreat a little, moderate morale boost for the winner, slight morale drop for the loser 2. Attack; causes slight fatigue Draw: 3% casualties for both sides Victory by 1: 2.5 % and 4 %, neither forced to retreat, slight morale boost for the winners Victory by 2: 2.5 % and 6%, loser pushed back a little, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 3: 2 % and 7.5 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 4: 2 % and 12%, loser pushed back, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 5: 2 % and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly 3. All out attack; results in significant fatigue for both sides Draw: 10% casualties for both Victory by 1: 10 % and 15 %, loser pushed back, slight morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 2: 10% and 20 %, loser pushed back by a lot, moderate morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 3: 8 % and 27.5 %, loser collapses into chaos and routs, significant morale boost and drop accordingly Victory by 4: 8 % and 40 %, same effects as above (out of space) --> Victory by 5: 5% and 60 %, chaotic rout, significant morale boost and huge morale drop Another thought - if casualties are percentage-based, there has to be some kind of overrun rule for when forces are significantly different. Because otherwise if you come at me with an army of 10,000, you bet I'm going to go full Jihad with 100-man suicide bomber teams. |
|
