|
|
Post by Władysław Anders on Jun 16, 2016 7:46:52 GMT
it has good promise The Light Bringer,but it becomes immpossible for some armies to win, even if it is very hard they should still have a chance for instance: Defender: City, Lake, Road 10,8,9=16,14,15 Attacker: FORESTS 2,3,1=3,4,2 16-3=13+7=20 IMPOSSIBLE 14-3=11=7=18 Ok fine 15-2=13=20 IMPOSSIBLE So you can see a problem there cant you m8? Also, its a but longer, and actually not complicated, if you keep this as your signature, so i would suggest instead of 3 battles just make it simply one. Like so: 1939: Germany: Attack Polish city of Poznan 8 BP worth of defenders are there, have 6BP worth of attackers 8+3=11 IM on foressts so i get7BP 11-7=4+7=11 Hard not impossible, but yes, if there are extremley large odds the same thing will occur, which is why i belie you should make a whole region one terrain to avoid over comlication, for instance: Region A: Urban B: Forest C: Mountains The defender will always just get the city, but the offender will have plenty of different terrains to fight on, alos keep the cap low on BP such as maybe max 20BP per a region. |
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Jun 16, 2016 8:12:37 GMT
it has good promise The Light Bringer ,but it becomes immpossible for some armies to win, even if it is very hard they should still have a chance for instance: Defender: City, Lake, Road 10,8,9=16,14,15 Attacker: FORESTS 2,3,1=3,4,2 16-3=13+7=20 IMPOSSIBLE 14-3=11=7=18 Ok fine 15-2=13=20 IMPOSSIBLE So you can see a problem there cant you m8? Also, its a but longer, and actually not complicated, if you keep this as your signature, so i would suggest instead of 3 battles just make it simply one. Like so: 1939: Germany: Attack Polish city of Poznan 8 BP worth of defenders are there, have 6BP worth of attackers 8+3=11 IM on foressts so i get7BP 11-7=4+7=11 Hard not impossible, but yes, if there are extremley large odds the same thing will occur, which is why i belie you should make a whole region one terrain to avoid over comlication, for instance: Region A: Urban B: Forest C: Mountains The defender will always just get the city, but the offender will have plenty of different terrains to fight on, alos keep the cap low on BP such as maybe max 20BP per a region. I see it as okay for it to be impossible to win if the enemy have too much advantage. I mean army of 6 winning against army of 37 who have city,lake and roads on their side? That stuff should not be possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 16, 2016 8:22:36 GMT
Well that's why I recommend the Picard system. Even if the terrain isn't included (just add BP as bonuses)
37 vs 8 in attacking
7 +( (8-37)/37) × 5)
About 3.081, just round down to 3. Easy to roll 3 or better to win. A roll of 7 is the most common for 2 dice, let say it happens... 4x10% 40% less casualties than 50-50. The attacker of 37 only experienced 4 in losses while the defender of 8 experienced 90%, so 7 in losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jun 16, 2016 8:31:15 GMT
Well that's why I recommend the Picard system. Even if the terrain isn't included (just add BP as bonuses) 37 vs 8 in attacking 7 +( (8-37)/37) × 5) About 3.081, just round down to 3. Easy to roll 3 or better to win. A roll of 7 is the most common for 2 dice, let say it happens... 4x10% 40% less casualties than 50-50. The attacker of 37 only experienced 4 in losses while the defender of 8 experienced 90%, so 7 in losses. Let say benefits of defenses in favorable terrain of... +6 Do the same calculation of the required number to roll or better as above but except... this time, it is 37 vs 14 attacking. The formula gives 3.891 so... let's just go with a required roll of 4 or better. The attacker happens to roll maybe 7 and wins...difference of 3 in roll and required roll ... 20% casualties for attacker, 8 in losses, 80% for Defenser, 6 in losses. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 16, 2016 8:46:27 GMT
Well that's why I recommend the Picard system. Even if the terrain isn't included (just add BP as bonuses) 37 vs 8 in attacking 7 +( (8-37)/37) × 5) About 3.081, just round down to 3. Easy to roll 3 or better to win. A roll of 7 is the most common for 2 dice, let say it happens... 4x10% 40% less casualties than 50-50. The attacker of 37 only experienced 4 in losses while the defender of 8 experienced 90%, so 7 in losses. I hereby vote for the implementation of the Picard system in every war, to make things fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 10:00:30 GMT
Do we do this battle system in 1 turn? Yes whole battle is still considered one turn This system is just more accurate than our current 2dice system |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 16, 2016 17:58:26 GMT
But far less accurate than a 2 dice Picard formula. And the Picard formula can be done by a spreadsheet easy. I actually made one for the STWs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 16, 2016 18:29:13 GMT
We should really implement the Picard formula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Władysław Anders on Jun 16, 2016 18:58:27 GMT
i have an idea for an formula
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 16, 2016 18:59:17 GMT
i have an idea for an formula picard formula? |
|
|
|
Post by Władysław Anders on Jun 16, 2016 19:10:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Władysław Anders on Jun 16, 2016 19:12:04 GMT
not picards
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 16, 2016 19:31:46 GMT
I have a formula.
State your bp and the enemy BP, think of a fair number that fits the bp scores.
(Yes i know its not a formula....)
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 16, 2016 19:32:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 16, 2016 19:47:42 GMT
I have a formula. State your bp and the enemy BP, think of a fair number that fits the bp scores. (Yes i know its not a formula....) That system failed spectacularly in TW10 |
|
