| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 11:08 am: Edit |
Hmm, I'm unlikely to play this, so feel free to ignore my opinions.
2d6*5% strikes me as a fine combat table. It's fast, easy, and produces reasonable damage values.
I'd seriously consider doubling the first X compot for both sides and using (2d6-1)*5% for the roll.
The doubled first X COMPOT would increase the lethality of small battles without needing a separate system for that and increases the chances of a smaller force winning. The -1 on the die rolls also makes the combat a bit more random, and keeps the large scale combats from being too deadly compared to F&E.
I'm with Richard on the ComPot issue, I'd go with double the F&E ComPot for most units (that eliminates half fighter factors and oddities with some ships crippling better than others) without too greatly increase the total numbers.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 11:58 am: Edit |
I'm not for doubling F&E compot or otherwise changing factors, at least at this moment. This is to clarify that I don't agree with you (as you said that I did).
No offense is intended.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 12:09 pm: Edit |
Ah, no it doesn't. It just shifts the sum down one notch.
Quote:The -1 on the die rolls also makes the combat a bit more random
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
Garth, I can't make sense of your chart. 2d6 x 5% should be a single line and the highest number should be on one end.
2 = 10%
3 = 15%
7 = 35%
11 = 55%
12 = 60%
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 07:45 pm: Edit |
The chart appears to be meant to show the odds of each combination of rolls by each player. In other words a 0.08% chance that both the attacker and the defender would roll a 12. For an 11 by the attacker side and a 12 by the defender it would be 0.15%.
Definitely needed labeled axes.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 07:53 pm: Edit |
Yes, what Jon said ... it's the percent odds of each player's dice rolls. Sorry, but I thought it was clear by the text that went with it.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - 08:18 pm: Edit |
Then you do not mean for the posted chart to become a part of the game? Right? Wasn't clear to me. (There really wasn't any point in posing the chart. We all knew how the math worked. I shudder to think of Garth wasting time posting it.)
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 12:39 am: Edit |
Nope, not part of the game, just data as supporting justification for the proposal.
It was, as I said, a counter to the original FA system of 1d6 x 10%. Neither that nor mine have any player inputs, nor BIR selection or vBIR die like F&E has. If the BIR isn't important, then my 2d6 x 5% works just fine.
I've thought about it a bit more. If BIR should be factored in, adding a bit complexity to FA, here is another potential combat chart:
| 2d6 -> | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
| 0 | 10.0% | 12.5% | 15.0% | 17.5% | 20.0% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | |
| 1 | 12.5% | 15.0% | 17.5% | 20.0% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | |
| 2 | 15.0% | 17.5% | 20.0% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | |
| 3 | 17.5% | 20.0% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | |
| 4 | 20.0% | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | |
| 5 | 22.5% | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | |
| 6 | 25.0% | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | 50.0% | |
| 7 | 27.5% | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | 50.0% | 52.5% | |
| 8 | 30.0% | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | 50.0% | 52.5% | 55.0% | |
| 9 | 32.5% | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | 50.0% | 52.5% | 55.0% | 57.5% | |
| 10 | 35.0% | 37.5% | 40.0% | 42.5% | 45.0% | 47.5% | 50.0% | 52.5% | 55.0% | 57.5% | 60.0% |
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 11:16 am: Edit |
Garth, 2d6-1 makes it noticeably more likely for the outnumbered side to achieve more damage, I'm not sure what definition of "more random" you're using under which that doesn't make combat more random.
For example the chance of side "A" doing twice the damage of side "B" goes from 159/1296 to 213/1296.
Yes, either way, max damage to min damage is a 1 in 1296 chance, but one way that's 11:1 and the other it's 6:1.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 03:49 pm: Edit |
Douglas, unless I totally misunderstood you ... it's the same odds whether you make it 2d6 or 2d6-1. All you're doing is shifting from 2-12 to 1-11. Unless you're saying that the attacker rolls 2d6-1 and the defender rolls 2d6, which is an idea that I can't support.
(EDIT TO POST ABOVE: "man-min per line" should read "max-min per line".)
[Has been fixed. SPP]
Garth L. Getgen
| By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 04:23 pm: Edit |
Battle Intensity is handled by picking how many rounds you add to the scenario. Remember each player picks between 1 and 4 additional rounds.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 05:24 pm: Edit |
Dal Downing:
I have been trying to contact you without success. Can you contact me please?
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 05:28 pm: Edit |
Dal: "Battle Intensity is handled by..."
In what? To what discussion does this apply?
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 05:29 pm: Edit |
Being forced to fight additional rounds does not feel like SFB or FC where you don't normally HAVE to stay and fight and can disengage at any time.
| By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 05:53 pm: Edit |
Amarillo Design Bureau has decided that our original plans for public beta testing of Federation Admiral this month cannot be implemented. Developmental testing of this creative and exciting campaign system which is powered by VBAM will be kept in-house with veteran players familiar with campaigns and the Star Fleet Universe. Regrettably, this means that the PDF sales of a playtest version of Federation Admiral will be delayed until next year. Both VBAM and ADB wish to make sure that this is the quality product that you expect from either company, and the reality is that it's just going to take more work to produce a beta-test document that blends VBAM with the SFU and is contract compliant. We've all put hundreds of man-hours into making this campaign system work well with all the games of the Star Fleet Universe. During the next few months, work will focus on creating a workable combat system and testing it to the point that testing by a broader public group of players can begin. (As of today, there is not a complete system for anyone to test and we do not want to just say "use the F&E combat system for now.") We expect to have usable reports by early 2017 and will incorporate that data into the system.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - 11:16 pm: Edit |
In the original draft FA rules and/or in VBAM rules.
Quote:SVC asked: "Battle Intensity is handled by..." In what? To what discussion does this apply?
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 15, 2016 - 08:42 am: Edit |
Ok, that's just wrong.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, September 15, 2016 - 10:44 am: Edit |
Garth, the odds shift down, which gives the outnumbered side a better chance to win even though the adjustment applies to both sides.
As I already posted, including the odds for 2:1, you can check that if you like.
But trivially, if outnumbered by 7:1 say, there is still a chance of the outnumbered side doing more damage at 2d6-1, but no such chance at 2d6. Because rolls of 11 to 1, 10 to 1, 9 to 1, and 8 to 1 are all possible with both sides rolling 2d6-1, but not with both sides rolling 2d6.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, September 15, 2016 - 12:29 pm: Edit |
What? I'm confused. I think you're looking at the chart I posted on 10 Sept and you're reading it wrong.
The columns 2-12 are the attacker's 2d6 dice roll, and the rows 2-12 are the defender's 2d6 dice rolls. The percent values are the odds of any given combination. The totals are at the end/bottom.
The odds of one player rolling two 6 and the other rolling two 1 are 0.08%. It doesn't matter whether those are read as "12" and "2" or you subtract 1 form each for "1" and "11" or add 5 to make them "6" and "17", the odds of that dice roll on 1:1296 or 0.08%.
>>>> "For example the chance of side "A" doing twice the damage of side "B" goes from 159/1296 to 213/1296."
I'm not seeing where you get the 159 and 213 from.
But assuming equal forces, side "A" does double the damage of side "B" by rolling twice the result on the dice: 4 vs 2 x 5% = 20% vs 10% / 6 vs 3 x 5% = 30% vs 15% / etc / 12 vs 6 x 5% = 60% vs 30%.
Factoring in a -1 to the dice roll, now it's 3-1=2 vs 2-1=1 x 5% = 10% vs 5% / 5-1=4 vs 3-1=2 x 5% = 20% vs 10% / etc / 11-1=10 vs 6-1=5 x 5% = 50% vs 25%.
Okay, I stand corrected: it does shift the top end of the chart. Still not seeing how you get the 159 & 213 above, tho.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 01:22 pm: Edit |
We need a new system to replace FASCRS (which doens't work anyway and violates the universe to boot) and if we were going to use F&E we would have done that already. That new system will need a new chart. I don't care if we use 2.5% or 5% or give them both charts and let them pick their own favorite.
Garth's (2d6)x5% works well enough (it has bizarre results but they are rare) so go with that.
I don't think we can fix FASCRS (it's too broken) but maybe if we can list everything wrong (e.g., battle intensity determined by number of rounds) Jay can rewrite it. Trick is that any new system has to fit in with Jay's existing scenario definitions.
I don't think just warming over F&E works politically.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 02:04 pm: Edit |
I am thinking of an abstract battle system where ships actually shoot at each other (rather than summing the compots and multiplying by a percentage), with special ship traits (cargo, mauler, drone, EW, carrier, troop, PFT and so on) being represented). I have come up with some rules for this, but am still working on it.
My thought is that the system should be able to handle (say) single ship duels, 3FF vs 1FF, large fleet vs large fleet, including bases, ground bases, and whatnot.
In my opinion, as this system is meant to be used in lieu of (much slower) tactical combat systems (such as SFB, FC, ACTA:SF, or any other system chosen), that this system should not be so simplified that you just do one roll per side per battle round and be done.
As far as I can tell, FA is not at F&E scale where you get 30 vs 30 ships, but rather that most battles are quite small (just a few ships per side). (Let me know if I am mistaken about this). This should allow an abstract system that nevertheless has more options and is more involved than just add up each side and apply a random multiplier.
I intend to use F&E factors (this means we don't have to come up with an entirely new set of factors for everything), but not the F&E combat system.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 04:34 pm: Edit |
No Garth, I'm using fairly simple arithmetic.
With 2d6 for damage, what are the chances of a side doing more damage than someone who outnumbers them 8:1? If your answer is not ZERO then you aren't able to do math. The larger side will do at least 10%, the smaller side will do at most 60%, and 60% of outnumbered 8:1 is less than 10% of the larger side.
With 2d6-1 what are the chances of a side doing more damage than someone who outnumbers them 8:1? If your answer is not more than ZERO then you aren't able to do math. Because the outnumbered side can do up to 55%, and the larger side can do down to 5%.
2d6-1 allows the outnumbered side to win more often than 2d6. See above. See the numbers I calculated independently for chances of the outnumbered side doing more damage when outnumbered 2:1.
I'm not using your table at all, and I don't care about it at all. I'm using the results of 5% times 2d6 compared to the results of 5% times 2d6-1. Try this and see what happens.
Do the outcomes for the larger side having 40 ComPot and the smaller side having 20 ComPot and see who wins how often with the two methods.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 04:49 pm: Edit |
159 and 213 are the chances IN 6^4 of side A doing twice or more the damage of side B with the two sides both rolling 2d6*5% for the first and (2d6-1)*5% for the second.
I got the values by summing the probabilities of the various ways to do that.
For example:
159 in 1,296 is the sum of all of the following:
Side B rolls a 2 (1 chance in 36) and side A rolls a 4+ (33 in 36) for a chance of both of 33 in 1296,
Side B rolls a 3 (2 in 36) and A rolls a 6+ (26 in 36) for 52 in 1296,
Side B rolls a 4 (3 in 36) and side A rolls an 8+ (15 in 36) for 45 in 1296,
Side B rolls an 5 (4 in 36) and side A rolls a 10+ (6 in 36) for 24 in 1296,
Side B rolls a 6 (5 in 36) and side A rolls a 12 (1 in 36) for 5 in 1296.
33+52+45+24+5=159
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 05:02 pm: Edit |
What is this trying to prove?
What is the (hopefully constructive) point being contended?
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 16, 2016 - 05:10 pm: Edit |
Yeah, I have some ideas along those lines, too. I'm half afraid it could turn into "dice hell".
Quote:I am thinking of an abstract battle system where ships actually shoot at each other (rather than summing the compots and multiplying by a percentage), with special ship traits (cargo, mauler, drone, EW, carrier, troop, PFT and so on) being represented). I have come up with some rules for this, but am still working on it.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |