|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 8, 2023 4:56:34 GMT
Even the difference of a single aggression point gives the higher-aggression army less than one chance in three (10/31, 32.3%) of defending. Whatever its truth in historical terms, this seems to me a bad thing in game terms. If you have a high-aggression army you don't have to think much about how to defend with it, and vice versa.
If it's agreed that this is a problem, would a solution be to throw two dice rather than one, before adding aggression factors? If I worked it out right, this would for example increase the chance of the one-point-higher aggression army defending to 37.6% (435/1156).
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 8, 2023 6:27:33 GMT
...DBA is a quite simple wargame using one dice. Aggressivity of armies is a historical factor of the rules. Using two dice tu determine one facto is a bit stupide Using 24 elements for an army with half of the aggresion factor could change the rules. best for you is using of factor-1-aggresion armies...
|
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Oct 8, 2023 7:34:04 GMT
Even the difference of a single aggression point gives the higher-aggression army less than one chance in three (10/31, 32.3%) of defending. Whatever its truth in historical terms, this seems to me a bad thing in game terms. If you have a high-aggression army you don't have to think much about how to defend with it, and vice versa. If it's agreed that this is a problem, would a solution be to throw two dice rather than one, before adding aggression factors? If I worked it out right, this would for example increase the chance of the one-point-higher aggression army defending to 37.6% (435/1156). Even a 1 point difference in aggression does indeed make a large difference in the likelihood of attacking. I am sure that this in turn plays a significant role in selecting armies for competitions. I wonder therefore if there is any scope for a competition organiser trying a tournament where all armies are given an aggression of zero. Would a different palette of armies appear do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 8, 2023 8:43:15 GMT
Even the difference of a single aggression point gives the higher-aggression army less than one chance in three (10/31, 32.3%) of defending. Whatever its truth in historical terms, this seems to me a bad thing in game terms. If you have a high-aggression army you don't have to think much about how to defend with it, and vice versa. If it's agreed that this is a problem, would a solution be to throw two dice rather than one, before adding aggression factors? If I worked it out right, this would for example increase the chance of the one-point-higher aggression army defending to 37.6% (435/1156). I understand it tries to even out any advantage by giving the defender the option to choose terrain, but as they set up first I'd say the invader definitely has the upper hand as they can match up the better options during their deployment. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 8, 2023 8:51:59 GMT
I think the real advantage of the defender is that he chooses and builds the terrain, certainly in his favour.
To even things out, you might try different things:
- both players get to choose and place terrain in turns until terrain has to be discarded
- then the defender chooses his side of deployment, but:
- the army with the most light units (LH, Ax, Ps) chooses who deploys first and who moves first
(But in general I think DBA is in its core an unbalanced and sometimes even unfair game.
If you've got a crap army of high aggression, well good luck, then!
And yet I think, that is exactly what it makes it the more interesting, because cleverness
and luck may still turn the tide... As Napoleon said: You should never interrupt your enemy
when he's about to make a blunder.
So, all in all I'd say: DBA is a monster, but that's okay with me.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 8, 2023 10:02:13 GMT
Hmmm…there is a very easier way of balancing this, without the need to roll two dice each.
“The higher aggression factor defends if the final aggression scores are the same”
(So the only re-roll is when both sides have the same aggression and have the same die roll)
At present, comparing the two aggression factors before dice are rolled, we have the following:-
A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and 5 re-rolls. (2 to 1)
A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and 4 re-rolls. (4 to 1)
A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 3 chances of defending, and 3 re-rolls. (12 to 1)
Under the new system this would become:-
A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 15 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (1½ to 1)
A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (2½ to 1)
A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (6 to 1)
As you can see, the chances of the higher aggression defending is increased, but not excessively so,
plus it reduces aggression re-rolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 8, 2023 13:36:16 GMT
Hmmm…there is a very easier way of balancing this, without the need to roll two dice each. “ The higher aggression factor defends if the final aggression scores are the same” (So the only re-roll is when both sides have the same aggression and have the same die roll)
At present, comparing the two aggression factors before dice are rolled, we have the following:- A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and 5 re-rolls. (2 to 1) A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and 4 re-rolls. (4 to 1) A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 3 chances of defending, and 3 re-rolls. (12 to 1) Under the new system this would become:- A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 15 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (1½ to 1) A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (2½ to 1) A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (6 to 1) As you can see, the chances of the higher aggression defending is increased, but not excessively so, plus it reduces aggression re-rolls. Stevie, an elegant solution. |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 8, 2023 13:48:17 GMT
Yes, I like Stevie's idea
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 9, 2023 9:28:49 GMT
Remember the good old bad old days when you wrote your deployment down and then then revealed it only to realise you placed your cav opposite the elephants
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 9, 2023 9:55:36 GMT
It still happens Skb777…well…in effect.
If you are defending, you deploy first, and your opponents can put their Elephants where they like.
(Of course, the difference is the invader KNOWS where your stuff is, and doesn't have to guess)
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 9, 2023 12:39:53 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 9, 2023 12:58:38 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Probably to keep things simple, and quick (it’s supposed to be fast play, after all), and also to counter the fact that the defender will have chosen/laid out terrain. If we start to carry out extensive pre-game processes it stops being fast play…presumably a choice on the part of the designer as part of the game design. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 10, 2023 8:43:45 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Right! So I made up this houserule to establish a kind of fog of war. Or simply try this easy one: The player of the army with the most light units (LH, 3Ax, Ps) decides which armies deploy and move first.Have fun! Brian |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 10, 2023 10:12:20 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Probably to keep things simple, and quick (it’s supposed to be fast play, after all), and also to counter the fact that the defender will have chosen/laid out terrain. If we start to carry out extensive pre-game processes it stops being fast play…presumably a choice on the part of the designer as part of the game design. They may have chosen the terrain, but the attacker can choose to flip the board. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 10, 2023 10:58:35 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Well…it’s like why the defender gets to move first. Somebody has too! Having the defender placing terrain, deploying first, and moving first, while the invader picks base-edges, deploys second, and moves second, is a nice game balancer. |
|
