|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 22, 2018 4:41:11 GMT
Been thinking how to simulate inferior and superior troops in a balanced and non-game-breaking way. Saw several posts about d12s with a different distribution of 1-6 on them. But how you choose to redistribute will shift the average roll slightly. d12s are great because you don't ELIMINATE a 1-6, you just changed the distribution of when one will come up.. Use different colors. White = normal troops, Red = superior troops, Green = inferior troops Different examples: Standard d12, same as d6, avg: 3.5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 Slightly "Superior" d12, avg: 3.58 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 More "Superior" d12, avg: 3.75 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 Really "Superior" d12, avg: 3.92 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 Silly "Superior" d12, avg: 4.25 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 Worst case "Superior" d12, avg: 4.75 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 "Average" Dice d12, avg: 3.5 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 The lovely part about this is there's no rule changes, purely distribution of "luck". Not sure which one I would pick to be the "Superior" troops like Spartans, or Balearic Slingers, Veteran Spearman... Probably the "More Superior" so as not to eliminate the 6/1 combo entirely. I do want them to get killed by 1 sometimes.. Also, the reflection of this would represent "Inferior" troops. Again, not removing the 1-6, just changing the likelihood of certain numbers coming up. Not sure what the "cost" of making an element superior/inferior would be. I was thinking you have to make equal numbers of inferior/superior elements... This type of designation would probably only be applicable to historical scenarios since the element numbers are not necessarily on scales of 12. These dice could also be used for PIP generation, perhaps to represent great communication systems, or particularly brilliant generals, and conversely bad communications, competing or incompetent generals.. Doesn't mean they won't get a 6, which the +1/-1 systems do, but it's just not as likely. Incidentally, I bought into a kickstarter that did d12s for d6s to make better more "even" dice that roll more perfect distributions for d6s: Very nice quality dice. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 25, 2018 5:44:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 25, 2018 16:11:29 GMT
The d12 system is way to complex for me.
Much simpler methods:
Inferior roll 2d6 take the worst; Superior roll 2d6 take the best.
Or just roll d8s for inherently Superior troops (good rule for Dwarves and Elves...)
Next question is why are they Superior/Inferior?
Heavy Armor? In that case add +1 to any Destroyed on Doubles Result (not Destroyed due to blocked Recoil) - saved by good steel but still pounded back.
High Morale? In that case optionally add +1 on a Recoil on More Result (stubborn troops take losses but refuse to give ground - doesn't work when Doubled as in that case stubborn morale only leads to more death).
Discipline? Troops can optionally Pursue or not. Un-disciplined lose Shieldwall (side support).
Brittle/low morale/exhausted? In that case they get a -1 on a losing score.
In short there are many much simpler but more nuanced ways of reflecting quality.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 26, 2018 0:32:55 GMT
The d12 system is way to complex for me. Much simpler methods: Inferior roll 2d6 take the worst; Superior roll 2d6 take the best. Or just roll d8s for inherently Superior troops (good rule for Dwarves and Elves...) Next question is why are they Superior/Inferior? Heavy Armor? In that case add +1 to any Destroyed on Doubles Result (not Destroyed due to blocked Recoil) - saved by good steel but still pounded back. High Morale? In that case optionally add +1 on a Recoil on More Result (stubborn troops take losses but refuse to give ground - doesn't work when Doubled as in that case stubborn morale only leads to more death). Discipline? Troops can optionally Pursue or not. Un-disciplined lose Shieldwall (side support). Brittle/low morale/exhausted? In that case they get a -1 on a losing score. In short there are many much simpler but more nuanced ways of reflecting quality. TomT It's an interesting game design problem. DBA seems to adhere to the "troops with statistics and a smattering of special rules" philosophy, in which each troop has inherent move rates, combat factors etc., and special abilities such as recoil distance, QK against XYZ, QK'd by ABC, not counted if lost etc. that are unique to each unit. Certainly having specific rules for *how* the element is superior can give really nuanced results. Is it superior vs similar elements (Sp vs Sp, Wb vs Wb), or maybe only superior vs mounted etc. etc.. But then you run into the problem every unit having a specific rule for it that you have to remember, look down the table and parse text. And the more special rules you have, the more you have to look up results for every combat. The d12 which more of a "generally superior/inferior" troop type, so blander, but in my view easier to remember. Having blank d12s with stickers means you can modify the superior/inferior troops up or down if you're finding them too unbalancing with play-testing. That said, I do like the "+1 if they lose" idea as that makes troops that might not beat other troops more often, but reduces the chance of them retreating/routing. Seems very Spartan to me. They are less likely to run away, which is where the real casualties occurred. Although I will have a hard time calculating just how much of an effect that will have on the unit from a game perspective. Also, I like on the previous thread that you pick one unit superior, and one unit inferior for every army to even things out without resorting to a points system. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 27, 2018 15:12:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 27, 2018 16:47:42 GMT
Hi Stevie, A great point, and I just saw your epic "House Rule Index" forum post. I didn't know it was there! I've added the 3 forum threads to the wiki in fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Superior_and_Inferior_TroopsBut your list is grand, and well organized. If it's ok, I'd like to work on moving it to the wiki? Chris |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 27, 2018 21:05:27 GMT
You are correct Greedo from a game design standpoint DBX uses the odd system of creating unique troop types with bundles of attributes which vary against other equally unique troop types. When pushed it becomes a complexity nightmare (see DBMM) as everything is theoretically unique and must interact with other unique bundles of data. It started this way because originally DBX was just going to be a Romans v. Barbarians rule set so it was Blades v. Warband (Big numbers v. Shockers - origin for the concept of Knights and Knaves). Upon this clever basic structure we began to build annexes for other eras until eventually we had a structure resembling Howl's Moving Castle.
If starting fresh you would never do it this way. Instead you would start with a set of basic troop types for example lets say 4, you could then create 4 Attributes (like Shock - Destroy on More, Loose Order - ignore terrain etc.). Each of the four troop types would be able to have 0-4 of the Attributes so you could create endless variations (just do the math). Yet the user need only learn 8 rule "points" to get all sorts of fine tuned types. If you wanted to add a new Attribute you would exponentially increase variation but the user would only need to learn one more rule (makes creating advanced or period specific rule expansions very easy and allows the use to stop when they have had enough complexity). You would of course want to make the rule points as easy to remember as possible (for instance don't call something Psiloi - which conveys only confusion - but instead Light Foot - which indicates "Foot" type right in the name to avoid having to add to data bundle player needs to memorize likewise basing figures equal to Combat Factor on base almost ends the need for Quick Reference). Avoiding forcing player to memorize basics allows for adding nuance elsewhere.
But again not for DBA 3.0 tournament play where nuance can be annoyance and impossible to balance.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2018 21:10:04 GMT
You would of course want to make the rule points as easy to remember as possible (for instance don't call something Psiloi - which conveys only confusion - but instead Light Foot...) TomT Actually Tom, I’d go even further. ‘ Psiloi’ might be ok for Greeks or Greek speaking Byzantines, but I agree that it looks odd for Romans to call their Velites ‘ psiloi’. And it’s positively ridiculous having western Dark Age and Medieval armies with something called ‘ psiloi’! Use their true name and call ‘em what they are: skirmishers. The same goes for the daftly named ‘ Solid Foot’ and ‘ Fast Foot’. What’s wrong with using proper military terms such as ‘Close Formation’ and ‘Loose Formation’? (skirmishers are in ‘Open Formation’). How can 4Ax be ‘ Solid’ when they are in a looser formation than other heavy foot?! Medium infantry would be a better name for them. Still, a rose by any other name as old Shakespeare would say... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 30, 2018 18:17:19 GMT
Stevie:
You are correct terminology whether from Phil or player generated (Quick Kill) is not our strong suit (related to presentation issues).
Its why I dumped it and went with familare terms such as "Light Foot", "Medium Foot" etc. which at least give helpful hints as to characteristics. "Loose Order" = ignore Rough/Difficult Terrain. It makes a world of difference when teaching DBX concepts. "Shock" instead of "Quick Kill", "Shieldwall" instead of Side Support etc, etc.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 1, 2018 15:13:24 GMT
Another thing I've seen to make it easy to teach is to have "unit cards" (probably talked about around here somewhere).
Each unit type in your army has an index card with everything you need to know on it.
Move rate in open and rough terrain,
Combat numbers
Who QKs it
Who is QKs
Anything special (equals, being doubled = flee etc.)
You could call the troops anything you like, and I do like the idea of "light foot", "medium foot", "Shock", "Rampage", etc.
You could put those on the cards as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 1, 2018 15:32:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 2, 2018 15:02:32 GMT
Nice. I figured something like this had been done since dba is so teachable! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 8, 2018 23:40:46 GMT
No I don't mind. stevie proof read the first draft and gave some great suggestions. He also added that extra special touch, which I will leave as a surprise. Just need to edit them and then move into presentation. Probably need to put them on the wiki as the file may be quite large. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 9, 2018 15:37:39 GMT
Jim1973, would love to see the cards when you have a beta copy available! Most definitely put 'em up on the wiki.
Just back to modified d12s though. Has anybody playtested with these kinds of dice for PIPs or combat. Were the results even noticeable?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 9, 2018 16:43:44 GMT
Jim1973, would love to see the cards when you have a beta copy available! Most definitely put 'em up on the wiki. Just back to modified d12s though. Has anybody playtested with these kinds of dice for PIPs or combat. Were the results even noticeable? Chris Yes, I have tested at least 3 historical battles using these factors. An Inferior vs Superior matchup is noticeable. Inferior or Superior vs Ordinary is less noticeable. More play testing is needed. Joe Collins |
|
)