WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD
WWPD

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Math Time

Players shouldn't need one of these.
As I have been painting and working on background, I have continued to think about the basic mathematics of the game system. A six-sided die can only accept a few modifiers before they start to accumulate above 6+ or below 1+.  Naturally, we want some chance in the game, and so such extreme modifications are undesirable.

So buckle up, it's time for the Math Ride.

To Hit Math
 
My game system, as currently proposed has many modifiers.  Perhaps too many.  To summarize in the form of charts:




Inferior Target
Same Target
Superior Target
7+
-4 or more
-3 or more
-2 or more
6+
-3
-2
-1
5+
-2
-1
Open
4+
-1
Open

3+
open


 



-4
Firing unit Moving, AND target Cowering AND Concealed
-3
Firing unit Suppressed AND Target Concealed.

OR

Target cowering AND Firing unit Moving OR Target Concealed.
-2
Firing unit Moving AND Target Concealed.

OR Firing Unit Suppressed
-1
Firing unit Moving AND Target Concealed.
-
open

As you can see, in normal circumstances, two evenly matched units will be hitting on between 4+ and 6+, depending on Cover and Movement. The firing unit's to-hit chance will never rise to 7+ or above unless one of the units is Cowering or Suppressed.  I think this is desirable, since a 7+ only hits if a player can roll two 6s in a row.  (That's more or less the same as saying it's nearly impossible.)

I am less pleased, however, that against a superiorly-skilled unit in Concealment, a Moving and Firing unit will need 7+s. Effectively, then, a Moving and Firing unit will never be able to pin a superior opponent at a distance, but will need to delay in order to be effective.  (Or move quickly into Firefight.) 

So I'm considering changing the rules so that the base chance to hit a superior opponent is 4+.  The chart would then look like this:



Inferior Target
Same or Superior Target
7+
-4 or more
-3 or more
6+
-3
-2
5+
-2
-1
4+
-1
Open
3+
open



I could also lower the basic to hit by 1 for all skill levels, but this seems really rough on an inferior opponent.

Cover Saves

I am more pleased with my system of saves, which fits naturally into a scale between 1+ and 6+.  Most infantry will save on a 3+ in the open, and gain +1 or +2 due to terrain. In chart form, it looks like this for Shooting:


Shooting
Infantry
Vehicle
1+
Hard Cover

2+
Soft Cover

3+
Open
Hard Cover
4+

Soft Cover
5+

Open
6+


None




It looks like this in Firefight:




Firefight
Infantry
Vehicle
1+


2+


3+
Hard Cover

4+
Soft Cover

5+
Open
Hard Cover
6+

Soft Cover
None

Open


The 1+ save isn't as big a problem -- it only protects against small arms.  Anything with an Explosive Trait will reduce the save. As one might expect, you'd want mortars and artillery against targets in fortifications. Blast them out of their holes!

More Radical Changes Yet?

I have also been playing about with some more radical changes.  In my current system, the relative skills of the two units forms the basis of to-hit rolls.  What if, instead, it formed the basis of the Target unit's Cover Save?  (You could rationalize that the superior target is better able to use Terrain to protect itself.) Something like this:




Infantry
Vehicle
1+


2+
Superior Target

3+
Equal Target

4+
Inferior Target
Superior Target
5+

Equal Target
6+

Inferior Target

Or perhaps this, if  want to avoid situations where a 1+ save becomes normal for Soft Cover:




Infantry
Vehicle
1+


2+


3+
Equal or Superior Target

4+
Inferior Target

5+

Equal or Superior Target
6+

Inferior Target

Shooting would have a simple 4+ base:



Any Target
7+
-3 (worse combinations)
6+
-2 (Concealed AND Moving OR Suppressed)
5+
-1 (Concealed OR Moving)
4+
open
3+



I might remove the to-hit penalty on a Cowering unit and fold that into the Cover Save.  So a Cowering Unit would treat its Cover as one category higher - No Cover would become Soft Cover. Soft Cover would become Hard.

Under this system, it would be easier to Hit targets (and thus Suppress them) but harder to kill superior ones.


No comments :