Bill Hupp wrote:
Of course I am a weirdo, I loved school. Just giving you fair warning.
If I could have made a living being a student, I'd still be a student. They had to graduate me kicking and screaming.
Bill Hupp wrote:
Perfect answer for 1. Did you go through the historical battles and calculate winning percentages (even at a rough basis due to lack of sources) as part of the overall results testing?
That's basically impossible. I could hand-wave numbers based upon my internalization (world-view of the system), but those numbers are only as good as my internalization, so why not just use my internalization in the first place?
Plus none of this is just me; I just happen to be the most vocal (voluble, prolix) on this forum. Every change is discussed among the designers; we talk, compare internalizations (that sounds more rude than it is), talk some more, and when our internalizations don't match we play games and examine in more detail to see if we can come to a convergence. Then even more discussion results, and eventually we decide upon a plan to move forward. Sometimes it's an interim plan where we know we still have a lot of discussion ahead still.
All of which is likely the same with every group of designers, so no surprises there.
Bill Hupp wrote:
Question 2 let me reframe it. How did you look at the change in the factor from +2 to +1 in terms of how it changed the odds? For example, It reduced the odds of success against elite and Harvey infantry by X and Y and that seemed a good change.
Still not sure what you mean. I can discuss the combat math until everyone goes blue in the face, but I would remind you of Mark Twain's saying -- there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Combat math (being probability) is statistics.
Bill Hupp wrote:
As background, I spent a lot of time looking at the combat math in game systems back in the day (closer to my economics and MBA at UofC). The opposing dice roll process of the legacy system is behavioral genius from a game system perspective (keeps the other player in the game, like a pitcher catcher process and much better than saving throws.) But the system is unclear from an odds perspective to most of the less math inclined (all non math majors as defined by DK?)
Naw, it's easy. Opposed dice rolls is just a bell curve; doesn't matter who is rolling the dice, as long as they aren't cheating. Taking one die and subtracting another gives you the same curve as taking one die and adding another, it's just offset by 7 (if you add 7 to the result of one die minus the second, you get the same curve as one die plus the second). Or to put it another way (with the same effect) treat the second die as having pips of seven less than their actual (so pips of -6 to -1 instead of 1 to 6) and add the dice instead of using the actual pips and subtracting them -- presto chango, same result space, offset by 7.
Bill Hupp wrote:
I have not gotten into the details of the math of the legacy system because overall I liked the results. Triumph! Increasing the troop types and adding more weak troops directionally improved the system IMHO.
Adding the extra two types of crappy troops and the simple point system so all the three types of crappy troops could be used without the pretense that Horde were equivalent to Knights or Blade was a huge step forward, yes. All reasonable people agree (because if they disagree, that proves they are not reasonable! Circular logic at its finest).
Bill Hupp wrote:
I am also new to the 'normalization' logic where you are looking at troop types over 3000 years of history. I learn a lot from those comparisons and truly appreciate all the work that goes into that. (That may lead me to buying a Sea People's army on eBay today.)
Sea Peeps are really cool in the Biblical period.