Jump to content

Bunnahabhain

Member
  • Content Count

    3,472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    I'm impressed with the creativity of many of the ideas coming out in the beta, and I'm also impressed and relieved that the design team are clearly listening to our feedback.
    It is still clearly a work in progress, but the v.04 represents a big step forward- getting rid of the multiple boarding loophole, and fixing how subs and aircraft move/get moved through  are two  obvious examples.
    Yes, there are still issues- the proposed version of ace pilots effectively upgrades the 20" range on SRS to 'anywhere on the board' which is going to be very hard to balance, and is just asking for a  'hide the spammed carriers' gameplan, but i'm confident we'll get most of them sorted!
  2. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Pok in Too Easy to Sink Ships.....   
    The problem with ' too easy to sink ships' boils down to scale, and the number of turns it is practical to play.
    In real life, a salvo from a battleship against another battleship had little chance of causing damage, simply as even if the range was right when fired, maneuvering by the target in the up to 90 seconds the shells could be in flight, and the dispersion pattern of 12/14/16" guns meant the chance of a shell actually hitting the target ship was not great.
    Of course,  with improvements in range finding technology- radar, and radar spotting of shell splashes- it became easier. On top of that, if a ship became crippled- particularly  the propulsion and steering systems,  it  would be come much easier to hit.
    As such, it would often take many salvos before one big ship would cripple another. In game terms, this would be moving 1", exchanging fire with a perhaps 5-10% chance of causing damage, and repeat.  Or playing on a tennis court- a RN 15" gun had an effective range of about 30km. At a strict 1:2000 scale, that is 15 meters....  It could manage about 2 rounds a minute,  but a typical WW2 battleship could do about 50 kilometers an hour- i.e  would take over half an hour to travel the range it could fire. And in that time could fire perhaps 60 salvos... even halving the rate of fire to allow for maneuvering, range correction etc, that would be 30 salvos.
    It would give you a chance to disengage, but wouldn't make for a very practical game.
    To make it practical, you have to compress movement rates vs fire rates vs actual distances. At the same time, you have to dial up the chance per game turn to cause damage to keep the number of turns practical. Together, they make disengagement impossible.
    The only solution is to shrink the scale further- say 1:25,000, and simplify the rules to allow lots of turns to happen fast, to fit many turns on a table.
     
     
     
  3. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from RuleBritannia in Too Easy to Sink Ships.....   
    The problem with ' too easy to sink ships' boils down to scale, and the number of turns it is practical to play.
    In real life, a salvo from a battleship against another battleship had little chance of causing damage, simply as even if the range was right when fired, maneuvering by the target in the up to 90 seconds the shells could be in flight, and the dispersion pattern of 12/14/16" guns meant the chance of a shell actually hitting the target ship was not great.
    Of course,  with improvements in range finding technology- radar, and radar spotting of shell splashes- it became easier. On top of that, if a ship became crippled- particularly  the propulsion and steering systems,  it  would be come much easier to hit.
    As such, it would often take many salvos before one big ship would cripple another. In game terms, this would be moving 1", exchanging fire with a perhaps 5-10% chance of causing damage, and repeat.  Or playing on a tennis court- a RN 15" gun had an effective range of about 30km. At a strict 1:2000 scale, that is 15 meters....  It could manage about 2 rounds a minute,  but a typical WW2 battleship could do about 50 kilometers an hour- i.e  would take over half an hour to travel the range it could fire. And in that time could fire perhaps 60 salvos... even halving the rate of fire to allow for maneuvering, range correction etc, that would be 30 salvos.
    It would give you a chance to disengage, but wouldn't make for a very practical game.
    To make it practical, you have to compress movement rates vs fire rates vs actual distances. At the same time, you have to dial up the chance per game turn to cause damage to keep the number of turns practical. Together, they make disengagement impossible.
    The only solution is to shrink the scale further- say 1:25,000, and simplify the rules to allow lots of turns to happen fast, to fit many turns on a table.
     
     
     
  4. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Warcradle Zak in Too Easy to Sink Ships.....   
    The problem with ' too easy to sink ships' boils down to scale, and the number of turns it is practical to play.
    In real life, a salvo from a battleship against another battleship had little chance of causing damage, simply as even if the range was right when fired, maneuvering by the target in the up to 90 seconds the shells could be in flight, and the dispersion pattern of 12/14/16" guns meant the chance of a shell actually hitting the target ship was not great.
    Of course,  with improvements in range finding technology- radar, and radar spotting of shell splashes- it became easier. On top of that, if a ship became crippled- particularly  the propulsion and steering systems,  it  would be come much easier to hit.
    As such, it would often take many salvos before one big ship would cripple another. In game terms, this would be moving 1", exchanging fire with a perhaps 5-10% chance of causing damage, and repeat.  Or playing on a tennis court- a RN 15" gun had an effective range of about 30km. At a strict 1:2000 scale, that is 15 meters....  It could manage about 2 rounds a minute,  but a typical WW2 battleship could do about 50 kilometers an hour- i.e  would take over half an hour to travel the range it could fire. And in that time could fire perhaps 60 salvos... even halving the rate of fire to allow for maneuvering, range correction etc, that would be 30 salvos.
    It would give you a chance to disengage, but wouldn't make for a very practical game.
    To make it practical, you have to compress movement rates vs fire rates vs actual distances. At the same time, you have to dial up the chance per game turn to cause damage to keep the number of turns practical. Together, they make disengagement impossible.
    The only solution is to shrink the scale further- say 1:25,000, and simplify the rules to allow lots of turns to happen fast, to fit many turns on a table.
     
     
     
  5. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    Absolutely. If there is any way at all to have printer friendly, standard sleeve size stat cards,  it should be done.
    Design elements like this that aren't rules still matter- they have a significant impact on ease of play, speed of play, making the game accessible to new players, etc!
  6. Like
    Bunnahabhain reacted to varnos in The Beta Lives!   
    Good to see you back, James! Yeah, submarines seem a bit funky in the current version of the rules, and LoS seems too easy. Here's my feedback, submitted through the portal. Excuse the essay, I tried to keep the individual points short:
    The Good
    Crippled status: This seems like an excellent start to reduce calculations. I’d hope for more things to change in a crippled stat line than just the “wheel” stats, though. I saw some gained MARs such as deep running, which is interesting, but I’d love to see their weapon systems affected somehow, as that added a lot of strategic depth. Maybe add a 3rd weapon value so that when a unit is crippled, 8 lead 4 support shifts to 4 lead 2 support AD? Less turning templates: okay, so we could do with less turning templates. Having to shift around templates could be a pain, especially for newer players. AA/CC assist: it always felt a bit stupid to me that the giant flagship 1” away from a model under fire could not support that model. This is nice. It does encourage clumping though… More on that later. Carriers & SRS: Boy, I thought it wasn’t possible, but this actually seems like a nice fix. I am slightly sad that the 100+ SAWs I painted might not all be used anymore, but this feels like a WAY less cluttered form of the rules, and I do still like the way it feels… Which is more than I can say of its predecessor, the fleet action rules. The new defense AD: I am patently against special dice, but I am starting to turn around to the idea of favoring the attacker by limiting exploding dice. I am slightly sad at the potential removal of the “little die that could”, though. End of turn critical cleanup: That was a really nice change. We used to have to move lots and lots of markers whenever a ship moved, and removing the critical effect tokens at the end of a turn really limits that. Nice stuff. The new card/VV system: I like the cards. The STAR cards were an atrocious thing, and the newer cards of 2nd edition were… Okay? This feels like the concept has been integrated a lot more fully into the game. The whole “playing this thing is victory points for the other player” was very counterintuitive, and I’m glad they got rid of it. I would suggest that it be possible to flush cards though, which is not in the rules yet, to avoid being stuck with a dud hand. Rerolling 1s: Really nice. Everyone likes rerolling, and this is a far better alternative to the +/- to hit. Doing away with +/- to hit numbers: Like I said above, I’m glad those are gone. Adding up different modifiers from different parts of rules could get confusing quickly, especially since things like primary guns vs small models were very prevalent in games. I understand that obscured is still in the game, but as long as that is a single, specific effect, I’m fine with that. More on that below though… Redistributing fire to other models in squadron after kill: I think I like it? Nothing as frustrating as throwing too much fire at a single target due to luck of the dice, then wasting your precious dice. Not without mixed feelings though, as it removes an element of gambling out of the targeting strategy: Do you REALLY WANT TO KILL IT DEAD? Or are you willing to play the odds and hope for above average rolls across the board? Improved/expanded upgrade system: This system feels like it has the potential to be amazing for opening up possibilities for list building. I hate how changing weapon systems plays with the readability of stat cards though, more on that below. Bombs: I liked the change of bombs as a 360 weapon system, but changing it to a frontal 10” attack actually makes sense. I approve. Cleaning up the Ramming section: This is a really nice change, although I have some reservations about the interaction with disordered. It feels like one of those finicky details you need to remember. Still feels good all-in-all. Allowing units to simply move backwards at half speed: I am… tentatively in favor? I can see the potential for cheese if artillery units arrive on the scene, but until then, it does away with the incredibly cumbersome full stop and 2” backwards movement. I would addd an option to forgo movement for turning though, to compensate for the slightly more rigid movement of naval units in this version. Integrating initiative with VV cards: That’s just nice. Adds a bit of tactical thinking where there was simply chance, before. The Bad
    Repeating the boarding assault phase multiple times: I hate it. Simply hate it. This means we have to repeat the same thing 4-5 times for a corvette squadron. Please just allow one boarding action per squadron, it’ll speed up the game for the better, I promise. Why not add a support number for Fray like you folks did for weapon systems? No degradation of carrier cap / weapon systems: The carrier cap should degrade according to the rules but the stat cards don’t allow for it yet. Combine that with the lack of degraded weaponry and you get something that feels like it isn’t crippled at all once it reaches half health. Play with a crippled gun line, or removing weapon systems, or anything that increases the feeling that you can pound specific ships to reduce their firepower. How Deep Running works: To be honest, halving the effectiveness of enemy fire but completely negating your own seems like a very bad deal. Include with that the fact that most submarines, uh, can’t go deep running until they’re damaged? That feels wonky. Line of Sight: Okay. I see how you want to simplify the line of sight rules, but the combination of any-to-any-point LoS, removing weapon hardpoint specific LoS makes line of sight trivial. This is nice if you want to simply throw dice, but it feels not at all nice if you want something were positioning matters. There are few things in this beta that I really disliked, but this is definitely one of them. Additionally (and this really should deserve its own point, but I’ll just put it here), having your own squadron mates not block line of sight might reduce some frustration in the maneuvering phase, but it absolutely encourages tiny clumps of ships. I crossed the T on someone’s ships by having all 4 of my frigates stacked side by side shooting through each other. PLEASE reconsider this particular design choice! Too few turning templates: Okay, I admit I said that less turning templates is nice, but it felt really, really weird to have frigates move around with the same turning circle as a giant battleship/carrier. I’d rather, I think, just do away with the 45-degree template and have small, medium and large templates. You can convince me that medium + turning limit can substitute a large template, but I really, really hate turning limit so that’d be a hard sell. VV victory conditions (e.g., destroy UNIT with SRS/boarding): These felt very hard to achieve. You can aim for destroying models, but if you require, for each of these cards, that an entire squadron be eliminated, its going to take quite some time before the victory conditions become relevant. I’d far rather scale the scenario rewards so that the VV cards can be used to gain points for a specific model rather than squadron. Stat line changes through upgrades Standardization of weapon gun lines: I… Just don’t like it. It feels like, with this design choice, the majority of all individuality of nations was swept away. I’d consider instead a set of gun lines per nation. This would allow for far more unique feeling fleets/armies. I get that this is a beta with limited options, but I do feel this should be pointed out regardless. Boarding defense: I’d prefer to just use AA to repel boarders, and not give people the choice between the highest of the two. For surface/surface boarding. It reduces the lookup time and it doesn’t add much, anyway. Revving up generators… All of them: I love passive defense gens. I hate active defense gens. Why? Because it feels like I am very, very constrained in when I activate a unit. I’d far rather that we just say that all offensive generators are activated, and all defensive gens are on by default. If you’re in a battle, you don’t power down the shield gen every few minutes now do you? The Ugly
    Obscured is… Not nice: A first obscured ignores light hits, a second obscured is ignores light hits and transforms exploding hits to heavy hits? I’d rather obscured is non stackable and exploding hits count as heavy hits. This prevents checking for multiple sources of the same thing: You find obscured somewhere? You apply it, period. Minimum of 2 AA to assist: There’s this great change where you don’t have to figure out what the AA value of all units is in order to calculate totals… But now you’re forcing people to look up all those stat lines (across squadrons!) in order to figure out whether they can, in fact, support. Just make it so that every model within 5” can support AA, period. Unlimited boarding power with multiple squadrons: I think this has already been mentioned multiple times, but the combination of clumping (See: The Bad, Line of Sight) and supporting boarding attempts across squadrons means you can move multiple corvette squadrons in close and pump out absolutely ludicrous amounts of dice during multiple boarding assaults. I don’t like. Change to only having squadron supporting (excepting VV cards maybe, see Nazduruk_Bugzappa’s point), and/or only a single boarding attempt per squadron (my preference). Large templates + turn limit: So, on a 3’x3’ board with terrain, a large turning template plus turning limit means that a large unit has two tactical options: Stand still, or chug forward to the opposite side of the map. The maneuverability of large ships is too constrained to interesting movement. Hazard, the not-quite-critical-effect: It smells like a crit effect, it sometimes acts like a crit effect, it tokens like a crit effect, but it is, in fact, not one. I also take some issue with the idea that conditions are usually removed during the end phase (see first sentence of hazard explanation), as there are currently 4 conditions and only two of them are removed at the end of a round. Suggestion: It feels like stunned should just be part of a critical condition, obscured neither a state nor an effect (since it is applied by MARs and properties first and foremost), and only hazard and disordered conditions. Then, cleaning conditions should be a special step in the end phase. Terminology: Unit vs. Squadron: Why was squadron changed to unit? Unit feels like it could just as well refer to a single model, and it created a lot of confusion in our games (See also: The Bad, VV Victory conditions) Need to use tables to look up gun lines: This is a pretty bad offender to quick gameplay. Either we have a gunnery reference table open at all times, or we memorize it, or we have to add the stat lines to the upgrade cards. The first two are not really acceptable alternatives, and the last one creates confusion as it replaces a stat line that is printed on the card. I don’t really have any solid ideas on how to deal with this issue, but either have all gunnery lines as separate cards (lots of paper!), be more constrained in the upgrade system (removes the fun flexibility in list building), completely rely on a digital tool for army building and stat card reference, or… Eh. I don’t know. Rams don’t have any AD value assigned: Like it says on the tin. Linking fire is still universally half AD… Except for bomb bays, which are 1 to support?: Feels either like an oversight, or a balance choice because it is a blast template (in which case: please reconsider, it pays to have consistency in your stat lines for balance reasons. Instead, consider making it 4/2 for an equivalent payload in a 3 plane squadron). VV text orientation: Please just have the victory and valor parts the same way up. You want to reference them in the same phases, which means you’re constantly turning the cards around. Gunnery seems superior to torpedoes in targeting submarines: Um. Wavelurking is still iffy: Give it the submerged trait, sure. But say that it treats all enemy units as obscured (using that new condition) instead of saying the same thing without using the catch-all term that was invented for this. This also interacts nicely with torpedoes which can then attack wavelurkers without penalties due to its weapon specific qualities. I’d say remove aerial defense 0 since it’ll make it mighty unappealing to use wavelurking in most situations, you’re already penalizing them for relatively light gains by making it harder to hit enemies. SRS attacks: they have both the aerial and submerged qualities, which is great. The 0.03 version of the rules seem to have snuck in an errata to make it able to target submerged units (good!), but right now the rules state that you can use both AA and CC against SRS attacks. against the target. Might need a rethink The Missing
    Scenarios Two were added in the 0.03 version of the rulebook. Still missing the other 4. Battlegroups / Unit sizes: We need this to make many of the judgements we want to make about how stuff feels in the new edition. Maybe just give us 2-3 default ones?  
    I can’t stress this enough: Supply a change log if you update the rules so we can see what has changed and test accordingly!!!
  7. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    How much terrain are people using?  I felt getting LOS was too easy, so just tried putting  perhaps twice as much terrain as I would have  previously- 9 islands averaging about 6x4" on a 4 x 4ish table. This worked to restrict LOS, as with coupled with the much wider turns, you couldn't adopt the firing position you want  nearly so easily
    On Submarines and fliers- is it just me, or does it feel odd that
    1) They can go under/over surface stuff, but surface stuff can't go over/under them?
    2) Subs can't can't go over/under each other
    3)  Subs only gain any protection against aerial attacks, all other function normally. Flyers only gain protection against bomb and torp attacks, all others function normally? Wouldn't obscured here make sense?
     4) Subs feel stuck between a submerged torpedo hunter in their outfitting ( fine) and a decks awash surface combatant in the way they're targeted ?
  8. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Nazduruk_Bugzappa in The Beta Lives!   
    Make sure you do feedback through the form- it is too easy to miss here, and using the form makes you structure it a bit.
    On a gameplay level,  my thoughts on the beta are mixed- there are some bits I like, and some I don't and some I have yet to form an opinion of.. However, the  point of testing is to fix stuff, so if we want stuff fixed, we have to point out issues in a constructive fashion wherever possible
    It is clearly at an early stage, and there are all sorts of game breaking bugs to be fixed- the best one I have found so far is in the assault section. There is no restriction on a model both launching and supporting an assault, and a model doesn't need to be in the active unit to support, and it can be within 5" of the target or initial model launching the assault.
    Put that lot together, and you can take a squadron of 6 frigates, close them all to within 5" of a target, launch 6 separate assaults and have the other 5 frigates each support each other, so for a unit with fray value 3, you get 6 x 8 dice assaults... You want to make it worse, do the same on the other side with another unit...your first unit is within range of target, so can support, and you can now do a further 6 assaults with 14 dice each now! at least the fix is easy- "a unit can both not launch and support an assault in the same activation, and can only support one assault in the same activation."
     
    The victory point mechanic will  work well for scenarios- the 'Strategy point' bodge I used for my scenarios in version 2 can go away!
    Does anyone else have problems reading the cards when printed out, due to the darkness of the background. It will be ok on a  pro quality colour print, but on a standard black and white laser print it is almost impossible to read!
     
    James
     
  9. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from RuleBritannia in The Beta Lives!   
    Make sure you do feedback through the form- it is too easy to miss here, and using the form makes you structure it a bit.
    On a gameplay level,  my thoughts on the beta are mixed- there are some bits I like, and some I don't and some I have yet to form an opinion of.. However, the  point of testing is to fix stuff, so if we want stuff fixed, we have to point out issues in a constructive fashion wherever possible
    It is clearly at an early stage, and there are all sorts of game breaking bugs to be fixed- the best one I have found so far is in the assault section. There is no restriction on a model both launching and supporting an assault, and a model doesn't need to be in the active unit to support, and it can be within 5" of the target or initial model launching the assault.
    Put that lot together, and you can take a squadron of 6 frigates, close them all to within 5" of a target, launch 6 separate assaults and have the other 5 frigates each support each other, so for a unit with fray value 3, you get 6 x 8 dice assaults... You want to make it worse, do the same on the other side with another unit...your first unit is within range of target, so can support, and you can now do a further 6 assaults with 14 dice each now! at least the fix is easy- "a unit can both not launch and support an assault in the same activation, and can only support one assault in the same activation."
     
    The victory point mechanic will  work well for scenarios- the 'Strategy point' bodge I used for my scenarios in version 2 can go away!
    Does anyone else have problems reading the cards when printed out, due to the darkness of the background. It will be ok on a  pro quality colour print, but on a standard black and white laser print it is almost impossible to read!
     
    James
     
  10. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Bazlord in Useful Statistics For Dystopian Wars   
    Statistics are something of a dark art for many people, but in any dice driven game like this, an understanding of them is both rather useful and not as hard as some people think.
    We need a few basic concepts before we begin.
    ------------------------------
    Fair dice We expect our dice to be balanced, and have an equal chance of rolling 1,2,3,4,5 or 6....regardless of what you remember from last game when you couldn't roll a 6 for love nor money
    Expected value. We expect, if we roll enough dice, to get these results on average.
    The Exploding D6.As we should all know, virtually all rolls in this game have 6's, which are two successes and a re-roll.
    ------------------------------
    If we start with the core numbers- if we roll some dice, how many success can we expect? (see bottom for method)
    To hit numbers: Expected number of successes from one dice.
    3,4,5,6--------------------1.000
    4,5,6-----------------------0.800
    5,6--------------------------0.600
    6---------------------------- 0.400
    So to get the number of successes we expect, we must multiply this value by the number of dice we are rolling.
    If, for example, we have 9 AD hitting on a 4+, we can expect (9 x 0.8 )= 7.2 successes. As we can't roll a 0.2 on a dice, we'll round to the nearest whole number. It is important to only round at the end of the sum, to avoid magnifying errors.
    We can use these values to help us decide what to do.
    For example, I have a battleship with two turrets of 12/8/5/4. Am I better staying at RB2 and having my dice hitting on a 4+, or closing to RB1 and getting more dice on a 5+? Am I better off firing the turrets linked or separately?
    So, at RB2, we have 8 AD on 4s = 6.4, rounds to 6 hits. At RB1, or 12 AD on 5s = 7.2 , rounds to 7 hits,. However, we can see from the unrounded numbers that they're quite close, so for these turrets, it doesn't matter that much and we should take into account other weapons etc as well.
    How about linking?
    Linked, our two turrets deliver 12 AD at RB2, and 18 AD at RB1, so that'll be (12x 0.8)= 9.6 hits at RB2, and (18 x 0.6) =10.8 at RB1.
    Now we look at our target.....
    If we were firing at a battleship, those individual turrets are doing about enough hits for a point of damage, but if we link them, we're into the area we can expect a Crit, so we'll be better off linking them, as a point of damage is fairly certain, and a crit likely. Before shields etc.
    If we're firing at an average cruiser section, then the unlinked guns are doing crits on average, so we'll aim for two crits. If you want to stick both on one cruiser, or hope to cripple two is a harder call.
    So how about those shields etc?
    A normal shield generator has two dice that need a 4+ or 5+ depending on the kind of attack and may have a inventive scientists re-roll
    ____________Guns/AA/CC______Rockets/Torps
    Shield-----------1.6-------------------------1.2
    Shield + I.S.----2.2-------------------------1.733
    Guardian--------0.8--------------------------0.6
    Guardian +I.S. 1.2---------------------------1.0
    The battleship above took 10.8 hits at RB1, but it has shields, knocking out 1.6 hits. 10.8 -1.6 = 9.2 hits, rounding to 9, so for an average battleship, that is a Crit down to a point of HP..
    Retardant armour makes the first 6 black, not red. Thankfully, as it makes the maths easier, it's only found on cruisers and above, so we can assume you're rolling enough dice that there will be a 6 in there. Or if there isn't your dice are so bad the shot would have done nothing anyway...
    It removes ~1.1 hits on average
    Cloud generator... makes virtually everything hit on a 5+. The effectiveness of it depends on how many dice you were rolling and what you needed before.
    Number of dice 1-------2-----3----4-----5------6------7-----8------9-----10
    3,4,5,6------------- 0.4---0.8---1.2---1.6---2.0---2.4---2.8---3.2---3.6---4.0
    4,5,6----------------0.2---0.4---0.6---0.8---1.0---1.2---1.4---1.6---1.8---2.0
    5,6-------------------------Useless!
    6----------------------------Useless!
    ------------------------------------------
    The other major dice mechanic used in Dystopian wars is the 2d6. This has an uneven, bellcurve distribution.
    Roll Probablity
    1 0
    2 1/36
    3 2/36
    4 3/36
    5 4/36
    6 5/36
    7 6/36
    8 5/36
    9 4/36
    10 3/36
    11 2/36
    12 1/36
    13 0
    This is why effects that modify it are so powerful- such as Energy turrets +1 on the crit table, or cards adding +3 to the initiative roll. Indeed, radio intercept gives you a 79.5% chance of winning the roll....
    Hopefully people will find this useful.
    Edit: Have fixed spacing, as have not yet found a way to create a table here. And the typos too I hope...
    ---------------------------------------------------
    The basic maths for calculating exploding dice.
    For dice wanting a 4,5,6 to suceed, we can have the following results
    1 0 successes
    2 0 successes
    3 0 successes
    4 1 successes
    5 1 successes
    6 2 successes + re-roll
    So from our 6 rolls, we have 4 successes, and 1 re-roll. Therefore we can say an average dice gives us 4/6th of a success and 1/6th of a re-roll, which we could write as:
    Successes = 2/3 + 1/6th (re-roll)
    But the re-roll gives us another dice, so we now have...
    =2/3 + 1/6( 2/3 + re-roll)
    then
    =2/3 + 1/6(2/3 + 1/6 x(2/3 + re-roll)
    etc, etc
    which becomes:
    Successes = 2/3 x (1+1/6 + (1/6)^2 + (1/6)^3 + (1/6)^4 + (1/6)^5........)
    If you work this out, it converges on 0.8000- My spreadsheet has it as 0.799485114after 6 rounds of exploding dice.
    You can apply the same method, for dice wanting a 3+, 5+ or 6+.
  11. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Nicholas in Useful Statistics For Dystopian Wars   
    Statistics are something of a dark art for many people, but in any dice driven game like this, an understanding of them is both rather useful and not as hard as some people think.
    We need a few basic concepts before we begin.
    ------------------------------
    Fair dice We expect our dice to be balanced, and have an equal chance of rolling 1,2,3,4,5 or 6....regardless of what you remember from last game when you couldn't roll a 6 for love nor money
    Expected value. We expect, if we roll enough dice, to get these results on average.
    The Exploding D6.As we should all know, virtually all rolls in this game have 6's, which are two successes and a re-roll.
    ------------------------------
    If we start with the core numbers- if we roll some dice, how many success can we expect? (see bottom for method)
    To hit numbers: Expected number of successes from one dice.
    3,4,5,6--------------------1.000
    4,5,6-----------------------0.800
    5,6--------------------------0.600
    6---------------------------- 0.400
    So to get the number of successes we expect, we must multiply this value by the number of dice we are rolling.
    If, for example, we have 9 AD hitting on a 4+, we can expect (9 x 0.8 )= 7.2 successes. As we can't roll a 0.2 on a dice, we'll round to the nearest whole number. It is important to only round at the end of the sum, to avoid magnifying errors.
    We can use these values to help us decide what to do.
    For example, I have a battleship with two turrets of 12/8/5/4. Am I better staying at RB2 and having my dice hitting on a 4+, or closing to RB1 and getting more dice on a 5+? Am I better off firing the turrets linked or separately?
    So, at RB2, we have 8 AD on 4s = 6.4, rounds to 6 hits. At RB1, or 12 AD on 5s = 7.2 , rounds to 7 hits,. However, we can see from the unrounded numbers that they're quite close, so for these turrets, it doesn't matter that much and we should take into account other weapons etc as well.
    How about linking?
    Linked, our two turrets deliver 12 AD at RB2, and 18 AD at RB1, so that'll be (12x 0.8)= 9.6 hits at RB2, and (18 x 0.6) =10.8 at RB1.
    Now we look at our target.....
    If we were firing at a battleship, those individual turrets are doing about enough hits for a point of damage, but if we link them, we're into the area we can expect a Crit, so we'll be better off linking them, as a point of damage is fairly certain, and a crit likely. Before shields etc.
    If we're firing at an average cruiser section, then the unlinked guns are doing crits on average, so we'll aim for two crits. If you want to stick both on one cruiser, or hope to cripple two is a harder call.
    So how about those shields etc?
    A normal shield generator has two dice that need a 4+ or 5+ depending on the kind of attack and may have a inventive scientists re-roll
    ____________Guns/AA/CC______Rockets/Torps
    Shield-----------1.6-------------------------1.2
    Shield + I.S.----2.2-------------------------1.733
    Guardian--------0.8--------------------------0.6
    Guardian +I.S. 1.2---------------------------1.0
    The battleship above took 10.8 hits at RB1, but it has shields, knocking out 1.6 hits. 10.8 -1.6 = 9.2 hits, rounding to 9, so for an average battleship, that is a Crit down to a point of HP..
    Retardant armour makes the first 6 black, not red. Thankfully, as it makes the maths easier, it's only found on cruisers and above, so we can assume you're rolling enough dice that there will be a 6 in there. Or if there isn't your dice are so bad the shot would have done nothing anyway...
    It removes ~1.1 hits on average
    Cloud generator... makes virtually everything hit on a 5+. The effectiveness of it depends on how many dice you were rolling and what you needed before.
    Number of dice 1-------2-----3----4-----5------6------7-----8------9-----10
    3,4,5,6------------- 0.4---0.8---1.2---1.6---2.0---2.4---2.8---3.2---3.6---4.0
    4,5,6----------------0.2---0.4---0.6---0.8---1.0---1.2---1.4---1.6---1.8---2.0
    5,6-------------------------Useless!
    6----------------------------Useless!
    ------------------------------------------
    The other major dice mechanic used in Dystopian wars is the 2d6. This has an uneven, bellcurve distribution.
    Roll Probablity
    1 0
    2 1/36
    3 2/36
    4 3/36
    5 4/36
    6 5/36
    7 6/36
    8 5/36
    9 4/36
    10 3/36
    11 2/36
    12 1/36
    13 0
    This is why effects that modify it are so powerful- such as Energy turrets +1 on the crit table, or cards adding +3 to the initiative roll. Indeed, radio intercept gives you a 79.5% chance of winning the roll....
    Hopefully people will find this useful.
    Edit: Have fixed spacing, as have not yet found a way to create a table here. And the typos too I hope...
    ---------------------------------------------------
    The basic maths for calculating exploding dice.
    For dice wanting a 4,5,6 to suceed, we can have the following results
    1 0 successes
    2 0 successes
    3 0 successes
    4 1 successes
    5 1 successes
    6 2 successes + re-roll
    So from our 6 rolls, we have 4 successes, and 1 re-roll. Therefore we can say an average dice gives us 4/6th of a success and 1/6th of a re-roll, which we could write as:
    Successes = 2/3 + 1/6th (re-roll)
    But the re-roll gives us another dice, so we now have...
    =2/3 + 1/6( 2/3 + re-roll)
    then
    =2/3 + 1/6(2/3 + 1/6 x(2/3 + re-roll)
    etc, etc
    which becomes:
    Successes = 2/3 x (1+1/6 + (1/6)^2 + (1/6)^3 + (1/6)^4 + (1/6)^5........)
    If you work this out, it converges on 0.8000- My spreadsheet has it as 0.799485114after 6 rounds of exploding dice.
    You can apply the same method, for dice wanting a 3+, 5+ or 6+.
  12. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Wolfchild in Need help 1500 point list.   
    For a new player, I'd recommend the following for learning about how your fleet works  as quickly as possible.
    Do not be afraid to lose. Everyone does sometimes, the trick is learning from it. Always take at least 2 small, 2 medium and 2 large units- going  overboard in any one area is generally not a good idea unless you know what you're doing. Don't duplicate units too much, use a wide selection to get a good idea of what stuff does, Try stuff, to see what happens! One-dimensional lists ( i.e how  many carrier models can I fit in the points limit)  are often very boring to use and face, especially if you use the same one all the time. Once you have a fair idea of the main capacities of units, you can start building lists of models you like using, then look at them, and say ' I need a bit more XYZ capacity' and you'll have a good idea of which units you can take to provide what you need.
     
    James
  13. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Wolfchild in Yurei Terror Ship   
    If you let it board you, the Yurei is  rather strong, but if you board it, it is quite vulnerable. A full unit of corvettes stand a good chance of taking it, or failing that should strip off enough AP that it won't be able to board effectively itself.
     
    The Australian 'forced compliance' rule is good fun- the psychological effect of turning a ship against a former owner is often much greater than the actual impact in game, by the time damage, position etc, etc of the prize are accounted for.
     
    James
  14. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from TurianBrandy in Any chance of the dread-bots becoming any cheaper in £££?   
    Exactly this.
     
    For a given object, keeping the same shape, if you times the height, length and width by 2, you increase the surface area by a factor of 4, and the volume by a factor of 8.
     
     
    Those 'thin sheet' models are all plastic ones- Injection moulded plastic is very good for this kind of shape. Resin, as Spartan use, is really bad for this kind of shape- it  simply won't come out of the mould in one piece.
     
     
    Bigger, more complex moulds tend to have a higher failure rate than simple ones. If you think about something like a frigate, it is easy to get resin all the way into the mould, without flaws, bubbles etc. For a big, complex 3D shape with only small pour points, it is much easier to get a flawed cast, which means you have wasted both time and resin.The sales of the good casts have to cover the costs for the failed ones as well.
     
    James
  15. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from TurianBrandy in Any chance of the dread-bots becoming any cheaper in £££?   
    There is a good set of photos of the KoB one ( unboxing thread, in the KoB section) which shows it against a FSA Battleship. To scale the guns.
     
     
    On topic- Spartan do sales quite often. They'll probably be cheaper then.
     
    James
  16. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from TurianBrandy in When did the Suvorov become obsolete?   
    Many of the comments here say the Tiski and Khatanga overshadow just about every other choice. To me that suggests those two are too good, not that the basic cruiser needs improvements.
     
    James
  17. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from GreenOakSteve in Medium Naval Attachments - inconsistencies   
    The MAR
    Attachment (Nation, Type/Name, Value)
    During Force Organisation this Model may be ADDED to a Parent Squadron of the Nation listed in the bracket with the Type/Name of Model’s making up the Parent Squadron is listed in the bracket.
    Any number of Models up to the listed maximum Value in brackets can be ADDED to a Parent Squadron in this way. No Parent Squadron may ever contain more than ONE Attachment Group.
     
     
    Although the MAR does not explicitly say 'there is no need to buy a squadron of the attachment models to break up and attach as you wish'. This is the first time I have seen the Attachment rules intercepted like this.
     
    The rule book can only be a certain length, for reasons of cost, portability and ease of reading. If you explain everything in much more detail, the rule book doubles in length, and it becomes much, much harder to find what you actually want. During the editing process, we re-wrote various sections to make them clear without such explicit denials, or in some cases, such as Commodores on Robots, we asked ourselves 'do we need this rule at all?  No,  scrap it.'
    To take a ridiculous example, the rules also don't say 'you do not need to be eating a banana whilst playing', because we didn't think anyone would assume the opposite!
     
    james
  18. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Ungard in Official Thread: Prussian Scandinavia   
    Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever.
     
     
    Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth.
     
    james
  19. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from BuckDharma in Official Thread: Prussian Scandinavia   
    Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever.
     
     
    Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth.
     
    james
  20. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Erloas in Official Thread: Prussian Scandinavia   
    Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever.
     
     
    Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth.
     
    james
  21. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from projectmanhatten5 in Official Thread: Prussian Scandinavia   
    Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever.
     
     
    Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth.
     
    james
  22. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Sebenko in Official Thread: Prussian Scandinavia   
    Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever.
     
     
    Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth.
     
    james
  23. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from Kapitan Montag in When did the Suvorov become obsolete?   
    Many of the comments here say the Tiski and Khatanga overshadow just about every other choice. To me that suggests those two are too good, not that the basic cruiser needs improvements.
     
    James
  24. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from rufus in Official Thread: Ottoman Empire   
    I cannot support this enough. Lerriano has consistently helped promote the Ottomans, provided useful battle reports that fed into the changes, and did so without forgetting that insulting the people you want do do things for you is not a good idea.
     
    Once people have had a chance to have a few reported games with the new Orbats, and get used to it, then their feedback becomes rather more useful than  simply writing it off the whole force on inspection.
     
    James
  25. Like
    Bunnahabhain got a reaction from TurianBrandy in Official Thread: Ottoman Empire   
    Last time I used one,  it sat in the centre of the line, provided cover, and used gunnery to pound mediums, and GNE boosted cruisers who swept over an island to ideal broadside and board position, and  very almost won the game....that target really should have had the decency to sink, but 4 corrosion markers failed to remove the one remaining hull point!
     
    It didn't get to use full brawling potential, partly as my opponent wanted to avoid giving it  perfect targets, and partly as I hadn't planned to use it as such.
     
    In general, I find all the broadside heavy fleets do take more planning to make the most of.
     
    James
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.