Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Thoughts about an open rule set for wargaming. Are you good at math?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #3
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,934

    Re: Thoughts about an open rule set for wargiming. Are you good at math?

    I agree with the Commissar. Points are one of the last things that need to be done, they're semi-independent of the mechanics and easiest thing to adjust (as nothing depends on them, so you don't have to change the rules if the points change).

    But first off, you need to take a step back.

    Having no answer for your first question is a very bad sign.

    As for #2, you left out a huge one. Player interest, and keeping it. Part of this is setting, tone and character. A lot of it is, as you say yourself, keeping it simple (your 2.3 conclusion) as well as appealing for players. You pretty much violate that idea with a chainsaw- the main resolution mechanic needs to be straightforward, not a mess of macros, weird dice, and probabilities.

    came up with the following preliminary stats (3 defensive stats / 3 offensive stats / Healthpoints):
    Visibilty: Defines how easy/hard it is for the enemy to hit you
    Armour: Selfexplaining
    Toughness: Selfexplaining

    Balistic/Melee Skill: Defines how easy/hard it is for your unit to hit the enemy
    Penetration: Selfexplaining
    Strength: Selfexplaining
    First, you've got 4 offensive stats. (Ballistic & Melee is two).

    Second, and more importantly, you've kind of brushed off the explanation of 4 stats without thought. Try to explain why you even have those stats in the first place, and not just 1 that bundles attack strength with penetration and armor and toughness, and eliminates a chunk of the pointless dice rolling. Or as you put in 1.3, minimize random effects.

    Third, you've got nothing that follows on 1.2, it's move/shoot/melee all the way down.


    Fourth is fairly trivial, but 'visibility' is a terrible term for what you're describing. Dodge or evasion are better.


    Really, though a big part of your premise is flawed- 1.1 the game must be balanced is... trivially proven untrue. The most successful game systems aren't carrying on because they're balanced. There are a lot of factors you aren't even considering that keep them alive. Since your aim is to make up a ruleset that meets your demands, you're also going to have a lot of trouble with your 2.2, where the creator bias is going to be a problem for balance.


    Big thing- before you keep delving into the rule stuff, what kind of game are you looking to make? Ancient battles, fantasy, modern, scifi? Those have different demands and expectations. 'Generic' or 'Universal' rulesets are generally received poorly. And even within subsets, you've got big decisions to make. Big unit shaking magic like warhammer fantasy 7th? Or relatively minor effects (or none at all?) These are all things that need to be decided before mathing out probabilities.
    Last edited by Voss; 14-09-2017 at 05:42.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •