Hmmm. May take longer than I thought.
It appears that there are almost 800 billion combinations for the chit pulls
using various weapon size, validity, and target armor.
1 Chit 7*5*119+
2 Chits 7*5*119*118+
3 Chits 7*5*119*118*117+
4 Chits 7*5*119*118*117*116+
5 Chits 7*5*119*118*117*116*115 = 773,804,775,065 combinations
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
On 27-Sep-01 at 09:13, Bell, Brian K (Contractor)
(Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil) wrote: > Hmmm. May take longer than I thought.
> It appears that there are almost 800 billion combinations for the chit
You are running into what I would call a "Metarule".
Unless there was a statistical study made of weapons fire on armour in order
to set the number of chits (which I doubt) this method of generating hits is
_arbitrary_. It is what felt good to John and his
playtesters. It does not need to be exact, just close enough that gameplay
"feels" similar.
Don't get so involved in the number crunching that you lose sight of this.
Thanks for the advice.
My first rule is to KEEP IT SIMPLE.
I know that I will never get a match for the odds of the chits with dice
combinations. So my next step it to see if one of the EASY methods comes
closer to the chit probabilities. If not then I will pick something easy
and let it go. :-)
-----
Brian Bell Integic (contracted with DSCC) brian.bell@integic.com
brian.bell@dscc.dla.mil 614.692.4794 voice 614.623.1503 fax
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
> It appears that there are almost 800 billion combinations for the chit
So what you're saying is I've got more chance of winning the lottery than
taking out that class 4 tank:)
Not at all.
The number of combinations do not reflect the effectiveness of a weapon.
Only the combination of chit pull combinations for weapons sizes 1-5,
each of chit color validities, and the armor rating of your target.
I am trying to come up with a chart for the 175 combinations of weapon size,
chit validity, and target armor (not counting ablative or reactive) that will
give percentages for kill, damage, immobilize, system down, firer system down,
and no effect.
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
***
So what you're saying is I've got more chance of winning the lottery than
taking out that class 4 tank:)
***
Probably not, but, from now on, on those rare occasions when I buy a ticket,
and the many occasions of my friends doing likewise, I shall have
the image of someone pounding with a small tack hammer on an MBT. ;->=
> Jeremey Claridge wrote:
Well....
Think of an MDC/4 at 2 km as purchasing over 600 Billion lottery
tickets.
Oh darn... I won again!
> Well....
What I need is a copy of "Joe Public's Combat Manual"
Example 1 "Attacking a class 4 main battle tank with your side arm: Same
chance of
success as your Governent reducing income tax for all registered wargamers"
And the BOOM! chit is the equivalent of everyone having a chance to win the
jackpot... even if they didn't buy a ticket!
> Jon Davis wrote:
No, but you get to buy another ticket next week.
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jeremey Claridge wrote:
> > It appears that there are almost 800 billion combinations for the
> Brian Bell wrote:
> I am trying to come up with a chart for the 175 combinations of weapon
that
> will give percentages for kill, damage, immobilize, system down, firer
Some years back Mikko Kurki-Suonio compiled a chart giving the
percentages for the various outcomes as a function of the number of chits
drawn, the
chit validity, and the target's armour rating. I have it in Excel format,
but it is also available on the web (though I no longer have the URL :-(
).
The Excel spreadsheat is only about 250kB zipped; I can mail it to you if you
like.
What it doesn't show is the breakdown for the actual weapons, but that's
essentially a matter of re-ordering the rows for the different chit
validities in Mikko's chart :-)
Later,
You're kidding, right? No?? This man is even sicker then me!
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:29:39 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
Yes, please send it to me.
Thanks!
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
Sorry, that was supposed to be off-list
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
I need this like I need a hole in the head and probably won't understand half
of it... Would you please send a copy to wilsong@nima.mil?
(Triphibious@juno.com id cheap - and 'free' Juno does not do
attachments. If it gets through to me I will take that as a omen I should read
it...
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:16:45 -0400 "Brian Bell" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
writes:
> Yes, please send it to me.
*Smack* (hand to own head)
[Self, take a note - read all the e-mails before posting reply...]
Well, our replies were " virtually " off list?
Didn't think anyone would buy that. Hmmmph!
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:18:00 -0400 "Brian Bell" <bbell1@insight.rr.com>
writes:
> Sorry, that was supposed to be off-list
> Glenn Wilson wrote:
> >Some years back Mikko Kurki-Suonio compiled a chart giving the
> You're kidding, right? No?? This man is even sicker then me!
If you know your combinatorics and can program a computer, it isn't
difficult to do. Only time-consuming <shrug>
Later,
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 06:55:36 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
<snip>
> If you know your combinatorics and can program a computer, it isn't
Latter in 5 languages (**very rusty**) but horrible with the former.
Thanks for the spreadsheet. When it slows down at work (June?) I will be able
to actually spend time with it. Looks pretty interesting when I get a minute
to look at it occasionally during the day.
Much appreciated.
Gracias,
> Roger Books wrote:
> Unless there was a statistical study made of weapons
Who's "John"?
> It does not need to be exact, just
Problem is, if you try to determine whether or not you're close enough
simply by play-testing, you need to playtest a LOT. Using statistics in
an intelligent way can save you dozens of playtest battles and lots of
frustration. It is much easier to get "close enough" to something if you
have detailed knowledge of how whatever you want to emulate actually
*is*,
like...
Regards,