(OT) Rules "inspiration" (was [OT] Bring and Battle

> Roger Gerrish wrote:

> Being on good terms with the 're-engineers' of WH40k v3 I think I can

...and I'm quite sure that the uncanny resembelences Tuomas' City of the
Damned WHFB Skirmish game has with AA's Dresda is purely a coincidence
too...

> Roger Gerrish wrote:

Well, having just got hold of a copy of the latest WD today (yes, I actually
went and BOUGHT one....) and had a skim through their "preview" of the new 40K
rules, I'm pretty satisfied that, rumours to the contrary notwithstanding, any
resemblance to the FMA system is pretty negligible. They've changed a few bits
in an attempt to streamline the game for faster
play, with fire combat now being more squad-orientated (though still on
a
roll-per-figure basis), and they are trying to tone down the
horrendously overpowered special characters (hmmm, wonder how popular THAT'LL
be with the munchkins...??). The overall feeling is that someone at GW has
finally realised (after all these years) that while their basic WH mechanisms
make a perfectly acceptable skirmish game (possibly why Necrophilia (er,
sorry, Necromunda) has been so popular) they get pretty clunky with large unit
actions, which is at odds with GW's fundamental need to sell vast amounts of
figures. The core system of Warhammer (whether 40K or Fantasy) is still
basically
the same as the old three-book first edition published in 1982 by
Citadel
(before they merged with GW itself) - all the peripheral bits have
mutated, but the fundamentals haven't changed much. It looks to me (on cursory
inspection, admittedly) that they've trimmed off some of the fat and
simplified some things in order to try and speed the
game up with larger armies, much as they did with Epic - it may work
well, but it'll be interesting to see how the "unthinking hordes of
pre-pubescent
psychopaths without girlfriends*" take to it....

> Steve Blease wrote:

> > Being on good terms with the 're-engineers' of WH40k v3 I think I

Did Dresda come out before or after Necromunda? City of the Damned is neither
more nor less than Necromunda set in the WHFB world, from what I can see. Or,
rather, it is to WHFB what Necromunda and Gorkamorka are to WH40K.

Regards,

Not sure if this got through first time, so I'm sending it again (but with
some more stuff tacked on the end...)

Jon.

> Roger Gerrish wrote:

Well, having just got hold of a copy of the latest WD today (yes, I actually
went and BOUGHT one....) and had a skim through their "preview" of the new 40K
rules, I'm pretty satisfied that, rumours to the contrary notwithstanding, any
resemblance to the FMA system is pretty negligible. They've changed a few bits
in an attempt to streamline the game for faster
play, with fire combat now being more squad-orientated (though still on
a
roll-per-figure basis), and they are trying to tone down the
horrendously overpowered special characters (hmmm, wonder how popular THAT'LL
be with the munchkins...??). The overall feeling is that someone at GW has
finally realised (after all these years) that while their basic WH mechanisms
make a perfectly acceptable skirmish game (possibly why Necrophilia (er,
sorry, Necromunda) has been so popular) they get pretty clunky with large unit
actions, which is at odds with GW's fundamental need to sell vast amounts of
figures. The core system of Warhammer (whether 40K or Fantasy) is still
basically
the same as the old three-book first edition published in 1982 by
Citadel
(before they merged with GW itself) - all the peripheral bits have
mutated, but the fundamentals haven't changed much. It looks to me (on cursory
inspection, admittedly) that they've trimmed off some of the fat and
simplified some things in order to try and speed the
game up with larger armies, much as they did with Epic - it may work
well, but it'll be interesting to see how the "unthinking hordes of
pre-pubescent
psychopaths without girlfriends*" take to it....

Jon (GZG)

* This isn't my line - it's a quote from the wonderful strip "Captain
Concept", in the sadly short-lived UK games mag Concepts that published
a few issues many years back. Took the p*ss out of GW something rotten, which
some industry commentators believe had something to do with its early
demise.......  ;)
----------------------

Further to this discussion, there HAVE been a number of systems published in
the last few years that have very obviously been "ripped off" from DSII, SGII
and our FMA system in general. The worst "offender" was a
UK-published
small press fantasy game called Battle Roar (or was it Battle Rage, one or the
other) that came out a couple of years ago, which used the FMA
mechanisms wholesale - the poylhedral dice scale, opposed rolls, "free
choice" (ie: not initiative-bound) alternate activation sequence and so
on.
If it had been a mass-market product then I'd have been pretty narked,
but in the event I only ever saw one copy for sale in one store, so it wasn't
really worth worrying about. Come to that, having now read Shockforce, there a
many distinctly
FMA-style
elements in that - they've stuck to D6s rather than polys, but they use
the opposed rolls, the free activation alternation and so on...... oh well,
imitation IS supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery (or was that
cloning....?)
No writer (unless they have been sealed in a box for fifteen years) designs in
a vacuum; we are all (me included) influenced by virtually every game system
we've seen, read or played, but there is a world of difference (ethically if
not legally) between spotting a good mechanism or two and adapting them to
your own game, and lifting an entire system from somebody else's work. Some of
these events may possibly be cases of "independant parallel development", but
if you believe that then you probably also
believe that when/if we do finally meet aliens they'll really look like
Vulcans or Minbari.... <grin>).

> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> Come to that, having now read Shockforce, there a many distinctly

Let me get this straight: You're not saying you invented opposed rolls and
free alternating activation, are you?

> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

I might have guessed that something in that posting would rattle your cage,
Mikko!! <BIG GRIN>

To answer your question, No. (Just to get that one straight....)

What I AM saying is that when you combine a number of individual mechanisms
into a rules system, they have a definite "feel" that defines that system.
Someone commented in an earlier post that there seemed to be a lot of the same
elements we used in FMA in the new WH40K, but having had a look I can't see
them. Shockforce was used as an example of a game that DOES have
a number of the same elements we used. BATTLE ROAR/RAGE (sorry, can't
find my copy right now and still can't remember the title properly), on the
other hand, appears to be quite blatantly lifted from DS/SG because it
combines a large number of the same mechanisms that interact in the same way.

To me, the FMA "system" (that, in modified form as appropriate, forms the core
of DSII and SGII) relies for its "identity" on a number of key mechanisms, and
they way they interact. These include:

1) The use of different kinds of polyhedral dice, with circumstances causing
shifts up and down the die scale; 2) Opposed rolls between players for most
events using the above sliding scale of polyhedral dice; 3) A "free choice"
alternate activation sequence that does not rely on any kind of initiative
priority system; 4) Chartless resolution for combat etc. based on mainly
unmodified die
scores, with high-beats-low.
(There are more, but these are probably the most fundamental).

I am unaware of any game published before we brought out DSII that combines
these particular elements in the same or a similar way; if you know of one,
I'd be interested to hear of it.

At the end of the day, I guess the real question is at what point does a
collection of mechanisms (very few of which are individually "original", as
with so many games on the market almost everything has been done before
somewhere) actually become definable as a "Rules System", and therefore become
an intellectual property of the designer and thus "protectable" in an ethical
if not a legal sense. I don't think I've got an answer to this one. Have you?

> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> To answer your question, No. (Just to get that one straight....)

Ok. Just checking if you were still sane :-)

> Shockforce was used as an example of a game that DOES have

Frankly, I fail to see (a blatant) connection there. "High roll/card
beats
low roll/card" has been around for ages. So's alternating activating
units.

> BATTLE ROAR/RAGE (sorry, can't find

Can't comment on that.

> To me, the FMA "system" (that, in modified form as appropriate, forms
...
> 4) Chartless resolution for combat etc. based on mainly unmodified die

How is DSII chartless? The chit pull is just another way to roll results from
a (admittedly huge) chart. Not that the chit pull is a particularly new
innovation...

> I am unaware of any game published before we brought out DSII that

All in the same package? None that I recall right now. But separately they've
been around.

> At the end of the day, I guess the real question is at what point does
in
> an ethical if not a legal sense. I don't think I've got an answer to

Legally, you're on shaky ground. And I'm glad you are. Because if you weren't,
T$R might have sued the entire gaming industry out of existance back in the
80's. GW still might (just look at some of the absurd claims in the Demonblade
case). WotC already pretty much did with the CCG industry.

Maybe that's why game houses like to tie their products strongly to easily
identifiable (and copyrightable) game worlds.

Is it bad to have derivatives? I love Chipco's Fantasy Rules!, which quite
frankly is DB* fantasy done right. If PhilB, with his well known love of
fantasy gaming, had had a stranglehold on opposed rolls, FR! wouldn't be. But
FR! is a different game. It's sufficiently different than even HotT, Phil's
shot at fantasy DB, to rate as an original work IMO.

I think the key issue is added value. Nothing is created in a vacuum anymore,
but combining existing elements in a new and unique way, or significantly
adding something new is what sets the new original works apart from the
ripoffs.

A lame copy will always be a lame copy. Sadly sometimes a lame copy gets the
publicity while the original lies forgotten, but c'est la vie...

Not having seen the Battle-whatever I can't say for sure, but it might
have redeeming value if it did something new with the system instead of just
renaming DFFG as Dragon Breath.

As a software designer, my ideas are constantly "ripped off". Frankly, I
don't mind -- haven't stumbled upon an exact copy yet, and probably
never
will in my narrow field -- and I return the favor when I see a
particularly good way of doing something. But I did mind when some twit copied
one of my web pages and added lame ads in the text...

Let me throw back a question: If I devise a rules mechanic that produces
statistically identical outcome with a published mechanic, but using a
different execution method, am I infringing on someone's intellectual rights,
legal or ethical?

(IMO, no. And this is pretty much the basis for patent law.)

> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

Well, I think so - despite the best efforts of some people.... :)
> Shockforce was used as an example of a game that DOES have

I don't dispute this. Though in my experience most alternating activation
rules have in the past also had some kind of initiative sequence that
restricted the choice of who to activate when.
> BATTLE ROAR/RAGE (sorry, can't find

"Chartless" in the sense that you don't have to get your numbers (die rolls,
chit pulls, card draw, whatever) and THEN go back to a
cross-reference chart to index this number against other circumstances
to see if you've got a result. You total the valid chits (most people should
be able to remember what colours are valid for the weapons they are using
after a turn or two), and if it is better than the armour you've got a kill. I
think the sheer size of the chart that you need to duplicate the variability
of results that the chits can give you speaks for itself in this case. YMMV,
of course....:)
> I am unaware of any game published before we brought out DSII that

No dispute on this, it's exactly what I was saying.
> At the end of the day, I guess the real question is at what point

Yup.  :)
> Is it bad to have derivatives? I love Chipco's Fantasy Rules!, which

I agree, no. This means you've put some real intellectual effort into devising
a new (and hopefully better) way of doing whatever it is, which is very
different from doing it the same way as the other person did but just changing
a few bells and whistles to skirt the grey areas of the law.

Hey, Mikko, do you realise we've actually agreed on quite a few things here??
better be careful, it might set a precendent.... <GRIN>

> On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> I don't dispute this. Though in my experience most alternating

Well, I played BattleTech this way back in the 80's. Sure there's *one*
(unmodified) roll to see who gets the first choice, but after that it's free
selection.

Given the market share of BTech vs. GZG, guess which is likelier source for
such a mechanic to be lifted from? Not that I think it's original to BTech
either...

> kill. I think the sheer size of the chart that you need to duplicate

Well, as you might recall, I did the chart basically because doing it
presented an intellectual challange. I actually prefer it, because it shows
the probability distribution of results much better than "pull 3 chits, yellow
valid".

I'm a bit uneasy about games that obfuscate the basic chances. If I don't know
the exact chances, I begin to wonder does *anyone*, including the designer?
There are numerous examples of game designers (not GZG though), who either
don't understand basic probability math, or don't care to do it when designing
a game. And if the designer was unaware, is there a buried loophole waiting to
be exploited by someone who takes the time and effort to calculate the
chances?

E.g. In Great Rail Wars, stats are dice and you roll vs. a fixed target
number. Typical gunmen have shootin' D6. Slightly better ones have D8.
However, if you roll the maximum of your die type, you get to add and roll
again.

Now here's the problem: Hitting at long range is vs. target number 8.

Shootin' D8: 1/8 chance = 12.5%
Shootin' D6: 1/6 * 5/6 = 5/36 = 13.9%

So, the "snipers" you paid more points for are actually worse shots at long
range than your "average" guys. All because the game designer couldn't pass a
jr.high math course, or didn't bother to try...

E.g. I don't think many people realize just how often they'll pull a "SD:F"
chit in DSII if they just blindly stick in the biggest gun they can. I know I
didn't before I calculated it.

E.g. Newbies are sometimes unsure whether to return each chit to the mix
before pulling another. Well, we all know you shouldn't, but how much does it
really matter? Let's see:

We'll take the "SD:F" chit as an example for two reasons: 1) It immediately
short circuits the rest of the pull, therefore being the easiest result to
calculate. 2) It is also the most rare chit (only 2 in the mix), thus its
proportional chance to show up when after other chits are removed from the mix
is increased the most. I.e. if there is a difference, it should be most
pronounced with the "SD:F" chit.

Chits SD:F with vanilla SD:F after returning
1      2/119 = 0.0168               2/119 = 0.0168
2      235/7021 = 0.0335            472/14161 = 0.0333
3      13689/273819 = 0.0500        83546/1685159 = 0.0496
4      527046/7940751 = 0.0664      13145200/200533921 = 0.0656
5      15087540/182637273 = 0.0826  1939056242/23863536599 = 0.0813

Somehow I fail to see the difference of a few thousandth's at best to be
significant, or apparent in any number of games I'm likely to play in my
lifetime.

> I agree, no. This means you've put some real intellectual effort into

The other aspect of patent law is that trivial procedures can not be patented.
In the few cases where a single game mechanic is IMHO
non-trivial, it is also IMHO too complex for casual gaming. An entire
system of interacting mechanics is much more likely to be non-trivial.

Patent law, ofcourse, does not apply to games. I'm merely using as a reference
ground for "ethical rights" to gaming systems.

[snip]>> kill. I think the sheer size of the chart that you need to
duplicate the
> variability of results that the chits can give you speaks for itself

We're getting into realms of personal preference again here, I think, and I
(not being a computer programmer or career mathematician) tend to prefer
systems that don't actually let the players easily calculate exact odds; I
find it adds to the "fog of war" and feeling of simulation - in reality,
does a tank commander or gunner stop to figure out "hey, I've got a 24.67%
chance of killing that big tank, but a 27.2% chance on that lighter one a
bit further away - think I'll shoot at the little one..." or does he
just let fly at the most obviously threatening target? Similarly, why do
infantrymen often fire their rifles at aircraft and helicopters? Is it because
they have worked out that they might actually have a 0.0003% chance of
damaging it, or just because it makes them feel a little bit less like fish in
a barrel...?
> E.g. In Great Rail Wars, stats are dice and you roll vs. a fixed target

This is a minor cock-up, obviously - the designer couldn't have had a
mailing list full of gleeful number-crunchers to run this stuff past....
:)
> E.g. I don't think many people realize just how often they'll pull a

Ah, the Hidden Munchkin Trap (TM)......The bigger they are, the more often
they break!:) I don't have a problem with this, it just adds to the fun.
> E.g. Newbies are sometimes unsure whether to return each chit to the

Exactly. If it really doesn't matter a damn, why worry about it? We had to
state one way or the other about returning the chits to the pot or not,
otherwise everyone would have argued about it forever....
> I agree, no. This means you've put some real intellectual effort into

Let's just say I've deliberately stayed out of certain on-list
arguments, and watched the pretty fireworks.... <BIG GRIN>

> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> We're getting into realms of personal preference again here, I think,

The problem is that unless you get into the computer game business, someone
will always be able to do the math. I don't do probability calc during play
(nor would allow anyone else), but I like to analyze a system offgame to see
how it works, what kind of tactics might be viable (e.g.
"mongol style" all cavalry tactics often don't work in fantasy games --
not because they didn't work in real life but because the game models cavalry
poorly for a stupid reason like that cavalry models are more
expensive dollar-wise)

> I

...and then get fried by the bigger threat? If you think this is a problem,
that's what target priority rules are for.

If you are opposed to people knowing their chances exactly, how come you're
not opposed to people knowing that the little tank is actually
0.000001mm out of range through pre-measuring?

My take on this is that off-game, you're free to measure, calculate and
analyze as much as you like. That's what they do in real life all the
time. But in-game represents the actual battle -- you must be able to do
snap decisions based on eyeball judgement.

> Similarly, why do infantrymen often fire their rifles at aircraft and

I was *trained* to. The army trained a lot of dumb things, but this one
actually has something going for it.

- While it is virtually impossible to damage a modern attack helicopter
with rifle caliber fire (they're built to withstand 20mm hits, rotors
included), the chance to screw up the attack run is very real
- You're supposed to do it only when you have nothing better to do (i.e.
when you're not the target and nobody's shooting at you)

[GRW]
> This is a minor cock-up, obviously - the designer couldn't have had a

IMHO, if you can't do this much math, or don't have someone in your team to do
it for you, you shouldn't be designing games.

And that's you in the passive sense ;-)

> Ah, the Hidden Munchkin Trap (TM)......The bigger they are, the more

I don't have a problem with the effect (let's leave realism out of this),
but I do have a problem with hidden agendas, built-in anti-newbie bias
and so on.

> Exactly. If it really doesn't matter a damn, why worry about it? We

You could have told the truth: "It doesn't really matter. We play this way,
but you're free to use whatever you feel most comfortably with. You're
unlikely to notice the effect it has."

A really interesting variation might be not to return the chits at all, until
they're all pulled... especially for solo play.

> Let's just say I've deliberately stayed out of certain on-list

Opinion are opinions, facts are facts. I can be pretty stubborn about my right
to express either.

> You wrote:

> If you are opposed to people knowing their chances exactly, how come

Because any idiot nowdays can buy a hand-held laser rangefinder
accurate to the nth degree. Laser rangefinders are used on all combat vehicles
(at least in real militaries). Takes a tiny fraction of a second to get exact
range from any vehicle to any object.

> Similarly, why do infantrymen often fire their rifles at aircraft

Don't forget engine intakes. Suck a 5.56mm piece of lead into the engine
intake and your expensive flying machine is suddenly at one with the
landscape.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
If you are returning chits to the pot, you have to remember to shake or
shuffle the pot after every return, otherwise you're likely to pick up the
same chit again. This can make a big difference if you've just pulled a "BOOM"
chit! Of course, you could always use my chit chart, or my newer, easier to
use, dice chart!

> The problem is that unless you get into the computer game business,

This could be seen as minimaxing, your (the player) motives for doing it of
course may not be that.

> IMHO, if you can't do this much math, or don't have someone in

I don't agree with this statement. Heuristic (A rule of thumb, simplification
or educated guess that reduces or limits the search for solutions in domains
that are difficult and poorly understood. Unlike algorithms, heuristics do not
guarantee optimal, or even feasible, solutions and are often used with no
theoretical guarantee) systems are OK if they work for you (the player).
Tinkering and designing with heuristic systems is fine if it gives the result
you (the player) want. I think we all enjoy posting heuristic rules to the
list. How many people do the probability calcs, some I would wager but
probably a minority.

I don't know how GZG designed their games but probably FT was initially
heuristic. I make this assumption from the beer and pretzel precursor JT
posted a while back. I also assume that he wrote this (the BP game) at an age
when he probably didn't do probability calculations. Its very much like the
heuristic space games I invented as a teenager.

> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> Because any idiot nowdays can buy a hand-held laser rangefinder

> vehicles (at least in real militaries). Takes a tiny fraction of a

Really? I was in comms, so I never used range finders, but I am questioning
the user interface. I have no doubt the range finder can give you a result
very quickly for a *single* object you have already lined up.

Assume getting the range is as easy as clicking an icon on your computer
screen. I sure as hell can't click any arbitrary icon in just a tiny
fraction of a second -- and I only do this shit 10 hours a day -- half a
second maybe, for one icon. To click several, say ten, would take seconds,
plus the time to digest the actual results.

And meanwhile, everything in the world is moving... Plus that real bullets
don't have a strict max range.

Can you, in real life, whip out your handheld rangefinder and instantly come
to the conclusion that if you run towards me for, let's say 30 seconds, I can
not hit you with my rifle (even though I see you clearly), but if you take one
step further, I can? I would be, ofcourse, free to move within the time
period.

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance", said Gen.John Sedgwick...

> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Los wrote:

> In my very limited exposure to armor, it's a simple thing to site the

Yes. My point is that while it *is* useful for evaluating *a* target, it does
not simply and instantly give you range to *all* possible targets, including
how far they might move in the immediate future etc. (which is
what free pre-measuring does in the game).

A tanker once told me that during rapid response drills (or some such), he'd
just engage the first target to hit the sights and worry later whether it was
the optimal choice or not. What the laser rangefinder
*did*
help was make the first *shot* on that target count.

> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Tim Jones wrote:

> This could be seen as minimaxing, your (the player) motives

By now I am *well* aware that some see any attempt to logically dissect and
analyze the Holy Writ(tm) rule system as the ultimate evil and sacrilige and
that my stated goal of unmasking and closing loopholes is just a flimsy cover
for my evil desire to actually use said loopholes in a game.

Understanding is a sin. True believers have only blind faith.

Welcome to the club, Tim.

> I don't agree with this statement. Heuristic (A rule of thumb,

Heuristics, in gamesman terms, equate to playtesting.

Let's review the GRW example:

Fact: There is a rule that quite obviously fails to achieve the desired effect
(the designer even named some troops "snipers" and gave them Shootin' D8).

It can only be concluded that the designer did not check the validity of his
rules mathematically, nor playtested them enough to find this rather obvious
failing.

I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who can't do this much
probability math, doesn't have someone to do it for him AND doesn't bother
with equivalent amount of playtesting, has no business designing fundamentally
mathematical processes, i.e. games.

Besides, being *initially* heuristically designed doesn't mean it couldn't or
shouldn't be checked out with exact calculations. It seems to work the
way you wanted -- now make sure.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> >> Similarly, why do infantrymen often fire their rifles at aircraft

> Don't forget engine intakes. Suck a 5.56mm piece of lead into the

Let's also not forget a few things about the aircraft defense IAD (Immediate
action drill in US Army parlance).

1. It's only used at aircraft and ehlicopters flying within small armrs
range 300-500 meters. Over that just lay low.

2. While one guy with a rifle has a freak chance of hitting an aircraft,
100 w/ rifles and MGs can put some lead in the path of travel.

3. WHile yes it does make the men feel good to be "fighting back", most
importantly....

4. It scaers the shit out of pilots to be seeing all that mess in front of
their windscreen. And that's the primary reason for it. If teh ground troops
say, hey why bother? Then youa re letting attacking aircraft and helicopters
have a "free lunch" if you will. It's all about screwing up people's minds.

And yes while there are some armored aircraft, most can sustain damage from
small arms if they are hit. That's why you don't se ethem flying that low on
their attack runs. Helicopters are in a bind of course and smalla rms fire IS
effective against them. Not every enemy helicopter is an Apache you know.

> You wrote:

> In SF, our range finder is the big-ass laser thing which we never even

We used to have a fellow in our unit who went hog-wild with all sorts
of private purchase gear. He had a laser rangefinder that was about the size
of a maglite which he used when on landnav courses to lase terrain features.
He was also crazy as the day is long, but who's counting? Modern hunters can
buy this sort of stuff today, why wouldn't it be built into military sights
200 years in the future? You can also buy them built into binoculars.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> Can you, in real life, whip out your handheld rangefinder and

In SF, our range finder is the big-ass laser thing which we never even
take with us because it's a a pain to carry and use, (Unless we are directing
Close Air Supprt). It's just as easy to use the timeless art
of range estimation or map crossrefrencing. (reesection/ intersection)

In my very limited exposure to armor, it's a simple thing to site the traget,
depress the "lase" trigger, get a return on range and air conditions which is
fed directly into the targetting computer, then send the round down range.
This is how I envision an integral range finder working on infantry weapons.
But do you really need something like that unless you have an AT weapon or a
sniper weapoin anyway.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> wouldn't it be built into military sights 200 years in the future?
You
> can also buy them built into binoculars.

Yeah i believed I said that very thing two or trhee sentences later in my
post.

> John Atkinson <jatkins6@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The US Army's new rifle has a laser rangefinder and grenade launcher built in.
The laser is used to determine the distance at which to explode the grenade,
so as to defeat (kill) entrenched infantry. Available now! The Land Warrior
program had one goal of every soldier carrying a camera
and laser rangefinder/designator. So that every soldier had the ability
to
call in laser designated munitions, or to see around obstacles/smoke
using computed vision.

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:
I, too, agree with Mikko here. It's best to clear up loopholes in the
game. To reward good, real-life, tactics with good game results.

> I don't agree with this statement. Heuristic (A rule of thumb,
Yes. After playing several games, my friends and I can
guess/estimate
the result of several DSII chit draws. Particular with APSW fire versus
infantry.

> Let's review the GRW example:
That's exactly right!

> I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who can't do
That's right!

> Besides, being *initially* heuristically designed doesn't mean it
You can also check it out heuristically with play testing.

> sacrilige and that my stated goal of unmasking and closing loopholes is

Yes the difference is the motivation for the analysis.

> Welcome to the club, Tim.

What club are you subscribing me too?

> I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who

I would agree with this statement. Of examples the one that got to me was the
dreaded DAT (Damage Allocation Table) in SFB. This has a probability slant
that weapons had a higher probability of being initially hit, and provoked a
special later sanctioned tactic called the Miazia (sp?) effect. This always
really annoyed me but it was impossible to *fix* the sacred table.

> Besides, being *initially* heuristically designed doesn't mean

Being heuristically designed shouldn't rule out mathematical validation if you
want to do it.

> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Tim Jones wrote:

> Yes the difference is the motivation for the analysis.

What was your motivation for stating that anyway? I don't know what you
intended, but it came off as a scare tactic: "If you continue doing that,
people might consider you a powergamer."

Gee whiz, I'm shaking in my boots. Please don't excommunicate me, I'll repent!
(Not)

Some people apparently consider me the anti-christ or worse. I couldn't
care less. I set up my "Hate Me" page because I grew tired of lame-ass
idiots sending me anonymous hate mail (surprisingly, it worked).

> Being heuristically designed shouldn't rule out mathematical

Actually, I think heuristics is probably a better way to begin the design
process, unless you have some very hard data you want to model.

I just think mathematical analysis can save *tons* of work validating the
final system.

Getting back to the GRW example, it'd take 15 minutes or so to punch all the
possible dice and target numbers in Excel and get out a nice graph
showing the chances of success -- even a numerically challanged person
can spot any oddities in that. Compare to *hundreds* of dice rolls required to
get the same result out of pure playtesting.

And call me heretic if you will, but I have a real problem with "The Bible is
the Word of God because it says so in The Bible, which can only be correct
because it is the Word of God because it says so..." line of reasoning.

Tim spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >I am ready to amend my statement: I don't think anyone who

Well, they also had battle damage cards which were a different set of probs
but WAY faster for resolving damage (of course, after a certain point I don't
think they worked anymore....but that was SFB...a rule a day....). The effect
you are referring to was where you knocked down an enemies shields and then
started firing one or two weapons per impulse at the target because you got
more A column hits from that (which was bad for his weapons). Better to do
that than one big nasty salvo which got past the 'black bold underlined' chart
entries which could only be hit once (and were weapons heavy). That was an
interesting, if unintentional, mechanic of the game. And I think the SFB
players did sufficient mathematical analysis to drive anyone
insane......

FT may lack some of the cruiser-duel feel of SFB, but OTOH, I can run
a full fleet engagement in one night.....

Tom.
/************************************************

Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Let's also not forget a few things about the aircraft defense IAD

Canada too. "Aircraft Action" as I was taught it.

> 4. It scaers the shit out of pilots to be seeing all that mess in

And the pilot can't tell if you have heavy enough weapons to bring him down in
the mix so he assumes so....

> And yes while there are some armored aircraft, most can sustain damage

Note that the supersonic laydown attack used by attack jets (or the popup) can
mean you don't see the jet till you are dead (if you are in constricted
terrain). Of course, that might hurt his targeting too.

I'm wondering if armour 2 VTOLs in the GZG world are actually vulnerable to
things like small arms? Probably not very. But many aircraft may have armour 0
or 1 and that would be endangered. Also note that intakes and fans and such
even in the modern day are far
tougher than you want to imagine. I've seen footage of A-10s shot to
hell, and the engine casing riddled with holes and the fans chipped and torn
and the fans still ran and the plane still flew. I think most planes that do
low operations must be prepared for (from a design point) birds and other
things being sucked into their intakes. It doesn't take much to envision a
future where they'll be able to ignore even small arms.

(Mind you, I still think you'd fire at them since you would't know if they
were bulletproof and they wouldn't know what you are shooting).

Tom.
/************************************************

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Note that the supersonic laydown attack used by attack jets (or the

Another reason jets stay out of small arms range is because that's low enough
for them to be damaged bytheir own ordanace.

> I'm wondering if armour 2 VTOLs in the GZG world are actually

There's also the possibility that small arms will become more lethal,
especially infantry heavy weapons. A real high tech infantry solution would
see the platoon or company commander drawing a kill zone in the sky right in
the path of the coming aircraft and teach trooper's hud lighting up the exact
lapce to shoot. Sort of like Starfire datalink.

Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Yes. My point is that while it *is* useful for evaluating *a* target,

Now mind you, I've seen new jet HUD/AI/Combat Electronics packages in
which all threats were displayed, highlighted, categorized based on presumed
type, flagged, distances and current velocity and change of velocity vectors
displayed..... I can see this technology propagating to armoured vehicles.
Instead of sitting in a tank, I may be sitting (although still in the tank)
inside of a 360 virtual reality system which maps and categorizes threats,
gives me range, hit probs, manoevre speeds, acceleration, deceleration, and
maybe some other threat warnings.

> A tanker once told me that during rapid response drills (or some

Reasonable. But if you have a group of infantry firing rifles at you
300m out or a HEL/5 armed tank targeting you from 500m, I'd think it
would be productive to engage the HEL tank.

/************************************************

> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Now mind you, I've seen new jet HUD/AI/Combat Electronics packages in

Possibly, but as long as it is you, the human, doing the decision making,
*you* have to digest all that data. They still haven't invented that "pause"
button that let's you contemplate the possibilities at your leisure. I think
that even with the best sensors, a real human in a real
life-threatening situation will either make a snap decision based on gut
instinct and maybe a handful of data -- or freeze and die.

Ofcourse, if you have systems this good, one begins to wonder why put in a
human pilot at all...

Also, as I noted earlier, real life weapons (with the exception of wire guided
ones) don't have a strict maximum range, the kind of "wall of air" thing
almost every game has. You *could* write rules to simulate this, but I find it
easier to keep the players guessing the exact range.

Instead of "That's 3000m. I'm not quite sure whether the 100mm is effective to
that range." you have "The 100mm's effective to 30", but that just might be
30.5" away..." IMHO the net effect is the same.

(Actually, Ogre minis simulates this in a way -- but it still doesn't
allow pre-measuring except as an optional rule)

> Reasonable. But if you have a group of infantry firing rifles at you

That's not a very good example, because the natural snap decision choice
is to get the tank. The "gamesy" choice I oppose would be to pre-measure
and find out that the tank is 2mm out of range (or just in unfavorable range
band) or 1 degree out of arc and then blow the PBI's away just in
case they might have IAVRs or something -- or simply because you have
nothing better to shoot at, the game doesn't count ammo nor penalize for
switching targets.

Add in the fun twist that you can't even break your systems (SD:F) when firing
at infantry... yes, I think it's silly but that's the way the rules
read -- NO special chit is valid when firing at infantry.

> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Alex Shvarts, Andrew & Brian Martin wrote:

> I, too, agree with Mikko here. It's best to clear up loopholes in

Let the record show: We do agree on something (though not everything).

:-)

In message <Pine.LNX.3.96.980929193712.7748A-100000@dram.swob.dna.fi>
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> wrote:

[...snip on laser range finders...]
> Yes. My point is that while it *is* useful for evaluating *a* target,

But your targetting computer can compute ranges to all targets, the AI works
out the best targets, and paints little crosshairs over them on the HUD on
your visor.

Thinking about it, pre-measuring should be allowed depending on
tech. If you've got a high tech (SF) force up against low tech forces, it
might be interesting to see what sort of difference
the advantage of pre-measuring does give to the high tech player.

[quoted original message omitted]

Samuel spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Thinking about it, pre-measuring should be allowed depending on

Not so much as in other games. In many other wargames, my normal move is X and
my charge or run move is 150% of X. In SG2, your combat move is dX x 2. That
means, if you suck and roll a 1, you go very little distance. So
premeasurement for movement is hard. Now, for fire (with range bands being
deterministic), it would make a difference.

Tom.
/************************************************

Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> What I object to in the pre-measuring is when a player, for example,
that is
> only revealed on the table; troops on the ground would not be able to

Of course, this can be defeated by hiding squad qualities (put them on a
sheet, or keep the counters flipped down and use some other method to
illustrate that they have moved). They the only ways you'd know are 1. Your
intel todl you (before the game or maybe as an EW spotting type action) 2.
determinism (boy those guys can't hit squat, I think they might be
green) when they fire - but by then you've made some of these
decisions

/************************************************

Tom spake, & it was good:

> Of course, this can be defeated by hiding squad qualities (put them

I've always hid unit counters. Used other spare counters to represent
activation. Let the enemy figure out my leadership, quality 7 confidence from
my actions.

As for 2, we always envisioned it like this:

The activated squad (Green/3) opens fire.  The player gets out the tape,

measures, checks his sheet, and mutters 'Ugh.' He grabs a few dice, and

says 'OK, roll a d12 for range.'

On the field, gunfire is heard. A PFC looks up from his ration bar, and

asks: 'Hey, Corp, are they shooting at us?'

> On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Samuel Penn wrote:

> But your targetting computer can compute ranges to all targets,

As I said, I don't really question whether sufficiently advanced technology
can do it. I am questioning whether the *human crew* can digest all that
information (working from the assumption that we are still using human crews)
fast enough to make a judgement.

Let me pose this in another way: When playing your fave *real-time*
flight sim (or some such, Wing Commander clones included) that has extensive
HUD display, do you *always* pick the most optimal target?

I know I don't. I tend to go for the first thing in my sights, unless there's
something *obviously* better nearby.

> Noah Doyle wrote:

> Tom spake, & it was good:

> I've always hid unit counters. Used other spare counters to represent

We merely used number counters that refered to numbered boxes on a sheet of
paper. You put your unit info counters with the numbered box display and
placed the corresponding numbered counter with the unit. Just remember to have
the ref look over the sheets from time to time! However, when you make
confidence and other style checks (heck, even when firing in Star Grunt), your
enemy will soon figure out your quality and leadership ratings... so your back
in the same boat. Just a quirk in the system...