Two weeks ago I posted a Stargrunt 2 game report. One of the things I bemoaned
was the length of time it was taking to resolve combat... in particular, the
amount of time it was taking to resolve Impact vs. Armour rolls. Well, gang, I
may have a solution! Warning, I include some statistics. If the thought of
numbers with "%" signs behind them scares you, you might want to jump to the
conclusion section...
THE PROBLEM
Simply SG2 combat can take a long time, particularly with good armour. Not
enough deaths means that attrition in the game is slow.
The slow part is the rolling off of impact versus armour dice. With three
potential casualties this means three armour vs. impact dice rolls essentially
doubling the number of rolls in a round of combat. Also needed is a mental
note of how many rolls succeeded in causing casualties. In the game I played,
I was often getting 3 and 4 potential casualties. The problem is that with D12
Power Armour, not enough figures drop quickly enough! The same guy can take
three or four hits on his armour before one penetrates. This means lots of
time resulting in a null result.
THE STATISTICS AND THE SOLUTION
In an effort to speed up the game I thought I'd find some way of reducing the
impact vs. armour step to a single dice roll. My original idea was to come up
with some sort of chart on which a single dice roll gave the casualties. This
would have been against the spirit of the game, though, and turned out to be
unworkable in any case.
However, in my efforts to build the chart I decided to write a computer
programme to work out the possible combinations of all the dice results for
impact vs. armour. I wanted to find out the percentage chance of causing
0, 1,
2, 3, or 4 casualties in the case where there were 4 potential casualties. I
limited it to 4 because the number of possible combinations was getting pretty
high at that point, and it's rare to have more than 4 casualties anyway.
I came up with the information. I looked for correlations between different
rolls in the hope of finding some simple algorithm. None presented itself.
In the course of this I thought of different potential ways of resolving
armour vs. impact. One idea struck me: what if the attacker only rolled one
die and the defender rolled an armour die for each potential target?
Well, of course the probabilities would be off. I mean, just think of a
situation where non armoured guys were attacked by a D12 impact SAW. If the
SAW rolled a 1 none of the men would be wounded, a situation that would be
very, VERY unlikely to happen when rolling D12 vs. D4 four times. Still, it
was simple and did reduce impact vs. armour to one roll.
So, I worked out the probabilities for this. As expected, there were greater
chances of hitting the extremes. That is, the percentage chance of producing 4
casualties and the chance of producing 0 casualties increased.
I went one step further. I did a weighted average. I multiplied the percentage
chance of doing a certain number of casualties by the number of casualties.
For instance, if the percentage across the board for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4
casualties was 20% each, the weighted average would be 0 x .2 + 1 x .2 +
2 x
.2 + 3 x .2 + 4 x .2 = 0 + .2 + .4 + .6 + .8 = an average of 2
casualties per combat.
The results surprised me: the weighted average for my method and for the
method in the rules was the same!
Oh, sure, the probabilities were different, with the extremes coming out more
often in my case, but the weighted averages were the same. In other words, my
method created the same number of casualties as Jon's, on average, but my
standard deviation was higher.
Here's an example of D10 impact vs. D12 armour:
SG2 method: 0 casualties: 15.26% weighted average: 0 1 casualty: 36.62%
weighted average: 0.366210938 2 casualties: 32.96% weighted average:
0.659179688 3 casualties: 13.18% weighted average: 0.395507813 4 casualties:
1.98% weighted average: 0.079101563
Total weighted average: 1.5
My method: 0 casualties: 29.27% weighted average: 0 1 casualty: 23.55%
weighted average: 0.235474537 2 casualties: 22.49% weighted average:
0.449826389 3 casualties: 17.30% weighted average: 0.518923611 4 casualties:
7.39% weighted average: 0.295775463
Total weighted average: 1.5
A quick perusal will see that the averages for 0, 3 and 4 casualties is
higher, but the averages for 1 and 2 casualties is lower in my method. But in
this case the averages are within 15% of each other (and in the case of 3 and
4 casualties, are only out by 5%).
I won't show all the work, but what is interesting is that the percentages are
closer when the larger dice are used, or the spread between dice is great. For
instance, D4 vs. D4 has the highest deviation, while D4 vs D12 is within about
5% for all numbers of casualties.
Of course, with higher deviations, the more rolls you make the closer things
come to the average. Since this method is intended to work with larger forces,
there WILL be more rolls, and the deviations will all wash out in the end.
CONCLUSION
For impact vs. armour rolls, try rolling the number of armour dice indicated
by the number of potential casualties, but only one impact die. Apply the
impact die's result to each of the armour rolls.
This will create more of a deviation where the extremes on the casualty
results will be more prevalent. However, the results won't be that radically
different from what is obtained in the usual way, and the dice rolling will be
greatly reduced.
This may also result in more morale checks, due to the greater liklihood of
the higher casualties in one combat result (not necessarily a bad thing, mind
you!!!)
On the plus side, this method does yield fast results without taking a hatchet
to the combat system as happens when using the quick play rules suggested in
the rulebook.
Let me know if you want more of the statistics. I can send it by e-mail
to anyone who is after it. I'm looking forward to everyone's comments...
[quoted original message omitted]
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 18:54:20 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> However, Page 36 of the SGII rule book already has a Quick'n'Dirty
How did you like it, though? Did it seem to work well?
The reason that I came up with my idea was that it didn't actually change the
rules. In fact, it doesn't change the probabilities, just the deviation. The
Quick n' Dirty approach in the rules actually used a different variation on
the rules. It made range less of an issue and seemed to flatten out the effect
of different weapon systems. I wasn't sure I'd like that. My method has the
advantage of keeping all those things in the rules.
> Your armour vs penetration roll is actually not unlike the close combat
Hmmm... good point. Didn't actually think about that...
[quoted original message omitted]
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 07:53:07 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
<oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:
> I actually like your approach; when the SQUAD fires on a target your
Yes and no. Certainly if you roll a 1 on the impact die, your fire will be
completely ineffective for everyone that was a potential casualty. If you roll
a 12 on a d12 weapon, then your fire will be completely effective against all
potential targets (except for Power Armour troops, who still have a 1 in 12
chance of not taking a hit.
However, look what happens if you roll a 5 against, say, a D8 armoured squad
for three potential hits. That's a middle of the road roll. The opponent's
armour rolls decide what happens, and against a 5 they have a 50:50 chance of
having a wound. So you could easily get no, one, two, or all three potential
casualties turning out to be hits.
It's only all or nothing if you roll really low or really high.
> I'm not sure if it will make the game go all that much quicker. From
Even with 2 or 3 potential hits, this means one die roll versus 2 or 3 dice
rolls. You should see a bit of a speed up in the game, even in your case.
> Anyway, I'll give your system a go and let you know how it actually
I'm looking forward to hearing how it went!
Hey, Gary, I sent this message to the GZG mailing list. I thought you might
find it interesting. It is a way to speed things up.
I got some interesting responses. One guy, who might be down from Ottawa in
January to attend a game convention where Stargrunt is playing, suggests that
speed was only a problem for us because of all the Power Armour. The pace of
the game is better without PA.
Another guy suggests that we use the Quick and Dirty rules for combat
resolution in the game. He says that they are quicker, but bloodier, than the
conventional rules. We might want to try them next time...
By the way, are you available during Christmas time? I wouldn't mind trying
the scenario again...
---
Two weeks ago I posted a Stargrunt 2 game report. One of the things I bemoaned
was the length of time it was taking to resolve combat... in particular, the
amount of time it was taking to resolve Impact vs. Armour rolls. Well, gang, I
may have a solution! Warning, I include some statistics. If the thought of
numbers with "%" signs behind them scares you, you might want to jump to the
conclusion section...
THE PROBLEM
Simply SG2 combat can take a long time, particularly with good armour. Not
enough deaths means that attrition in the game is slow.
The slow part is the rolling off of impact versus armour dice. With three
potential casualties this means three armour vs. impact dice rolls essentially
doubling the number of rolls in a round of combat. Also needed is a mental
note of how many rolls succeeded in causing casualties. In the game I played,
I was often getting 3 and 4 potential casualties. The problem is that with D12
Power Armour, not enough figures drop quickly enough! The same guy can take
three or four hits on his armour before one penetrates. This means lots of
time resulting in a null result.
THE STATISTICS AND THE SOLUTION
In an effort to speed up the game I thought I'd find some way of reducing the
impact vs. armour step to a single dice roll. My original idea was to come up
with some sort of chart on which a single dice roll gave the casualties. This
would have been against the spirit of the game, though, and turned out to be
unworkable in any case.
However, in my efforts to build the chart I decided to write a computer
programme to work out the possible combinations of all the dice results for
impact vs. armour. I wanted to find out the percentage chance of causing
0, 1,
2, 3, or 4 casualties in the case where there were 4 potential casualties. I
limited it to 4 because the number of possible combinations was getting pretty
high at that point, and it's rare to have more than 4 casualties anyway.
I came up with the information. I looked for correlations between different
rolls in the hope of finding some simple algorithm. None presented itself.
In the course of this I thought of different potential ways of resolving
armour vs. impact. One idea struck me: what if the attacker only rolled one
die and the defender rolled an armour die for each potential target?
Well, of course the probabilities would be off. I mean, just think of a
situation where non armoured guys were attacked by a D12 impact SAW. If the
SAW rolled a 1 none of the men would be wounded, a situation that would be
very, VERY unlikely to happen when rolling D12 vs. D4 four times. Still, it
was simple and did reduce impact vs. armour to one roll.
So, I worked out the probabilities for this. As expected, there were greater
chances of hitting the extremes. That is, the percentage chance of producing 4
casualties and the chance of producing 0 casualties increased.
I went one step further. I did a weighted average. I multiplied the percentage
chance of doing a certain number of casualties by the number of casualties.
For instance, if the percentage across the board for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4
casualties was 20% each, the weighted average would be 0 x .2 + 1 x .2 +
2 x
.2 + 3 x .2 + 4 x .2 = 0 + .2 + .4 + .6 + .8 = an average of 2
casualties per combat.
The results surprised me: the weighted average for my method and for the
method in the rules was the same!
Oh, sure, the probabilities were different, with the extremes coming out more
often in my case, but the weighted averages were the same. In other words, my
method created the same number of casualties as Jon's, on average, but my
standard deviation was higher.
Here's an example of D10 impact vs. D12 armour:
SG2 method: 0 casualties: 15.26% weighted average: 0 1 casualty: 36.62%
weighted average: 0.366210938 2 casualties: 32.96% weighted average:
0.659179688 3 casualties: 13.18% weighted average: 0.395507813 4 casualties:
1.98% weighted average: 0.079101563
Total weighted average: 1.5
My method: 0 casualties: 29.27% weighted average: 0 1 casualty: 23.55%
weighted average: 0.235474537 2 casualties: 22.49% weighted average:
0.449826389 3 casualties: 17.30% weighted average: 0.518923611 4 casualties:
7.39% weighted average: 0.295775463
Total weighted average: 1.5
A quick perusal will see that the averages for 0, 3 and 4 casualties is
higher, but the averages for 1 and 2 casualties is lower in my method. But in
this case the averages are within 15% of each other (and in the case of 3 and
4 casualties, are only out by 5%).
I won't show all the work, but what is interesting is that the percentages are
closer when the larger dice are used, or the spread between dice is great. For
instance, D4 vs. D4 has the highest deviation, while D4 vs D12 is within about
5% for all numbers of casualties.
Of course, with higher deviations, the more rolls you make the closer things
come to the average. Since this method is intended to work with larger forces,
there WILL be more rolls, and the deviations will all wash out in the end.
CONCLUSION
For impact vs. armour rolls, try rolling the number of armour dice indicated
by the number of potential casualties, but only one impact die. Apply the
impact die's result to each of the armour rolls.
This will create more of a deviation where the extremes on the casualty
results will be more prevalent. However, the results won't be that radically
different from what is obtained in the usual way, and the dice rolling will be
greatly reduced.
This may also result in more morale checks, due to the greater liklihood of
the higher casualties in one combat result (not necessarily a bad thing, mind
you!!!)
On the plus side, this method does yield fast results without taking a hatchet
to the combat system as happens when using the quick play rules suggested in
the rulebook.
Let me know if you want more of the statistics. I can send it by e-mail
to anyone who is after it. I'm looking forward to everyone's comments...
There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's sta...
oh, never mind.
> CONCLUSION