Re: [NetEpic ML] Point Cost Formula

From: Albert Farr� Benet <cibernyam_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:28:01 +0200

Oops, the "*3" in the colossus point cost shouldn't be there...I should have some kinda snotling virus in my computer...

Albert

----- Original Message -----
  From: Albert Farr� Benet
  To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:18 PM
  Subject: [NetEpic ML] Point Cost Formula


  Hi,

  I would add a factor for expensive units in the cost formula, so they cost even more, like in Rogue Trader model design, for example:

  base cost factor
  50 - 100 1
  101 - 200 1.1
  201 - 300 1.2
  and so on

  factor is an idea, other factors (like 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6,...or 0-150, 151-300, 301-450,...) could also be used. It's a matter of adjustment
  This should be done on the basic unit (not the whole detachment) cost BEFORE rounding to the nearest 25 or 50.

  For example, let's suppose a IG support stand value is 19 points (don't know the exact value). Then a detachment (10 units)cost would be:

  (19*1)*10=190, rounded to 200

  Let's suppose a Colossus value is 460, then:

  (460*1.4)*3=644 rounded 650.

  If later a discount exists due to fluff reasons is another matter (Let's say, Squats get a 50 points discount for Paretorians--->final cost for colossus is 600)

  As a general rule I think we should favor lots of cheap units instead of small armies of few �bertanks (this is Epic not WH40K).

  Comments on idea?

  Albert

  Note. I know this is adds more complexity, but the cost formula is not intended to be used during gameplay, and also it is a matter of design which BTW is never a simple thing IMHO.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Daryl Lonnon
    To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:27 PM
    Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] [v5.0] Analysis - Help!


    Peter Ramos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Hm. IMO there's one important dependency, namely Move-CAF dependency. A
> good CAF is less useful if the unit in question is slow. IMO high CAF
> should be worth more if a unit is also fast. How difficult this is to
> accomplish I don't know.
>
> That's a very good point. You could combine move and CAF since they are
> co-dependent.
>
> Peter

    I'm going to ramble for a long long time (you've been warned),

    This same basic discussion came up on the GZG list about a month back
    (except it was in regards to DSII). I invite you to join the
    yahoo gzg list and look in their archives if you want to wade through
    long posts (and arguments) on point systems.

    In case you're wonder, I don't have a degree
    in mathematics (I do have a minor), but I did think statistics was
    one of the funner classes I had in college. So I'm warped that way.

    Now DSII has a much more difficult task than NetEpic. It allows you
    to generate vehicles with any stats you want (an example of this for
    netepic would be allowing you to field ubertanks (mv: 50cm, Save: 1+,
    Dice: 8, TSM: -5) and claiming to have a point system that would
    roughly balance it against a "balanced" opponents force).

    What the ending concensus was, is that everything effects everything else.

    Defense allows you to survive longer and use your mobility and offensive
    powers more (ie further into the game). Mobility allows you to get
    in position to use your offensive abilities better and enhances your
    defenses by allowing you to avoid potentially dangerous fire/situations.

    So the formula is
    Offense * Defense * Mobility = point cost

    This is NOT the linear point system that netepic uses today.

    Now the big difficult task is what values should be given to Offense,
    Defense, and Mobility. They too aren't straight linear equations either.
    They are also VERY MUCH dependent on the force and terrain they
    are facing. In example, having the pop-up ability (a mobility advantage)
    is useless on a wide open field; having a 1+ save against a force
    that has no TSM less than 0 is priceless (and there attacks are
    correspondently worthless); having a 6+ save against a force with
    all their weapons having a TSM of -1 is worth no more than not having
    a save at all.

    So first you have to make assumptions (bad assumptions completely
    invalidate your point system). How many dice at which TSM levels
    do you expect to get targeted with. How many targets with what
    saves will you have targetable with your weapons. How much
    will terrain constrain your mobility (and effect the above targeting
    and targetability).

    In example: on the 1st turn my "average" opponents force will
    throw:
    1% of their dice with a TSM -5,
    4% of their dice with a TSM -4,
    7% of their dice with a TSM -3,
    13% of their dice with a TSM -2,
    25% of their dice with a TSM -1,
    50% of their dice with a TSM 0

    From this table I can calculate the statistics (and weight them
    appropriately) for each armor value level. Using the statistics
    I can get a good guesstimate on how much the Save adds to the Defensive
    Value of this unit.

    Using the above example:
    A save of -4+ would be weighted 0 (ie invincible).
    A save of -3+ would be weighted 1/6.
    A save of -2+ would be weighted at 1.
    <cut some values>
    A save of 3+ would be (50% * 1/3) + 25% * 1/2 + 13 * 2/3 + 7 * 5/6 + 5 =
    17 + 13 + 8 + 6 + 5 = 49
    a save of 4+, would be (50% * 1/2) + (25% * 2/3) + (13% * 5/6) + 7% + 4% + 1% =
    25 + 17 + 11 + 7 + 4 + 1 = 65
    A save of 5+ would be (50% * 2/3) + 25% * 5/6 + 25% = 33 + 21 + 25 = 79
    A save of 6+ would be (50% * 5/6) + 50% = 42 + 50 = 92
    No save would be weighted 100.

    To get the Defensive value (assuming Save is the only component to your
    defensive value (CAF being another possiblity)), you'd take the
    weight over the inverse of 100. i.e. Defense = 100/weight.

    Now you do the same for your offensive system (assign the usefulness
    value) and weight them appropriately to get the offensive value (keeping
    in mind that stuff like troop transport are offensive capabilities
    (since troops tend to be offensive in nature)).

    Do the same for mobility characteristics.

    Now mulitply them through.

    If you haven't realized by now, all of the above is rather painful.
    Pain notwithstanding, it's a much more mathmatically sound point system
    model than a linear one (i.e. it's much more capable of dealing with
    corner cases (like the ubertank example above), than a linear point
    system).

    But for netepic, I'd say it's pure overkill (mainly because there is
    no "design your vehicles" element to the game). The concepts are
    important to understand ... since they help with understanding
    why purely linear point systems are broken and why (and HOW) you need
    tweek points systems that result from them to give a really
    good point system.

    I'll stop rambling now,
    Daryl


    To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Received on Fri May 17 2002 - 11:28:01 UTC