Re: [Epic] Net Epic Gudelines

From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:55:54 GMT

At 05:14 AM 29/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>Greeetings
>Thank you!
>
>[snip]
>
>>FIRST TOPIC
>>1-Army construction, present system(company cards,etc.) or a individual
>>model points system(each figure assigned a point value), WHAT STAYS OR
>>GOES!
>
>IMO, the card method is preferable to an individual points system. However,
>one thing that has always bugged me is that all Titans of a certain class
>cost the same, no matter what the weapons fit. I think that we should
>consider a method by which weapons are costed separately from the Titan
>chassis.
>
>I have been trying to work on this and this is what I have come up with so
>far. I have looked at three different methods for costing weapons:
>
>1.
>WEAPON COST = RANGE * {[ATTACK DICE] + [- SAVE MODIFIER]} * [PROBABILITY OF
>HIT] * n
>
>2.
>WEAPON COST = RANGE * {[ATTACK DICE] + 0.5*[- SAVE MODIFIER]} *
>[PROBABILITY OF HIT] * n
>
>3.
>WEAPON COST = [RANGE] * [ATTACK DICE] * {1 - [- SAVE MODIFIER]} *
>[PROBABILITY OF HIT] * n
>
>Notes: n is some number between 0 and 1. It really depends on the cost of
>the chassis.
>This scheme only works for carapace multi-lasers, gatling blaster, laser
>blaster, melta-cannon,
>plasma blastgun, plasma cannon, plasma destructor, quake cannon,
>turbo-laser destructor,
>volcano cannon, and vulcan mega-bolter. I haven't even looked at alien
>weapons, barrage
>weapons, close combat weapons or one-shots.
>
>I played with the numbers a bit, and it seems as though using scheme 2.
>with n=1/4 or 1/3 and
>a base cost for a warlord at 600 points. For instance, a warlord titan
>armed with 3 gatling
>blasters and a volcano cannon would either cost either 725 (n=1/4) or 780
>(n=1/3).
>
>Don't get the idea that I would want the WEAPON COST above to be absolute.
>Some weapons have
>special rules that make them more or less powerful, which should be taken
>into account. Others
>are either very rare or common, which should also be reflected in the cost.
>These numbers
>should only be considered as a starting point!
>
>For battlegroups, the player would get a free titan chassis, but would
>still have to pay full
>cost for weapons.
>
>I will be continuing on this bit, but I would like some of your input, too!


This is a good suggestion from a game ballance position, but...

While some of us are happy doing the math and min maxing our forces...

A lot of others aren't.

This is probably best covered by the KISS theorem (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
(No offence intended, naturaly...)

Agro
Received on Tue Feb 11 1997 - 11:55:54 UTC