Re: [Epic] Net Epic Gudelines

From: nethol <nethol_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:35:03 +0200

> From: Brett Hollindale <agro_at_...>
> >>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
>
Yes, it is so for a lot of others, but not for us, who are intelligent
enough to design a game of strategy here. The point is to apply the above
formulas (or like) to the weapons to prepare fixed cost tables like those
of all the regular units, so that the *less gifted ones* can benefit, and
play a logically balanced game.
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 10:35:03 UTC