How about them d8's in CAV?

[Super Jag]

If there's been one concern above all else regarding CAV (in our area) it's been the fact that with a d10 system, the differential or "high-low split" can be a significant factor.

 

So, we've been discussing using d8's in place of the d10's. Has anyone out there already tried this yet? If so, please offer your feedback. If not, please offer your hypothesis.

 

Our current speculation is that it will decrease the chances of MASSIVE damage that occurs in a single dice roll. The flip side is that less damage per hit would occur (1-2 points) and might lead to slightly longer games. However, the objective we believe is to get damage to occur more steadily and we think this would be the end result (while still allowing for some criticals... albeit not too often).

 

Anyways, we are going to experiment with the d8 and I'll try to post some feedback in the near future. Any help we can get from others is appreciated.

[papabees]

I have thought this same thing but I think the way to go would be 2d6. It still allows for the spectacular but it makes the bonuses more importtant because of ther odds. With a d8 you have a one in eight chance of rolling an eight (I know, Iknow, my wisdom astounds you ). With 2d6 you have a one in 36 chance of rolling a twelve (I think thats the figure). Anyway, 2d6 would offer a more median number range between 5-9. I just think that this would emphasize the individuality of the units more.

[Super Jag]

Interesting point Papabees on the 2d6... do you think that would result in too many dice? I say that because supposedly the new R.A.G.E. (system in Warlord and soon to be CAV format) was partly done to minimize the "complexity" of excessive dice rolling.

 

You're right on the money with the problem of rolling one dice though. Too much of a chance of rolling a 1 or 10 (or 8). I'm not a statistical mathematician but I've heard before that 2d6 has preferable odds for gaming than d12, etc.

[Super Jag]

Something else I briefly considered as an alternative:

 

Offensive attacks = d10

Defensive fire = d8

 

Hmmm... gotta go give this some more thought beyond 2 seconds of brainpower.

[warlordgarou]

If defensive fire were d8s, I would rarely fear it. Even without the benefit of a successful TL, the attacker would still have an innate advantage, and with TL, the attackers could very well decimate the target without any serious retaliation.

[Super Jag]

If defensive fire were d8s, I would rarely fear it. Even without the benefit of a successful TL, the attacker would still have an innate advantage, and with TL, the attackers could very well decimate the target without any serious retaliation.

 

And that my friend is precisely why I mentioned that I [self quote]

 

briefly considered as an alternative

 

[warlordgarou]

I misread - I thought that you were heading off to consider that same idea (d8s for defensive).

 

Mea culpa.

[papabees]

Interesting point Papabees on the 2d6... do you think that would result in too many dice? I say that because supposedly the new R.A.G.E. (system in Warlord and soon to be CAV format) was partly done to minimize the "complexity" of excessive dice rolling.

I don't think so. Your still rolling the same amount of times. Just use matching sets of d6s. I'm looking forward to the new CAV rules but I'm not holding my breath for them to hit any projected release dates so I'm continually tweaking.

[Super Jag]

Part of the reason I don't mind trying to tweak the system by experimenting with d8's is because the mechanics as we know it will be gone in the near future once CAV jumps to the R.A.G.E. format.

[vejlin]

If there's been one concern above all else regarding CAV (in our area) it's been the fact that with a d10 system, the differential or "high-low split" can be a significant factor.

 

I did some statistical work that shows the chances of each possible outcome. I e-mailed it to mil.net to post as an article (it was never put up I think). I've found it gives a very good picture of how the present system works. If you're interrested I'll mail it to you.

 

Kim

[Super Jag]

Kim,

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing what you came up with. Is it something easily posted on this forum? Please keep in mind that I can't stand math beyond geometry level (hated algebra type of guy... ). So, if you even want to just share a summarization of your statistics that would be great. Thanks.

[vejlin]

Kim,

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing what you came up with. Is it something easily posted on this forum? Please keep in mind that I can't stand math beyond geometry level (hated algebra type of guy... ). So, if you even want to just share a summarization of your statistics that would be great. Thanks.

The end result of my work is a simple table where you can look up the chance of each outcome. I can't post it right now because I'm in Sweden for the week. Also it's in a word document. When I get back I'll see what I can do. Can I post files here ? If not I'll have to e-mail it or hope they put it up on mil-net.

 

Kim

[CripDyke]

I've never played CAV or Warlord, so bear with me.

 

Strictly from a statistical modelling point of view, With the proposed 2d6 system, you would have many more attacks that are "above average" in die roll (read: above 5.5) since the "average" range is 5-9.

 

Almost all of the average range is above the current average. I would assume this would mean VERY MANY more hits?? And Much more Damage?

 

 

Also, let me point out that while the odds of double 6's would be a mere 1 in 36 (yes, the earlier poster got this exactly correct)...the odds of getting a 10, 11, OR 12 (i.e. rolling a result equal to or better than the original/current maximum result) is actually 1 in SIX - much better odds of getting a tremendous result than the current system.

 

HOWEVER - You could use 2d6 MINUS 1 or 2 to get things back near average. With a -1, your average roll would be 6 (slightly better than the current 5.5) and your chance of getting a 10 or 11 is now 1 in 12 - slightly worse than it is now, but the odds of getting a 1 or 2 is also 1 in 12 - vastly BETTER than the current 2 in 10. You would be protected from bad die rolls much more than you would lose your edge at the highest ranges.

 

With a -2, your chance of getting a 10 is 1 in 36 - much worse than the current 1 in 10, and your chance of getting a 9 or 10 is 1 in 12 - much worse than the current 2 in 10.

 

However, your odds of getting a 0 or 1 would be 1 in 12...this is less than the current 1 in 10 chance that you will roll a 1. You have only a 1 in 6 chance of rolling 0, 1, or 2 (this is 16 and 2/3 percent) whereas you would previously have had a 2 in 10 (or 20%) chance of rolling a 1 or 2.

 

I realize this is all kinda confusing if you aren't used to playing with numbers this way, but i thought you might want the info, since the system you were proposing (2d6) skewed things incredibly from the way they used to be.

 

If you really wanted to emphasize the middle without making the top or bottom rolls too unlikely, what you would do is roll 1d6 and 1d5, add them together, then subtract 1.

 

You would still end up with a number between 1 & 10. You would bias things toward the middle without making exceptionally good or bad shots too rare.

 

I think another thing you might do is make defensive fire 1d8+1. Thus it can neither get a 10 nor a 1 but the average is the same and the statistical spread is not biased in any way. Defensive fire would fail less often, but would succeed less spectacularly.

 

Games never reproduce life. When we choose to bend the odds, we do so in order to do desirable things like speed gameplay, etc. But it often becomes more palatable to make a change away from fairness or "reality" if one has a justification. Perhaps the justification in treating Defensive fire this way is that attackers are doing more guess work - trying to get into a good position to kill the enemy - and are thus subject to more luck good AND bad. While defenders are being merely opportunistic: if it crosses my gunsights, I kill it, but I'm not thinking about 7 things at once like my opponent is. My goal is merely to survive...perhaps while also drawing fire and thus helping others to survive, but mainly my goal as a defender is pretty simple.

 

So...whaddaya think?

 

Not about my ideas so much as my information about the ideas that were already laid on the table.

 

My own idea of 1d6+1d5-1 for offense and 1d8+1 for defense is kinda "out there" and I have no game experience. My first impression of my own idea is that it "mathifies" things too much and many people wouldn't wanna have to do that much figuring...especially at 3 am after 8 litres of mountain dew have been split among only 4 people who have all been up for 19 hours because they had to be at work the morning before....

 

Still, for me & my math geek friends, that kinda stuff is the way we tweak games all the time. A look into the world of Gamers who Run Science Museums (my crowd all comes from the various West Coast "Discovery Centers", The Oregon Museum of Science & Industry, etc.)

[Jeneki]

Have you ever had the oppertunity to play against an Uber Rhino? That's the Rhino with armor upgrade and ace pilot. Against direct Fire attacks it gets +8 armor, and that's if it's in the open without cover (ever tried to hurt double-digit armor?). The high-low split is pretty much the only way to cause damage; which is fine since the Uber unit is so many points that you can outnumber it and roll so many dice that eventually enough high-low splits happen to bring it down.

 

If you plan on using d8s, you may want to consider the effect on some of the more extreme upgrades.

[papabees]

To Crypdyke: are you sure a ten eleven or twelve is a one in six chance?? Not arguing just seems high. InCAV things are resolved with opposed die rolls so rolling a higher number is not cecessarily bad because your opponent can roll higher to defend. What we are looking for is a more median average so as to add weight to the stats rather than the roll.