How about them d8's in CAV?

[Jeneki]

10+ on 2d6 is 6 in 36, or 1 in 6. This is one of those thing you just start to know after playing too much Monopoly.

[Super Jag]

CripDyke... thanks for the numbers. As you mentioned, you hadn't played CAV and therefore let me know if you see some differences considering:

 

A) the game of CAV is based on "contested" die rolls

B) players are looking for as big a high/low split as they can get in their favor

C) the bigger the split, the more damage that occurs

 

The idea of defensive fire using a smaller dice value has been considered but initital thoughts are that it really puts the defender at more disadvantage than necessary. Of course... that's just speculation as of now.

 

Basically all we're looking to do (in our area) is experiment with a different dice value to limit the catastrophic damage that occasionally comes from a high/low split. We don't want to eliminate the possibility, but we do want to make it less frequent.

 

The worst that happens is we try and don't like it. No big deal, right?

 

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

Well, I'm pretty thorough about using the "scientific method" when trying variations like that. I was just hoping others might be able to pitch in some concrete evidence of why the d8 would or would not work in CAV.

 

Oh, by the way... that Uber-Rhino doesn't last long when chainlocked Sultans start raining IFM's on it's head... hehehehe.

[CripDyke]

well, if it's all contested die rolls, that DOES change things quite a bit.

 

I mean not the stats, obviously

 

(For those who asked earlier, you got the short answer confirming my stats, but here's the break down on 2d6:

 

Scoring 12 is only 1 possible combination, therefore 1 in 36

11 is 2 combos, therefore 2 in 36

10 is 3 combos, therefore 3 in 36

 

Therefore 1+2+3=6...there are 6 combos in 36, or 1 in 6, that will yield 10 or higher)

 

With a 2d6 scenario, your widest maximum split occurs about 1 in 650 times, and yields a +/- of 10. (1 in 1296 for offense, likewise for defense, 1 in 648 for either)

 

With d10s, the widest split is +/- 9, and occurs 1 in 50 times. (1 in 100 for the offense, 1 in 100 for the defense, 1 in 50 for either)

 

In a 2d6 scenario, you TIE more often...nearly 1 in 6 times. (With a d10, you tie one in 10 times)

 

If you substitute 1d8+1 for the defense, you tie fewer times (about 8%, or 1 in 12) but the max spread is smaller.

 

In general, when using the sum of more than 1 die, you will tie more times and have smaller splits than using a single die with approximately the same Maximum split (e.g. 3d4 and 1d10 both have a max split of 9, but 3d4 will generate more ties and smaller splits).

 

So you tell me whether or not smaller splits are a good thing.

 

And you can tell me whether more ties is a good thing.

 

It seems to me that both of these things would make games take longer because exceptional results would be harder to achieve.

 

Ways to tinker with that are to use die combos with larger splits (3d6 has a max split of 15 - the difference between 18 & 3, dont'cha know? - but clumps results in the middle. This produces a good number of ties and low-split results, but you have a chance at pegging that Uber-Rhino even if you're a rookie using a bad gun)

 

OR you can tinker by making offense and defense roll different dice (defense rolls 1d10+1, offense rolls 2d6 for example).

 

This last proposal makes large splits possible - even larger splits than with d10 vs. d10 - but the offense will be more consistently in the middle. This means ON AVERAGE your splits are smaller, but every once in a while someone's world gets well and truly rocked.

 

From reading the discussion above, it appears to me that this is the kind of sytem people are looking for, so you might give this last proposal a try. It's "fair" in the sense that over time everyone will be attacker and defender about an equal number of times, but it isn't "fair" on any single roll. Some players will feel this cheats them somehow (especially when their biggest CAV gets dusted by some huge CAV mega-weapon) but really, if you are playing this game on a regular basis, it's as fair as any other system.

 

Incidentally, 2d6 vs. 1d10+1 is exactly the same as 2d6-1 vs. 1d10. Up to you how you play it.

 

Also, if you want a slower-playing version of the 2d6 vs d10+1 system, you might try d6+d8 vs. 2d8. (this gives a clear advantage to the 2d8 side, but you could even that by adding 1 point do the d6+d8 side). Because in this system both are tending toward the average by being summed, ties and small splits are very common, BUT large splits happen more often than in the 2d6 vs. 1d10+1 scenario. (thus making luck more of a factor...this tends to help the less skilled over time)

 

Happy gaming everybody. This are just ideas - you tell me how you like the game play!!!

[papabees]

Wow! That was a lot of info just to answer some ramblings. Thanks for all the work. I'm going to try the 2d6 this weekend and I'll report back later.

[Super Jag]

I'm going to try the 2d6 this weekend and I'll report back later.

Would appreciate it Papabees. Also, please try and notice whether rolling additional dice and extra math is cumbersome in any way.

 

I think we're going to try the d8 in the near future, but we've been more focused on getting Warlord running for now. I'll submit d8 feedback and we can compare that to your 2d6 format.

[CripDyke]

I just love empiricism!!!

 

I'll be checking the thread everyone!

[Super Jag]

Thanks Cripdyke. It may take a bit, but hopefully soon we'll get some feedback on our dice experimenting.

[vejlin]

I'm back from Sweden now. If you're still interrested in the statistics, it's probably the easiest if I e-mail it, since it's not up on mil-net.

 

Kim

[vejlin]

if anyone else wants the statistics just PM me and I'll e-mail them

 

Kim

[HANZO]

Rather than change the die why not just create a new ranged attack damage chart as a home rule????

 

EXAMPLE:

 

1-3 No damage

4-8 1 damage point

9-11 2 damage points

12-13 3 damage points+suppression

14+ Critical Hit

 

I find that this makes a running combat a little slower but does not mess with the over all game mechanics much. And its a bit simplified.

 

Now personally i like the idea of a more direct Critical hit list too....

 

EXAMPLE:

 

1-4 3 damage for your trouble and first weapon

listed is none functioning for 2 turns

5 4 damage and all weapon ranges are halfed until your next turn.

6 4 damage and TARGETing unit is destroyed. (TL is a 0 )

7 4 damage and ECM unit is destroyed. (ECM is a 0 )

8 CPU is hit...unit powers down and in unoperatable.

9 Unit is destroyed but crew escapes.

10 BREEDER is hit and goes critical, dmg+3 AOE 6 explosion.

 

just a thought.....it drags out combat...but when a unit is hit good it really adds some punch!!!!

[vejlin]

Yes changing the damage chart is probably a good idea. And much easier too.

 

Kim

[Super Jag]

Thanks Hanzo... that's another good idea. Personally I think it's just as simple to change the denomination of the dice we're using. I "assume" we'd get similar results. However, your suggested chart would be a good one to try also.

 

We're planning to play some variation on CAV very soon. Warlord has taken a priority lately. Like I said... will definitely offer feedback ASAP. If you manage some games with your new chart, please give us some feedback too.

 

All the help we can get the better

[vejlin]

I also just did the stats for d8, so if anyone is interested PM me and I'll email them.

[Steven Page]

Having been a playtester on Warlord, and understanding that the R.A.G. E. system is the heart of both Warlord and CAV2,this is a moot point. D10's are part of the fibre of the game, and the chances of swaying the powers that be to change them are slim and none.....One Warlord playtester kept "beating a dead horse" long after Matt told us it was non-negotiable. It wasn't pretty.......

 

I'd throw my mental energy into things that need it in the game......

[Super Jag]

STEVEN...

 

I did actually elude to this fact you've pointed out earlier in this post. Basically we're only experimenting for the "Poops & Giggles" of it all.

 

Frankly I can go one of two ways with CAV:

 

1) Wait for CAV2 to be released (preference)

 

-OR-

 

2) Fiddle with CAV first edition UNTIL CAV2 comes out

 

Either way, I'm pefectly happy with CAV. Part of fiddling is MY WAY of learning why things do and do not work (I do that with virtually everything).

 

IN NO WAY am I interested in making CAV something other than what the R.A.G.E. system will soon make it.

 

Otherwise, I'd definitely agree that my limited time and energies would be better spent on CAV2 beta rules (which I've put in for as a BL tester), as well as continuing to move forward with Warlord.