If you haven't checked this out yet...

[raymond6751]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Even dice are more realistic than that...

How would you go about resolving land battles then? I can think of a number of operational and strategic level engagements where luck played a much bigger role than each side's comparative 'advantages'.

Land battles are a lot more complex, but the action described above (blockade) was not a naval battle - just a contact determination.

In land battle the two sides deploy units to left, right, center and rear areas of the battlefield. In odd numbered real-time months the defender gets to set the local weather, the attacker the time of day.

We then have to phases of battle using a table of advantages that each side uses to find all that apply. Such things as weather, terrain, types of units and ratios, having air or naval support, and so on. The list contains 41 possible advantages and they won't all apply to every battle.

In addition, players at all levels earn Command Points in battle. They can also be loaned points from Operational Commander and Strategic Leader for key battles. The points invested by each side are compared for yet another advantage.

But there's more. Each player can have personal tactics to use in battle. Comparing his tactics to the enemy choice will further adjust the advantages. The winner of the phase is the one with highest advantages.

Then comes phase two, the counter-attack. Before this, each side gets to add reinforcements and additional/new support. Players can adjust their deployment too.

Final win goes to the player with the most advantages.

[SteamWake]

Do you include 'quality' of troops?

How much training have they had?

How about their leader?

Have they seen action before?

Are they physically fit?

Are they all suffering from disentary?

Its not just numbers

Player A has 100 troops with uber rifles.

Player B has 50 troops with so so rifles.

Player A's troops spent all night in a brothel and are hung over.

Player B's troops are battle hardened and had a good meal last night.

Now what?

Not trying to be contrary here I'm just wondering aloud.

[tater]

I think random factors are entirely realistic. I'm actually a big fan of "die rolls" and in fact would like to see more o fthat in computer simulations. In many cases I think it produces more realistic outcomes.

[raymond6751]

Over 13000 posts make this guy someone who does nothing else but troll forums and make a nuisance of himself.

Steamwake, go to the game website and see what is there. Download the rules and read them. Stop filling this thread with your 'opinion' about something you have not looked at yet.

[razark]

I'm not seeing how just stacking up advantages and seeing who has the most points determines a battle.

At Midway, the Japanese had 4 carriers, with 248 carrier based aircraft. The US had 3 carriers, with 233 carrier aircraft.

Naturally, the Japanese wiped out the US carriers, right? Random factors such as who detected who first, or whether bombs hit or not, and how much damage they caused didn't affect the battle?

How does this system deal with those random factors?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

How does this system deal with those random factors?

You have a good point. Battles aren't decided by numbers and quality alone. Luck, both good and bad, often plays a major part and should be modeled somehow.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

Over 13000 posts make this guy someone who does nothing else but troll forums and make a nuisance of himself.

Now hang on...

well...

actually... okay

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

Over 13000 posts make this guy someone who does nothing else but troll forums and make a nuisance of himself.

Steamwake, go to the game website and see what is there. Download the rules and read them. Stop filling this thread with your 'opinion' about something you have not looked at yet.

Dont expect to post anything on any forum and not get opinions you may not like.

I take back where I wished you luck.

Have a nice day.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

Over 13000 posts make this guy someone who does nothing else but troll forums and make a nuisance of himself.

Steamwake, go to the game website and see what is there. Download the rules and read them. Stop filling this thread with your 'opinion' about something you have not looked at yet.

I don't think that SteamWake is a troll. He gave his opinion on random factors in gaming. He did not say that your game was poor. He did not call you names. He did not insult you.

I don't care for tabletop gaming. Chess is about as far as I go. Still, I do wish you much luck in your endeavor. However, I suggest that if this is something that you really want to get involved in, and it looks like this is the case, you should grow some thicker skin for when the real trolls inevitably come along.

Anyway, I wish you much success in your hobby.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

Land battles are a lot more complex, but the action described above (blockade) was not a naval battle - just a contact determination.

In land battle the two sides deploy units to left, right, center and rear areas of the battlefield. In odd numbered real-time months the defender gets to set the local weather, the attacker the time of day.

We then have to phases of battle using a table of advantages that each side uses to find all that apply. Such things as weather, terrain, types of units and ratios, having air or naval support, and so on. The list contains 41 possible advantages and they won't all apply to every battle.

In addition, players at all levels earn Command Points in battle. They can also be loaned points from Operational Commander and Strategic Leader for key battles. The points invested by each side are compared for yet another advantage.

But there's more. Each player can have personal tactics to use in battle. Comparing his tactics to the enemy choice will further adjust the advantages. The winner of the phase is the one with highest advantages.

Then comes phase two, the counter-attack. Before this, each side gets to add reinforcements and additional/new support. Players can adjust their deployment too.

Final win goes to the player with the most advantages.

Then how do you deal with cases where victory went to a side which was clearly at a disadvantage?

Take the Battle of Auerstadt for example, by all comparative assessment Davout's French III Corps should have been obliterated twice over by the main body of the Prussian army, seeing how it was outnumbered 3 to 1. Yet the French withstood the Prussian attacks, then charged and completely routed the Prussians.

[the_tyrant]

A game engine with no random factors simply won't work because today's computers aren't good enough
in 20 years maybe, when a computer can simulate every action and response on the whole earth, than randomness is no longer needed

[raymond6751]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

A game engine with no random factors simply won't work because today's computers aren't good enough
in 20 years maybe, when a computer can simulate every action and response on the whole earth, than randomness is no longer needed

The game is human vs human and is not a computer video or computer moderated game.

As to the earlier question of how an inferior force could win against a superior one, in my game, they just need one advantage more than the opponent.

The game brings in the randomness of human nature too. Put 14-20 people together on any project and you have a variety of knowledge and experience. Some will have read and understood the rules, some will skim, others will not fully grasp what they read.

Leaders can make doubtful plans, Operational commanders can be too cautious or too ambitious with their forces. Tactical officers can miss advantages they may use, again through human error.

Hitler didn't attack Britain but did attack Russia. Human decision making that resulted in a series of further blunders. No dice were used.

My apologies to those who like randomness but die rolling always seemed to take away the need for careful, thoughtful planning. It's like having a well thought out budget and then blowing it all at the craps table.

[Sammi79]

Reminds me of a board game 'Diplomacy' which was essentially the same as 'Risk' only without the (random) dice rolls. The way to beat an opposing army was to arrange political deals with other players to support your army in the action, thus overwhelming your opponent.

It used to take longer than 'Risk' to play as all moves happened simultaneously and had to be written down by each player before the move phase commenced.

It was also a really quick and efficient way to create bad feeling between close friends, when you agree to support them and then backstab them instead! Sheeesh! it's only a game! but it really used to feel personal I guess.

[raymond6751]

OK, it's 2014 now. I've just read through the thread. An update.

Last comment above this one: It isn't a computer game, but a game between and among players. There is randomness in the 'skills' brought to the table by players. For instance, you don't mention an advantage an opponent has. If he misses it when checking his setup - he will be short an advantage. Also, the skill is in setting up before battle so that you have all possible advantages, like in real life.
Anyway, folks, the 'game' has evolved into a game system of rules that allow linkage of existing board and/or miniatures play into one big war. The failures and successes have meaning beyond the current battle.

My apologies for being "thin skinned" about the earlier comments. Not everyone accepts new concepts without resistance.
This past year more than 2516 downloads of the rules have garnered only compliments - zero complaints. The rules are free.

[Sailor Steve]

I play a 3D airwar game using models on stands. Aircraft are defined by speed, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate, and is so well set up that you actually fly the plane through the maneuvers. If you outmaneuver the other guy and set up a shot, you still have to roll dice, for the simple reason that no matter how good you are (we do have plusses to the roll for aces) you can still miss. The guy taking the hits can survive multiple critical hits with no damage, or he can be killed on the first shot. Nothing is ever set in stone.

As someone once said, no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.

[edit] That said, I'm reading the rules right now.

[edit 2] Okay, I've given the rules a going over (not in-depth, mind you), so my comments will be limited to observations.

Observation 1: You seem to boast a lot about how much better your game is than any others. That's fine, but when done within the rules themselves it's a bit of a turn-off. They are free, however, so that makes a difference.

Observation 2: Your game seems to rely a lot on abstracts. Actual combat is not reflected. It also seems to be mainly strategic, though some tactical components are involved, it seems to be mainly for the player who wants to be a world leader, not for the player who wants to be a pilot or command a ship. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're after. When you defend your concept you need to face the fact that your game is somewhat limited in scope, as are all games. You can't be all things to all players.

Opinion: Years ago I played World In Flames. In my opinion it is still the finest strategic WW2 game yet created. That said, I only played it once, because I've never wanted to be a world leader or even a general, and strategic games turn me off. As I said earlier, the kind of game that turns me on are the ones that put me on the bridge of a ship or in the cockpit of a fighter. I have to agree with what people said the last time around, which is that without some sort of true randomness, accounting for the fog of war, you can't properly represent the battlefield, or even the give-and-take of strategic warfare. No one person can ever be in control of everything involved. One look at Jutland, or the death of the Red Baron, should make that obvious.

I'm glad you have people downloading your game and playing it. I personally find no attraction in that sort of thing.

But that's just me.