Further data from The SO: Figuring out the chit-spread (the % possibilities of each result) is easy; getting the various hand-held devices running the program sync-ed so everyone has the same number and kind of chits is a bit more difficult, but still possible.
The real bugger is: She programs for Android, not The Evil Empire. :)
Good, my fone is Android.
Just wanted to throw this tidbit in from Ares' Kickstarter comments:
FROM ARES GAMES: "@Anybody, tokens: normally, tokens are enough to play with 12-15 ships for sure. Also remember that, due to the way the damage system works, if you run out of damage counters you can always remove them from the ship logs of the damaged ships (except the last box) and throw them in the bag again. And when a ship surrenders, its counters are placed back in the bag. In any case, together with the "multiple ship option" (which I hope will be unlocked before the end of the week) we will also add the option for purchasing extra copies of the set of punchboards included in the Starter Set."
Looks like, per this comment, Ares expects that the chits WILL be thrown into the bag. Now, I'm not sure if there were later posts that stated that a single set of tokens would support a smaller number of ships. Don't get me wrong... I'm aware that there are pure 'statistical problems' if chits are thrown back into the bag. I am just posting this as it seems if the developers are playing a bit 'loose' with statistics of chit draws based on this comment above.
You're absolutely correct Scott. Throwing chits back into the bag will undo any form of statistical meaning, unless they are replaced after each firing once the damage has been recorded. I think this is an example where the developers erred on the side of playability as opposed to realism.
Does WoW have a similar, chit-based solution for damage?
The WWII version does. The WWI version uses cards but in the same way chits would be used.Originally Posted by GrouperKicker
I think of the chit/card system of less of a compromise and more of a choice. If the game was meant to have static statistics, they could easily have used dice. It would be cheaper for them to produce and easier to manage. I think it would be less fun or playable and here's why (I'm sure others have said this).
From a statistical standpoint, WoG/SoG more accurately represent the real statistical outcomes with their system than dice do. As we know, random number generation only approaches a mean with increase instances. (rolling a die five times might yield five "4's", but rolling a die five million times will almost certainly not yield five million "4's." In this way, there is the more realistic result of a natural skew by enforcing the mean amount of damage over the whole iteration (one bag full) even though, there aren't very many instances (the amount of chits in the bag). Also, assuming they took care in selecting the amounts of special damage etc. in the deck, this representation would be skewed with reality. We wouldn't expect every shot to cause major leaks, but this might happen when recycling chips.
As far as playability, this method ensures that a game cannot go by without a successful shot being fired and that games will either be back and forth balance affairs (even distribution of damage and nulls), quick and dirty (front heavy damage), or ramped up through the game (back heavy damage). No matter what, damage will be done.
As far as fun, there is nothing more frustrating than playing a game and never getting a 'hit.' Think of that game of 40k where your terminators got taken out in one turn from some grots or (the other side), that game where your entire army fired at a 5 man squad and managed to inflict no casualties for turn after turn. Consequently, it is also not fun to win that way (at least, not for me). I get a bad taste in my mouth when I know an easy victory came from good rolls for me and bad for the other gent.
My only suggestion would be, for those who fear 'chit counting,' To recycle the chits once there are about 10 left. That way, you are never guaranteed to know what chits you will draw. This serves the same purpose as the cut card remaining in the chute at a casino.
OK, I was playing around with that new pack of damage decks from WoG, and came up with the following as an example of what I am talking about. Every now and then my brain fires on all cylinders. :g&t:
By treating each card as a statistical event, 70 for the A deck and 44 for the B, we can apply a percentage value (to 4 decimal points) to each and multiply that to the number of cards of each type. Thus, if we have a random number generator tied to an 'IF-THEN' result table, the program is almost done form the calculation portion. (Just like that! Snap!
Now all we need it a damage chip pack from SoG and we can apply the same process. ( A little more involved)
I just noticed I used the wrong term, Pilot killed should be observer hit. Yikes.
The from to values are percentage needed for that result. 70 cards equal 100% .
Last edited by Cpt Kangaroo; 08-05-2013 at 19:47.
Japheth, thanks for the input. You have some very good points there. It sounds like you have some statistical analysis skills.
Agreed about the dice, it is not a good option and won't give the results needed.
You mentioned about a concern of playing a game without results because the null chips would be replaced. It would get worse as the game progressed as the high numbers would be used on the logs. (If I am understanding you correctly) Maybe if you used separate marking chips this would avoid the problem.
I have seen games go both ways with WoG. I have seen two explosion damage cards pulled in the same turn, and a 12 move dogfight between 2 aircraft.
I guess that is a lot of the appeal in that every game has a different feel
I should reiterate here that our goal, returning to the original theme of this thread, is to explore ways to use the game for the large battles such as Trafalgar once enough ship types become available.
I agree that this will be a very fun game at up to about 8 ships a side. Perfect for the Island type campaigns. In no way do we want to change that dynamic.
I still think an i-Type app or Android, would be fun to have.
Last edited by Cpt Kangaroo; 08-05-2013 at 19:25.
Thanks for sharing. I knew there were options available for more chips.
I'd venture to say that a large Fleet Action like Trafalgar would virtually REQUIRE electronic assistance like a "random damage generator" to be completed in any reasonable time.
Absolutely the use of cards of chits is a choice, but it has nothing to do with statistics and is all about the other aspects you mentioned (fun, primarily) and originality. In fact there are many areas of both games that could have been streamlined considerably through the use of dice, but if Andrea had done so he'd have rendered the fundamental originality tenet of the game null and void.
No, it absolutely doesn't. The chit/card drawing approach makes every chit drawn dependent on the previous draws. The statistics applicable to each shot change. IRL each shot is an independent event. It will have its own individual set of circumstances ("modifiers") but each shot is independent. Consider an extreme example. I'm shooting at a point target and an analysis of the target (or an analysis of trial shots at the target) shows that in 1/3 of cases the target explodes, in one third it suffers some sort of damage and in one third it suffers no damage at all, and that this translates to a "damage deck" of 3 cards; a zero, a 5 and a "bang".From a statistical standpoint, WoG/SoG more accurately represent the real statistical outcomes with their system than dice do.
I have three such targets to engage. I shoot at the first one and draw a zero. When I engage the second I now have a 50% chance of causing damage and a 50% chance of blowing it up. If my shot at the second target causes damage then my shot at the third target has a 100% probability of blowing it up. The overall statistics may appear right, but from an event perspective they are completely off after the first. And even from an overall perspective they aren't, because there is a 3.7% probability of blowing them ALL up, or of causing no damage, and there's no way the card system can deliver that.
The "skewing with reality" aspect is achieved through the makeup of the results table. Looking at the probabilities in the table that Erin has put together I would suggest that "rolling" an electronic "D100.0000" five million times and noting the results would yield results that looked very close to the expected probabilities (in that case I'd suggest rolling an electronic D70 and D44 rather than D100 to get rid of those pesky numbers past the decimal points)As we know, random number generation only approaches a mean with increase instances. (rolling a die five times might yield five "4's", but rolling a die five million times will almost certainly not yield five million "4's." In this way, there is the more realistic result of a natural skew by enforcing the mean amount of damage over the whole iteration (one bag full) even though, there aren't very many instances (the amount of chits in the bag). Also, assuming they took care in selecting the amounts of special damage etc. in the deck, this representation would be skewed with reality. We wouldn't expect every shot to cause major leaks, but this might happen when recycling chips.
I think that the damage system, like so many aspects of WoG and SoG, is something where it is very easy to get wrapped round the axle, ascribing features and details to the game that just don't exist**. You can drive a bus through some aspects wrt "reality", but then you must remember its not a simulation. It was never meant to be, and if it was it would use completely different mechanisms. It is a simple, fun system that meets Andrea's goal of delivering a playable, fun game without dice.
What if instead of using pure statistical probability with each chit draw, we had an app/program that essentially created a full set of chits in memory and then just depleted the remaining available chits, similar to a manual chit draw, as each result was returned? (... similar to the way that video poker creates a 'virtual' deck of cards in memory - I know that we discussed this method in an introductory C programming class.) Once you depleted all of the chits (or you reached, say, 10 chits remaining), you could 'reshuffle' automatically and start with a full set of chits again. (Yeah... I've made the iphone/android app more complex!) This way you would have an electronic means of generating chits and still retain chit frequency/probability of manually pulling chits from a bag.
I do realize that this would force a large game to only use a single phone/device for all chit results which could slow things down.
- I totally agree here and this goes to some of my point. The chit way enforces correct stats on a "whole game" level and sacrifices it at individual instances (by giving some shots 100% success). The dice would make each individual instance correct but, due to the low number of instances (versus a million), it would allow the game as a whole to be off.(The case where each instance has an actual 33% chance over a million instances and in the game only 50 instances occur, allowing all 50 to be the 'fails' is not a deviation and could make several turns come up zero so that the overall stat of 66% success doesn't hold up.)
I think that the more important way to err is to make the game (as a whole) more fun, instead of making each instance more fun and possibly sacrificing the fun of the game (in the cases of the all zeroes all the time). Assuming that a predictable system is equal to fun. Note that I am definitely of the view that capricious systems are not fun and that a restrained or minimized sort of randomness is better than either no randomness or lots of randomness.
Very true. Good point. I should keep in mind that the reason I kickstarted SoG is because I love WoG so much and that is because you can play it fast and loose. If it was more clinical it would be like every other game out there. Like any good game, fun must come first and I am sure this discussion has come up time and again at the Aerodrome among other places (like "Let's make a deal"
Which is also why I backed SoG. I want to engage in something that's fun and not a grognard simulation. Besides, I would think the more accurate naval recreations out there would invariably give the British a win most of the time, and I'd like to see the French, Spanish, etc. get some victories.Very true. Good point. I should keep in mind that the reason I kickstarted SoG is because I love WoG so much and that is because you can play it fast and loose. If it was more clinical it would be like every other game out there. Like any good game, fun must come first and I am sure this discussion has come up time and again at the Aerodrome among other places (like "Let's make a deal"
If you accurately recreate the conditions of the battle, the relative morale and training of the crew then a British victory is, as you say, likely (but not certain - see my recent posts on the Staines club refight using FLoB). To go for a more equitable game you'd have to nerf these aspects. But then again if you did you'd have created a situation where Nelson wouldn't have approached the battle the way he did (and so neither should the players).
Hear Hear!
I think thats a bit unfair. There are plenty of "fast and fun" games out there. And also many that are good simulations whilst also being so. The "game versus simulation" argument is one that comes up frequently amongst wargamers. There seems to be a belief that a set of rules can only tick one of these boxes. I strongly disagree with this belief.
Actually Scott, you just touched on something that might be very handy in designing this app idea...
I am sure a variable option could be added for the number of ships (for more ships, adding more 'chips' to the virtual mix), plus a setting for either 'Original' or 'Large Scale'. Maybe other variables if we haven't thought of. Hmmmmm.
Point taken about it could slow play, unless more than one device was in use. (Hence my original comment "I'd buy two apps").
It sounds like there is at least one other crazy person out there (not mentioning any of Chris' names.) who might give it a try, but his wife is the programmer in the family, and she works with Android.
Who do we have out there who speaks iPad?
Last edited by Cpt Kangaroo; 08-06-2013 at 11:07.
Agreed, and I do remember your "Disaster at Trafalgar" post, but wasn't Nelson's radical plan based on the knowledge that the French, and Spanish particularly, were under maned and trained for the ships they brought to the battle? In your game really bad dice rolls meant Nelson spent the evening in Cadiz.
Putting aside gaming statistics and odds, which is severely limited in my case, I know from other games that if player perception is one side is always going to win you're not going to build a strong player base. I wonder if Ares will introduce commander or ship "quirk" cards that might add some other aspects to play for SoG rather than outright nerfing ship statistics?
Hopefully in just over a week I'll have some opportunity to play some demos of SoG at GenCon!
More a case of tactics from the Bizarro school of naval manoeuvring (charging headlong into the enemy line with your two flagships unsupported whilst leaving the rest of your fleet behind is "unorthodox" to say the least).
I know you will enjoy it, I did. You know I think the game would be hard to use for a big game. So! enjoy it for what it is. FUN!
Be safe
Rory
I have been known to use the Bizarro School approach on many occasions.
And I'll admit up front that it's often when I run into someone who's so serious about 'winning' a game rather than having fun that I just have to throw something completely unexpected into the mix.
Android? iPad? Do we have anybody in our Programmers Club who speaks PC? I carry a netbook almost everywhere I go, so even a Java applet might work... and one of the things I'd like to do someday is set up a game with an RFID tag in each base and a tracking-system around the table so the game can be 'recorded' move-by-move. Maybe even have a "Strategy Assist" app that can be set to different levels of "handicap" between games for suggesting optimal moves and targeting to help rookies.
I think when the PC has a touch screen it would be able to compete. (It is funny when not thinking I try to swipe the monitor at work. ).
I'll have to agree with David here, as long as there have been wargamers there have been discussions about design for effect (simplify things but with the design created to still achieve historical results on more occasions if you use the historical strategy) versus design for inclusion for want of a better term (this method of design tries to include everything and is generally more complex, slower to play but sometimes preferred by the proponents of minutae) Both approaches have their strengths and both have weaknesses. Both can achieve good historicity and both can be completely ahistorical. These design decisions are not mutually exclusive, sometimes they simplify certain aspects and load complexity onto others. Gamers being gamers, will either load the game with optional/house rules to improve "perceived" realism or drop off rules to simplify the playing of the game.
Coincidentally the "game vs simulation" debate has cropped up (for the umpteenth time) on TMP :)
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=315334
I think I have arrived at a point in my life in which slower, more complex games are reserved for solo play. With my friends, I am more concerned about their experience, and it seems intuitive and fast are important qualities. That's one of the things I have appreciated about WoG and the Aerodrome. The house rules developed there are fantastic, and can be adopted as desired. I am part of a solo campaign, and most of the folks don't use altitude, for example. When you see folks who have been at the game a lot longer, and who know a lot more about history, technical info, etc., than you do, and you see how they choose which rules they will employ based on the given day, it is encouraging to do the same.
David, next to the great counter clipping debate on boardgamegeek (to clip or not to clip?...I'm a non clipper...but I hold it to be a fundamental right of others to clip if they so choose
I clip....... the great counter clipping debate on boardgamegeek (to clip or not to clip?...I'm a non clipper...but I hold it to be a fundamental right of others to clip if they so choose
Sooo, with an idea of fun and loose simulation in mind, does the segmented approach to Trafalgar seem plausible?
Some battles being more linear in progression would not, but due to the multifaceted nature of this battle, it should work, so long as we don't get too tied up in the question of accuracy.
Trying to find significant groupings of about 4-6 ships a side is the key...
I would like to see a match (rematch) between the Santa Ana and the Royal Sovereign with a few additional French/Spanish/British ships contributing. Unfortunately, SoG probably isn't going to be bringing out any Spanish ships in the near future?Sooo, with an idea of fun and loose simulation in mind, does the segmented approach to Trafalgar seem plausible?
Some battles being more linear in progression would not, but due to the multifaceted nature of this battle, it should work, so long as we don't get too tied up in the question of accuracy.
Trying to find significant groupings of about 4-6 ships a side is the key...
Be that as it may, yes, I think a segmented approach to Trafalgar would be very interesting, although I lack expertise in naval games/sims to comment on its plausibility.
Please enlighten the uninitiated ???
(what is being clipped or not ?)
Clipped game counters
Not clipped and clipped
For a 62 page discussion on whether to clip counter corners or not, what the best tool to do so is, and various other esoteria relating to this most esoteric topic see
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/7532...counter/page/1
What a foreign concept! How 70's.
(This from a guy living in the land of 'Hanging Chads'.)
Last edited by Cpt Kangaroo; 08-10-2013 at 19:07.
I have found a couple of random event generators that would work well to generate damage at the push of a button. Just have to enter the information to begin with.
RANDOM MASTER by Alta Tech. (IPad app)
Also
iRANDOMISER by Schmoopi LLC. (iPad App)
I tried them out and it seems very easy to set up and use.
The are on line sites that will do this too for those using a laptop. (Sorry, I didn't note the sites)
Maybe one of our android users could provide similar app sites.
From the (note) one game I played. I think the wet marker on a re-useable ships log would do. How One uses the chips in a large game??????
Be safe
Rory
Erin,
What could be interesting in a segmented approach, would be for multiple tables to play simultaneously, each focusing on a given segment. After the first, let's say morning, game, the results of the given engagements would be tallied and either one side declared victor, or an afternoon round of games continue the overall battle with some modifications to starting situations based on the morning games.
Eric, I really like this idea for a convention setting. Of course this would require a lot of ships all at once, but if several players with their collections came together, it would be very do-able, timely and would look awesome.
Even taking a page from David's game, lay each table out roughly where the separate engagements took place to give a sense of proportion.
(Now we need to get some Spanish ships in the mix, plus some first class SOL's.)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks