"Dice to hit." Topic

So I am cobbling together some rules like those of Featherstone and Bath. The hit rate seems a bit high. Tony certainly thought so and used to divide the values in half.

I figured that the average hit rate should be about 50% which seems to be in line with other "modern" games on the market. Dons hit rates are at around 70% (D6 per 5 figures) and Tony's at 35%. I could get to 50% in one of two ways.

1) Use 1D6 per 7 figures 4-6 odd figures count as a die while 1-3 figures are ignored.
2) Use a D6-1 per 5 figures with 3-4 odd figures getting a die and 1-2 being ignored.

Which of the two methods do you think would be "better" and why?

Thanks,

John

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve, but why not use 1d6 for every two figures. For the odd figure at the end, the unit gets a die if the unit is morale value x or greater.

Buck Surdu

I figured that the average hit rate should be about 50% which seems to be in line with other "modern" games on the market.

Roll 1D6 per figure. Hits on 4+.

The bucket of dice design aspect is popular more so today than in the 1970s and 1980s.

The use of a number of hit dice per number of castings or based on weapon types. Ie more hit dice for a SMG than a rifle is common.

The use of the bucket of dice allows you deduct the number of dice thrown rather than the hit number for modifications such as terrain protection or combat effectiveness.

If the to hit number is variable based on the type of weapon used, then the modification for status/conditions may be based on wither to hit number or number of dice rolled.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve,

In older rules, the sum of the dice are the number of hits.

Roll 1D6 per figure. Hits on 4+.

Exactly what I am trying to get away from.

Let me explain…

Take a 20 man regiment. With 1 die per figure, you would have to roll 20 dice. A bucket of dice if you will.

With the Featherstone/Bath way, you would roll 1 die per 7 men so that would be 3 dice. 2 dice and 6 left over. 6 odd men would grant the extra die. Total of 3 dice.

In either case, then you would make any applicable saves as normal.

Take a 20 man regiment. With 1 die per figure, you would have to roll 20 dice. A bucket of dice if you will.

Why do you have a problem with rolling 20 dice?

1) Use 1D6 per 7 figures 4-6 odd figures count as a die while 1-3 figures are ignored.
2) Use a D6-1 per 5 figures with 3-4 odd figures getting a die and 1-2 being ignored.

Which of the two methods do you think would be "better" and why?

Method #2, I reckon it is easier to count in fives and I like the possibility of the ineffectual volley that the (-1) gives.

I think there is another possibility you could consider though: start as a base of 50% hits of the number of figures (rounding down) then roll a positive D6 and a negative D6 to introduce the variation.

Regards

In all cases these sorts of mechanisms would benefit from a combat results table rather than counting out tons of dice and doing weird arithmetical convolutions. X figures in bands up the left hand side, dice scores over the top, loss outcomes in the result matrix. 2D6 produces a nice distribution.

I find handling large numbers of dice really slows things down as well as producing such a strong averaging effect that you may as well not bother. Once you are rolling 30+ dice you can predict the overall outcome with a 95% degree of confidence, a technique I regularly use in buckets of dice games.

If you want to stick to dice per x figures casualties, then average dice will even out the excesses (as will Whirlwinds average +/- a variance).

as well as producing such a strong averaging effect that you may as well not bother.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

What's wrong with rolling lots of dice? Do you have small hands? I have never understood why the number of dice rolled is an issue for people.

Jaz
revolutionaryroads.com – affordable, durable, pre-coloured wargaming roads

Roll a dice for every 5 figures.
6s are misses. Otherwise, that is the number of casualties.
That gives you a sensible casualty rate.
If the target is in soft cover, 5s and 6s are misses
If the target is at close range, 6s count, and so on.

I would go with whatever groups of figures would result in unmodified dice being rolled. No pluses or minuses after the dice have hit the table.
Saga uses something along the lines of 1d6 for every 3 low level fighters, 1d6 for every 2 medium level fighters, 1d6 for each leader, etc. This is somewhat different than what you are working towards but having the numbers on the dice mean something immediately- without being modified after the roll, works well for me.
Keep us updated.

What's wrong with rolling lots of dice? Do you have small hands? I have never understood why the number of dice rolled is an issue for people.

Mostly a speed and convenience thing. So in my previous example, 20 dice vs 3 dice. 20 dice hitting the table would make a big mess. Some would likely fall on the floor and probably get re-rolled after being found. Or, of course, you could break the rolling up into groups of say 5 dice. That would be 4 rolls to get hits. With the "old school" sort of way, you roll 3 dice once and total it up. You accomplish the same thing with 1 roll of fewer dice. Fewer dice even if you reduced the rolls into groups of 5.

John

The bucket of dice design aspect is popular more so today than in the 1970s and 1980s.

So true. The rules back then were wide open to interpretation. They did know a bit about efficiency.

Mostly a speed and convenience thing. So in my previous example, 20 dice vs 3 dice. 20 dice hitting the table would make a big mess. Some would likely fall on the floor and probably get re-rolled after being found.

Roll the dice into a small tray or container. They won't make a mess or fall off the table then.

As an aged wargamer (get off my lawn!) I do recall the 60s rules with some affection, but also recall that their alleged simplicity involved a lot of simple but tedious arithmetic of the "Roll a die for every 6 figures, deduct 1 for light cover, 2 for heavy cover" type. What this meant was you'd roll a 4, 2,5 and 1, then mentally reduce them to (frex) 2,0,3 and 0, totalling 5. Any eight year old can do it – but it's slow and no fun.

My most recent '1-20' level Roman era rules feature units from six figures (small cavalry units) through 48 (outrageously large infantry bands) with most units 12, 24 or 36.

I roll a die per 3 men, starting at 36 men (for, say, a Gallic warband) = 12 dice, and leaving the 12 dice in effect until the first three figures are lost, when 11 dice becomes the standard (until 30 men are left etc). So it's a handfull of dice, but not a bucket, far simpler to spot the hits.

Once you are rolling 30+ dice you can predict the overall outcome with a 95% degree of confidence, a technique I regularly use in buckets of dice games.

That is completely wrong I'm afraid. Rolling 30 dice and hitting 50% of the time, a 95% confidence level gives you a range of outcomes from 10 to 20 hits (i.e. 95% of the time you will get between 10 and 20 hits). That is a wide range of outcomes.

Ah. Actually Howard is on to something. With 12 dice at a 4+ to hit, you would expect 6 hits. It's not a bad way to do things but at 6 hits, per 36 men, we are going the wrong way! There still has to be a saving throw in there. This rate would be fine if I were to not do a save. Just sayin'. BTW, this method is more like Grant. The big battalions he used would typically count the front ranks and there would be a fairly substantial chance to hit.

John, my system is to roll equal or less than a given number (often quite a high one) which then gives number of hits. The target player then does a saving roll of his armour grade against the hits.

I'm actually not looking for a lot of hits per round of shooting or combat in my Roman game. Lots of shields and armour.

If I were doing it for, say, linear horse and musket era, I'd lower the armour grade to, well, the same as ancient skirmishers, but in close order. So, a good unit of 36 shooting at the same thing, in the open at close range might be looking for a roll of 5 or less on its 12 dice – so lets assume 10 hits. The targeted player rolls 10 dice, but because his men have no protection, only '1's save. So he probably saves 1-2 figures. 8 hits then which is a pretty good blow – about 22%.

If we should decide that 2 or less saves, it comes down to 6-7 hits.

Remember that, while a few volleys in history were devastating (the British at Quebec may have inflicted 25% losses on their French opponents) most shooting was less than 5% effective, and often less than 1%.

50% expected casualties seems Somme-like to me. It's too much for 'normal' effectiveness.

50% expected casualties seems Somme-like to me. It's too much for 'normal' effectiveness.

Consider this. 50% hits. Saving throws for the ordinary warrior is 1/3 (5+) so 1/3X1/2 is 1/6th. Gets more grim of course with a fully armored warrior (4+ save) or a fully armored knight (3+ save).

I had a copy of your set BTW. It was Gallic wars set right? They looked cool but I never had the figures to play them. Probably could not. Lots of nifty ideas there. I liked the Pilum rules which didn't do as much killing but did negate some warriors for a turn while they tossed away their shields! Good stuff!

Consider this. 50% hits. Saving throws for the ordinary warrior is 1/3 (5+) so 1/3X1/2 is 1/6th.

Based on 50% hits and a saving throw of 5+, expected casualties will be 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 rather than 1/6.

Bah. You are right. I do that a lot!

Or you could go with a set of percentage dice and work on the total expected hits for the entire unit and roll as a percentage of that exoected number. Gives a really big variable rate. Other wise a "To Hit" number as a percentage has to be rolled (or less). So if your looking for 50% hits any roll of 51 or over is a miss all you have to do then is determine how many figures in a group for dicing purposes.