"Opposed stats versus charts" Topic

The local group have been playing Battlegroup Kursk, and the one thing that seems to really slow the game down is the armor penetration. Check a chart for the gun's Ap rating at range X, then check the target's armor value (given as a letter), then cross reference the two on a chart to see the penetration target. Thinking of bolting on the penetration rules from another game.

But it got me thinking – I would rather have two stats and a die roll with no need for the extra chart. For example, to penetrate if my AP + die exceeds your armor, Kaboom! Or of your armor + die beats my AP, then clank!

I notice this a lot in games where it seems an opposed stat would eliminate one step.

What say you – stats or charts?

In your example I don't see a reason for another table. Does it do anything else?

Im not opposed to charts but my general gut feeling is that they are only valuable if they allow you to squeeze in a wide range of results.

f.x. the target vehicle is now immobilized, shaken up, has gun damage, whatever.

If the outcome is binary anyways, a simple "roll, add and compare" is plenty and much faster.

Ideally, as few charts and as few sequential die rolls as possible. You want to spend time on decision-making, not combat resolution.

Im not opposed to charts but my general gut feeling is that they are only valuable if they allow you to squeeze in a wide range of results.

Agree with you there, Weasel.

EC: IF you are playing a rules set with only a few tanks, that problem shouldn't slow the game down much, but your solution is much cleaner, particularly if there is a lot of resolutions per turn. Sort of the Panzerbitz resolution process: A defensive and offensive strength--period.

I hate charts that lead to charts that lead to charts.

@Dragon6: No, the chart has a singular use. AP versus Armor yields a "To hit" – result is eitehr BOOM!, Clank! or, if you exactly tie the Hit number, a possible pin.

@Winston: Won't play a game where charts lead to charts. That tells me you;re dealing with a bad game designer.

@Weasel: Agreed. Opposed die roll, for example, where you look up the difference on a chart is fine. So win by 1 is a retreat, win by 3 is a kill, win by 5 is a breakthrough or whatever.

Charts could model non-linear combat results more elegantly but it sounds like this does not do that.

Eliminating a step is always good.

I like the system in Battlegroup Panzergrenadier. Roll 2d6 to hit (5+ is the base, with only a couple of easy modifiers to remember iirc), then add the gun/armour/other modifiers to that score to find out if it's likely to cause any damage, which means you may have one more roll on the universal chart to find out whether the target is testing morale, for a destroyed vehicle, abandoning position, etc.

Eliminating a step is always good.

Not always. Eliminate the wrong steps or too many and you make the game boring… the opposite of exciting.

Opposed dice do give both players something to do during the non-phasing bits of the game.

You can build detail into opposed dice mechanisms, draw = x outcome, win = y outcome, win by 3 or more = z outcome.

regards

David F Brown

Since I have published two systems with opposed rolls (well, so to speak, one uses dominoes where one side is attack and the other defense in simultaneous combat), I would have to go with opposed rolls.

Whether or not the outcomes are binary or linear is an effect of unit and scenario design on top of the rules.

I do like a good nomogram, but you really have to be interested in the dynamic the nomogram represents to make that a good game. For example, there are tons of ways to impalement momentum in a game without charts. But if you really want to play 3D space combat with gritty, realistic physics, you either need a nomogram, a bunch of nested tables, or the ability to do PDE's and hextuple (at least) integrals in your head. (Speaking as someone who is unreasonably overeducated in maths, never do maths in public. And never never ask anyone else to.)

Crossreferencing two stats in a table, in order to read a target number that needs be rolled on a D6, is lazy game design.

There's nothing as easy as making a table for resolving the interplay between two statistics. It is far more harder to come up with an elegant and quick and fun gaming mechanic that produces the same results.

Well first, penetration does not mean a kill. Indeed against Italian and Japanese tanks, AP shot would often go straight through with little damage. So then they started using HE against them.

Non-penetrating hits can also cause damage, which is why Russian AT rifles were kept in use.

But from the sound of it the BK armour rules are pants. Play something else :)

I was not really meaning to slag BK at all. But this one chart really slowed things down. So I'm tinkering with reworking this one mechanism for the group. The chart is a simple increment. So one letter increase in armor raises the target number by one. I was thinking I could rework the armor values from letters to numbers and then ditch the chart. There are other results in the game but they handle them as either morale or random events.

But I agree that crossing X with Y on a chart just to get number is poor design. Better to rethink and replace the chart. GWs Lord of the Rings suffered from this. Strength versus Defense to get a "kill" number. I simplified it with Strength 5 or 6 = +1, 1 or 2 = -1 and the kill is just an opposed die roll. Ditch the chart entirely. The math isn't the same but hey, its Fantasy anyway!

The comments do dot follow a logical course.

If the simlulation requires a guns penetration to fall with range that data needs to be capatured somehow. This is critical to the way an arnoured fofce behaves.

Clearly different tanks have different armour thicknesses over diffrent aspects. Lots at the front less at the rear. In a tactical sence this is critical in the real world.

The guns ability to do damage is a function of its ability at that range to penetrate a tank in a particular aspect. This again is critical data.

Eliminating any of this data will degrade the simulation very significantly.

You opposed role does not address the problem, you need all the relevant data or you degrade the simulation. Some for of paperwork is required.

If presentation is a problem give the players a card with their data on it. They need it anyway to even attempt to play credibly anyway.

I was not really meaning to slag BK at all. But this one chart really slowed things down. So I'm tinkering with reworking this one mechanism for the group.

Perhaps a bit of number crunching will work out the end percentages that the charts produce?

Clearly different tanks have different armour thicknesses over diffrent aspects. Lots at the front less at the rear. In a tactical sence this is critical in the real world.

It the real world it gets real complicated. The thickness of the armour, its composition (face hardened for example), slope of armour, the angle at which the shot hits. In fact so much detail the only way you could realistically cover it would be a computer simulation. So don't bother, keep it simple.

Now let me give you an example of real simple. In Action All Fronts at Sherman 75mm, just cannot kill a Tiger tank frontally. With a power of 5 and the Tigers front armour value of 12. The Sherman tank suffers a -3 (5-12=-7, and divide that by 2, becomes -3 rounding the fraction down) penalty on the damage roll. So a roll of 6 becomes a 3 (best result the Sherman can get) Tiger immobilised. Side armour of the Tiger is 8, so the Sherman can just get a kill if they roll a 6 (becomes a 5, which is enough to kill). All that is needed is to know the armour value of the tank and the power of of the weapon being used. Apply the modifiers to the die roll and you have the result.

Oh and don't even think about trying to take out a Tiger II frontally (front armour 23).

VVV,your premises is still flawed. The tiger example is incomplete. At close range a Sherman could penetrative a tiger at short range but not at long. Even this limited discrimination would change tactics. You should note you want a degraded simulation at the price of faster play. None of you fixes do not mimic the original fidelity. They are an elimination of data at the expence of the quality of the simulation. Your arguments obviously cannot be anti the game stated as you want to play a different game, not surprisingly you don't like the game as it is based on a different design ethos to the one you would like to play.

Always funny that some people get over-excited about AP vs armour thickness etc. in the name of realism, but are quite happy to go with "tank moves 8 inch per turn".

Opposed stats are fine but can be more limited in terms of results than charts.

@UshCha: I am not proposing eliminating data. The chart simply says X gun factor against Y armor factor yields a "kill" number. Every increment in the chart is 1 pip (using 2D6). I propose to recalculate the factors to get rid of the chart. We already have the data cards. But two players check their respective data cards, and then look up a chart, which is on another card.

@VVV The BK rules have guns greater AP at shorter range. a 40mm gun, for example has AP of 5 at 10", 4 from 10 – 30, a 3 from 30-40 and a 2 from 40-50.

@VVV Yup crunching numbers now. The trick is to convert armor thickness (expressed in letters) to numbers, such that the values alone, with a die roll tell you what happened.

Phil,
Take that back! :-) in my rule tanks move from 0 to "aporophly" 5 time round the table. There are other rules that suggest the larger move ditances are unwise in the presence of enemy. He may see you but you may not see him at high speed.

BTW, it would help if game designers that want to use tables know a bit or two about matrix factorization.

Mathematically, a table is a 2D-matrix, and you can decompose it in various ways into core components, which expose the underlying structure. You could then use that to translate it into more manageable gaming mechanics.

The guns ability to do damage is a function of its ability at that range to penetrate a tank in a particular aspect. This again is critical data.

May be true, but is irrelevant to the conversation. In the OP, the "as is" mechanic does not include aspect (or a hundred other things that may have more impact on a mission or hard kill other than aspect). Saying the transformation from a table to an opposed roll is inappropriate because the "to be" mechanic leaves out aspect has no value in the discussion.

etotheipe, not2 post 1

"Check a chart for the gun's Ap rating at range X" hence the point is relevant. I am not against opposed roles but as a games designer you set key parameters on which the designers decides are key to his simulation. Changing the parameters changes the game. No simulation is a complete copy of life. But your life still depends on them from stress analysis to areodynamics. None are complete simulations but they are good enough to evaluate what is required to a known accuracy.

The part you quoted also does not integrate aspect. Nor does any of the rest of it.

The discussion is about the merits of changing from a chart based to an opposed roll based system.

The fact that you find aspect important in a mechanic for warfare containing armour units has nothing to do with the merits of transforming an existing mechanic that doesn't involve aspect into a different mechanic that does not involve aspect.

etotheipi, If that were the case then there would still be at least 1 chart to change the opposed roll factors as a function of range hence charts would not be eliminated.
OR you remove a parameter. This is what game design is getting the parametrs correct than finding the optimum solution for those parameter deemed important.

First, now you are talking about range not aspect.

Second, opposed rolls do not require a chart for range based effects.

etotheip how do you account for range on accuract and level of penetration then?

Modifiers?

Regarding the OP, I actually like the Battlegroup series' charts in this case (and I don't normally like charts). In WW2 games with opposed stats, you run into problems no matter what kind of dice you use, because you get the "Unkillable Thing" syndrome. For example, a 6-pdr can't kill a Tiger in Flames of War. Yet there are several documented cases of 6-pdrs killing Tigers in Normandy. So by using a chart and a bell curve Battlegroup allows those unlikely events to hover at the extremes and remain possible.