"Buckets of Dice Melee Resolution?" Topic

Is anyone familiar with a melee resolution mechanism involving casting 1D6 per figure in the melee? Not one on one, but casting 10 dice at once if you have 10 figures, and maybe your opponent casts 12? I've seen such a thing used as a "fast play" alternative to the "one figure at a time" mechanism in "Charge!" but the game was going too fast for me to ask questions, and now everyone's gone.

All suggestions welcome. Thanks.

I've done that in convention games, both as a GM and as a player. It does speed things up and can add some chaos, which can be fun with the right-minded sort.

Eric

In the first edition of Zourve ( acw rules) each army had a large dice pool and every action used dies and they were discarded. When you ran out of dices, your army routed.

I have seen that before but couldn't tell you exactly where. As I don't play games that base their effect on the number of figures it isn't likely I'd have taken much notice.

We do use rules that roll a die per BASE all at once with target score depending on other factors. Rather crude but it does tend to be quicker than some other methods.

Do you mean like Risk, with an opposed roll system or like WH40K with a hit/defend adjudication?

So, yes, I've seen it used. We use it with QILS (opposed rolls) sometimes, but it's not part of the rules.

As long as the "combined" rolls represent independent binary asjudications (hit/miss or simultaneous hits&hits), the average and standard deviation of hits/misses is the same whether or not you do "all in" or "one by one".

So, f'r'ex, five QILS one-die characters against a four-die vehicle would not yeild the same results, since one successful hit changes the defensive strength distribution of the target for later hits.

Now, a player may not "feel" it is the same thing with independent binary (and also most linear) trials. If they rolled all 1's (assuming that is the worst roll) all at once, they might blame the alternate mechanism. But they would have the exact same odds to have rolled 10 1's in a row, and the same results … so they would need to blame something else.

I have used buckets of dice with volley fires.and machine gun fire in colonial games. I used a different color dice for officers and NCOs.
Not a melee system.
I have seen that method used in several naval game systems.

Ive not tried them but isn't SPQR by Warlord Games a set that uses 1D per figure?

Isn't that what Warhammer does?

Thanks. Never played Warhammer or Risk, so I'll have to dig a little.

[Edit] Found both on line. Risk die rolls seem to measure commitment rather than numbers--appropriate to a game of world conquest, but not to my understanding of a cavalry charge. The WH system is exactly the part of Young and Grant I'm trying to avoid: Fritz and Gustav fight Pierre, then Jean and Louis fight Friedrich. Makes sense in the world of five-man fire teams, but that's not my world.

What I'm shooting for is a system in which, once the dice are cast, you can see that Kurt's lost five castings, Chip's lost eight, and Chip needs to check morale--Done, and on to the next melee. I'd be open to keeping separate track of officers, but that's my absolute limit for complication.

Yeah, that's basically Warhammer and all its offspring/clones. Of course because d6s don't have enough granularity to cover any significant number of variables, these systems typically use a second set of rolls ("saving throws", "wound dice", etc) to "confirm" those dice that succeed in the first toss. Indeed Warhammer throws the dice a third time (once to hit, once to wound, and once for "armor saves").

It's an intuitive system, and one that I find unobjectionable for ancients/medieval melee. Where I do object is the use of such a system for blackpowder "melee". All my study suggest that such close combats should be decided by morale before sabres & bayonets are ever crossed. That is, high casualties are the _result_ of losing one's nerve (and either surrendering, deserting, or being stabbed in the back) rather than the _cause_.

We used to play a colonial game of Stan Glazner's at the Tin Soldier (on Salem Ave in Dayton) and here is how we did it:

Melee: 1D6 per figure. Larger number of figures initially only rolls the same number as side with smaller number of figs in the melee. Without looking closely, each player lines them up. Staring from one end to the other, compare your first die with your opponents. High die wins and the loser removes figure. Modifiers (best one applies) to your roll in pips : add 1 if defending behind cover; subtract 2 if meleeing trying to get into a house, add one if you have a longer weapon (ie rifle with a bayonet vs asagi…you get the idea. When the first round is determined, the larger side gets to roll for those that were more than the smaller side that did not get to have a die before the first melee roll. They roll against any survivors left from the first round. Continue until either one side says "OK, I've lost enough" and runs away OR one side dies to the last man!

We had zulus trying to crawl thru doors, windows, roof, etc and led to many a tense moment with much bantering between friends. Kim Young might remember those days.

Dye, that's not there but much closer. Thanks.

Warmaster is close, but it's based on stands, not figures (though it could be adapted to figures with easy— just one figure on each stand.

In Warmaster, each stand (base) is assigned an attack value, which is simply the number of d6 that stand rolls in combat. Dice are added or removed for tactical situations: charging in the open, being flanked, etc.. Typically, 3 stands together form a single unit, though stands are lost to damage, which varies according to who or what the unit is (dwarves can take 4 hits before losing a stand, most others can take 3).

In Warmaster, both sides in melee roll dice simultaneously, hitting on any result of 4+. If a side has armor, it rolls one die for each hit it has taken to see if any hits are blocked according to the value of the armor (typically requiring a roll of 6). The total numbers of hits for each side are compared, and the side with the least hits loses the combat, and if not eliminated, is forced to retreat. The winner may then sometimes pursue, or stay in place, or fall back.

The number of dice rolled can become high as multiple stands from different units may be drawn into a single combat situation.

So in a 1:1 game as you consider, if Tom, Dick and Harry charge Shemp, Larry and Moe, then TDH combines and rolls all their combat dice, and so do SLM. If Harry's base also happens to also touch Curly's base, then Curly must join in the fight, and adds his dice to those of SLM.

Shooting combat is slightly different— only the stands for the current moving side may shoot, and typically with just one die per stand. The enemy does not roll attack dice, but still attempts armor saves. Typically shooting doesn't eliminate stands (because the odds of that are very low), but it will force the injured stands to retreat a small distance. Shooting wounds are then discounted; they do not carry over into combat. Warmaster is a game about melee, not shooting.

Come to think of it, I have a homebrew for AWI toy gaming (1/32 plastic figures as sold by toy stores and museums), in which I use 1 die per figure as the combat standard for both shooting and melee. But figures are always parts of a unit, and that unit gains or loses dice based on range, terrain effects, etc., which may result in a unit rolling less dice than the number of figures in the unit. (Despite such factors, a unit always can roll at least one die.)

I'd say I borrowed the idea from somewhere, but I can't think of what game that might be. The closest is Warmaster. (Which also has a minimum of 1 die rule.)

The Rampant series do something close. You get 12 dice for a full strength unit, 6 dice for half.

Flames of War does it at 1 die per stand. not per figure.

Yes Tom, I remember Stan's game! He called it the "River Native's" game when we did his giant Khartoum game. He had the whole city, fortress walls and the Fuzzy Wuzzy always won ties in melee!

Years latter I would do my own version and I did it pretty much like Robert talked about. Roll one dice per figure in contact, 5-6 is to hit in open, need 6's if defender in cover, Sargent's +1 to hit, loser takes morale check. Pretty straight forward and simple. Played a lot of Colonial games like that.

Kim

Tactica comes the closest to what you describe, that I know of.

Robert, Never Mind The Billhooks uses that basic system. Most troops have one die each for a melee, but some (dismounted and mounted men at arms, for example) may have more per figure. Hits are on a roll of 4 to 6 and saves are based on the unit's, not the figures', armour. Examples- a unit of 12 billmen would fight with one die per figure, a unit of dismounted men at arms would use 1.5 dice per figure (rounded up), a unit of archers 0.5 dice per figure, rounded up.

Which ever side lost the least casualties has won and the loser is pushed back and has to roll for morale. If losses are equal the troops stay in melee and roll again in the next turn.

To speed things up you could dispense with the saving rolls and reduce the possibility of hits, or leave them as they are.

I can't remember which rules, but each mini would roll 1, 2 or 3d6 based on type of weapon firing. 5's and 6's were set aside as potential hits. Defender rolls 1, 2, or 3d6 based on type of cover or armor. 5's and 6's negated a hit. Any potential hits left over were applied as kills to the defender's minis.

We did a medieval game where a unit was either 10 or 20 figures in size. Initially you could roll up to 20 dice for combat, one die per man. However, every combat round you took a hit, the first hit was a casualty (subject to a saving throw if you had armor. The other hits could be taken as one of the following: a casualty, as a point of fatigue(disorder) or a 1" of rearward movement. Fatigue points deducted -1 for every point to everything (i.e. moving or fighting), so a 19 man unit with 10 fatigue only fights with 9 men. Leaders could spend 1" of movement to remove fatigue but had to be either attached or within an inch or two of a unit to do so. Worked out rather well.

Parzival--I use a similar system for my RCW rules. Each unit gets a D6 per stand in melee, modified by morale, cover, and a couple of other items. 5-6 hits, and most hits wins melee, with loser routing away.

2e BattleSystem ($4.99 for the PDF download), a mass battles fantasy mini's game, based on 2e AD&D RPG, uses d4-d12 per figure attacking. A result of

4-5 = 1 Hit
6-9 = 2 Hits
10-11 = 3 Hits
12 = 4 Hits

The number of Hits scored is tallied. The Defenders get an Armor Roll to see if any of the Hits bounce off their Armor Rating: roll 1d10 per successful Hit, score equal to, or above your AR, and the Hit has no effect; AR ranges from 2-10.

Buckets of dice can be a lot of fun. I've had 50 Orc figures attack in one Turn, allowing me to roll 50 x d6 for one attack. The Defender rolled 1d10 AR die per successful Hit, applying all penetrating Hits -- most figures have only 1 Hit, but elite troop types have more than 1 Hit.

2e BattleSystem rules can easily be adapted to any medieval-like troops, or ancients. It has rules for crude black powder weapons. It has rules for siege warfare, including mining. Cheers!

Ivor Janci's Brother Against Brother uses 1D10 per figure. ACW, and makes for a very good game. Our group has been playing it for about 25 years.

Its almost not worth throwing hundreds of die getting very repeatable. The sheer weight of numbers makes the results very predictable. Maybe that is the idea, you get a very predictable and very tight distribution about the nominal result.

Quick look for 100

link

Die rolls shows 10% at worst variation from the expected result. To be honest why even bother at that level. at 1000 die the variation is more like 2 to 3% really not worth the time.

Use a table with some sort of distribution far faster and no significant diffrence.

Your web die roller from Google, is producing computer generated results, and these are not truly random. That fact was established decades ago, by the computer science industry: computers cannot generate truly random numbers using timer loops -- they are weighted, though this is not always obvious.

Rolling dice, manually, is truly random, assuming the dice rolled are reasonably balanced.

I worked with a friend putting together a dice rolling game for conventions: buy one, or more roll attempts, rolling 6d6, and win a prize, if you roll certain number combinations; the rarer the combo (all 1's, all 6's, etc.) rolled, the higher value of the prizes won, up to a $140 USD Wenge hardwood dice tower.

He did not trust the odds I showed him, so we rolled the big, rubber, 6d6's, through his 4-foot tall, Dice Tower, built for this event, 300 times, writing down the result of every roll… We calculated the odds of winning valuable prizes (which came out of his pocket!), and we calculated his profits from people buying roll attempts.

After all was vetted, he would have made a sizeable profit, even after giving away numerous copies of the lowest prizes offered: polyhedral dice sets, which he purchased 100 copies of. He chickened out, and he never ran with the game. Still, we proved that his loss risk was absolutely minimal. If I could run that game, myself, I would! The setup was brilliant, and it would likely be extremely popular with convention attendees. Cheers!

Sgt Slag I suspect your information is a bit dated. I just rolled 120 000 D6. so the expected value is 20 000 of each number. The worst variation 19835 That is 165 short of the expected, 0.8 % max variation not significan't

I did it a couple of more times so now 360 000 die rolls, some variation as you would expect but the max variation was not on a single face value so there is no reason to assume there is any systematic effect. On the system I ran you would not make money.

But what Sgt Slag is saying is essentially correct: Computers can not produce truly random numbers because of the nature of the technology.
Computers can only function by a program. They can only follow logic-based mathematical steps. A random result is never the product of a logic-based mathematical step; if it were, it would be predictable and therefore not random.
What computer dice do is access a store pattern of numbers, to which a starting seed is applied as a value to count along the pattern . When the value is reach, the corresponding number is reported back as a "random" result. Typically the seed number is simply the current state of the computer's clock. More sophisticated systems use seed numbers derived from naturally occurring random values— one system I know of uses satellite data measuring upper atmospheric static. The computer takes the latest data value and uses that number as its counting seed— but it's still counting.
In most cases, no one will see the pattern; to human inspection it appears completely random… but it actually isn't.

I will say that for most applications, especially gaming, computer dice are good enough. But I just prefer the solidity and unpredictability of "dem bones."

True enough about computer-generated numbers. But I'd say UshCha is correct enough for practical purposes, and if I had units of hundreds of figures, I'd look for another system. He tends to play 1:1, though. My 28's are mostly in the 1:15 to 1:25 range, and with units of, say, 6-24, I expect I can get enough variation for my purposes.

Are you adding the results into a sum?

If you are adjudicating each die individually, it doesn't matter what the sum is, it matters how the sum is composed, so your variability is the same as rolling one die.

The difference between the sum and the expected value is not a measure of randomness or predictability. It's a measure of the difference between the demonstrated performance and the idealized distribution (in this case, uniform).

Buckets of dice can be a lot of fun.

As a board gamers I typically prefer a CRT and a single die roll, however I tried a set of WW2 rules which used a bucket of dice for combat. While the results can be the same as a CRT with a single die roll, throwing 10 or 20 die can be exciting. I now have gone back to my CRT with a single die roll game system, but as long as the game system is fun to play any system can be good. If the game system sucks, then it does not matter what type or number of die you use, it will suck.

I prefer to use a single die, or 2d6, or opposed rolls of two dice. Dice are not cheap IMHO; I prefer to spend my cash on troops.

To me die rolling an essential but pain in the A*se of wargaming. Single die are quicker and for me, gaming is about tactics and moving bits. In some cases a D20 can d two functions so is even quicker!
I have thought about an electronic die but in the end I would lose that like I lose die and its cheaper to lose die.

Now if you have an idiot who spends ages shaking die and chanting, well I only play them once, they are never good players just dire roll obsessive and they are about as much fun as poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick.

I use 2xD10 with a modified binomial table.

Ths is an older one:

Example:
If you have 5 shooters with a 20% chance to hit a result of 1-33 is 0 hits, a 34-77 is 1 hit and 78-95 is 2 hit and 95-00 is 3 hit. Theoretically, there is a chance for 5 hits.

This eliminates unusual results like when you roll a Yahtzee with D6s. You can create a table with different % chances and number of shooters.

Binomial Distribution Table: PDF link

The one I use for my game has 5% increments with a single D20 roll.

Some people really like rolling dice and the more the merrier.

Wolfhag

Interestingly we have a VERY approximate Binomial distribution for the results of our close assaults. As it would fall under statistics of small numbers the variations can be extreme otherwise and alternatives did show this issue. Not interested in such results. Hence we use a distribution not unlike yours but with only 20 possible rolls.
Perfect result a reasonably credible distributions of results and all in a single die roll, all the glory no wasted time.

etotheipi, this is the site I used to calculate the odds of rolling specific values on 6 x d6, for the dice rolling game: Die Roll Odds Calculator.

Per this site, the odds of rolling the same value on all six d6 are: 1 in 46,656. The result of rolling all the same number, would win a grand prize. Rolling other number combinations, would result in lower value prizes, with the most likely winning combination getting the player a free set of polyhedral dice, which would result in the operator making a small profit. These lowest tier dice set winners would occur often enough to generate interest in paying to play, without costing the "House" money. The chances of 300 rolls resulting in any prize, was low enough that the game was akin to a license for the "House" to virtually print money.

It clearly demonstrated why casinos make sooo much money: "The House always wins," as they say. Or, as they liked to say in the Hunger Games movies, "May the odds ever be in your favor," but we know how that played out, don't we… Cheers!

I'm no expert in game theory or probability but let me relate my experiences.

If something has a 1 in 1000 chance of occurring, it should mathematically have a 50% chance of happening after 500 tries, a 25% chance after 250 attempts, and a 10% chance within 100 tries. There is a 1 in 1000 chance it will take 1000 chances to occur. I may be wrong about this so please correct me.

I have a situation in my game that should occur once every 2000 times a unit shoots. So far, after 15 games, it happens every 200 times. Now it may not happen again for another 50 games. Who knows?

When I implemented this result it first occurred after just 10 shots. What are the odds of that?

The reason we went from D6s to binomial was that in an ACW game, we were working on the first turn of shooting a player (needing 6s to hit) rolled 10 out of 12 sixes, and got a very unhistorical result that ruined the game. Yes, it would have balanced out as the game went on but the result of the battle was now predictable – you lose.

There is some hard data available from WWII British War Office Reports showing the causality rates and % chance to hit with various small arms fire. I can use that effectively with the binomial table I created.

As always, it all depends on how you want to play it.

Wolfhag

Mq<If something has a 1 in 1000 chance of occurring, it should mathematically have a 50% chance of happening after 500 tries, a 25% chance after 250 attempts, and a 10% chance within 100 tries. There is a 1 in 1000 chance it will take 1000 chances to occur. I may be wrong about this so please correct me.

Not quite.

What if you extend this logic the other way from 50%?

After 750 attempts, you would have 75% chance. After 800, 80%. 900, 90%, and 1000, 100%.

We know that's not right. There is no number of independent random trials where you are guaranteed to get an event.

You are using a linear proportion. The real probability is an asymptote. The more trials you do, the closer to 100% you get, but you never actually get there. This is because the aggregate probability does not increase in equal steps.

The probability in one trial is your base odds, but after that, each trial increases the aggregate probability a little less.

This is easy to see going from 1d6 to 2d6. The probability of getting a 1 with one trail is 1/6. But the probability of getting at least one 1 in two trials is 11/36, slightly less than 2/6. For three trials, it is 91/216, slightly less than 3/6, but "more less" than for two trials, if you get my drift.

Let's look at 2d6. We're pretty familiar with it.

  1 2 3 4 5 6
1 X X X X X X
2 X – - – - -
3 X – - – - -
4 X – - – - -
5 X – - – - -
6 X – - – - -

I put an X in each result that has a 1. You'll notice that there are 6 X's in the first row, but only five remaining. 11/36. There is the case where the two events "overlap", reducing the aggregate occurrence.

One way to write this is:

P(n+1) = P(n) + [ 1 – P(n) ] * P(1)

The probability of the event for the next trial is the same as the probability of the last set plus the base probabilty times what is left over after removing overlaps.

This results in a series expansion. There is also a closed form expression, but that doesn't help explain what is going on. If you want to evaluate the closed form, it is better just to search for an online dice odds calculator that does it for you.

When I implemented this result it first occurred after just 10 shots. What are the odds of that?

Without running the numbers, using the logic above, it would be a little less than 10 * 1/1000, so a little less than 1%. Which is probably close enough for wargaming use.

It's actually a little more than .00995., so to four digits, it would round up to 1%. The number will start to lag the linear aggregation of base probability by a few percent around 600 trials, then level off to .99999999, then .999999999, then .9999999999, and so on, never quite getting to 100%.

"Are you adding the results into a sum?"

No, and for just the reason you give. As I said, I was looking for a faster alternative to the "Charge!" comparison of die rolls. I can rig something for myself, of course, but I'd seen a system used, and if I could find anyone still around who was familiar with it, I'd use theirs. I'm not big on re-inventing the wheel. "Plan B" would involve dice above a certain number counting as a hit--again, relatively easy to rig, but perhaps harder not to upset the balance of the game.

As for the "just roll one die" approach, it might just be personal experience, but I hate to use it in a game which might, as a result, have only a few die rolls. I've seen one relatively popular system in which three bad die rolls can decide a game, and some very popular ones aren't a lot better. It's subjective, I know, but generally I find "Big Battle" DBA or clones--36 "elements" a side--the smallest game in which I'm satisfied to see units disappear on the basis of a single die roll.

Ahem. The "Charge!" fast resolution as I remember it was i die for each casting in the front ranks of both sides, matched, and the sufficiently outpointed casting--1 for infantry, 2 for cavalry--removed. The dice were lined up in order, but whether they were both lined up in the same direction, if you will, or in oppposite directions I simply didn't absorb in the chaos of a good game, nor what was done with overlapping castings. But it makes a serious difference in the intensity of the combat, if you will.

Thank you etotheipi. I thought I was on the right track but was unaware of the technical details and I knew there was more.

UshCha, if your favorite pub offered free pints of Guinness but there was a 1 in 2000 chance of getting poisoned, how many pints would you be willing to drink? Remember, you've said in the past that a 1 in 2000 event is not worth recreating.

robert piepenbrink,
Is your system based on recreating some historical event or rules and abstractions that you feel work best for you?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, I'm trying to produce nominal "two page"--sometimes up to four pages in reality--versions of classic rules for players, castings and rules which don't get together as often as I would wish. I'm trying not to invent anything, but to strip the rules down to their essense. And the melee section of "Charge!" is out of proportion long and complicated. Tends to slow down the game, too. (Notice it's very close to the Grant version, and there's no hope of a two-page Grant.)

A new "buckets of dice" melee resolution system can no doubt be invented, and would have some merit in old style games, but I was really hoping someone would chime in with "Oh! This is how we speed up Charge melees" so there wouldn't be two different systems in circulation.

Anyway, the thread has turned out to be an interesting discussion of game mechanisms and probability. Sometimes the more interesting answer is the one you weren't looking for.

Wolfhag, Realy? have you never done risk analysis?
No beer (Especially Guinness UGH) the risk is a catastrophic result so none.

However that has nothing to do with my answers. 1 in 2000 results. So one or two events in the next 10 years of play or of course none (I may be dead in 10 years, no doing so well now).

Is that fundamentally worth it? Does it contribute meaningfully to the next hopefully 250 games. Will it add massively to my understanding of the science of warfare. If It happens to me or the other player will it add to my enjoyment and his. Of course it won't.
It certainly won't add understanding. So the answer is unequivocally it's pointless to the point of absurdity.

I hate rules they absolutely must be vital to a game to earn their place. Adding rules however small for an event that may or may not happen in the next 250 game, possibly never occurring in my remaining lifetime absurd waste of a rule!

Do you really see that as a logical use of your time?

UshCha,
However that has nothing to do with my answers. 1 in 2000 results. So one or two events in the next 10 years of play or of course none (I may be dead in 10 years, no doing so well now).

Your estimation of odds has proven to be wrong time and time again as Etotheipi elegantly explained that a 1 in 2000 chance would not likely take 2000 chances to occur. As I said, the results are historical and EASY to include.

Realy? have you never done risk analysis?

Risk analysis? I think you are taking yourself a little too seriously. I concentrate on finding and documenting crew and battlefield actions. Besides, there is no consensus among the experts on reliable data regarding the details and results of a battle. Dead men tell no tales. As a designer, you choose what you think are the best sources and extrapolate from there.

Did you do a risk analysis on the chances of a WWII crew "activating"? I hope you did not waste your time because combat crews are not "activated" by a random on-and-off switch and they don't sit around hoping they get to do something soon before they get killed.

In my system players can attempt to perform or execute an order at almost any time. Unless the enemy stops them, the order will eventually be executed. I think it is important that the timing of actions does not become predictable as it decreases the Fog of War. That's why I have the SNAFU Chart. There is only a small chance of something catastrophic like a gun failure (1 in 2000). In my system seconds count. A SNAFU of a few seconds delay in order execution can mean death. That puts some chaos and unpredictability into the game.

I got my timing data to execute an order, reload, etc. from watching combat footage, training manuals and standards, trials, visits to armor museums, and after-action reports. This is the baseline to start with.

There is much good and accurate data on this. I have some friends who are retired tank commanders, some who have ridden around in WWII vehicles, who help me out too. There is no Risk Analysis needed. However, weapon platform systems, crews, and guns DO NOT perform in the game as they do on the range and training.

There are some aspects of action in the middle of a battle that are severely lacking for hard data collection for any real analysis. You can easily get factory-tested Mean Time Between Failures on mechanical and weapon systems, but that's not valid for combat. So what's a designer to do as there is no hard verifiable data for a scientific risk analysis?

Here is what else I found regarding gun malfunctions:
Tank gun malfunctions during WWII varied by model and conditions, but issues like ammunition quality, maintenance, and battlefield conditions affected reliability. Generally, malfunction rates could be around 5-10% in combat situations, though specific figures depend on the tank type and operational circumstances. More advanced tanks tended to have better reliability, but no tank was immune to issues under the stresses of war.

The breakdown rates of WWII tank gun systems varied widely based on factors such as the tank model, maintenance practices, and battlefield conditions. Generally, mechanical failures, including gun malfunctions, could occur in about 5-15% of engagements, though this is a rough estimate and can fluctuate.

While exact malfunction rates are hard to quantify, most medium tanks had a malfunction rate that was considered acceptable for combat operations, often below 5-10% in well-maintained units. However, in extreme conditions, or with older or poorly maintained equipment, those rates could be higher.

The 1 in 2000 chance of a gun failure is because it's the best I can do using a D20 as a trigger (5% chance) and 2D10 as a percentile on the SNAFU Chart, as it is 1% of 5% is 1 in 2000 result. It's subjective like much else in game design. If you can provide me with data for risk analysis I'd appreciate it.

During combat, how often do rounds get jammed in the chamber or misfired? Unfortunately, the dead crew didn't report in the data. All we know is that it did happen. I think it is important so I include it with a minimum of "effort" because I don't want players to become physically exhausted. <grin>

After a battle technicians went onto the battlefield to document damaged and knocked vehicles. If the tank had four penetrations, they'd report back that data. However, they could not determine which round was responsible for knocking it out or if follow-on tanks shot at it, thinking it was still active or using it for target practice. They can only report what they observe, not what actually happened in the battle. That's the problem. In the absence of valid data, the game designer must make a best subjective guess. What's your suggestion?

If you have definitive data on how often a specific round jammed or misfired, the gunner panicked or identified the wrong target, the gunner was blinded by the muzzle blast, the loader slipped or loaded the wrong round, the driver panicked, etc I think you get the idea – let me know because I don't. All I know is that it happened and in a game of seconds, it's important to include.

The above are all historical occurrences that are documented in combat. Lacking hard verifiable data on the frequency, it's up to the designer to get the best advice to use, discard, or estimate and make playable. It's pretty much subjective so feel free to disagree or recommend changes.

For low level 1:1 combat I think it is valid to simulate. At the battalion level, it does not. Personally, I like the narrative of showing what happens rather than hiding it in abstractions, modifiers, and artificial game rules as long as the game is still intuitive and playable.

Adding rules however small for an event that may or may not happen in the next 250 game, possibly never occurring in my remaining lifetime absurd waste of a rule!

There you go again, misunderstanding. But it's not a "rule" I use that bogs down play, simply a self-explanatory two-line entry on a chart with a single die roll and no modifiers. Is that so difficult? Every time someone shoots we are not rolling to see if a 1 in 2000 chance occurs or some other silliness. That would be insane – give me some credit dude.

I hate rules they absolutely must be vital to a game to earn their place.

Vital is subjective, do as you may. I look at the rules as being historically validated, intuitive, and heaven forbid – enjoyable. My design is a time-competitive game, yours is a variation of IGYG as I understand it. While they do have some similarities, they are completely different in their gameplay and so different in their design and outcome and what is important.

Every action and tactic in my system is linked to some historical aspect but the amount of time/turns to execute is variable based on the weapons platform performance, tactics, and crew type. Tactics like a Snap Shot, Halt Fire, range finder and reverse slope defense can vary the amount of time to shoot and give a bonus or penalty for shooting. Sort of like I Go before You Go because I'm quicker. You go after me if you are still alive.

A few things I like best about a time-competitive system is that opportunity fire is transparent and accurate with no further rules or exceptions. Movement is about as simultaneous as you can get and easy to do. I get more historic rates of fire than in IGYG games. Overwatch is the default order allowing units to react to threats as they occur.

Is that fundamentally worth it? Will contribute meaningfully to the next hopefully 250 games. Will it add massively to my understanding of the science of warfare. If It happens to me or the other player will it add to my enjoyment and his. Of course it won't. It certainly won't add understanding. So the answer is unequivocally it's pointless to the point of absurdity.

Meaningfully? Does every rule have to meaningfully affect every game? I somewhat agree but again you are overreacting about nothing. We are playing HISTORICAL war games. My design philosophy is that the more historical aspects of the battle that have a potential impact you can include in a playable and intuitive manner the better. Would you agree?

The people that play the game agree, that's what counts. As I've shown, even the smallest chance in the game has occurred many times in my lifetime so far. I guess I'm just unlucky.

Again, you continue to overly complicate the issue of rolling two dice a few times a game as "effort" with a two-line entry on a chart being just one of the results that just happens to be mathematically a 1 in 2000 chance of occurring. I can't fathom how you are complicating this. If you really get it but you're goofing and trolling me, that's cool. I have a sense of humor.

Do you really see that as a logical use of your time?

Well, let's see. About 6 years ago I had an idea, spent some time reading about it, and then typed 22 words into a table and assigned it a value of "00". I have not made any changes since then. There is nothing to memorize, no special rule is needed as it is self-explanatory and is a step in the shooting sequence. You fail to grasp the simplicity. It's beginning to be amusing.

Now, 1 to 3 times a game the shooting player rolls 2D10 (1-00 result) on the chart with the 00 gun-breaking result being just one of 20 different historical results as I mentioned above. Now if you don't like rolling dice, this can be an immense effort on your part, but I think you are physically more than capable of handling a few extra die rolls that can impact the action. <grin>.

While the results on my chart are historically documented as having occurred numerous times throughout the war, the frequency of them occurring is impossible to accurately estimate so I do my best and players can make up their own if they like.

Most of the results are minor, increasing the number of seconds/turn to fire or a crew mistake. But then even a delay of a few seconds can mean death in real combat and in my game too.

Otto Carius agrees with me:
Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy's gun report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander's eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti-tank gun opens fire to his right, his eyes will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time.
Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target. Usually, seconds decide.

Quote from Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud book

If someone is playing the game and doesn't like that aspect of the game they can ignore it or make up their own chart. I have yet to receive a complaint or have anyone complain about the "effort" involved in rolling 2D10 on a chart once or twice in a game. If you played the game I doubt you would complain either.

I've tried my best to explain the simplest of concepts in war gaming to you (roll a die and look at the result on a chart it gives) so this is my last try and I would guess I've failed again. But we can still be friends, it's not something we need to agree on as it seems our approach and what we think is important is different. I can respect that.

Wolfhag

I think an issue comes in that I can be hard to see things outside how we perceive a situation.
We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

Wolfhag some of your statistics are way off. Assuming our figures are roughly in line with the real world a tank will use about 6 AP rounds of sorts in a tank engagement after about 6 its won or dead. Typically we have 20 tanks on the board. So it is unlikely we will fire more than 120 shots in a game. This is typically very high for our games. So typically in 16 games or possibly 20 games we would see 1 event at 2000:1 we could go far longer.

2 lines of rules can cover a basic protection type like cover at say -1. This would be used most games. You however feel that you can usefully burden a game with 2 lines used about once every 16 to 20 years. I might see 2 or 3 or I may see none.

I would rather use those 2 line more productively making every game better, than a 2 lines for events typically every 8 to 2o games.

Clearly our ideas on what is a good game are massively disparate.

A game is supposed to be entertaining, wild rare odds wasting time for minimal gain is a definite killer of enjoyment for us.

UshCha,
You said "Assuming our figures are roughly in line with the real world a tank will use about 6 AP rounds of sorts in a tank engagement after about 6 its won or dead. Typically we have 20 tanks on the board. So it is unlikely we will fire more than 120 shots in a game."

Question: Tanks carry around 40-50 rounds for their main gun. Is that enough to carry out a mission, or do they need to stop and reload periodically?

This is a post from a former US Army Tanker:
Answer: For the US Army, this totally depends on what task the tankers have been given. For instance, when I was a young PL at the twilight of the Cold War, my tank platoon trained to destroy a Soviet tank battalion from our defense. For a pure tank battalion, that's 31 of them. Our Abrams each carry 40 rounds so that should be easy enough, right? Wrong.

Why not? Let's apply probability of hit (x.9?), and probability of kill (.9?). Let's assume that 25 percent of our shots involved two Abrams crews firing at the same Soviet tank in a double tap (that's probably a bit high but it does happen). Let's assume one of our tanks gets killed. Let's assume only half the platoon actually dug in where it could engage the enemy at all. Let's assume that half the time we aren't actually firing aimed shots at exposed targets at all but are merely suppressing the enemy force to keep his head down. Let's say we aren't totally sure we actually killed that dark silhouette in the treeline 2000 meters away so we re-engage it. Let's say we had a quality control problem and the six rounds stored in the hull have deteriorated and the aft caps separate. Now they are unserviceable. Let's say in the rush to switch from MPAT to sabot the gunner leaves MPAT indexed. (That round isn't hitting anything but orbit!). Alpha section has emptied their ready racks and hasn't had time to transfer ammo from their semi-ready racks. They aren't firing for a while!!

Whew!! We fought through all those problems and destroyed that enemy tank battalion. But we lost two of our own tanks and the enemy senses weakness on our part of the defensive line and now their second echelon tank battalion is attacking RIGHT HERE. IN 30 minutes! Do we have enough ammo for that fight, too?

Bottom line. One round DOES NOT equate to one kill. The tactical plan doesn't lay out exactly against the enemy threat array. Someone is going to fire every round they have and someone else is not going to fire anything because of where they are positioned on the battlefield. There will always be a subsequent mission assigned.

American tankers routinely train to deal with all of the problems I describe above, minimizing the deleterious effects of them. But they can and do occur. That's why we have an expectation that crews cross level ammo during the fight. Platoon sergeants monitor how much ammo each tank has expended and at a lull, crews will cross level ammo. Firstly, within the tank, moving ammo from semi-ready to ready racks, and secondly, from this tank to that tank.

At the company level, the 1SG monitors consumption and at opportune times can and will pull platoons out of the fight and back to a battalion resupply point located 1–2 terrain features behind the fight. (If they are a priority for the battalion! If not, make do.)

The battalion's job is to plan this resupply effort. Some people call this "emergency resupply" but good units plan for this and do it routinely at advantageous times and points rather than in dire need. Bad units are caught by surprise and everything is an emergency. The battalion plans both deliberate and emergency resupply, plans to reconstitute their resupply capability and is prepared to recommend who within the battalion is the priority for resupply.

In the end, tanks can do a whole lot of destruction with the onboard load, often called "stowed kills." However, the tankers who rely on that without a deliberate plan for resupply while in the fight are setting themselves up for failure for any or all of the above reasons.

Also, notice how he mentioned multiple variables, QC issues on the rounds, and the gunner making a mistake among others. It happens in real combat. In my system, I call these SNAFUs and what he mentions can, but not always, happen in my game. That's why I included them.

May I make a suggestion? When you are talking about "real world" combat do not use your game, my game, or anyone else's game as an example or make assumptions. Games are a very poor recreation of real-world combat no matter how good someone thinks they are.

Here is a matrix used by the US Army to grade tank crews on their efficiency during training. It's pretty self-explanatory. Especially notice the time.

In my system, I can duplicate that to a very high degree and still make it playable.

Wolfhag

UshCha said,
This is typically very high for our games. So typically in 16 games or possibly 20 games we would see 1 event at 2000:1 we could go far longer.

A random chance is RANDOM and not very predictable so don't try to predict it. It's not my fault the dice were rolled to trigger the event three times, beating the odds to your disapproval.

The laws of probability do not have to conform to what you think they should be. It's not my fault I'm unlucky rolling the dice. Maybe it will happen again or maybe never. It doesn't matter. Again, we are not rolling for each of the 20 specific results on the chart as that would be ridiculous.

At the Battle of Tarawa, the Marines had a Sherman tank land on Red Beach One and engaged a Japanese tank with a 37mm gun and they fired almost simultaneously. The Jap tank was knocked out and the Jap 37mm round went down the barrel and knocked out the breech. Now the odds of that happening are pretty high but it happened on the very first shot! This is a historical example, I am NOT saying you should attempt to include it every time a shot is fired.

A good friend of mine was in Ukraine as a Legion volunteer. On his first patrol, his team got ambushed in light woods, with a visibility of about 75m. A Russian BMP pulled up and raked them with 30mm HE fire. He picked up an AT-4 AT rocket. It is one of the best and most reliable weapons of its type in the world. Guess what? It misfired! He crawled under fire and got an old M72 LAW, not known for its reliability, fired and knocked out the BMP from about 50m. What are the chances of a misfire on your first try? The AT-4 has a battle drill to do if it misfires, I'm not sure if he did it or not before getting the LAW.

You might think I'm obsessing over this, but I spent 2 weeks traveling around Ukraine meeting and interviewing Westerners and Ukies who fight on the front lines, toured a battlefield and went through a depot filled with damaged vehicles and examined them.

All of the guys had personal stories about how they beat the odds from mistakes, malfunctions, duds, stupidity, etc. Most of the reasons are dud rounds from Russian artillery and mortars. As I've said before, historically things have gone wrong in combat, sometimes at the worst time. If and how you want to include that is up to the designer but I agree it should not be an overriding factor in the game making it unhistorical or getting carried away with it.

Here is a picture one of the guys gave me. He was an FO and drone operator in a building in Bakhmut, calling in artillery to stop Wagner group assaults. He heard a loud crash and pop to his right and this is what he saw:

This is a close up of the Russian 120mm mortar round that crashed through the roof. The round partially detonated and the casing broke into about a dozen pieces or else he would have been dead. The markings indicate it was manufactured in 1976:

A while back you were discussing the chances of a vehicle driving off a bridge. Did you conclude what the odds are?

A game is supposed to be entertaining, wild rare odds wasting time for minimal gain is a definite killer of enjoyment for us.

I understand you are at a disadvantage because you have not read the rules of my game or seen a replay so I forgive you for getting the wrong impression.

However, I can absolutely ensure you no time is wasted in this endeavor but thank you for your concern. For some unknown reason, in the 7 years of playing, we have not experienced that. In fact, the SNAFU Chart results players find one of the most entertaining aspects because it's unexpected and the results are historical and players seem to like the unexpected and surprises if they make sense. Feel free to disapprove.

Wolfhag some of your statistics are way off.

Thank you. Which ones are wrong? I don't think I've ever shown the details of the rules to you. If you are positive they are incorrect, you should be able to direct me to some hard historical data or a reference from a reputable source and not your opinion. I can send you a list of the manuals and references I used. Please do not use your game as a comparison as as it is a completely different design than mine with very little in common.

Again, the SNAFU Chart is NOT a statistic but a subjective best guess with the chances limited by the dice I use. Feel free to disagree.

No game using unit activations, random initiative determination, and IGYG variations is a baseline to compare to historical outcomes. Why? Because the activation and IGYG variations are completely non-historical. That's why these are games for entertainment.

However, if you would like a more professional opinion of your game, I know people at the US Army War College and USMC Wargaming Lab you can send your rules for evaluation. What have you got to lose? Take me up on it.

A game is supposed to be entertaining, wild rare odds wasting time for minimal gain is a definite killer of enjoyment for us.

It's obvious you've never played the game or read the rules. Not all opinions need to be informed.

Clearly our ideas on what is a good game are massively disparate.

Something which I am thankful for every day! <grin>

I do have a copy of your rules and went over them last night. Overall, excellent work and lots of very good stuff. I recommend it but it's not my pint of Guinness.

I'll be putting a mostly finished draft of mine online soon and I'll make sure you get a copy so that maybe we can have a constructive discussion without any wrong assumptions. We have completely different approaches and designs so I'm sure there will be very little to agree on but that's OK too.

Wolfhag

It's a perpetual challenge, for me, balancing the war and the game. Really the game in my sense is the mechanics we use to run the simulation.
Too often what we end up with focuses us kn the "game"… and we end up focused on operating the "game" not the war.

It's why I've shifted to making more focus on decisions and actions.

Ironically some of more engaging games I've played used "bucket" of dice but with other wise simple mechanisms so the dice didn't intrude.

Too often what we end up with focuses us kn the "game"… and we end up focused on operating the "game" not the war.

This is why I am very happy with the QILS rules. When I run a game for new players, after about two turns of actual play, they end up talking strategy and tactics, not rules.

👍🏻