From: toriver@flipper.pvv.unit.no (Tor Iver Wilhelmsen)
Subject: Re: Dice rolling
Organization: ProgramVareVerkstedet - UNIT
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 11:49:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.143634.13187@rchland.ibm.com> BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>Please post your opinions (with reasons please! :-) and experiences on a few
>wargame design issues I have been pondering.
>
>For wargames how much dice rolling is "too much"?  For instance, is it too
>much for both the attacker and defender to roll dice (simultaneously) to
>determine the result of an attack?  How about if the defender can modify
>the result by a 2nd roll (instead of or in addition to the simultaneous roll?)
>

	To adress this point, I will (despite the fact that some people
might gag over the idea) refer to a very simple and well-known strategic
game called "Risk" from Parker Brothers. Here, the attacker names the
number of dice (1-3, but not more than the number of armies attacking)
he is using in the attack. The defender then announces his number of
dice (1-2, but no more than the defending armies). The dice are thrown,
and the results of the highest valued attacker-defender dice pair are
compared. If the highest result belongs to the attacker, the defender
loses an army, otherwise the attacker loses one (defender's advantage
principle). Then, if there is another pair (the dice selected were A2-D2
or A3-D2) the procedure is repeated for that pair.

	An interesting side effect of the combat system is that the
attacker cannot be completely eliminated, since he cannot attack if he
cannot move forces into the attacked territory while remaining in the
attacking territory.  Anyway, the combat system activates the defender
as much as the attacker, and I think partly this has made "RISK" a very
popular game; at least here in Norway.

>I ask because in MOST wargames the defender just sits and watches the 
>attacker.  Some games have units make a "quality check" of some sort 
>before/during/after combat.  In 3rd Reich (anyone know about A3R?) a single 
>attack can sometimes take numerous rolls to resolve because of 
>"counterattacks" results on the CRT.  
> 

	To have the units make "morale checks" or somesuch after being fired
upon is relatively common, and adds a certain "realism" to the simulation
(soldiers panicking etc.). In "Sniper!", from SPI/T$R, soldiers firing
become "exposed" and may in turn be fired upon by opponents who are
"sighting" in their direction. This, however, does not lead to _those_
soldiers again being subject to "opportunity fire" etc., since opportunity
fire only can be used in the opponent's turn.

>Also, what about the number of dice to roll.  Is one d6 (or d10 or d20...) 
>too few (no bell curve)?  Are 3 dice too many?  
> 

	Depends. I find that "Tactics II" (AH) suffers from the small
resolution of the single d6 used to determine combat results, in that the
probabilities for elimination in 1:1 battles are too highly staked against
the attacker; While at the same time, games that use one die for each
unit participating (e.g. "Shogun" from MB) can be a little tedious. (I am
not saying that Shogun is tedious, merely pointing it out as an example of a
multi-dice game).

>- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN 
>  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com

- Tor Wilhelmsen
-- 
"I'm a Derek, and Dereks don't run!" - Derek in 'Bad Taste'
toriver@pvv.unit.no
Standard disclaimer should apply to this, I guess...
"Reality is a poor escapism for people who cannot handle roleplaying" - Me