HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Game balance (2)
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:51:03 GMT
	<1992Jul20.125605.9481@waikato.ac.nz> <1992Jul21.000621.6964@trl.oz.au>
	<1992Jul21.062408.10464@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Rd, Harlow, Essex, CM19 9NA, U.K.

>>From a military point of view, I guess that a larger empire has a much
>>bigger circumference to defend.  This makes it vunerable to attack from
>>more than one direction.  As long as there is only one problem to deal
>>with at a time, the empire can mobilize all of it's spare resources and
>>eradicate the problem.  But if attacked on several fronts (and the
>>larger you are, the more likely this will be) takes a lot more resources
>>in proportion than a small empire.

>That doesn't sound plausible.  The resources should be proportional to the
> area, the length of the border to sqrt(area).  Hence bigger is better from
>that point of view.

Have you ever played mighty empires?  There are never enough armies to fight
with.  You have to leave large(ish) forces guarding against attack on every 
border as well as mustering large armies to march off and crush the 
barbarians.  This is not impossible but is difficult - and when you slip
up just watch the opposition march in.  Seems like a good system to me.

I'd guess its pretty real as well.  The area to border ratio seems logical
but if you are big and those arround you small then it doesn't work
logically.  You have to defend all your borders against all the enemies
equally whereas the smaller empires probably try to put most of their forces
against your border.  Not a hard and fast rule and politics gets in the way.
Even games like Risk show that large empires gathering lots of resource are
impossible to hold if they border lots of enemy  (Russia..)

Jonathan

ps yes I know Risk is pretty unreal as you only get resource if you hold it
all


--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  With fearsome eyes and fiery breath the dragon burnt the girl to death
                    -- from "Too Late Saint George"
From: Zarniwoop.Woop@f99.n121.z1.FidoNet.Org (Zarniwoop Woop)
Sender: FredGate@p0.f99.n121.z1.FidoNet.Org
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: compete
Date: 20 Jul 92  22:30:54 EST

Well, what if the player's power was economic, then it could depend on 
their ability to manage their funds/stocks. As we all know, you can get 
rich or poor quick fast in a hurry on the stock market.

In Solar Realms Elite, the BIG player can't attack the little ones as 
they are protected till they reach the average strength of all the 
players.  Or they can join alliances to be protected from attack by more 
powerful players.

This kind of technique works quite well, actually.

_____-------------______________

"Life IS pain, highness.  Anyone who says different is selling 
something."

+ The Dread Pirate Roberts

-----____________---------------


 * Origin: NineJackNine / 608-256-5697 / Madison WI / (1:121/99.0)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Too much math! (Or is it??)
From: Dan Karipides <DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 13:55:39 EDT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service

A magic system I'm working on is in it very beginning stages, but I can't
deside if what I'm designing is too mathematical.  (Being a physics/aero
major with a math minor I find it hard to judge this.  I wouldn't complain
about doing residues and contour integration, but to each his own. :-)
 
What I was trying for was an "experience" system that, while not having,
an upper limit, slows down as the levels get higher.  I hesitate to use
the word "experience" -- I don't mean it in the sense of character levels and
such, but more "experience in spellcasting."
 
Anyway, here's the system I like.
 
Through the course of the game, chracters accumulate "points" for casting
spells.  The mechanism for this is neither finalized nor, I hope, needed
to answer my question.  Each spellcaster has a rating based on the number
of points he/she has.  The formula for this is:
 
rating = log (points)
 
My fear is that designing a system with "log" in it will scare away 99.9%
of the gaming population.  Note that access to a scientific calculator is
not necessary.  I'm only concerned with "rating" being accurate to one
decimal place. So it would be easy to include a small table such as:
 
rating         points
------         ------
0.0            1
...            ..
0.5            3
...            ..
1.0            10
1.1            13
...            ..
1.7            50
 
etc.
 
But this seems somewhat awkward to me.  What I really want is a system where
"level 1" is about 10 points, "level 2" is much greater (maybe 100), "level 3"
greater still and so on.  It doesn't have to be 10, 100, 1000 etc.  (I
considered different base logs but this only made it more complicted.)
Any ideas?
                                                              -Dan
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: How many gadgets are too many? How many are enough?
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.031108.14655@Veritas.COM> apple!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!gdavis (Grant R. Davis) writes:
>Someone recently posted that if he had known that the Street Samurai Sourcebook
>was 50 pages of weapons & cyberware and 10 pages of new rules, he would have
>photocopied the 10 pages and made up his own weapons.
>
>Who else feels this way? As GMs, do you prefer to make up your own weapons,
>cyberware, equipment, etc. or do you prefer to have them ready-made? How much
>trouble do you have with players who know (and want) every piece of equipment
>in the book, and what do you do about them?

Speaking about games in general:

At least for a game master, having something that will give you a good feel for
what items should be like is important.  It's probably also important that the
common items are fairly standard - in our world (or at least its richer
countries), you can get a rope, a screwdriver, et cetera, almost anywhere.
Novelty items - Swiss Army Knife wannabees, wax tipped bullets, handheld
acetylene torches (the tanks are like C battery cells, except longer,
size-wise) - don't have to be the same, if you have a basic idea of what should
be available.  In other words, a few (3-8) of the 50 pages are appropriate to
give the "look and feel", but the rules are the heart of the matter.

You _should_ create your own items, to keep a degree of novelty and
unpredictability in the game.  Creativity is one of the cornerstones of the fun
of gaming.  Don't ever let your players' lives get boring!  (-:


################################################################################
# If you disagree, think I'm missing an important point, or would like me to   #
# elaborate, then by all means send me e-mail.  We probably both have          #
# something to learn from the other.                                           #
################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # But the greatest    # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love.   # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mfp+@CS.CMU.EDU (Michael Polis)
Subject: Re: Too much math! (Or is it??)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 01:03:44 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

Try this.  Make the log base the cube root of 10.  Then things go roughly
like this:
     rating  points
	1	1
	2	2
	3	5
	4	10
	5	20
	6	50
	7	100
	8	200
	9	500
	10	1000

I use this log scale in a magic system I'm designing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Dice rolling
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:36:34 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

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?)

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.

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?

How about CRTs.  Do you prefer odds based versus difference based?  How
about non-CRT systems?
-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.oz.au (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Re: Bureaucracy, management, and empires (was Re: Game balance (2))
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:55:50 GMT

In article <JPG.92Jul28131249@holly.bnr.co.uk>, jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
|> the age of the game (ie ancient modern future) must effect the outcome.  In
|> ancient times when paper and literacy was scarce was it a problem?  In the 
|> future if everyone and thing is digitised then it won't be the same kind
|> of problem ("No you need the blue form E36/21B which can only be obtained...")

Well, after some head scratching, I have tentitively come up with the
following:

1)  Players place chits in a cup depending on the number of areas they
control (geographical size is a factor in management)  For every full
three areas they control, one more chit goes in.  Then players draw
chits from the cup, one each.  Chits may be kept secret.

2)  At any stage during the turn, player may play his chit and make the
victim player (chit owner) roll for revolt in a city chosen by the chit
player.

3)  revolt is affected by things like friendly/enemy military in the
area, culture, religion, government, recent military setbacks, taxation.
(a table takes care of the chances)

4) Chits not played go back into cup at end of turn to be drawn again
next turn.

5) If player is expending extra resources on maintaining an effective
system of government, then he places less chits in the cup than he would
otherwise be have to.

Thus players wait for bad circumstances to happen during the turn and
play their chit when the conditions are 'right' for revolt.  

The larger geographically the empire is, the more chanmce there will be
of revolt because (more chits in the cup, players are more likely to
play against you as you are obviously expanding)  Having more chits in
the cup represents the increased difficulty of maintaining an empire of
large geographical size (ie: ambitious underlings, cultural diferences
between ruler and ruled etc...)

I think this models the situation in a way that is not too complex, but
I may have to pair it down after a few play tests depending on how long
it takes.  

Thoughts?
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Subject: Re: Too much math! (Or is it??)
Originator: tai50080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: tinsel@uiuc.edu
Organization: {not speaking for the} University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:04:55 GMT

Dan Karipides <DK6TOPER@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:

> But this seems somewhat awkward to me.  What I really want is a system where
> "level 1" is about 10 points, "level 2" is much greater (maybe 100), "level 3"
> greater still and so on.  It doesn't have to be 10, 100, 1000 etc.  (I
> considered different base logs but this only made it more complicted.)

I would take a look at various super-hero games for an idea on how to do this.
Marvel, D.C., Champions all use various exponential scales for this type of
thing.  One system to consider, although not as technically exacting, is to
use real-life round measures.  For example, Champions skill completion uses a
time chart which goes:

	segment
	phase
	turn (all game-system time periods)
	minute
	5 minutes
	hour
	5 hours
	day
	week
	month
	season
	year

A system like this makes it easy to judge things with no actual computation
at all.
-- 
Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu)
  I speak for myself, and not for the State or University of Illinois.
  "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." -- Edward R. Murrow
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: vlaurent@cactus.org (Vince Laurent)
Subject: Dice Rolling Poser
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:07:45 GMT

I am trying to figure out some dice algorithms and am stumped. Here
is a sample of what I am trying to do, though I would like to be
able to do it for any multiple of dice. I will do my example with
6 dice:
 
You roll 6 dice and are alowed to sort them from highest to lowest.
The idea is to get the longest straight possible.  For example:
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 = six in a row    note that the x's are numbers which can
1 2 3 4 5 x = five in a row   NOT come up from an earlier straight.
x 2 3 4 5 6 = five in a row   For example, the x in the 5 in a row
1 2 3 4 x x = four in a row   first one) can not be a 6 else it would
x 2 3 4 5 x = four in a row   be a straight of length 6.  Also, there
x x 3 4 5 6 = four in a row   can be multiple straights. For example,
1 2 3 x x x = three in a row  a straight of length 4 and a straight
x 2 3 4 x x = three in a row  of length 2 can co-exist as well as 3
x x 3 4 5 x = three in a row  straights of length 2 (eg: 121212).
x x x 4 5 6 = three in a row
1 2 x x x x = two in a row
x 2 3 x x x = two in a row
x x 3 4 x x = two in a row
x x x 4 5 x = two in a row
x x x x 5 6 = two in a row
 
The question is: how many combinations of 6 in a row are there? 5 in
a row? and so on.  Remember, a roll of 123411 is a straight of length
4 and therefore can not be counted in anything else (eg: straight of
length three 123xxx or x234xxx or straights of length two). Also, I
am trying to keep this generic so if someone uses 4-4sided dice or 6-
6 sided dice, and so on.
 
I have managed to write a program that rolls 6 dice and then sorts them
but I cna't figure out an algorithm to count what I am looking for.
 
Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.  NO - THIS IS NOT FOR CLASS, I
am working on a board game!
 
Vince Laurent
| FidoNet 1:382/10 | vlaurnet@cactus.org | RimeNet->MAH |


-- 
Vince Laurent 
Internet  vlaurent@cactus.org
Connect America BBS 1:382/10
From: leopard@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steeve Vawter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: How many gadgets are too many? How many are enough?
Date: 21 Jul 1992 21:38:50 -0700
Organization: Hyperion, Mountain View, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: spud.Hyperion.COM

  The group that I have played [Cyber Punk (RTG)] with has made up
as much as we have used scratch from their sourcebooks.  That is, until
the gadget book came out, but it was marked as such, not as a samurai
sourcebook.  If it had been marked as such, I would have returned it
once I found out what it really was...

  (although, I did buy the gadget book, just for more ideas if nothing
else...)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
leopard@hyperion.COM        I don't work for Hyperion, I just live here...
--Steeven M. Vawter	Telephone: (408) 737-7932	Work: (408) 428-0270
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Modern Warfare
From: CDRESSER@eagle.wesleyan.edu (CLAYTON J. DRESSER)
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:14:12 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: jpg@bnr.co.uk's message of 29 Jul 92 08:33:15 GMTLines: 13

In <JPG.92Jul29083315@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk writes:

> In article <01GMXNYDRH1UAKVL0K@ccmail.sunysb.edu> jflint@ic.sunysb.edu (Jesse Flint) writes:
> >   .....
> >   "Desert Storm" scenario. Specifically, I need to know where
> >   I could find information on modern units, and the relative
> >   capabilities thereof. 

There is indeed a "mini-game" of a Desert Storm scenario (sounds sort of
lopsided to me).  Anyway, I don't know who publishes it but I saw it the other
day so ask your local gaming store.

Clay
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: jonh@david.wheaton.edu (Jonathan Hayward)
Subject: Re: Bureaucracy, management, and empires (was Re: Game balance (2))
Organization: Wheaton College, IL
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:59:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.004326.14596@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>I would like to model some form of bureaucracy, but have been unable to
>think of a system which would be simple enough to add to my game...more
>like a game in itself, really.
>
>Any ideas on how to model an expanding empire's bureacracy having 
>to specify reams of rules?

Well, I would set a few quantities.  Each one would be a percentage as a
function of the size of the empire.  It would either be constant (16% at a size
of 1,000), or a dice function (9+2d6 at a size of 1,000).

1: Disloyalty.  Disloyal bureaucrats are subject to bribery, and if money is
   not spent on tighter accounting (greater inefficiency), swindling or mutiny
   is possible.

2: Inefficiency.  This is both overhead, and what is wasted due to things like
   procedures that have outlived their usefulness.

3: Sluggishness.  Things taking longer to get through.

4: Incompetence.  As per peter principle.

And other such quantities that come to mind.

Inefficiency and sluggishness would affect cost and time to get things done
(20% inefficiency would mean 80% efficiency, or costs of 1/80% = 125% of what
they "should" cost).  Incompetence and disloyalty would probably have similar
effects (say, each 3% incompetence corresponds to 1% inefficiency and 1%
sluggishness), but in addition would have probabilistic effects - chance of
something not getting done in the case of incompetence, and chance of a bribe
or such succeeding.

If the chance of mutiny is 1/5 the disloyalty, and disloyalty is high (15%),
and a 3% chance is made in a specific time frame, then there is an internal
rebellion (ouch!).

Well, I've layed out a very crude framework.  It should be fairly easily
modified to fit most systems, making big bureaucracies a headache to the person
in charge without causing a similar headache to the person rolling the dice.

################################################################################
# If you disagree, think I'm missing an important point, or would like me to   #
# elaborate, then by all means send me e-mail.  We probably both have          #
# something to learn from the other.                                           #
################################################################################
# "God, give me mountains # But the greatest    # Jonathan Hayward             #
# to climb and the        # of these is love.   # Jonathan_Hayward@wheaton.edu #
# strength for climbing." # I Corinthians 13:13 # jhayward@imsa.edu            #
################################################################################
From: Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: Dice rolling - A3R
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:21:06 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I gave this very subject a lot of thought when designing Advanced Third Reich
(and a number of other games, for that matter).

The ground combat in A3R generally involves only a single die roll by the
attacker.  As you noted, there are sometimes counterattacks where the defender
will roll (this is unchanged from 3R).

Air-naval combat in A3R, on the other hand, is radically different.  The
defender rolls two dice for his fleets, causing some of the attacking air to be
elminated and some to abort.  The attacker then rolls two dice for the
survivors to determined the number of fleet factors eliminated and damaged.
The process is then repeated until the attack ends.

The advantage of two dice is that you get a bell-shaped curve which is
controllable through modifiers.  A few favorable modifiers eliminate the
possibility of a "2" or "3" result, assuring the player rolling of a reasonably
effective result.  The Russian Winter Table, which has few modifiers, is a
single die table.  I think this was right, because an extreme result favoring
one side or the other should at least be statistically significant, to force
players to take it into account or deliberately ignore it.















This is an important point.  In A3R (and 3R), the attacker has a one out of six
chance of blowing out on a 1:1 attack.  Everyone accepts that 1:1 attacks are
risky and if you try one, you know what might happen.  But 2:1 attacks have a
one out of thirty-six chances of blowing out (mitigated in A3R, but still a bad
result).  Players are therefore entitled to ignore this possibility, but one
wonders why it is there at all (I sometimes wish I had just abolished that
possibility, especially when it happens to me....)

So I would generally favor two-dice tables if there are modifiers which apply
to the die roll, but not if there are extreme results which can affect the
outcome of the game.  If a good or bad possibility exists, it seems to me it
should be a real possibility, which means one die.  Ultimately the designer's
goal should be to control the possibilities (or, more precisely, to allow the
players to control the possibilities), so that luck is not a dominant factor in
the game.

(I could go on at much greater length).
From: stehman@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jeff Stehman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: complexity vs. playability
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:58:36 GMT
Organization: Clemson University

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>I think people should be very careful about confusing complexity with
>variety...

	and realism.

					Jeff Stehman
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
From: mar@physics.su.OZ.AU (David Mar)
Subject: Re: complexity vs. playability
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.044231.20868@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>Which makes for a better game in general- a complex game with lots of
>strategy and tactics involved, or a simpler game that is easier to play.

Well, it... um... depends. I get in the mood for complex, strategic games,
and I also have times where a simple, easy game feels right. I would guess
that a good many people feel the same way.

>How long are people prepared to play a game for?

A few hours at most, if it is meant to be interactive and sociable. (Other
things like e-mail chess can take weeks.) I like to have a good idea of
how long the game will take, too, so that plans can be made around it.

>I favour a game that can be played in one sitting, mostly for practical
>reasons.  I also prefer a game that is simple in concept, but complex in
>action.  Sort of like Chess.  Its not a complex concept...ie: not too
>many rules at all, and yet the complexity of the game in play can be
>staggering.  I think this should be the ideal for any game rules.

I don't like chess a great deal. It is so incredibly complex in practise
that it becomes a contest of "who is a better chess player" rather than
"who can invent the best strategies in response to the other player, while
actually playing the game". Perhaps I haven't expressed it that well.

What I mean is: get two chess players and you can predict fairly well who
will win. There is too much stratification in chess. A good player will
always beat a novice. I like a game where the novice has a chance of
learning or inventing appropriate strategies in less time than it takes
to complete one game, so the experienced player has to keep alert.

David Mar.                              mar@astrop.physics.su.OZ.AU
Astrophysics Department, University of Sydney  NSW  2006, Australia.