I am a little bit of a stats nerd. Not the extent that I'd ever describe myself as a statistician, but I did happen to do my Six Sigma Black Belt 10 or more years ago and enjoyed the whole experience immensely. As a result, when it comes to wargaming, I often find myself thinking through the mechanics and how they translate to probabilities and outcomes.
My most recent purchase A Gunslinger's Paradise (link) has a three-step process for resolving shooting attacks: (1) Aiming, (2) Saving, and (3) Wounding. If you're a Warhammer 40,000 fan, you may well be thinking "Granted the Wounding and Saves are in the wrong order, but 3-steps, what of it?". By way of comparison, my favourite system, Rogue Planet, uses a single roll of 2 or 3 die to resolve combat. But I digress. Let's do some math hombre!
Mook vs. Mook
For the sake of simplicity, I'll start with a Bandido Rifleman (Tier 3, mook-type Unit) shooting (+1 AIM) at a Soldado (a mook, SAVE +2, VITALITY 1). That combination will result in a hit about 17% of the time (actually a little higher due to critical hits) or ~6 shots to get to a 100% kill probability. A Unit normally can shoot twice per Turn, so that's 3 Turns to a Kill (T2K). |
| "Are you loco? There are no univariate binomials here!" |
There are a number of other factors that could come into play. For example, cover or shooting when pinned increases the T2K to 4 Turns (13%) and 6 Turns (8%) respectively.
What about precision shooting? Employing the Steady Aim Action provides an additional +2 AIM, improving the shot/kill ratio (now 25%), but the reduces the volume of fire by 50%, yielding 4 T2K. So if you were relying on math rather than Tequila, you'd fire away. There are other considerations as well e.g., ammunition. Those Banditos' Bolt Action Rifles are slow to load and can only put out 5 shots. That means the weight of fire is only going to work if you've got some buddies shooting with you, otherwise you may be better off taking the extra Turn and avoiding having to reload?
That doesn't sound too bad: 3 Bandidos could expect to dispatch an enemy mook every Turn or so, which is a reasonable attrition rate for gameplay.
Mooks vs. higher Tier Characters
Bandido Rifleman (Tier 3 Characters) trying to gun down a Deputy U.S. Marshal (Tier 2 Character) is looking at around 7 T2K. Ouch. But hang on, the cost of the two Characters should be considered. Those Bandido's are cheap at $7 each. A vanilla Deputy U.S. Marshal, just equipped and without any skill buffs is going to around three times the price. That means if things were to be even points-wise, you'd be looking at 3 Bandidos who could likely achieve their kill in about 3 Turns. Well that works.
 |
| The Binomial Brothers leave nothing to chance. Or do they? |
If we move up to a Tier 1 U.S. Marshal (again vanilla with no skills allocated), the single Bandido T2K is about 14 Turns - i.e. the Marshal would have twice the longevity of a Deputy. Dollar-wise, you're looking at around 4+ Bandidos to a U.S. Marshal, so that still means 3 or more Turns for a gang of Bandidos to knock off a U.S. Marshal.
Top Tier vs Mook
But our U.S. Marshal isn't just going to sit around as the lead starts flying!
Our U.S. Marshal (Tier 1, vanilla, +3 AIM) now employs his Bolt Action Rifle (he left his Shotgun at the Ranch) shooting at a Bandito (SAVE +2, VITALITY 1). That combination will result 25%/, 2 T2k rate or 34%/3 T2K rate. That suggests that even with some health Card-based bonuses or rerolls in play, our Marshal can't afford to walk into any old firefight, expecting to win.
 |
| "Son, you talk too much." |
So what's my take-away?
I think it could work. Clearly there's some balancing in the game design evident and the use of Chips, Cards, List Building, and in-game positioning all come into play. I like the idea that the Chips can be used for bidding on initiative and rerolls - that could make for some tense decision making.
All this math talk and no play isn't much fun though. Now that Covid restrictions have been lifted locally (Sydney... mmmm) and I'm off work for the Christmas break, I hope to get some gaming happening. Maybe I can talk a daughter, son, or friend into giving this a try?
Ordered the hardcover book today. What you like to do through maths 😉, I love to do through experience. I must admit, your way is a lot cheaper but in my eyes also a little bit less fun (I'm a different kind of nerd). Got some 15mm cowboys and Indians out of storage that have been collecting dust for 3 years and I'm ready to go.
ReplyDeleteIf I like the game, I might introduce things like cultist, zombies and Lovecraftian nasties into the game.
Magic, if any could be as simple as a weapon stat or something very subtle like being able to switch a card from your hand with the top card from the deck.
Yeah my maths is just a proxy for getting my game on and it is rather sad. That being said, getting the whole combat mechanism right in a game is crucial - if it ain't done right, either it becomes a game of chance or math homework. Both of which suck.
DeleteI'm wondering what tweaking might be in the making e.g., facing isn't a thing in the game, but I could see it being a useful addition to the rules. The whole magic side of things would be fun to explore as well - taking some cues from other games will be pretty straight-forward.
I'll be interested to see how your minis turn out - make sure you share some pics on your blog :-)
Maths are indispensable whilst designing a game, not going to disagree with you on that one. I like the extra bit of 'meat' in the rules, some of them are only there to add some flavour but I like that in a ruleset. Although they sometimes tend to unbalance a game and can entice some characters to abuse them to play unfair.
DeleteAll in all I think it's a bit of a hidden gem. The more I thought about it after reading the pdf, the more I liked it. Not too simple, not too complicated.
Definitely will be showing off my models. Whether or not I'm going to revive my blog for it is another thing ;-).