Working along the "Offense, good. Defence, bad." mentality.

Current chance to hit is:

((WT/ST) x 0.3)

where:
WT is shooting titans Weapon Tech.
ST is defending titans Shield Tech.


Proposed Change:

( {WT/ST} x 0.3 ) - ( { [1+SM] / [1+DM] } x 0.03 )

where:
WT is shooting titans Weapon Tech.
ST is defending titans Shield Tech.
SM is shooting titans movement (in hexes).
DM is defending titans movement (in hexes).

Note: different brackets are for ease of reading.

===Implications===

* Titans that are stationary and shooting at each other are pretty much the same as before.

* Titans that move are harder to hit than stationary targets. The faster a titan moves the harder it is to hit.

* A movement of 10 + moderate shields = near immunity to fire. A movement of 30+ with no shields = near immunity. 30 is also about as fast as a titan can go.

* If being charged at, in order to maintain a balance, the defending clan would either have to charge forward too... or retreat. Thus making battles more mobile.

* Even a small movement of 3 can reduce the chance of hit by over 10% per hit.

* Titans that retreat have a better chance of survival.

* Titans engaged in one-on-one combat will have to move about to maintain an edge over their competitor.

That'll do.

While I understand the preference for motion from a strictly mechanical/moving combat point of view: the idea of becoming more accurate by moving is incredably counter-intuative.
I can see becoming more accurate as distance reduces.
I can see being harder to hit as one moves.
and while I will go so far as to say I like the idea of adding those calculations into the equasion, the idea of becoming more accurate simply by virtue of moving is just wrong.
I wouldn't suggest making movement make a titan less accurate, however, and that would mean that a moving titan firing against a not-moving titan effectively has an easier time hitting.

does altitude influence chance to hit, or just visibility and range?

Strictly speaking you don't get more accurate when moving. If the enemy is moving and you move also, you simply reduce the chance of being hit to the same level that they are.

No... wait... ah, yes, you're right. Hmmm... that does seem a little odd.

Fine,

Chance to Hit

= 0.3(WT/ST) - 0.03(EM)

where:
WT is friendly weapon tech;
ST is enemy shield tech;
EM is enemy movement (in hexes).

This is a lot simpler. Its implications are very similar.

Movement makes you harder to hit. For each hex you move you reduce the enemies chance of hitting you by 3%.

Why 3%? Max titan speed is about 33hexes. 33 x 3% = 99%. So the fastest titan moving at max speed is nigh on impossible to hit (think Blackbird Jet). Although experienced fighters will always have better odds.

Whilst I heartily applaud the thinking, I would bring up a point I raised in epoch 2 (If my mind serves me correctly).

Surely the chance to hit should be affected by both the number of active shields and the shield tech. Just having a high ST and not actually raising the shields should give a shielding effect of zero.

Example. I cannot build a roof so just don't have one, the chap next door can build a roof but decides not to. When it rains, would he get any less wet than me? Of course not. So why should a fighter with 70ST and umpteen shields have any more coverage than my 10ST scout with no shields if he decides not to use them?

Peter.

steels: working off of the last equasion posted by Phoenix (which I like a lot) is what you're looking for something like;

chance to hit
= 0.3(WT/ {ST * SC}) - 0.03(EM)

WT is friendly weapon tech;
ST is enemy shield tech;
SC is shield coverage (100% coverage = 1, 50% = .5, etc)
EM is enemy movement (in hexes).




I suppose, if we want to get really hardcore we could add;

CtH
= 0.3(WT/ {ST * SC}) - 0.03(EM * {D / WR})

all variables are as listed above except;
D is distance (in hexes) to targeted location.
WR is maximum range of the firing weapon.

This last modification means that firing at someone point blank is far less likely to be significantly penalized than someone at the edge of the firer's range. As the firer's range increases, the distance they can fire accurately increases.
This also means that while an individual moving at warp speeds is virtually unhittable at the edge of range, there's still a chance of hitting them when they're in your face (and a better chance given significantly better weapons).

Of course, it'd be good to include some sort of accuracy bonus for better computers (aiming, targeting, better "vision")

CtH
= 0.3({WT + CT}/ {ST * SC}) - 0.03(EM * {D / WR})

Again, all variables are as listed above except;
CT is unused control.



While some or all of this will seem like it, I'm not trying to be snarky or undermine the discussion. If we're looking at modifications to the Chance to Hit algorithom, I figure it's worth suggesting some additional alterations. Whether they're worth considering is something else.

I love algebra! Anyway...

Steels wrote:

Surely the chance to hit should be affected by both the number of active shields and the shield tech.

Well it is, really. My equations are for when shields are active (naturally). When shields are not active then hits are automatic. The difference between an ST10 and ST70 titan (with inactive shields) is the "armour" part of the ST rules... which is to do with damage and not chance to hit.

The "partial shielding" rule discussion of epoch 2 was a little heavy (IMHO) but mortis' rework of my original equation is interesting.

mortis wrote:

CtH = 0.3({WT + CT}/ {ST * SC}) - 0.03(EM * {D / WR})

I don't think computers should play such a large part in shooting things. I don't really have a reason beyond "I don't like it". It just seems off.

The *SC bit is good, its logical in a Star Trek kind of way. Depends how you visualise the shields really. Their are argument both ways: Does 90% coverage actually mean a weaker 100% or is their a gaping big hole in the shield that the salvos can see and get through? I dunno, I like both, so long as SC cannot be more than 1.

(DR/WR) ... is very clever, although I think it should either be reversed and put in the intial calculation or kept in the "penalise" but raise the 0.3 to something higher to account for the fact that a lot of battles will be fought at max range.

I.e (for the former):

CtH
= 0.3(WT{WR/D}/{ST*SC}) - 0.03(EM)

This may be a little over-powered, but basically, point blank range shots aren't likely to miss with capped weapons. Good for ambushes!

What d'ya think?

For the record I'd be happy with

CtH
=0.3(WT/ST) - 0.03(EM).

But as Mortis says, we might as well discuss all options!

Phoenix wrote:

CtH = 0.3(WT{WR/D}/{ST*SC}) - 0.03(EM) This may be a little over-powered, but basically, point blank range shots aren't likely to miss with capped weapons. Good for ambushes!

*starts by feeling dumb for reversing the WR/D thing*

see, I like the idea of shields going over 100% having +some+ effect, along with high computers, of course that goes to the "single optimal design" discussion, as opposed to the "static lines" that this started from... beyond that I just need to see +how+ shields effect the equasion.

I can't complain about the way that you moved the distance/range formulae, but I think I just instinctively preferr that an individual be less penalized by firing at a fast-moving target close up than far away. I suppose that in the end the effect is similar, if different in scale and application, but it's something that I'll chew on.

mortis wrote:

see, I like the idea of shields going over 100% having +some+ effect, along with high computers, of course that goes to the "single optimal design" discussion, as opposed to the "static lines" that this started from... beyond that I just need to see +how+ shields effect the equasion. I can't complain about the way that you moved the distance/range formulae, but I think I just instinctively preferr that an individual be less penalized by firing at a fast-moving target close up than far away. I suppose that in the end the effect is similar, if different in scale and application, but it's something that I'll chew on.

As you say, it is similar. I'd rather see that clans are rewarded for getting so close in the first place (be in skill or luck). The main difference between the two is that in mine, point blank range increases your CtH by a good 200% on a capped design (that sum was done very quickly in my head and is subject to be very wrong!)... and goes down to the "normal" chance at max range. Yours works the other way round, long range is penalised, and point blank is "normal" when compared to the current rules.

In regards to SC being greater than 1:

The the first epoch, I spawned my first clan. I created a titan with 300% coverage (because I though it would be better). It died very quickly. I was annoyed. Then I came across another clan that had done the same. I killed him very quickly. I was happy. I am happy.

Phoenix wrote:

As you say, it is similar. I'd rather see that clans are rewarded for getting so close in the first place (be in skill or luck). The main difference between the two is that in mine, point blank range increases your CtH by a good 200% on a capped design (that sum was done very quickly in my head and is subject to be very wrong!)... and goes down to the "normal" chance at max range. Yours works the other way round, long range is penalised, and point blank is "normal" when compared to the current rules.

willingly granted.

Phoenix wrote:

In regards to SC being greater than 1: The the first epoch, I spawned my first clan. I created a titan with 300% coverage (because I though it would be better). It died very quickly. I was annoyed. Then I came across another clan that had done the same. I killed him very quickly. I was happy. I am happy.

"It's always been that way so it should always be that way" ?
spork?

Re: SC. Kind of. Yeah.

-----

Re: +WR/D vs -D/WR.

So which is better? (going to bed, now).

SC; if the game is really going to be shaken up, that can't be the argument

+/- meh, a comment from GOD, or anyone aside from us psychos, would probably prevent us from turning circles

g'night!

Comment.

OK, I am not looking at a restart (at the moment).
Which means I'm going to be loathe to change the core equations effecting damage and repair etc. I think that the last 8 years honed those pretty well.

What I am more likely to do is change the way tech is used within the structure of your army. - iether through additional unit actions (embed for indirect fire) or maybe through removing the 100 unit limit, instead imposing a tech limit for the clan.....

Stuff like that. Try to increase player options without changing the 5 core techs.

My reasoning is that we have gone through the debate for damage etc over and over again. The current solution has stood up very well.

The fact remains that a well organised defence should work - there should never be a magic bullet. The original game design used time as the differential to keep things interesting, ie elder clans could swat you. The tech cap stopped that, and so we have entered an era of stagnation.

I still think that tech works best at age 6months (ish). So when I make changes I'll be thinking with all this in mind.

However, some of the best solutions to game design/balance rules have come from players - either directly or from something they spark off while I'm reading. So don't let me stop your discussion.

This was the reason I was not commenting.

Jonathan

Well putting aside the calculations on damage, shielding,range etc (which give me a headache) what you have suggested here is removing the Tech / Titan Cap (Gen 190) and allocating each clan say 25000 tech to spend as they please. This would mean that you could have 100 titans with approximately 250 tech each or 10 with 2500 each.
I think this would most definitely allow for enourmous variety in design but I don't think we should throw away the ideas that have already been discussed as I'm starting to like them as well.
Unfortunately I am unable to come up with any better ide

GameAdmin wrote:

My reasoning is that we have gone through the debate for damage etc over and over again. The current solution has stood up very well.

Technically speaking this change is to do with hit% and not damage! So nurr.

So I offer a final solutions to be considered by the creator, and then lay this one to bed.

Current Rule = 0.3(WT/ST)

Proposed Rule = 0.3(WT/ST) - 0.025(EM)

------

I.e. exactly the same except that titans that move are more difficult to hit. They are 2.5% less (per hex moved) more difficult in fact.

An example:

Titan A is designed to move 4 hexes and shoot. Titan B can only shoot a full salvo when stationary.


Titan A is moving at 4hexes/day. Titan B is stationary. Both have WT/ST of 70.

Titan A CtH Titan B = 0.3(70/70) - 0.025(0) = 0.3 = 30% per salvo.
Titan B CtH Titan A = 0.3(70/70) - 0.025(4) = 0.20 = 20% per salvo.

Not dramatic, but enough to make charging not entirely suicidal. Also, probably very easy to code and very easy to uncode if unpopular!!??

Well, Mr. Gibbons, sir? Yay or nay?