$20.00
$30.00
$5.00
$15.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Clash of Cultures» Forums » Variants

Subject: Combat dice rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the combat could be more deterministic if the dice were something like this:

3,3,4,4,5,6

Still count up and divide by 5 for hits. Elephants could block on 3s (or still roll a regular d6 for them)

Archers action card could be if a 5 or 6 is rolled.

This would help you determine odds better and a little less random. 2 infantry is a guaranteed hit. Whereas with a normal d6 you could bring all 4 infantry in and roll all 1s.

Idea for the dice taken from Mare Nostrum.

I'm going to try it on my next solo 2p run.

Any thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It would create more hits, skewing the existing balance.
3 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mean thoughts
Traditional tabletop 'average' dice are numbered 2,3,3,4,4,5. Allow any combination of normal and average dice chosen by both sides before the combat roll. Elephants weaken if you take the option, which is no bad thing in my view.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Fielmann wrote:
It would create more hits, skewing the existing balance.


Change maybe, but skew would imply toward one player or another.

Did the odds calculations (pre-modifiers) for 'at least this many hits'

1d6 odds stay the same for a hit at 33% each

2d6
Normal die 1 hit: 83% 2 hits: 16%
Modified die 1 hit : 100% 2 hits: 22%

So at 2 die, the odds show a definite hit and only slightly increased chance at 2 hits

3d6
Normal 1 hit: 98% 2 hits: 62% 3 hits: 9%
Modified 1 hit: 100% 2 hits: 96% 3 hits: 14%

Finally 4d6
Normal 1 hit: 99% 2 hits: 90% 3 hits: 44% 4 hits: 5%
Modified 1 hit: 100% 2 hits: 100% 3 hits: 83% 4 hits: 10%

Normal 4d6 could potentially have 0 hits without any modifiers, very unlikely but the possibility is there.

All of this just shows that the combat (pre modifiers) can be a bit more deterministic. It works well in mare nostrum, may or may not work well here. Only way to know is to try.

I really enjoy the game, just trying to make the most random part slightly less so.

Using the die as 2,3,3,4,4,5 as suggested works better for lower amounts of hits and worse for higher, so that could potentially be a better option. If I try that I'll later report back with the odds.

My rational for 3,3,4,4,5,6 is a couple of the action cards. Influence rolls would change, but a normal die may be better for that then. I'll have to play to see how it works with the elephants, may make them better or worse. Unfortunately I don't have the expansion yet, nor 503$ to buy it...

I think that's all the rolls that could be changed, if I missed one let me know. I'm going to try this tonight as a solo 2 or 3 player to see if I like it or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Malekous wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
It would create more hits, skewing the existing balance.


Change maybe, but skew would imply toward one player or another.
There are more balances in a game than that between the players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Sachs
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
Despite your hope, there is not even any inherent symbolism; gravity is simply a coincidence.
mbmbmbmbmb
Malekous wrote:
I really enjoy the game, just trying to make the most random part slightly less so.


I find the events (and to a lesser degree objectives) to provide more potential for disruption.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Fielmann wrote:
Malekous wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
It would create more hits, skewing the existing balance.


Change maybe, but skew would imply toward one player or another.
There are more balances in a game than that between the players.


And I started a lengthy discussion on just that, which you convienently skipped over when quoting me. I gave balance number between the types of dice using for all rolls in the game.

If you think I have missed something, then detailing that would be a much more beneficial post. If you just don't like the idea then why even post?

jaysachs wrote:
Malekous wrote:
I really enjoy the game, just trying to make the most random part slightly less so.


I find the events (and to a lesser degree objectives) to provide more potential for disruption.


Those you have less control over what you draw, but that's the same for any blind draw game.

Public objectives would be one way to go about that. Action cards could be drafted, maybe draft 2 discard one. I suppose you could draft both objectives and actions instead of just drawing.

Events aren't really possible to modify, but they typically effect all players anyway.

The cards have already been discussed in other variant threads, but I haven't seen anything on the dice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MLeis
Estonia
Tallinn
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Malekous wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
Malekous wrote:
Fielmann wrote:
It would create more hits, skewing the existing balance.


Change maybe, but skew would imply toward one player or another.
There are more balances in a game than that between the players.


And I started a lengthy discussion on just that, which you convienently skipped over when quoting me. I gave balance number between the types of dice using for all rolls in the game.
I didn't quote the bulk of your post because I was mostly agreeing with it or at least had nothing to add to it.

Quote:
If you think I have missed something, then detailing that would be a much more beneficial post.
What I had in mind was that it makes combat cards that give an additional roll stronger and combat cards that give CV weaker. It also makes objectives that require eliminating enemy units easier to fulfill. There might be other, harder to see, effects with regards to cards, advances and buildings. For example - how does this variant influence the benefits of having a fortress?

Quote:
If you just don't like the idea then why even post?
I didn't mean to imply I didn't like the idea. I think it has some potential and you should test it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Having played this now (without the expansion) a few times I can say so far I've settled on these adjustments.

Setup/Status changes: cards are pseudo drafted. Each player is dealt one of each card, then both types of cards are dealt face up in the middle players+1. Each player in player order chooses one of each card. You should now have 2 of each from this setup/status phase. Discard one facedown and keep the other.
Rational: helps you better choose objectives/actions that are in line with what you're currently doing.

Player dice are 3,3,4,4,5,6
Barbarians are 2,3,3,4,4,5
Rational: I felt that predicting hits was too random, my numbers are above in the thread. I also felt that barbarians were a bit too useful early game and not useful enough late game.

Archers action card would work on a 5 or 6 rolled instead of as written.

Cultural influence rolls are on a standard 1d6

Effects ( both positive and negative): makes fortresses and warfare advancements more impactful. Makes barbarians less of a threat in the early game so someone who has them nearby could get gold/free cities early (this is pretty similar to the original anyway, but you could just use the player dice for all rolls if you find this to be the case). Lastly, I don't have the expansion, so I don't know how it would be impacted by these changes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edu Avalon
Guatemala
flag msg tools
Thanks for this.
Regarding the drafting of cards:

I presume that you are not allowed to "mix" your hidden with the cards you previously have in your hand. So you are not allowed to discard an older one and to keep the 2 news.

Personally I think it would make more sense to only do that for the objective cards. First of all, this action is already making the game a little longer, so I can imagine some players taking hours to decide which card they will choose. And in second place I think is nice to keep the surprise element with the action cards. Objective cards are more important regarding the final victory, so this system will help to reduce random factor, but I don't think it would be so important for action cards.

What I really like of this is that it could be a incentive to be the first player, so the card drafting should be done after defining the turn order. Frequently players prefer to choose playing last, particularly in the last round. Now, with this system, the player who decide, could be interested to be the first in order to take a nice objective card (and if this is not the case, the player who is forced to play in first place, could at least have the compensation of choosing a nice objective card).

Personally, I am not so enthusiastic about changing the roll dice. With this system, there will be lot of battles in which you will already know that you will win or lose. Of course this will reduce random and benefit players who think carefully their movement, like in chess. But I feel more thematic that you keep always uncertainity about the final result of the battle. In history you have lot of cases in which a little army defeated a biggest one, due to unexpected events.

Best and thanks for sharing your ideas.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
edugon wrote:
Thanks for this.
Regarding the drafting of cards:

I presume that you are not allowed to "mix" your hidden with the cards you previously have in your hand. So you are not allowed to discard an older one and to keep the 2 news.

Personally I think it would make more sense to only do that for the objective cards. First of all, this action is already making the game a little longer, so I can imagine some players taking hours to decide which card they will choose. And in second place I think is nice to keep the surprise element with the action cards. Objective cards are more important regarding the final victory, so this system will help to reduce random factor, but I don't think it would be so important for action cards.

What I really like of this is that it could be a incentive to be the first player, so the card drafting should be done after defining the turn order. Frequently players prefer to choose playing last, particularly in the last round. Now, with this system, the player who decide, could be interested to be the first in order to take a nice objective card (and if this is not the case, the player who is forced to play in first place, could at least have the compensation of choosing a nice objective card).

Personally, I am not so enthusiastic about changing the roll dice. With this system, there will be lot of battles in which you will already know that you will win or lose. Of course this will reduce random and benefit players who think carefully their movement, like in chess. But I feel more thematic that you keep always uncertainity about the final result of the battle. In history you have lot of cases in which a little army defeated a biggest one, due to unexpected events.

Best and thanks for sharing your ideas.


I agree with you on the cards. Draft objectives only and do a regular draw for actions.

Yes, it was meant as 'choose one of the two new cards and discard the other'. Then the new card is added to any existing cards in hand.

For me the random help in battles comes from the action cards. But to each their own. With more plays this may make a military strategy the best strategy, but so far it hasn't been the case. It just changes slightly the odds of hits which makes maintaining defenses more important if you're not attacking. It also makes it less beneficial to try to attack a city with a fortress and 2 defending army pieces, unless you're properly prepared.

With more plays we'll see

I also just paid too much for the expansion... So I'll get to see how that is balanced with the changes and if I still like it or not.

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Papenfuss
United States
Star
Idaho
flag msg tools
"Your results are back: it's negative"......um, is that a bad thing?
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool concept, Probably worth trying.

But where would you find those dice? Online, or self made?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Jersey City
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mpappy wrote:
Cool concept, Probably worth trying.

But where would you find those dice? Online, or self made?


Those are the numbers on the Mare Nostrum: Empires dice - 3,3,4,4,5,6 for the white (land) dice and 2,3,3,4,4,5 for the blue (sea) dice. (the only problem is they are marked with Roman Numerals - a little hard to read)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Hicks
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is exactly what i am working on at the moment. But with your suggestet dice numbers, it seemed you completely forget a bunch of passive effects like advances and combat cards, you really have to downgrade the numbers, believe me. At the moment i am thinking about 0,1,1,2,2,3 plus different addition effects, the disadvantage is clear: cavalry getting really strong with this. so i am thinking about the following:

elephants getting 2 hitpoints. combat value which didnt apply in one combat round is overtaken in the next round in form of markers. i.e.:
13 cv = 2 hits + 3 cv tokens for the next round. probably it could be:
13 cv = 2 hits + 3 cv / 2 = 1 (1,5 rounded down)

An additional thing to think about for pimping infantry in this combat system (while its outdatet against such strong units) are slight terrain efforts for infantry such as "Woods: Every infantry unit in this combat subtract the opponents cv total by 1)" so on for the other terrains.
Will post it here when i am done with this.

PS: My testing dice are simple colored dice with blank sides, ordered from some shopping sites on the internet, not to hard to get. for testing purposes i marked the sides with an edding, its okay for me.
Hmm.. different colors for different units with different sides would also be nice...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David S.
United States
Des Moines
Iowa
flag msg tools
V1 Rotate
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
lokeus wrote:
But with your suggestet dice numbers, it seemed you completely forget a bunch of passive effects like advances and combat cards


From above:

Malekous wrote:
Archers action card could be if a 5 or 6 is rolled.

Malekous wrote:
Did the odds calculations (pre-modifiers) for 'at least this many hits'...My rational for 3,3,4,4,5,6 is a couple of the action cards. Influence rolls would change, but a normal die may be better for that then. I'll have to play to see how it works with the elephants, may make them better or worse. Unfortunately I don't have the expansion yet, nor 503$ to buy it...

Malekous wrote:
Effects ( both positive and negative): makes fortresses and warfare advancements more impactful.


I did consider them, quite thoroughly actually. I literally went through every action card and advancement to see how it would be effected. I think we're just going for different results. I wanted more deterministic hits (which, yes, will cause more hits overall). However, the main balance issue I've run into is that you may need a fortress and an infantry in your borderline cities if someone is going warfare. Otherwise, it increases the hits equally for everyone while decreasing the effectiveness of early barbarians.

I do have the expansion now, I've gone through most of it. Some of the factions (which were already combat oriented) will become more combat oriented. There is no way to tell how detrimental this will be to gameplay/balance until I have time to try it with them. However, so far the elephants and cavalry work well.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.