Attack/Defense Tables

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

There has been a number of proposals here designed to fix a variety of problems. As I see it, the difficulty within these proposals is that there may be very significant side impacts when two changes simultaneously begin to apply to the same situation. Also, the additional rules which are meant to "enhance" under-utilized units seem to be creating a level of complexity that may be detrimental to the game itself. I have a proposal, which I believe can resolve many of these problems.

Simply put...rather than using the mechanism of rolling many d6's based on attack values and counting successes, the attack result should be based on a table of values indexing the attack value, defense of the unit, type of unit and a die roll of some sort. For example, on the attack vs. infantry table, one would cross reference a Sherman's attack value of 9 versus an SS-PG's defense of 5 to find that a d100 roll in the range of 1-25 would be two hits and a 26-50 would be one hit. You then roll the d100 to see the actual result.

I believe this can fix many problems, including:

1. Miscosted defense 5 infantry: Way back when, the complaint against defense 5 infantry started as the fact that they could charge MG nests (or anything else for that matter) with impunity. This led to the dominance of defense 5 infantry (including the problem with heroes). On a lesser note, MG's fell out of favor. By making defense 5 infantry easier to hurt, defense 5 infantry (which are more expensive) can be properly costed at 5 for SS-PG's and rangers.

2. Miscosted tanks: A number of tanks are over-priced because unlike the Shermans and KV-1's, they are incapable of effectively fighting infantry. The limit role these tanks play make them more expensive than what they should be. By making low attack values against infantry relatively more effective against infantry, it is possible to make them more effective pieces. Also, by making high end attack values against armor even more lethal against tanks, tank destroyer units can see more play as well.

3. Vulnerable aircrafts: It's an obvious fix to rectify this problem using attack/defense tables.

4. ATG's are unplayable: Again, the fix is easy here.

I am sure that this approach is very doable and may be helpful in solving other problems as well. I have just planted a few thoughts here to get the discussion started. I realize that the actual values for the tables will probably need to be the product of extensive playtesting, but I feel that this may be a effective solution in solving many problems with the game simultaneously.

[Eisenheim]

If you want that level of accuracy, you shouldn't be playing this game. It wasn't designed for that and you can't make it into something that accurate without completely rewriting the rules.

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

I'm not sure how this is any more accurate than rolling 12 d6's and counting them up. The point is to "fix" some of the problems with the very steep adjustments to probabilities than has resulted from the current system. It would not be that complex. Just one table for infantry, one for armor, one for aircraft and maybe one for ATG against armor. Most likely the die roll would be d100 to make the table easy to build and tweak.

Heck, the dice rolling part would be a lot easier at least.

One problem that I had identified is that the shape of the probabilities associated with attack/defense values under current rules is difficult to adjust. Here's a look at examples for defense 4 and defense 5 infantry under the current rules.

Defense 4:
vs. Attack 7 - 27% 1 hit / 23% 2+ hits / 50% affected
vs. Attack 8 - 27% 1 hit / 37% 2+ hits / 64% affected
vs. Attack 9 - 25% 1 hit / 50% 2+ hits / 75% affected

Defense 5:
vs. Attack 7 - 16% 1 hit / 6% 2+ hits / 22% affected
vs. Attack 8 - 22% 1 hit / 14% 2+ hits / 36% affected
vs. Attack 9 - 25% 1 hit / 25% 2+ hits / 50% affected

The probabilities show the source of the problem. Tanks with AI of 7 is less than half as effective versus defense 5 infantry as defense 4 infantry (hence, German tanks are relatively useless against rangers), while tanks with AI of 9 is only a third less effective (hence, Shermans are really versatile and good). The attack/defense table method could bring those two rate of change across different attack values closer together (i.e., if it's a third worse for AI of 9, it's also about a third worse for AI of 7). Also, defense 5 infantry doesn't have to be 1/3 less likely to be affected (using the AI 9 example of 75% vs. 50%) than defense 4 infantry. Bringing those two numbers closer together (e.g., 75% vs. 65%) would eliminate the miscosting of defense 5 infantry.

[Eisenheim]

Do you mean you wouldn't distinguish between different units, just types? Please explain.

[Colonel_Coo]

No Tables Ever!

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

Well, yes. You attack with a Sherman against a SS-PG. So, one consults the attack vs. infantry table. You look across one axis for attack value 9 and another axis for defense value 5. You see that a 1-25 roll would be 2 hits and 26-50 would be 1 hit. Roll your d100 and get your result.

The real benefit is that there would be the ability to refine the meaning of attack and defense values. Right now, there's a distorted effect when AI's change. In the example above, you will see that defense 5 infantry is a third less likely to be hurt than defense 4 infantry against AI 9 attacks, but less than half as likely (22% vs. 50%) against AI 7 attacks. This probability adjustment is the source of defense 5 infantry's miscosting and a host of other problems.

[Lagduf]

I'm going to have to disagree with you in principle.

I believe AH should keep the simplicity of the current to hit system in the game.

Once you start to add CRTs (Combat Resolution Tables) to game then you are jumping into a entirely different realm of play.

I think we should focus on keeping this a light tactical wargame.

If I want enhanced realism i'll go to my friends house and play Advanced Squad Leader or Panzer Grenadier or any of the other vairous good yet complex wargames.

Remember added complexity does not equal added fun.

So far I think the things AH has suggested as possible new advanced rules are interesting and still within the spirit of the game.

Also: Where does one get a d100 (err i suppose two ten siders would work...)?

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

Well, I certainly can appreciate the sentiment that complexity is not a good thing for the game. But, as I look at the new expert rules, I am left to wonder whether or not the new rules (e.g., enfilade fire, overwatch, aircraft defense, grazing fire, AT facing and, to some extent, platoon pricing) are being largely driven by the need to "improve" the playability of certain poorly costed units (e.g., ATG's, MG's, standard infantry vis-a-vis elite infantry, tanks with relatively poor AI values). IMO, if such units were not poorly costed, then the drive for these new rules would be largely muted.

Attack/defense tables (or Combat Resolution Tables) is one means of doing all of this, while acknowledging something that much of the community seems to be failing to recognize, which is that WOTC has been and remains very HESITANT to change anything printed on the cards. IMO, the calls by players to recost units has been largely rejected for this reason. ADT/CRTs are certainly a means to get everything done without resorting to having many, many rules in place. They may actually end up simplifying things.

BTW, 1d10*10 + 1d10 is not acceptable! You must use a d100...or the system will entirely fail.

[polish_horsy]

you have it right... one-third of this drive to make the game unplayably complicated comes from pricing the SS-PG at 5 instead of 7 where it should be. another one-third is from the tank-infantry interaction... try playing 5 Valentines against 16 SS-Pg... same points but not a pretty picture.