tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post1161381711447575977..comments2024-03-29T14:39:05.903+00:00Comments on Paint-it-Pink: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Medium Laser Ashleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-12315123505263970872011-08-08T20:44:59.076+01:002011-08-08T20:44:59.076+01:00A bit more modern... harumph sir.A bit more modern... harumph sir. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-88073722511798862402011-08-06T22:44:11.993+01:002011-08-06T22:44:11.993+01:00Aha... I assumed something a bit more modern.. I w...Aha... I assumed something a bit more modern.. I will re-code and send...L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-24676565697266299862011-07-29T08:10:35.262+01:002011-07-29T08:10:35.262+01:00Excel X for Mac, old program, version 10.1.7.Excel X for Mac, old program, version 10.1.7. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-34317337086480977362011-07-29T02:58:29.094+01:002011-07-29T02:58:29.094+01:00That is odd. What spreadsheet software are you usi...That is odd. What spreadsheet software are you using?L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-83309143871215143002011-07-27T08:18:30.327+01:002011-07-27T08:18:30.327+01:00I will check that out. I've not been able to o...I will check that out. I've not been able to open the xml file you sent me, as it keeps crashing my machine. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-59417274376823884202011-07-27T04:37:26.103+01:002011-07-27T04:37:26.103+01:00You know, I was looking at how BV was calculated a...You know, I was looking at how BV was calculated and noted that a lot of what we have been talking about is covered in that calculation. The explicit form can be found at http://www.heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htmL Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-74883550517339717342011-07-18T08:45:41.337+01:002011-07-18T08:45:41.337+01:00Well I hope we see something from you in due cours...Well I hope we see something from you in due course either on one of the forums, or your own blog when you feel ready. I think it is always good to share ideas and the internet is quite a good place to do that.<br /><br />BTW: thanks for the comment, and to everyone, thank you all for reading my blog. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-45908538246874537492011-07-18T02:26:01.943+01:002011-07-18T02:26:01.943+01:00Hello,
I’ve been working on a similar system. Wea...Hello,<br /><br />I’ve been working on a similar system. Weapons are rated for minimum and maximum range, heat, crits, and ammunition <br /><br />Mech are rated on speed, jump, equipment, crits, and total armor tonnage. <br /><br />Now I am trying to rate special equipment like C3 Computers.<br /><br />A kind of CV rating.<br /><br />The CV of each weapon and equipment is combined with the mech ratings to get a final CV.<br /><br />These are also used to create a rating for large units of lance and above, to make a quick play large scale battles system.nunya businesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14072357927715300403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-90051763220847316962011-07-07T19:26:11.521+01:002011-07-07T19:26:11.521+01:00Well you certainly can't compare against a sta...Well you certainly can't compare against a standard if you keep changing the standard. Don't do that. ;-)<br /><br />You can compare the relative value of weapons in a given setting, and by averaging over a set of reasonable conditions (assumptions) you can come up with some pretty good estimates of value. This is considering the question "How much damage can the Weapon do, on average, in a given set of conditions?" These estimate will depend on those conditions, so the numbers Ashley comes up with will differ from the numbers I come up with, reflecting the difference in our opinions of how we ought to do it. But if we both make reasonably good assumptions, then our estimates probably won't be too far apart. Since we are averaging over a number of conditions, it could be that our differences really don't matter all that much.<br /><br />If you take a weapon and put it on two Mechs of differing capability, then you are no longer comparing weapons but comparing mechs. Now the question becomes "How much damage can the Mech do, on average, in a given set of conditions?" We can still compare to a standard - it the same calculation with greater complexity (MUCH greater), and it is now a standard for Mechs rather than for weapons.<br /><br />Now comparing strategies is a different animal, and you are correct that a single value (per Mech) won't tell you everything you need to know. The previous sort of calculation doesn't apply very well, because it is hard to define a standard for how people play, and it would be pointless to try to put numbers on it.<br />What would be helpful is to have several values per mech to give its value at different ranges. You might then select your mechs (based on firepower, range, and mobility) to support the strategy you want to play, or play the best strategy for the mechs you are given.Dan Eastwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105563883467108602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-18105980858903053142011-07-07T16:05:50.842+01:002011-07-07T16:05:50.842+01:00Hey Eastwood, my point I suppose is that you cant ...Hey Eastwood, my point I suppose is that you cant accurately compare weapons versus a standard, as each weapon has a different standard not only on different mechs but with different pilots versus different mechs, ect.<br /><br />How big is the scope of the weapons breakdown I guess?<br /><br />I mean, lets compare the difference in damage between something like an ER medium laser versus standard medium lasers. Is it fair to calculate range at 3 and 4? When comparing the damage of these 2 weapons, its my belief that straight comparisons of damage fail to illustrate the in-game damage such weapons will deal. <br /><br />As I stated, it seems ingame players get perhaps 10 rounds to a game before time is up, while in something like megamek you may go 30 rounds in the same time. This makes a huge difference in what each weapon can do. In the short 10 round game range is a much bigger deal, while in a 30 round megamek game there is more time to close into the shorter ranged lasers effective range bracket.<br /><br />I dont know, maybe the scope of the weapon breakdown is not that large. However, if it indeed is to try and find accurate BV-like weapon worthwhile values, then I feel the game system shoots you in the foot. Kind of like the pilot skill increases do--because the value of something like a 1 better TN changes at every probability step on a 2d6 distribution, and average worth based on all values just encourages players to stick to the most beneficial area on the 2d6 distribution for larger than expected benefits.DevianIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811778313533454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-67365970354108394282011-07-07T13:23:34.826+01:002011-07-07T13:23:34.826+01:00I think you are misunderstanding the intent - ther...I think you are misunderstanding the intent - there is nothing here about measuring weapons vs weapon (or Mech vs Mech), but rather about measuring weapons versus a standard. Further, it is not a fixed standard, but a set of conditions each assigned a probability.<br /><br />You can do the same thing to evaluate Mechs, by determining how much damage they might do in a set of conditions. Rick Raisley's Weapon Value in HeavyMetal Pro is an example of this - he adds up all the damage a mech can produce at all ranges (and adjusted a bit for heat, I think). He has essentially assigned equal probability to all possible ranges and added up add the expected damage (tho he doesn't describe it that way). Ashley is doing a very similar calculation.<br /><br />Raisley's range distribution isn't very good (IMO), because he assumes all ranges are equally likely. Anyone who plays Battletech knows that short ranges are much more likely then long ones.Dan Eastwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105563883467108602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-1123989614360257302011-07-07T07:39:24.209+01:002011-07-07T07:39:24.209+01:00NP Eastwood. And Ashley I have posted before unde...NP Eastwood. And Ashley I have posted before under BradleyN but I do mostly lurk. Anyway my point was that a graph with expected damage is not what you can expect in a game. And I still disagree that you can find a decent number of worth without making a specific set of assumptions first. Like for example every weapon must be reevaluated at each different gunnery skill versus each other gunnery skill. That does more to set your range than the actual weapons range IMHO. Its just such a complicated topic when you use 2d6 for your distributions.DevianIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811778313533454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-51905227098398651662011-07-06T16:19:53.443+01:002011-07-06T16:19:53.443+01:00apologies if my previous comments came across as s...apologies if my previous comments came across as snippy. It seems I was grumpy when I got up this morning --> I blame it on lack of sleep and not enough coffee.<br /><br />Mmmmm ... coffee!Dan Eastwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105563883467108602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-62960090790354165612011-07-06T16:13:09.438+01:002011-07-06T16:13:09.438+01:00DevianID: Your comments are hardly long winded in ...DevianID: Your comments are hardly long winded in comparison to what has gone before. So thank you for contributing, and welcome to my blog.<br /><br />As for the game mechanisms of BattleTech, that will have to wait and be addressed in future posts, though I have skirted around the issue in prior posts. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-65800561506871354732011-07-06T12:21:52.974+01:002011-07-06T12:21:52.974+01:00@DevianID -- Also, mechs without hand actuators ar...@DevianID -- Also, mechs without hand actuators are really bad at playing Chess - the only move they can make is kick-over-the-table.<br /><br />The situation you describe is beyond the scope of what Ashley is trying to do. It's true that you cannot put a good single value on weapons for every gamey scenario that player's might come with, but you *can* come up with good numbers for a specific situation. You *can* get reasonably good numbers (better than BV) for a general scenario that most players would call "a fair game".Dan Eastwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105563883467108602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-24347406473848416062011-07-06T09:10:35.777+01:002011-07-06T09:10:35.777+01:00Holy cow! L Richardson and EastwoodDC covered eve...Holy cow! L Richardson and EastwoodDC covered everything I was going to say and then some!<br /><br />What I'd really like to do is make a graph, with range on one axis, target numbers on a second, and expected damage on the third. Hard to do in 2D. :(<br /><br />Would help me see what decisions to make, in-game, to deal with those gamey constraints though.skitlaonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-60733801021031848062011-07-06T07:17:41.290+01:002011-07-06T07:17:41.290+01:00Howdy. I had a long post typed out but it got los...Howdy. I had a long post typed out but it got lost in the internet... here is an abridged version.<br /><br />Basicly, the 'gameyness' of battletech makes your mathmatically model of damage forever flawed. Prime example is a super fast mech like a Grendel with a weapon like a clan er large laser on a flippable arm. A math model and a logical model will tell you that said fast long range mech will never lose to a slower shorter ranged mech. They simply have to keep the Grendel at range 25 and spend a few hundred rounds of battletech at said range, and any opposition will be gone.<br /><br />Enter the gamey constraints. First is the maps. Limited map size is a problem. If rolling maps are instituted then the opposing mech must find some hole to hide in, as he can do the math as well and see that if he steps out he will die. I believe the term is 'Turrettech' for this situation?<br /><br />Another huge gamey constraint is time. Expected values as above work because they take every possible value into consideration. However, many battle reports involving 12 or so mechs end between turn 5 and 10, and only involve perhaps 3-6 rounds of shooting. In games with time constraints, closing the distance as fast as possible, even on long range mechs, is the only way to do damage. After all, if you only have 10 total turns with the above grendel, and need to do at least 70 damage to the enemy, then the grendel is going to close very quickly to bring to hit numbers into the 5+ range or risk running out of time when the game ends.<br /><br />Anyway, my long winded point is that while we know that the king and queen of battletech weapons are the medium laser and PPC, all weapon math involved is going to be very flawed because the gamey nature of battletech means that logical and mathmatical answers to what are good are terrible 'in-game' answers.DevianIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811778313533454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-76240505448598081132011-07-02T09:54:53.936+01:002011-07-02T09:54:53.936+01:00You're right Steven. Never meant to imply a re...You're right Steven. Never meant to imply a replacement of BV, just a better understanding of the relationships between BV, C-Bills, and tonnage, some heuristic tools if you like, to base assumptions on, so as to know what weapons are really effective.<br /><br />A sort of mathematical version of the five Ws; what, when, where, whom and why (how) of weapons? Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-75532703138608726662011-07-02T03:33:02.466+01:002011-07-02T03:33:02.466+01:00It seems to me this would not so much a way of rep...It seems to me this would not so much a way of replacing BV as it would be assessing a new weapon design. Something I've seen a lot of, recently.<br /><br />Many of the games out there, the campaigns at least, seem to develop their own weapons and it would be handy to be able to run a given design through Ashley's 'Damage Engine' to see if it balances more or less.<br /><br />Is it not possible to use the examples of 'complications' to determine what to leave out when attempting to sum up a variable as a hard number or equation? Since it is so very hard to express as numbers something which nevertheless exisst as a real influence on the game, perhaps some sort of fudge factor for a given type of play?Steven Satakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03621308678106707775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-7531060897896751122011-07-01T21:36:33.477+01:002011-07-01T21:36:33.477+01:00Heh. Lucky you. Know anyone hiring engineers? ; ) ...Heh. Lucky you. Know anyone hiring engineers? ; ) <br /><br />At any rate, take your time. I just hope it is useful to your quest.L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-43163341394871719942011-06-28T23:27:49.238+01:002011-06-28T23:27:49.238+01:00Haven't had time. Work has been a bit of a nig...Haven't had time. Work has been a bit of a nightmare recently. Ashleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666947574653683678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-49903636876467300382011-06-27T01:03:02.119+01:002011-06-27T01:03:02.119+01:00In my other research I came across this passage fr...In my other research I came across this passage from a 1944 article on the effectiveness of Sherman tanks vs 72mm and 88mm tank guns. <br /><br />"The complexities of military tactics (have) proved for a long time intractable, since even the smallest battle is a bewildering compound of variables, and new methods had therefore to be worked out before there could be any hope of results. In spite of these difficulties, each of the six Operational Research Sections set up at one time or another with the Field Armies achieved a considerable measure of success. But where the future is concerned, it is not so much the results they achieved, however valuable, as the methods they used, that will matter. For the superficial details of battle may be altered in a moment by the introduction of a new weapon, while the underlying principles of warfare scarcely change from one century to the next. "<br /><br />Just thought that it seemed appropriate here. Have you been able to open that file?L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-43083604116146662272011-06-22T03:34:42.664+01:002011-06-22T03:34:42.664+01:00So, basically where this stands is that the statis...So, basically where this stands is that the statistician and the engineer agree that expected damage as a function of range is the ideal step off point for what you are looking for. I have a spreadsheet I can send you but I can't seem to find an Email link. Drop me a line at lXeXuXmXiXsXatXgXmXaXiXlXdotXcXoXm (remove the X's to see my email) and I will send you the partial sheet. I have only done the inner sphere autocannon and will leave it to you to do the rest. I have also left it up to you to draw your own conclusions about the relative value of being able to do X damage at N hexes range for all X. And of course what to do with this output is similarly left for you to reason. From this sheet you should also be able to figure out how to run the calcs again for various to-hit modifiers being applied. <br /><br />Once you indicate that you are following this method so far (I think you do but I don't want to jump ahead just assuming that I explained it competently) then I can give you some suggestions on how to fire a Bernoulli elephant gun...L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-39048161403304774132011-06-17T23:16:14.648+01:002011-06-17T23:16:14.648+01:00> The thought comes to pull a massive Monte Car...> The thought comes to pull a massive Monte Carlo method. <br /><br />I've had that thought - but I'll have to save that story for another day.<br /><br />DanDan Eastwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105563883467108602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5262220849718806044.post-9735615480749116312011-06-17T21:05:23.231+01:002011-06-17T21:05:23.231+01:00Oh, and a comment on rolling so many dice you are ...Oh, and a comment on rolling so many dice you are sure to get lucky: It is not that bad of a game system flaw. It is very much a real world effect that a bunch of little bits of damage can be more catastrophic than a single big bomb. Consider the case of cluster bombs, less explosive per mass of payload, less shrapnel per mass of payload too, but the dispersal has a dramatically enhanced on-target effect. <br /><br />Just ask the little kids that pick up unexploded bomblets every year...L Richardsonhttp://www.sarna.netnoreply@blogger.com