Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

larsdangly · 11-25-2020, 02:31 PM

I suggest we just focus on the game balance issue rather than historical versimilitude, since it is a game after all.

Arguably the simplest way to judge the relative merits of two weapons is to compare the expected value of damage doled out per turn by a typical 32 point character designed to use that weapon effectively. This isn't really the very best measure of usefulness because you also care about the match-up vs. armor types, probabilities of crossing certain damage thresholds and so forth, but it is really easy to compute and not a terrible basis for comparison.

I would say a pretty good model for a 32 point arquebusier might be ST 9 DX 14 IQ 9, Missile Weapons III — this isn't the total min max monster because I've given him or her the option of also being able to fight with a rapier or comparable melee weapon, but its a pretty good take on the 'type'. This character will hit at moderate melee combat range (say, -2 range penalty) 95 % of the time, doing an average of 13.5 points of damage, with a 1 in 6 chance of a misfire. That's an expected value of 10.7 points of damage for ideal conditions — an open shot at moderate range with full preparation.

So, the question is how much can this be diminished by limiting the rate of fire before it becomes uncompetitive as a character concept? We can compare with various other missile weapons used by appropriately crafted 32 point characters:

A ST 12, DX 11, IQ 9 crossbowman with MW III and a light crossbow will fire every turn (adj.DX 14) at a target at moderate range (-2 range penalty) hitting 74% of the time for an average of 7 points of damage — an expected value of 5.18, or almost exactly half that of the arquebusier firing under nearly ideal conditions.

A ST 10, DX 13, IQ 9 archer with MW III and a horse bow will fire twice per turn (adj. DX 16) at a target at moderate range (-2 range penalty) hitting 91 % of the time and doing 3.5 points of damage per hit, for an overall expected value of 6.4 points of damage per turn. Slightly better, but also about half that of the arquebusier firing at ideal conditions (ready, propped and rearing to go).

We could go on, but the sense you get is that an arquebus is a balanced weapon (ignoring the campaign issue of where you get the money to pay for the gunpowder!), provided the impediments to firing reduce your fire rate compared to other missile weapons by about a factor of 2.

So, the question is, do we accomplish that by ruling that the arquebus becomes unready if you move? Perhaps. The answer is clearly a matter of circumstances. If everyone starts combat by walking into an arena with un-prepared weapons, then the 4 turns to prepare makes the arquebus basically untenable. If the run-up to combat provides more warning time, then the arquebus blows these other missile weapons off the field.

11-25-2020, 02:31 PM	#30
larsdangly Join Date: Dec 2017	Re: Not quite getting the arquebus I suggest we just focus on the game balance issue rather than historical versimilitude, since it is a game after all. Arguably the simplest way to judge the relative merits of two weapons is to compare the expected value of damage doled out per turn by a typical 32 point character designed to use that weapon effectively. This isn't really the very best measure of usefulness because you also care about the match-up vs. armor types, probabilities of crossing certain damage thresholds and so forth, but it is really easy to compute and not a terrible basis for comparison. I would say a pretty good model for a 32 point arquebusier might be ST 9 DX 14 IQ 9, Missile Weapons III — this isn't the total min max monster because I've given him or her the option of also being able to fight with a rapier or comparable melee weapon, but its a pretty good take on the 'type'. This character will hit at moderate melee combat range (say, -2 range penalty) 95 % of the time, doing an average of 13.5 points of damage, with a 1 in 6 chance of a misfire. That's an expected value of 10.7 points of damage for ideal conditions — an open shot at moderate range with full preparation. So, the question is how much can this be diminished by limiting the rate of fire before it becomes uncompetitive as a character concept? We can compare with various other missile weapons used by appropriately crafted 32 point characters: A ST 12, DX 11, IQ 9 crossbowman with MW III and a light crossbow will fire every turn (adj.DX 14) at a target at moderate range (-2 range penalty) hitting 74% of the time for an average of 7 points of damage — an expected value of 5.18, or almost exactly half that of the arquebusier firing under nearly ideal conditions. A ST 10, DX 13, IQ 9 archer with MW III and a horse bow will fire twice per turn (adj. DX 16) at a target at moderate range (-2 range penalty) hitting 91 % of the time and doing 3.5 points of damage per hit, for an overall expected value of 6.4 points of damage per turn. Slightly better, but also about half that of the arquebusier firing at ideal conditions (ready, propped and rearing to go). We could go on, but the sense you get is that an arquebus is a balanced weapon (ignoring the campaign issue of where you get the money to pay for the gunpowder!), provided the impediments to firing reduce your fire rate compared to other missile weapons by about a factor of 2. So, the question is, do we accomplish that by ruling that the arquebus becomes unready if you move? Perhaps. The answer is clearly a matter of circumstances. If everyone starts combat by walking into an arena with un-prepared weapons, then the 4 turns to prepare makes the arquebus basically untenable. If the run-up to combat provides more warning time, then the arquebus blows these other missile weapons off the field.