Alternative CRTs for OGRE as well as other games

[h3rne]

I heartily agree with the "concentrate on how it improves the game" sentiment.

Meanwhile, here's my "alternative" - the observant will note it is equivalent to the CRT we know and love, only more succinct.

Attack/Defence__|__<0.5___|__0.5+_|___1+__|___2+__|___3+_ _|__4+___|___5+__|
Disable/Destroy_|_Automiss_|__5/6__|_3+/5+_|_2+/4+_|_1+/3+_|__1/2+_|_Autokill_|

This forum _so_ needs a way of formatting tables...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by h3rne

This forum _so_ needs a way of formatting tables...

Use Code Tags:
Start                         End
Code                         /Code

[Toltrin]

How a normalized CRT table helps the game is that lower power units have as much chance per strength point as higher power units. With the current table that have existed since OGRE began it is biased towards higher power units or higher ratios.
With the normalized table a 1:1 odds attack has a 1/3 chance to either destroy, disable and have no effect. With each step or step down in ratios (like 1:2 or 2:1) you shift the table up or down making it more evenly fair for lesser powerful attacks. I like consistency in gaming so I can make scenarios that are more predictable and therefore more balanced. A CRT table that is arbitrarily created supports observed results rather than calculated results. In other words one follows a predictive pattern and the other 'just feels right'.
Of course I will still use the CRT that came with OGRE but in large scale battles sometimes we choose the normalized CRT to save time and give the lesser powerful units a stake in the game.

[h3rne]

Sir Pudding :)

Attack/Defence  |   <0.5   | 0.5+ |   1+  |   2+  |   3+  |  4+  |    5+    |
Disable/Destroy | Automiss | 5/6  | 3+/5+ | 2+/4+ | 1+/3+ | 1/2+ | Autokill |

And normalising the table is a really interesting thought although you could consider the granularity in the unit stats as the problem, not the CRT. i.e. a low stat unit really ought to have attack 0.8 but 1 is as close as we can make it.

[Toltrin]

Originally Posted by h3rne

I heartily agree with the "concentrate on how it improves the game" sentiment.

Meanwhile, here's my "alternative" - the observant will note it is equivalent to the CRT we know and love, only more succinct.

Attack/Defence__|__<0.5___|__0.5+_|___1+__|___2+__|___3+_ _|__4+___|___5+__|
Disable/Destroy_|_Automiss_|__5/6__|_3+/5+_|_2+/4+_|_1+/3+_|__1/2+_|_Autokill_|

This forum _so_ needs a way of formatting tables...

I actually just made CRT dice.

[h3rne]

Originally Posted by Toltrin

I actually just made CRT dice.

Inspiring work as always Toltrin, but I found these a little hard on the eyes. Here's my solution - 5 CRT dice; one for each odds level.

[h3rne]

And a new version that builds a bit better and is now in the traditional checkbook font.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1314878/ogre

[Toltrin]

As long as you are happy with em! :)

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by h3rne

And a new version that builds a bit better and is now in the traditional checkbook font.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1314878/ogre

For some reason, the checkbook font is harder to read. I like the non-checkbook font MUCH better.

Cool idea to pimp out the game.

Thanks.

[h3rne]

Originally Posted by kjamma4

For some reason, the checkbook font is harder to read.

I think you're right - the checkbook font was designed to be read by machines and although it pains me to admit it, I think it's harder to read too. It might just be that the transparency is making things worse, not better, but I'll have another go. Maybe I need to mix the fonts. Checkbook for the results but something clearer for the odds. I might even try the odds separate rather than in overlay. Any graphic designers out there with any advice? Firehorse?