Alternative to Structure Points: math help

[Desert Scribe]

In my games, when I use laser towers or laser turrets, I don't bother with structure points and instead assign the structure a defensive value and resolve attacks via the CRT. My reasons are to cut down on recordkeeping, avoid giving newbies another rule to learn, and add to the narrative with disabled emplacements having a chance to come back online.

That said, I want to give a defensive value that results in the attacker having to expend a statistically similar amount of attack strength to take out the laser: By the book it takes a total of 5 attack points (attacks are doubled against buildings) to deliver 10 SP of damage and knock out a laser. What should the Defense value be to require an average of 10 SP to kill a laser as if it were a vehicle?

I originally gave lasers a Defense of 4, but I'm wondering if a 5 or 6 would soak up a number of attacks closer to what 10 SP does on a statistical basis. What do y'all think?

[FJCestero]

Originally Posted by Desert Scribe

In my games, when I use laser towers or laser turrets, I don't bother with structure points and instead assign the structure a defensive value and resolve attacks via the CRT. My reasons are to cut down on recordkeeping, avoid giving newbies another rule to learn, and add to the narrative with disabled emplacements having a chance to come back online.

That said, I want to give a defensive value that results in the attacker having to expend a statistically similar amount of attack strength to take out the laser: By the book it takes a total of 5 attack points (attacks are doubled against buildings) to deliver 10 SP of damage and knock out a laser. What should the Defense value be to require an average of 10 SP to kill a laser as if it were a vehicle?

I originally gave lasers a Defense of 4, but I'm wondering if a 5 or 6 would soak up a number of attacks closer to what 10 SP does on a statistical basis. What do y'all think?

Well, you see, the problem is that there is no equivalent D value to SP. Why? Because SP has no mechanism for the manner in which you apply the Attack Values. In short, 10 SP = 5 Attacks whether done as one attack of 5 or five attacks of 1 or any combination. Against a D-value, you divide and roll for random effect.

Not that your basic idea is a bad one (far from it! I don't really like SPs myself -- the added game benefit to brain cells ratio is too low), I'm just saying there is no 'statistically similar(ity)' to the two. I also object to Laser Tower/SP being deterministic: hit a LT with 5 Attack Points and it ALWAYS stops working...

You could, as a suggestion, use two different D values: one for the laser and the other (larger) one for the tower. Roll one die for an attack and resolve at the same time -- just like INF aboard GEV-PCs. A 'D' for the laser means it's out for one turn, an 'X' means D3+1 turns (or whatever). A 'D' for the tower means nothing, an 'X' means the whole thing is destroyed.

So a A4 attack on a D3/5 Laser Tower would resolve as a 1:1 for the laser emitter, and a 1:2 against the Tower itself. Roll one die and use that for both outcomes.

As a last resort, you might say that since the most common attack ratio is 1:1 and this is successful 1/3 of the time the D equivalent to a given SP is the Attack necessary to destroy it (SP / 2) divided by 3, or SP / 6. YMMV.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by FJCestero

As a last resort, you might say that since the most common attack ratio is 1:1 and this is successful 1/3 of the time the D equivalent to a given SP is the Attack necessary to destroy it (SP / 2) divided by 3, or SP / 6. YMMV.

That's a tread. (So it's likely work fine.)

[Desert Scribe]

I think I'll go with D4. This allows a lone GEV to get in a 1-2 attack against a structure, meaning a few turns of GEV fire should take out the laser, just as they would using the normal rules.

Although a single LGEV can't damage a D4 structure at a distance under this modification, since attacks against buildings are doubled in overruns, we can still play Operation Newspaper.

[TheDS]

This is kind of the reverse of what I'm looking for in the other thread I started. Basically a way to more or less fix the amount of damage done by a unit to another unit, preferably without adding a butt-ton of record keeping. I just perused the OGRE Miniatures rules and spotted Structure Points and wondered if there might be an answer, or at least a clue, there.

I've seen WAY too many games where one player always rolls great and the other always rolls crap. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not fun when it happens all the time. It also makes it a lot harder to get a good grip on whether a strategy SHOULD work.

The only thing I've really come up with so far is trying to assign a number of hit points based on the Defense value and possibly a scaling value for Attack which would inflict disproportionately greater damage with higher numbers, which would simulate the greater effectiveness of combining units. (Because, frankly, doing all your rolls at 1:1 is very silly.)

Trying to reverse this process for your use would might be useful, but considering there are only a handful of values for you to choose from, experimentation is your better option, I'd say.

[offsides]

Just from a decent approximation standpoint, somewhere between 2x and 3x the D value would make a good 'hit points' number. Since a 1:1 attack has a 33% chance of a kill, and a 2:1 attack has a 50% chance, that feels about right to me. Granted, at 3x the D value that takes a 3:1 attack from a 67% chance of a kill to a 100% chance of a kill, but there's no good way to directly change the D value and die-roll chances into straight numbers; after all, if there were, that's what we'd already be playing with :)

The main problem with switching to a straight 'hit points' system is that it eliminates the 'disabled' concept altogether. There's not really time for 'healing' in the scale Ogre plays in, so the idea of recovery doesn't work without adding die rolls back in, which kind of defeats the purpose...

Personally I prefer die rolls, and wouldn't mind adding some sort of defense value to structures (roll the attack normally, X = 2x damage, D = 1x damage, NE = 1/2 or 0 damage), but that's probably more complicated than it's worth and definitely would be an optional rule.

[HeatDeath]

Another point of data:

In earlier versions of GEV the terrain destruction rules were different. A piece of terrain was destroyed automatically by the 12th attack point to be directed at it, or a unit located in it.

Now, terrain are treated as being D4.

This suggests that D4 is considered roughly equivalent to 12 SP.

[Tim Kauffman]

Originally Posted by Desert Scribe

I think I'll go with D4. This allows a lone GEV to get in a 1-2 attack against a structure, meaning a few turns of GEV fire should take out the laser, just as they would using the normal rules.

Although a single LGEV can't damage a D4 structure at a distance under this modification, since attacks against buildings are doubled in overruns, we can still play Operation Newspaper.

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

Another point of data:

In earlier versions of GEV the terrain destruction rules were different. A piece of terrain was destroyed automatically by the 12th attack point to be directed at it, or a unit located in it.

Now, terrain are treated as being D4.

This suggests that D4 is considered roughly equivalent to 12 SP.

SP/ D Values are a bit apples and oranges I think. Obviously using SP instead of a D Value means the "building" can't be destroyed in one shot, but having SP also means lesser attack values automatically do damage incrementally. Where using a D Value, that lower attack range becomes ineffective. But I agree, using SP gets kind of cumbersome when actually playing.
I think it would actually make better sense to have Lasers and Laser Towers have a D Value instead of SP because this would create a nice difference between them and other "buildings". Lasers are, after all said to be fragile. Giving them a D Value would reflect that better Imho because every attack would have a chance of destroying it.
I would leave everything else as SP though.
This is why, after help in the forums here, I decided to make the OGRE Operated Laser Towers on the FanMade PORTABLE LASER TOWER (PLT), LANCER and BASILISK D4s. It just seemed right.

I'm going to start making Normal Lasers and Laser Towers D4 from now on. This is a good discussion, Thanks guys.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

Now, terrain are treated as being D4.

D4 seems a particularly good choice.

D4 plays nice with the CRT and all but two of the original units. GEVs, HVYs and LTs are fine. You aren't likely to use a HWZ vs a structure.

Also, D5 stays reserved for "a solid block of BPC", like the SHVY. "It's built like an ogre main gun. D4." seems good.

[GranitePenguin]

reading over this a bit more, and I think the concept as a whole falls a little flat. The problem is it is not a direct 1-1 mapping. As soon as you try to use a D value, you are throwing statistical odds into something that normally doesn't use them.

If you have a 20SP laser at a D4, and you attack with 1 GEV, that's a 1-2 attack with a 83% chance of missing, instead of a 100% chance of hitting and knocking off 4 SP. That's a huge difference in the overall mechanic that I don't think works very well. Statistically speaking, you are expecting 6 turns for that one GEV to get that X, which is twice the number of turns it would take normally using SP.

To take that further, if that was 3 GEVs it would be an automatic 12SP, disabling the laser in one turn. So you would have to do something that guarantees 3 GEVs could take it out; a 6-4 ratio is far from that case. That's a 1-1 attack, which is only a 33% chance of "killing" it (i.e., statistically, it should take three turns). That's a long way off from modeling SPs with die rolls. Additionally, what does a "D" result mean in this context? Even if it means it's disabled like usual, that means even more firepower wasted to finally kill it in another attack.

Also, is this something that is specific to lasers? What about other structures that are higher SP (i.e., how do you destroy a 60SP strongpoint)? Even lasers can be as much as 40SP, which even further unbalances this concept (now you have to model losing 30SP to disable it).

I don't see it working for anything other than the simplest of cases, and even then, it's a stretch. I don't see how this is easier than putting counters next to the building to track the SP and subtracting when you hit. I also don't see how this makes it any better for new players. If it's just for lasers, then they still have to learn the rules for SP reduction to take out other buildings. Why bother with a fudge rule that doesn't speed anything up?