Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

1. The chance of an Attacker / Defender killing a unit are expressed as percentages - e.g. 75% vs 60%. Border modifiers are also expressed as percentages (+/- change to this figure). I think this step will make understanding attack / defend odds in Simultaneous play a lot easier.

Risky and I were talking today and Risky came up with a great question.  Are rolls resolved still with dice or are they a strict calculation as to number of kills?

For example if 10 units attacking with 50% attack, will it always kill 5 units?  Or is it possible one time it will kill 4 and another time kill 6?

Effectively they are calculated using rolls of a 100 sided dice.

The way it is calculated is as follows. Say there are 10 units attacking 5 units across a 70% vs 60% border (calculated net of any border modifiers + fatigue).

Attacker: repeat 10x:

• Generate a random number between 1 and 100
• If the number is greater than 30 then the attacker gets a kill

Defender: repeat 5x:

• Generate a random number between 1 and 100
• If the number is greater than 40 then the defender gets a kill

 Subtract the number of attacker kills from the defender and the number of defender kills from the attacker. If the attacker kills more than the total number of defending units then occupy the territory with this number of units.

Got it. So if you want defense (ie: territory is harder to conquer) it is better to have a negative attack than a positive defense or does it not matter since the totals are allocated at the end of the turns? (I think I get it but I just want to make sure I am clear)

Yertle wrote:

For example if 10 units attacking with 50% attack... Or is it possible one time it will kill 4 and another time kill 6?

So it is possible that it will kill only 4 once, and another time kill 6 correct?

That potentially makes the % a bit misleading, as the % is really still Dice/RNG/Luck based. (<insert Rule to not use dice but only do %> I think WarLight has something like that, removes Luck)

RiskyBack wrote: So if you want defense (ie: territory is harder to conquer) it is better to have a negative attack than a positive defense

Yes, I believe that is correct.

RiskyBack wrote: Got it. So if you want defense (ie: territory is harder to conquer) it is better to have a negative attack than a positive defense or does it not matter since the totals are allocated at the end of the turns? (I think I get it but I just want to make sure I am clear)

This seems correct to me. 
Negative attack modifier would suggest that it is harder to kill defenders, but defender kill attackers like normal (Attacker suffers normal losses, but has a hard time killing defending units).
Positive defender modifier would suggest that defenders kill more attackers, but that attackers kill defenders like normal (Attacker suffers heavy losses, but has a normal time killing defending units).

Loving the hotkey support.

Yertle wrote: 

So it is possible that it will kill only 4 once, and another time kill 6 correct?

That potentially makes the % a bit misleading, as the % is really still Dice/RNG/Luck based. ( I think WarLight has something like that, removes Luck)

Yes that's right. When I was doing the coding I initially had a 'no luck' type option for designers, i.e. if you attacked with 10 units across a 70% border you are guaranteed to kill 7 units every time. It becomes tricky with low unit numbers though – e.g. if I attack with 2 units across a 40% border, am I guaranteed to always kill no defending units?

Similarly with 1 unit across anything less than a 100% border you are never going to have a successful attack. That didn’t seem like it would work very well in practice although I am happy to resurrect this.

RiskyBack wrote: So if you want defense (ie: territory is harder to conquer) it is better to have a negative attack than a positive defense

 Yes.

Mongrel wrote: Loving the hotkey support.

Good point - for anyone who hasn't guessed this, there are a few shortcuts for the Attack / Fortify window:

A = attack with all units
0-9 - attack with this number of units
X = attack with 0 units

S = Save and close window

So a quick 'AS' attacks with all and adds the new order.

I'm a huge fan of the hotkeys too! Except they seem to stop working if you click in the Attack window, which is kind of a bummer.

Since default is Combined it's Attack/Fortify with all units really :)

tom wrote:

Unit pumping is disallowing the following scenario:

Player A owns a territory which holds 10 units. He creates an attack order in round 3 to attack out with these 10 units. Here's what happens:

Round 1: Player B attacks territory reducing it to 5 units
Round 2: Player A reinforce the territory with 5 units
Round 3: Player A attacks out of territory with 10 units

With unit pumping disabled, Player A would only be able to attack out with 5 units. i.e. the engine checks to see what the minimum number of units that the territory was reduced to before the round in which the player makes the attack.

Sheesh this is quite hard to explain actually! Anyone else can do a better job be my guest :)

Question on this... "Allow unit pumping" of On means units that were fortified (probably a better word than "reinforced" now) can then be used to attack out right?

Setting of Off means only the 5 could be used right?

Question is because the tooltip says "When unit pumping is on the game engine keeps track..." seems like it should be when "Allow unit pumping" is Off is when that occurs.

Am I getting my negatives mixed up or just thinking in reverse or does the tooltip need changed from "on" to "off"?

Yes you're right :)

I think SimulGear boards are ready to go Live now unless there are any objections? There are still a couple of minor things to clean up but no show-stoppers AFAIK.

I like the name!

I was first to have a SimulGear map go live!

Seperate rankings for simulgear I assume?

BlackDog wrote: Seperate rankings for simulgear I assume?

I would think no.

Might be cool to be kept on player's profile as a type of stat, but don't think it should be any different overall IMO.

BlackDog wrote: Seperate rankings for simulgear I assume?

There are already enough rankings. I finally made my way to the top 10 of all three lists. Don't need to add another one to get. =)

Well, consider yourself warned, I don't plan on losing many simulgear games ;)

I've got 2 open games on the Home Page now so.....

don't sing it, BRING IT!

BlackDog wrote: Well, consider yourself warned, I don't plan on losing many simulgear games ;)

I'd hope you don't plan on losing many regular games either. =) I know I never plan on losing regular games. I guess I should probably figure out how simulgear games work before I say that about them though.......

RiskyBack wrote: I've got 2 open games on the Home Page now so.....

don't sing it, BRING IT!

I was just looking at the Boards page and checked out GearWars - The Force Unleashed. Nowhere could I find any indication that it is a SimulGear Board.  For that matter, when I went to the page to join one of your games there is only one place that designates it as SimulG.  This needs to be addressed sooner than later IMO because it will cause much confusion.  A pop-up is an annoyance, I agree, but it is one solution.  Perhaps better would be to place the SG boards on a different page or section.  Also, the placement of the games in the open games list needs to be much more delineated.  Again, better would be to have a separate open SimulG games list.