The current RNG system is not good for a strategy game I think.

I suggest to use a "multiple dice system" like in tabletop games.

The current system looks like we have a 1 dice with 100 sides and it picks a random number with the same chance for each number.

If we use a "multiple dice system" then it would be a less randomization which is good for a strategy game which is based on a player's skill.

An example: if we use 2 dices with 6 sides -

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |

+---+---+---+----+----+----+

You can see the 7 is choses more often the other numbers.

Chance to get 7 is 6/36, 6 and 8 is 5/36 for each of them an so on...

If we have a 66.67% chance to hit then we can get a successful hit in range of 5 to 9.

If we have 44.45% chance to hit then we can get a successful hit in range of 6 to 8.

Etc.

We can use more dices with more sides to simplify calculations for balancing the game. But the thing is - if we have 10 dices with 10 sides we can never get a 10 dices with 1 or 6 on the sides of each of them during the game. So this system would be less random then current.

## Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

The only thing the dice system does is make finding your odds harder. If you want less randomness you can just directly adjust the hit chances.

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

-1

U do know a m1a2 is more accurate than a t34 right?

U do know a m1a2 is more accurate than a t34 right?

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

throwaway wrote:The only thing the dice system does is make finding your odds harder. If you want less randomness you can just directly adjust the hit chances.

Now we have 1 roll (It looks like it) for determine a hit chance and it depends on time seed for RNG (correct me if I wrong).

The randomness of the roll would be less if we will use a multiple rolls.

- James-Bond
- Master Sergeant
**Posts:**198**Joined:**Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08-
**Contact:**

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

throwaway wrote:The only thing the dice system does is make finding your odds harder. If you want less randomness you can just directly adjust the hit chances.

+1

End of the day multiple dice will just return a probability value anyway their is no reason to make it more complex?

2 head coin tosses in a row, 25%

Greater than 6 on an 8 sided dice, 25%

Greater than 75 out of 100, 25%

I'd prefer to deal directly with % probability than complex compound odds.

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

James-Bond wrote:End of the day multiple dice will just return a probability value anyway their is no reason to make it more complex?

2 head coin tosses in a row, 25%

Greater than 6 on an 8 sided dice, 25%

Greater than 75 out of 100, 25%

I'd prefer to deal directly with % probability than complex compound odds.

http://anydice.com/program/535 Here you can see a comparison of 1d12 and 2d6. The probability for 1d12 are equal for each side is 8.33%. The probability for 2d6 for 2 or 12 is 2.78% but for 7 is 16.67%.

The difference between 1d12 and 2d6 is: 6.50 average / 3.45 standard deviation for 1d12 and 7.00 average / 2.42 standard deviation for 2d6.

For the 1d12 we only have 12 variants of roll but for 2d6 we have 36 variants! And we can use even more dices to lower the deviation.

Want bring to mind - we are playing a strategy game which must relay on player's skill but not a random numbers.

The simple example in probabilities is - if we give a monkey an unlimited time the monkey will write War and Peace of Tolstoy someday but this is in theory, but in reality the monkey will never write it. But now in WG we have a monkey which can write War and Peace 100 times in 40 minutes.

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

Addition:

We can radically change the whole hit system -

For example:

2d6 have 7 is an average with 16.67% chance, but it can hit a target with 12 or 2 with 2.78% chance. Here we can define a critical hits (miss, ammo explosion, optical failure and so on...). We can use different dice numbers and sides for each unit.

For machinegun we can use 3d3 which rolls in range of 3 to 9 and can divide the result by 9. Now we have range from 0.33 to 1 where 0.66 is an average damage with 25.93% chance.

For an autocannon (Marder 2) we can use the same 3d3 but with no division. We get 3 to 9 roll with 6 as an average and 25.93% chance to hit.

For a tank gun we can use 10d3 in range from 10 to 30 with an average 20 and chance to hit 15.16%, for 19 and 21 the chance is 14.14% ... for 16 and 24 is 4.83% and for 10 and 30 is almost 0%

Something like this.

We can radically change the whole hit system -

For example:

2d6 have 7 is an average with 16.67% chance, but it can hit a target with 12 or 2 with 2.78% chance. Here we can define a critical hits (miss, ammo explosion, optical failure and so on...). We can use different dice numbers and sides for each unit.

For machinegun we can use 3d3 which rolls in range of 3 to 9 and can divide the result by 9. Now we have range from 0.33 to 1 where 0.66 is an average damage with 25.93% chance.

For an autocannon (Marder 2) we can use the same 3d3 but with no division. We get 3 to 9 roll with 6 as an average and 25.93% chance to hit.

For a tank gun we can use 10d3 in range from 10 to 30 with an average 20 and chance to hit 15.16%, for 19 and 21 the chance is 14.14% ... for 16 and 24 is 4.83% and for 10 and 30 is almost 0%

Something like this.

- FrangibleCover
- Lieutenant
**Posts:**1456**Joined:**Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34-
**Contact:**

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

Here's a thought on an easy way to reduce randomness within Wargame without having to resort to opaque and overcomplicated dice systems:

Upvet you units.

Upvet you units.

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

FrangibleCover wrote:Upvet you units.

Sorry, I do not understand what do you mean.

But the dice system will give us a stable statistical result then is is now.

### Re: Suggestion: RNG in WG (for WG4?)

Actually we only need X number of 2 sides dices:

For machinegun: 6d2 divided by 12 -

6: 1.56% - 0.5 dmg

7: 9.38% - 0.583 dmg

8: 23.44% - 0.66 dmg

9: 31.25% - 0.75 dmg

10: 23.44% - 0.83 dmg

11: 9.38% - 0.916 dmg

12: 1.56% - 1.0 dmg

For tank gun: 14d2 with no division -

14: 0.01% - 14 dmg

15: 0.09% - 15 dmg

16: 0.56% - 16 dmg

17: 2.22% - 17 dmg

18: 6.11% - 18 dmg

19: 12.22% - 19 dmg

20: 18.33% - 20 dmg

21: 20.95% - 21 dmg

22: 18.33% - 22 dmg

23: 12.22% - 23 dmg

24: 6.11% - 24 dmg

25: 2.22% - 25 dmg

26: 0.56% - 26 dmg

27: 0.09% - 27 dmg

28: 0.01% - 28 dmg

To making the game more realistically we can use a safe roll in a similar way.

For tank safe roll when it take a hit: 6d2 -

6: 1.56% - something

7: 9.38% - reactive armor or active armor protection system (no damage vs HEAT)

8: 23.44% - takes a hit

9: 31.25% - takes a hit

10: 23.44% - takes a hit

11: 9.38% - miss

12: 1.56% - something

This system is more flexible then I thought. If we increase the number of sides/decrease the number of dices then we will get a flowing curve. If we increase the number of dices/decrease the number of sides then we will get a sharp curve. If we use 2 dices with X sides then we will get a equilateral (not sure is it appropriate word?) graph.

Another thing we can do with it is using this system for define the differences in optic quality or squad experience...

For optic:

poor optic: 2d2 in range of 2 to 4 with 3 as an average.

normal optic: 2d3 in range of 2 to 6 with 4 as an average.

good optic: 2d4 in range of 2 to 8 with 5 as an average.

We just increase the number of dice sides to get a higher hit value and higher hit chance. But with higher numbers we need to reduce the number of dices so it's not a solution.

But we can just multiply the result by X% to make the same thing.

For machinegun: 6d2 divided by 12 -

6: 1.56% - 0.5 dmg

7: 9.38% - 0.583 dmg

8: 23.44% - 0.66 dmg

9: 31.25% - 0.75 dmg

10: 23.44% - 0.83 dmg

11: 9.38% - 0.916 dmg

12: 1.56% - 1.0 dmg

For tank gun: 14d2 with no division -

14: 0.01% - 14 dmg

15: 0.09% - 15 dmg

16: 0.56% - 16 dmg

17: 2.22% - 17 dmg

18: 6.11% - 18 dmg

19: 12.22% - 19 dmg

20: 18.33% - 20 dmg

21: 20.95% - 21 dmg

22: 18.33% - 22 dmg

23: 12.22% - 23 dmg

24: 6.11% - 24 dmg

25: 2.22% - 25 dmg

26: 0.56% - 26 dmg

27: 0.09% - 27 dmg

28: 0.01% - 28 dmg

To making the game more realistically we can use a safe roll in a similar way.

For tank safe roll when it take a hit: 6d2 -

6: 1.56% - something

7: 9.38% - reactive armor or active armor protection system (no damage vs HEAT)

8: 23.44% - takes a hit

9: 31.25% - takes a hit

10: 23.44% - takes a hit

11: 9.38% - miss

12: 1.56% - something

This system is more flexible then I thought. If we increase the number of sides/decrease the number of dices then we will get a flowing curve. If we increase the number of dices/decrease the number of sides then we will get a sharp curve. If we use 2 dices with X sides then we will get a equilateral (not sure is it appropriate word?) graph.

Another thing we can do with it is using this system for define the differences in optic quality or squad experience...

For optic:

poor optic: 2d2 in range of 2 to 4 with 3 as an average.

normal optic: 2d3 in range of 2 to 6 with 4 as an average.

good optic: 2d4 in range of 2 to 8 with 5 as an average.

We just increase the number of dice sides to get a higher hit value and higher hit chance. But with higher numbers we need to reduce the number of dices so it's not a solution.

But we can just multiply the result by X% to make the same thing.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sireyn and 45 guests