Reducing randomness.

Started by Last Hussar, 24 July 2022, 07:02:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mmcv


QuoteIt certainly doesn't sound like any ancient battle I've ever read about.

It's more about pushing your luck with a bit of sense that only so much can go wrong, though most prefer to reshuffle to keep some randomness. To be fair I prefer the 2D6 bell curve. As Chris said, gives you a reasonable distribution with the odd edge case.

Orcs

Just trying to understand, why you want to reduce randomness.

War and life are full of things that defy the odds.

If you know that force A will always react in a certain way in a given situation it ceases to be game and becomes almost pointless.

First Wargamer . "I have chosen my forces for the game I have X,Y,and Z"

Second wargamer ."I have forces H,J and K avaliable. We know X,Y and Z will beat them so you won"

Surely the randomness is part of the fun , that lucky shot from a Sherman that takes out the Tiger,  The green unit that forces the veterans to retreat etc.








  reduce the randomness in wargaming you simply remove most of the fun.
The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

tony of TTT

Orcs - REDUCE randomness, not eliminate it entirely.

If you enjoy throwing dice for the fun of it then play Yahtzee.

Wargaming should have least some element of simulation in its results and reality isn't ever as clean cut as the roll of a die. What is needed is the recognition that randomness (I prefer 'uncertainty') is necessary but that it should have  realistic scope. If 1000 muskets shoot at a target it is inappropriate to have a result that goes from 0 to 1000 hits - no one situation has that in reality, indeed realistic scope is often much, much smaller than many rules have.