Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?

[Bill Bauer <bbauer@thalia.org>]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 William.VanDuin@ach.com.au wrote:

> Becomes predictable then though.  I like an element of risk.  Perhaps a random
> advantage to the defender with average distribution around your figure but with
> a chance of the attacker getting the advantage occassionally and at times having
> no chance.  Ie normal distribution bell curve

  Not a bad concept, but... 

  Random elements are a big part of tactical combat. Tactical surprise,
"fog of war", communications difficulties, a river in the way, a flat
tire, whatever... all of these can aggregate to create a large advantage.
  Strategic combat, OTOH, is usually pretty predictable - there is not a
great deal of random actors (although there are a few) that will allow a
brigade to hold off a corps... Tactical combat is about defeating the
enemy. Strategic combat is about bullets, beans, and bodies.
  This is what Hasbro had in mind about the 3-2 dice "advantage". Rich,
can you mathematically figure out the bell curve differential between the
3 dice and 2 dice runs? Hasbro can not claim to own a mathematical
relationship...
  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Bauer                       |         "Viking is a verb, and a
bbauer@thalia.org          |  ---+---   /  longship is STILL the ultimate
http://www.thalia.org       \0-0-0-0-0-/   in rowing machines..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------