Gaim in P&P

[Burger]

The possibility of 0 hits on 2 dice is exactly the same as getting 3 hits, i.e. 25%.

Sorry thats totally wrong.

Chance of getting 0 hits on 2 dice is indeed 0.5*0.5 = 0.25.

3 hits can be gotten by the following ways...
First die scores 3 hits, second die scores none
- (0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5)*(0.5) = 0.03125
First die scores 2 hits, second die scores 1
- (0.5*0.5*0.5)*(0.5*0.5) = 0.03125
First die scores 1 hits, second die scores 2
- (0.5*0.5)*(0.5*0.5*0.5) = 0.03125
First die scores no hits, second die scores 3
- (0.5)*(0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5) = 0.03125

Total chance of getting 3 hits on 2 dice = 0.125

I know we all like to remember that time so and so rolled a 4+ seventeen times in a row on one die

Yes, but it fdoes seem to happen virtually every game. Maybe not 17 of one dice... but 20 hits of 6 dice, or 15 hits off 4 dice, or 8 hits off 2 dice. It is very common.

 

[H]

can we please stop comparing penis' I mean jobs and irrelevant knowledge. cos like, um, well my jobs a bit crap, and I feel somewhat insignificant. . mind you, no one has come on and said, I have a gun, I fly a plane etc today, that makes a change I suppose.

 

[katadder]

can we please stop comparing penis' I mean jobs and irrelevant knowledge. cos like, um, well my jobs a bit crap, and I feel somewhat insignificant. . mind you, no one has come on and said, I have a gun, I fly a plane etc today, that makes a change I suppose.

I have 2 guns and 2 dogs there that make you feel better.

 

[silashand]

The claim that throwing out the top and bottom 10% is a standard process is ridiculous!

I know this is a game, and not a industrial product. But, given the above, consistency within 1 Sigma shouldn't be too much to ask for!

This is totally OT, so sorry .

That is incorrect. Standard research methodology when establishing the control group is to discard the top and bottom X percentages (usually ~10%) as generally being out of bounds when it can be determined that there is no method of reliably reproducing those results. Sometimes this is done as a shortcut to eliminating variances in the research when time, funding, etc. are limited. Usually it represents when the values produced at those extremes are not useful in finding the information the researchers are looking for. This doesn't mean those results aren't documented, but that for the purposes desired they aren't useful.

In QM (or QA) these *usually* (but not always) represent external factors to the process which are likewise left off the control chart because the process owner cannot control them. Since the only data that is of value within the control group (i.e. that which is used in forming the control chart) is that which can be reproduced and thus "controlled," anything that cannot be controlled is excluded from evaluation. After all, if your supplier delivers whenever his orders reach a certain number, then its impossible to determine which day of the week your stocks will arrive. JIT delivery fixes that, but not all suppliers are large enough to do that (realistically with UPS nowadays that is becoming less of an issue for small businesses who can't negotiate better contracts with the supplier).

Six Sigma, TQM, etc. rely on eliminating things that are out of control in order to reduce variances in the process and thus improve the result and/or product. While applicable when you know the results you want to achieve, ACtA doesn't specify results it wants to achieve and thus the TQM process management methodology isn't necessarily useful here.

Besides, I would be surprised if any games design out there followed a structured methodology very well, if at all. More likely it's just whatever a designer feels works well in a given situation. This isn't a slam against CZ, but regardless what the TQM folks out there would like to believe, their process improvements aren't necessarily useful in such situations. Sorry .

@hiffano: my original comment about being a systems design engineer wasn't to "compare penises/jobs." I was using it to illustrate why I don't care to document my games all the time like (I think) Skavendan does. I just have to write a lot already as part of my work and I don't find documenting things that are of no use to anyone all that fun and I'd prefer to spend my time just enjoying the game if I can. It doesn't mean I can't document the games I play if people are interested in the results. It just means I don't like to do so and won't unless someone needs/wants the information. Sorry if that came across as trying to make myself seem more authoritative than I am. That's also why I deleted my response to Ripple since I figured here is not the place to explain why his ideas on games (complex systems) design are flawed. I come here to talk about gaming, not try and show everyone how knowledgeable I am (or am not, depending, though the latter is often more true than the former ;-)). I happened to let his jibes get under my skin and I shouldn't have. Thus I dropped the issue and am letting it stay dropped.

@CZ: that's also why this will be my only post on the TQM/QA topic. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM me .

Cheers, Gary

PS. I have no guns, a cat and a girlfriend. Does that count?

 

[silashand]

The possibility of 0 hits on 2 dice is exactly the same as getting 3 hits, i.e. 25%.

Sorry thats totally wrong.

Chance of getting 0 hits on 2 dice is indeed 0.5*0.5 = 0.25.

Total chance of getting 3 hits on 2 dice = 0.125

You are correct. Sorry, I forgot the initial roll required and was assuming 2 dice hit. However, you do prove my point that the odds of getting 3 hits are relatively negligible.

I know we all like to remember that time so and so rolled a 4+ seventeen times in a row on one die

Yes, but it fdoes seem to happen virtually every game. Maybe not 17 of one dice... but 20 hits of 6 dice, or 15 hits off 4 dice, or 8 hits off 2 dice. It is very common.

True, but the odds of that happening are still miniscule. The issue isn't that it happens, but that it happens *when* we need it to. I've shot at friggin' fighters with my 2AD accurate beams from Light Raiders and scored 11 hits on one base. In fact, that actually happened in my last game with the Drakh a couple months ago. How useful is that? ;-)

Cheers, Gary

 

[Ripple]

For the record, our group usually records its beam rolls, so we don't just remember 'the really good rolls' we actually bother to track most of the time. And it has been the rare exception that the rolls have gone below the number of AD thrown over the course of a game... very rare exception.

Maybe we're just lucky locally, and the 12.5 percent works out for us more than the 25 percent.

All I'm saying is that it's not just a psych issue, beams rolling up is a very real issue in the game, and dropping any variance beyond the upper 25% (or 13% if you'd rather) means that in one in four (or one in eightish say) of my shots, at least, will go bad by design. Give I tend to shoot most ships three or four times a game... that's a lot of chances to go into crazy territory.

As burger said above... we see it every game (usually more than once). Yes you have to win the beam roll up lottery, but if you can't play, you can't win. And the tickets costs money/FAP.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

Total chance of getting 3 hits on 2 dice = 0.125

You are correct. Sorry, I forgot the initial roll required and was assuming 2 dice hit. However, you do prove my point that the odds of getting 3 hits are relatively negligible.

I wouldn't call 1 in 8 negligable.
You're digging quite a deep hole here

 

[silashand]

I wouldn't call 1 in 8 negligable.
You're digging quite a deep hole here

You're willing to bet on a 1 in 8 chance, or a 1 in 16 chance to get the 4th hit? You're willing to consider that good odds? Sorry, but as I said I don't think so and I certainly wouldn't use it as a basis to justify why something is as good as you're claiming. A 12.5% chance is hardly worth betting on unless you simply have excess capability (or money in poker). When you only start with 2 dice, you really are stretching the definition of reasonable IMO and I don't consider that a "hole" at all. I will happily bet against you every time when the odds are 1 in 8 that you will win.

Cheers, Gary

 

[CZuschlag]

But you'll get LOTS of 1 in 8 chances. That's the point.

 

[silashand]

But you'll get LOTS of 1 in 8 chances. That's the point.

And I will get even more wins, 7 out of 8 times in fact. *THAT* is my point. Using that as justification to say something is overpowered when your opponent will probably win 7 out of 8 times is contrary to any logic I know of.

Besides, consider a single Drakh light raider with 2AD. At most you will get to fire it what, 10 times in an average game (depending on the number of turns, of course)? That's 10 chances so odds are you will get *one* roll-up to 3 hits. You have a 1/16 chance of getting a 4 dice roll-up so you have to use 2 raiders against the same target all game long in order to have a shot at it. To get that 5 dice roll-up, you need 4 raiders doing the same thing (actually about 3.2). Anything above that and the odds are against it happening unless you dedicate all your beam dice in the fleet to trying to destroy one target (5pt raid you will probably have what, 24 dice total in your fleet (using Drakh as the example here since they are one of the only all beam fleets): assume 10 raiders + 2 carriers. I haven't calculated it, but I think that's about max at that level. Considering that at least 4 of those dice are restricted to a slow, lumbering ship that probably won't be there when you need it, you're back down to 20 dice total.

No offense, that isn't good odds to me since you cannot predict when it will occur. As someone else pointed out, if you need it early and don't get it you're screwed. If you get it early your opponent may be. I stand by my position that a 1/8 chance that something you need to happen to be really effective *is* negligible no matter how you look at it, especially when you throw timing into the mix. You can quote the law of averages all you want, but in a situation like this it simply doesn't apply. What does is probability theory which tells me the odds of any one of my actions succeeding to the level I need it to. The latter allows me to allocate additional resources to the situation in order to stack my odds if I choose to do so. Averages really don't tell you anything useful in this situation.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Burger]

The average number of hits from 1AD of beam is 1 hit.

If you disagree with that then please, go read statistics 101.

Over and out.

 

[Ripple]

Tried to say that, he tells me I'm wrong.

Which largely irks me as I don't know my math all that well, but I have a great mind for trivial facts, and that is on the list of ones stuck in my head. Luckily for me I rarely get facts stuck in my head unless I have the pretty well looked at by people who do know their stuff.

But put beam aside, assume that your weapons are only 75% of the Nova's, you still have your pods. Having just re-read pods attaching rules... I think these are underestimated in this thread.

They launch in the end phase with their base anywhere within 3 inches. Since distance is measured to the edge of flight, that means it's attaching edge is 4 inches from the launching ship toward the target with at least one pod.

Second interesting comment is that the pod only has to touch the base of the target. No stem limit listed, just base contact. Not sure if this comes under the same limits as suicide fighters or not... but it implies that for any ship on the large scale bases mongoose provides, the enemy ship is actually an inch closer than it is for weapons fire (stem location).

So... 3 inch launch + some fraction of an inch for the flight base + some fraction for the target base + 8 for speed of the pod (did this slow down in the new list? Six maybe?) = something like a range 12 (less in new list? 10 maybe?) attack opposed only by fighters and AF/AAF. Pretty sweet.

Now it is a one shot attack, but it leads to double VPs due to capture rules.

Still a very sweet ship.

Sean

 

[silashand]

The average number of hits from 1AD of beam is 1 hit.

If you disagree with that then please, go read statistics 101.

Over and out.

Since when did I disagree with that? I said the averages weren't particularly useful when you are calculating odds, i.e. the average of 1 die may be 1, but the probability you will get that one hit is only 50%. We're talking apples and oranges here. If you disagree with that, go pick up any decent textbook on probability theory. I'm simply arguing that in determining the relative value of beams, it is probability that is more valuable than averages since averages don't tell you how often something such as the beam roll-up should happen. Probability theory is designed just for that purpose.

Cheers, Gary

 

[silashand]

They launch in the end phase with their base anywhere within 3 inches. Since distance is measured to the edge of flight, that means it's attaching edge is 4 inches from the launching ship toward the target with at least one pod.

So *that* is how he was contacting the other ship at 10" away. I thought pods followed the same deployment rules as fighters, i.e. 2". If not, then I've been playing them wrong.

Second interesting comment is that the pod only has to touch the base of the target. No stem limit listed, just base contact. Not sure if this comes under the same limits as suicide fighters or not... but it implies that for any ship on the large scale bases mongoose provides, the enemy ship is actually an inch closer than it is for weapons fire (stem location).

I don't have my stuff with me (I'm at work), but I thought the new suicide fighter rules applies to pods as well, which mandates measurement to the stem. I'll have to check that when I get back. If not, you are correct.

So... 3 inch launch + some fraction of an inch for the flight base + some fraction for the target base + 8 for speed of the pod (did this slow down in the new list? Six maybe?) = something like a range 12 (less in new list? 10 maybe?) attack opposed only by fighters and AF/AAF. Pretty sweet.

Assuming all of the above, you are correct. It is possible I have underestimated the pods, but as I said I may have the deployment distance confused.

EDIT: I just remembered the Gaim list was in S&P 56 so I downloaded it and went back and re-read the suicide fighter contact rules. They just say how many "flights" may make contact, both suicide and normal. I *believe* that includes pods as well. I could be mistaken though.

Now it is a one shot attack, but it leads to double VPs due to capture rules.

If you capture it. If you only get 1 or 2 pods in contact, you may get to roll first, but there's a decent chance you either won't win or if you do you'll only have 1 troop inside which may not be enough. Granted, if you can get several in contact then it will definitely pay off assuming the game doesn't end before they capture the ship.

Still a very sweet ship.

Sean

I like it. I just think it got nerfed too much in the revised list is all.

Totally different topic, but still related to the Gaim: I think the Ruling Queen rule needs to be revised somewhat. Not because it's over/underpowered, but because if you play large games as we tend to do (5+ war sometimes), the restriction on bringing only 1 ruling queens means you have no choice but to bring multiples of the lower level ships. Now this isn't bad per se, but I think it would be better to say you can field 1 per X number of lower level ships, maybe 3-4, whatever. That way it at least allows the Gaim player to play with fewer models if he/she chooses to do so and helps somewhat to mitigate the swarm fleet issue. Granted, it's not a huge problem, but I think it would be better overall.

Also, since the background for the Sluuka is that it was one of the first ships the Gaim had, I think perhaps that it should be the base model and the Shrutaa would be the variant. Semantics I know, but anyway.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Triggy]

It's the breaching pods that make it such a beast. Every time I play that Ben he takes four of them in a 5 point raid game (backed up by a pair of skirmish Queens) and most fleets I take find it very, very hard to deal with. I think we all know that one of the good things Ben can do is take the most *powerful* fleet that is available.

And that's all with them having hull 5 and me knowing what's coming (I think people know I'm not prone to making obvious mistakes skewing the outcomes of these games). I would argue that in the context of a Gaim fleet, the Skrunnka Assault Ship is a very effective ship and without doubt better than the Nova for most situations (particularly if comparinng multiple of the same ship). I shudder to think what would happen if it went back to hull 6 (we did this in playtesting and he demolished the fleet I took both times we tried it).

 

[CZuschlag]

I said I'd show you in a Vassal fight! Those are the kind of tricks I'm talking about. Breaching pods on casual ships? Not a problem, most casual ships don't have many troops or a Carrier rating. Breaching pods on their own? Far too slow, and easy to kill.

Breaching pods on a Carrier with troops? Unbearably brutal; if Triggy has to take a fleet tailored to meet the threat to have a shot, then it's probably a problem ship already.

Reducing or removing the Carrier rating is the only thing that should be done to this ship. An upgrade is laughable.

 

[Da Boss]

It's the breaching pods that make it such a beast. Every time I play that Ben he takes four of them in a 5 point raid game (backed up by a pair of skirmish Queens) and most fleets I take find it very, very hard to deal with. I think we all know that one of the good things Ben can do is take the most *powerful* fleet that is available.

I thought he could only take one Queen in this case? He'd have to take either a raid and skirmish Queen or just one Skirmish?

The Queens: Every Gaim fleet must be led by at least one Queen ship (of any type). The Queen ship of the highest Priority Level will be the Ruling Queen, and only one ship of this type may be present in the fleet. Queen ships of a lower Priority Level (Sub-Queens) have no such limit. Ruling Queen ships receive a +1 bonus to Crew Quality.

 

[silashand]

I thought he could only take one Queen in this case? He'd have to take either a raid and skirmish Queen or just one Skirmish?

That's correct. He can only have one. I am going to presume he's using an example from the previous list which even I admit was more broken than pretty much anything in the game at the time (besides, if he's using the old list then he's using the old skirmish queen which was even worse). That's why I want to see evidence either for or against from people who've played with the Gaim under their *current* rules. It's possible I'm not playing the Skrunnka as effiently as I could be and I've tried lots of variations.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Da Boss]

sounds very nasty fleet (even if invalid in the current rules)

Only things I can think of against them

Young Shadow Ship
Vorlon Light Cruiser

maybe 5 T'loths could weather the storm and would prove formidable against the pods?

maybe a G'Vrahn and T'Loth

maybe a Mishakur and 2 Rhoric

I'd try 2 Primus and a Balvarin but don't see it working.......

but you would have to tailor the fleet to fight it.............

 

[Silvereye]

maybe 5 T'loths could weather the storm and would prove formidable against the pods?

The irresistible force vs the immovable object.