Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)

>On Thu, January 31, 2008 20:31, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>>  Robert Bryett replied to Samuel Penn:
>>
>>>  > Which brings me to my peeve of the randomness of the die
mechanic.
>>>  > Good troops are less predictable in their results than poor
troops.
>>>
>>>I don't understand this comment. The random "mechanic" in SGII is an
>>>*opposed* roll, so isn't the result the *difference* between the
>>>rolls, not the rolls themselves? In this context, I don't see how the
>>>performance of either set of troops involved in an opposed roll can
>>>be called more predictable than the other. Is the theory simply that
>>>more sides on the die automatically equals less predictability?
>>
>>  I've been wondering this for years...
>>
>>  I suspect that at least part of it is a refusal to accept that
having the
>>  better quality (ie. bigger die) does not absolutely guarantee that
you'll
>>  win the opposed die roll. To me, comments like Samuel's (and I've
seen
>>  quite a few of them over the years) always give an impression of "My
D10
>>  rolled a 1 while his D6 rolled a 5, so my Veteran lost to his
Greenie -
>>  that's not fair! My troops are better, they're not *supposed* to
lose!
>>  :-("
>
>I'd say no. Poor troops should be able to beat good troops if
>they have luck on their side. I've lost very badly at times due
>to bad dice[1], so I've sort of got used to it :-)
>
>However, what I don't like is that if the d12 rolls badly, then
>a bad roll on the d6 can still beat it. Where there's a big difference
>in troop quality, I would prefer that the poorer quality troops have
>to do well in order to take advantage of the good one's bad luck.
>This doesn't happen in SG. A bad roll from good troops can result
>in the other side's roll being almost meaningless - they're going
>to win.
>
>Your example is fine - the greens did very well, and the elites
>did very badly. It's when the greens roll a 2 and still win that
>it seems wrong.

I can appreciate your point, Sam, but maybe you should just look at 
it as the Vets screwed up  a lot, while the greens screwed up a 
little less..... as someone* once said, "victory goes to the side 
that f***s up NEXT to last..."

[* I think it was Mary Gentle that said it to me, but she may have 
been quoting someone else!]

Jon (GZG)

>
>Having said that, I think the SG mechanic does work well, and I
>haven't come up with a way of improving it without complicating
>things. My complaint is a theoretical one based on how I like
>mechanics to work.
>
>[1] My worst example is in FT, where two dozen groups of heavy
>     interceptor fighters where wiped out by half their number
>     of standard fighters, with the standard fighters taking
>     minimal casualties. That was good luck on the part of my
>     opponent, plus bad luck on my part. That was in a single
>     turn of dogfighting.
>
>--
>Be seeing you, 	   http://www.glendale.org.uk
>Sam.			   xmpp:sam@glendale.org.uk
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l