There was a post I remember reading on The Forge about how it's better to release a meh game then not to release any game at all. It's something I'm eventually going to need to convince myself, but it's hard.
There are really two elements that I worry will not be good enough. The first is the theme. My game is set on a prison island. It is supposed to be about survival, and is supposed to be dark. At least in the real world. In the fantasy world, it is supposed to be utterly surreal. I worry that I don't do either of those points justice. I'm trying to work on that. I've debated trying to do my own artwork for the surreal part. I've also been working on flavor text to stick here and there, and on changing the names to really reflect this. Still though, I've sometimes thought that perhaps my basic back-story is not good enough.
Second, I worry sometimes that this game isn't getting playtested enough. I mean, it would take years and years to playtest every combination of abilities. I worry that inevitably there is going to be one or two strategies that dominate the rest, and that'll be no fun. Plus I worry that I won't be able to thoroughly test each special mission and special rule. I've debated if I should just give it a one or two time go, and see if they're alright. The later I'm less worried about, because if, say, the Assassinate mission is horrible, then no one will play it. I've sometimes debated if I'm going to need to drop some of them (or if it would be better to just release them under insufficient playtesting).
I don't know, I remember reading on The Forge a comment about a game (can't remember which one, but saw it a few times), that the game had such a good idea, but just wasn't well done. I worry sometimes that that will be Illeria. I don't know, as I said, I'll do what I can, but at some point a meh game is better than no game.
Simon
PS Random note: I really need to change my bio, stop saying that I'm about to go to Africa. I've done that, I'm back
“The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to be credible.” – Mark Twain
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Trend towards simplicity
There was a post recently on BGDF.com, where someone asked if our games tended to become simpler, or more complicated as time went on. This game has done both, though honestly, I feel like most of it has been towards simplification.
The one asterisk I add to this is that I tried to develop the game in pieces. The last major game project I worked on ("Conquest of Diluna," a fantasy A&A-style game), the game began by me throwing everything in at once. The result: nothing was balanced, and I needed to balance several items at a time. In short, it was hard. It really took to about the 7th or 8th playtest before I had a game that didn't radically change from one time to the next. Here, the first time I played this, it was as simple as it gets. Each character had 1 advancement. There were no classes. There was no magic. There were no summoned creatures or animated creatures. And there were only 5 special abilities per world (including stat boosts). All I really wanted to do was test out if my basic mechanics (3 phases, orders that are mostly unchangeable, 2 worlds) were fun. It turns out they were. So, with that, I went into the game, proceeding slowly, trying to make sure each level of complexity worked before adding something new in.
That said, here are things that I've added in since the beginning (that weren't originally envisioned):
-Multiple missions
-Abilities where one character can influence their doppelganger
-Player aids (although, this is an addition that simplifies things)
-Terrain types
-Partial actions (although, this somewhat replaced disobeying commands)
-The "Retreat" action
Here are things I've dropped:
-Different classes having different stats
-Randomly determined HP
-A separate weapon system (never added, but originally I planned on it, this just got absorbed into abilities)
-One character must meditate at a time (basically, originally when a person was up in one world, they needed to be down in the other)
-Group orders
-Disobeying commands
-3 different types of savings throws
-The "Defend" order
Here are things I've streamlined:
-Spell failures (from roll a d10, on a 1, roll on another table -> to roll 2d6 whenever a spell fails)
-What happens when the general dies (it went from everyone makes Intelligence tests every turn -> to your # of orders are reduced)
-Damage (from either you do full damage or half damage -> to either you do full damage or x2 damage)
-Animated creatures (from you give them a specific order that you need to write yourself, much like programming a computer with a set of "if: then" statements -> to you choose from a list of pre-made commands)
There is probably more, although this is all that I can think of for now. Cheers!
Simon
PS It's still weird to think that after all of this simplification, the rulebook is still almost 70 pages long.
“Everybody has their moment of great opportunity in life. If you happen to miss the one you care about, then everything else in life becomes eerily easy.” – Douglas Adams
The one asterisk I add to this is that I tried to develop the game in pieces. The last major game project I worked on ("Conquest of Diluna," a fantasy A&A-style game), the game began by me throwing everything in at once. The result: nothing was balanced, and I needed to balance several items at a time. In short, it was hard. It really took to about the 7th or 8th playtest before I had a game that didn't radically change from one time to the next. Here, the first time I played this, it was as simple as it gets. Each character had 1 advancement. There were no classes. There was no magic. There were no summoned creatures or animated creatures. And there were only 5 special abilities per world (including stat boosts). All I really wanted to do was test out if my basic mechanics (3 phases, orders that are mostly unchangeable, 2 worlds) were fun. It turns out they were. So, with that, I went into the game, proceeding slowly, trying to make sure each level of complexity worked before adding something new in.
That said, here are things that I've added in since the beginning (that weren't originally envisioned):
-Multiple missions
-Abilities where one character can influence their doppelganger
-Player aids (although, this is an addition that simplifies things)
-Terrain types
-Partial actions (although, this somewhat replaced disobeying commands)
-The "Retreat" action
Here are things I've dropped:
-Different classes having different stats
-Randomly determined HP
-A separate weapon system (never added, but originally I planned on it, this just got absorbed into abilities)
-One character must meditate at a time (basically, originally when a person was up in one world, they needed to be down in the other)
-Group orders
-Disobeying commands
-3 different types of savings throws
-The "Defend" order
Here are things I've streamlined:
-Spell failures (from roll a d10, on a 1, roll on another table -> to roll 2d6 whenever a spell fails)
-What happens when the general dies (it went from everyone makes Intelligence tests every turn -> to your # of orders are reduced)
-Damage (from either you do full damage or half damage -> to either you do full damage or x2 damage)
-Animated creatures (from you give them a specific order that you need to write yourself, much like programming a computer with a set of "if: then" statements -> to you choose from a list of pre-made commands)
There is probably more, although this is all that I can think of for now. Cheers!
Simon
PS It's still weird to think that after all of this simplification, the rulebook is still almost 70 pages long.
“Everybody has their moment of great opportunity in life. If you happen to miss the one you care about, then everything else in life becomes eerily easy.” – Douglas Adams
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Too long...
Wow, okay, I'm back, it has been far too long since I've posted.
As of right now, I've played a few games recently. I was really proud of myself, one of my most recent playtests was the first playtest that didn't have any real criticisms. There were a few, "Well, I'm not sure, I'd need to play a few more games before I could give you a definite answer," but nothing like, "This is broken." YAY!
Unfortunately I've been having trouble finding time to play with my friends. I need to try harder. At this point, I'm actually thinking it's ready to release to the outside world. Pattie, the woman who runs the local gaming store, has suggested putting up a flyer advertise for playtesters. I'm going to go put that up today, and see how it goes.
I'll keep you all in touch!
As of right now, I've played a few games recently. I was really proud of myself, one of my most recent playtests was the first playtest that didn't have any real criticisms. There were a few, "Well, I'm not sure, I'd need to play a few more games before I could give you a definite answer," but nothing like, "This is broken." YAY!
Unfortunately I've been having trouble finding time to play with my friends. I need to try harder. At this point, I'm actually thinking it's ready to release to the outside world. Pattie, the woman who runs the local gaming store, has suggested putting up a flyer advertise for playtesters. I'm going to go put that up today, and see how it goes.
I'll keep you all in touch!
Saturday, July 26, 2008
group orders
Holy smoke, Term 2 has just flown by. Okay, so here’s that new post I promised oh so long ago.
A thing that always bothered me about Warhammer 40K when I first played it was the need to put people in units. It was really the first big-scale wargame I’d played before, and I just didn’t understand why you would want 10 men to stand within arms length of each other in a world of explosives and machine guns. It has come to make sense, however I always kind of thought that there should be the option of scattering your troops.
So, I decided when I started designing Escape from Illeria that if characters were going to work in a unit, it needed to be a tactical choice, done purposefully by the player for a perceived benefit. And thus arose group actions. Basically, in this game you only had a limited number of orders your general could give. If a group of characters were arranged closely together, and you wanted them all to do the same thing, you could consolidate your orders (i.e. “You three, go kill that ogre!”). This had the advantage that no one was permanently grouped together, but just acted together when it was convenient.
I think the rule has given me trouble from the beginning, although it has always seemed worth it. During my first playtest, well, I realized that if everyone in a group could use Teleport, they could rush a single character, and she’d be a goner, then do it again and again. So, I had to make modifications, and only allow certain abilities to be used as group actions. The list kept getting smaller. I don’t know, I think it was the last game I played where I realized that having shoot as a possible group action seemed too powerful. I think if I took that one out, it would leave move, retreat, and the rare special ability. I started to wonder if maybe the best solution was just to get rid of them altogether. I don’t know, I’ll see. It will certainly change the dynamics of the game (amongst other things, it seemed like that was a good reason to try to specialize, although it became less and less as it could be applied to fewer and fewer things). I’ll see if I like it better that way.
The one thing that does worry me about this change is that it will make rushing an optimal strategy. The nice thing about group actions in the past is that, if you played it right, you could make all of your characters act. Now, you won’t be able to (or, hypothetically I could give you so many more orders that you could, but that would take a lot of the strategy out of it). So, because of this, I’ll need to be careful to stop rushing from being the optimal strategy. I think my solution is just to limit the number of actions you can make per world each turn.
*sigh* I wish there were more gamers out here. Oh well, take care!
Simon
(and in honor of the somewhat recently deceased...)
“I am an outsider by choice, but not truly. It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out. I’d rather be in in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from, from being forced to choose to stay outside.” – George Carlin
“If no one knows when they are going to die, how can we say that anyone died before their time?” – George Carlin
A thing that always bothered me about Warhammer 40K when I first played it was the need to put people in units. It was really the first big-scale wargame I’d played before, and I just didn’t understand why you would want 10 men to stand within arms length of each other in a world of explosives and machine guns. It has come to make sense, however I always kind of thought that there should be the option of scattering your troops.
So, I decided when I started designing Escape from Illeria that if characters were going to work in a unit, it needed to be a tactical choice, done purposefully by the player for a perceived benefit. And thus arose group actions. Basically, in this game you only had a limited number of orders your general could give. If a group of characters were arranged closely together, and you wanted them all to do the same thing, you could consolidate your orders (i.e. “You three, go kill that ogre!”). This had the advantage that no one was permanently grouped together, but just acted together when it was convenient.
I think the rule has given me trouble from the beginning, although it has always seemed worth it. During my first playtest, well, I realized that if everyone in a group could use Teleport, they could rush a single character, and she’d be a goner, then do it again and again. So, I had to make modifications, and only allow certain abilities to be used as group actions. The list kept getting smaller. I don’t know, I think it was the last game I played where I realized that having shoot as a possible group action seemed too powerful. I think if I took that one out, it would leave move, retreat, and the rare special ability. I started to wonder if maybe the best solution was just to get rid of them altogether. I don’t know, I’ll see. It will certainly change the dynamics of the game (amongst other things, it seemed like that was a good reason to try to specialize, although it became less and less as it could be applied to fewer and fewer things). I’ll see if I like it better that way.
The one thing that does worry me about this change is that it will make rushing an optimal strategy. The nice thing about group actions in the past is that, if you played it right, you could make all of your characters act. Now, you won’t be able to (or, hypothetically I could give you so many more orders that you could, but that would take a lot of the strategy out of it). So, because of this, I’ll need to be careful to stop rushing from being the optimal strategy. I think my solution is just to limit the number of actions you can make per world each turn.
*sigh* I wish there were more gamers out here. Oh well, take care!
Simon
(and in honor of the somewhat recently deceased...)
“I am an outsider by choice, but not truly. It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out. I’d rather be in in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from, from being forced to choose to stay outside.” – George Carlin
“If no one knows when they are going to die, how can we say that anyone died before their time?” – George Carlin
Friday, June 6, 2008
It's been too long...
Hello World,
Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated this. I guess sparse internet access will do that. So, my job with WorldTeach started, so I've been back teaching high school in a village in Africa. I won't say “loving every minute of it,” (and I dare you to find me a teacher in the world who would describe their job that way), but very much glad to be back. I don't know, it's actually kind of easier the second time around.
Anyways, term 1 ended about a month ago, and I had 3 weeks off for the winter holiday, and started thinking about Illeria again. I started considering old problems that I had been having, and wanted to share a few of them.
The big one I wanted to talk about was magic. During the last game I playtested, my roommate started saying that the magic system seemed to be broken, and that making one of each character's doppelgangers (remember, in this game each character is linked to a being in another world, a “doppelganger” is the term I use to refer to that other being), but not both, a spellcaster seemed to be the optimal strategy. I guess I should step back and explain my magic system first. As I think I already described, each character gets 2 abilities in each world. For 1 ability point, a character could become a spellcaster, and gain access to 1 group of spells (for 2 points, they could further improve their magic-using abilities). A spell group gives you access to 5 different spells, and there are 7 groups. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, spells are not cast automatically (the way they are in, say, D&D), but rather they have a failure chance. The harder the spell, the higher the failure chance. Also, each time a character casts a spell, she gains something called Residual Magic (RM), which increases her failure chance for all future spells. Thus, if I throw a fireball on turn 1, I have a 50% chance of casting it correctly. If I throw another one, I have a 25% chance, and so on. I have it arranged so that your first spell is nearly an automatic success (unless it is something like a big summon or a fireball), but after that it starts getting harder. Also, whenever you fail to cast a spell, something bad might happen (from taking damage, to having your target redirected, to summoning an evil monster). I keep toying between something bad happening 33% or 44% of the time, though am heavily leaning towards the later (unless it really is way too much).
So, my roommate complained that this was too good, because for 1 ability point, you effectively got 5 abilities. As he put it, if you wanted someone with a bow and a the ability to summon wolves, that costs 2 points. If you chose Metal Magic, you got that, plus a curse-type spell, and it only cost you 1 point. Also, because RM is shared between both doppelgangers, it is too much of a deterrent for a player to make both a spellcaster. I think he had a good point, so here is what I've thought about.
The changes I'm proposing thus far are this: If you only spend 1 ability point on being a spellcaster, you can casts spells, but are rather crappy. To gain the ability to cast spells at any decent level, you'll need to spend both points. However, spellcasting ability is cumulative, so if you spend 1 point in each world, it's the same as spending 2 in one world. Thus, if you want to either be a very good spellcaster, or else to gain any other type of magic ability, you'll need to be a spellcaster in both worlds. Along with that, I'm thinking of making it that you have some ability to share spells between worlds, and to make it easier to cast spells which you can use in both, which I hope should offset the fact that you share your RM with both doppelgangers.
I'm debating whether I want to do more than that. I've considered increasing the difficult of all spells slightly, although I'm not sure if I want to go that far. The way I feel is that if you get Fire Magic, sure you have access to 5 different abilities, however every time you use them you risk blowing yourself up, so perhaps that balances things out. I don't know, that's the one annoying thing about this continent, all of my gaming buddies are an ocean away, so mostly I am just stuck with theory.
Anyways though, thanks for listening. I need to stop taking a break and get back to grading homework. Next time I'll mention group actions, and a few other small-ish changes.
Simon
Wow, it's been a long time since I've updated this. I guess sparse internet access will do that. So, my job with WorldTeach started, so I've been back teaching high school in a village in Africa. I won't say “loving every minute of it,” (and I dare you to find me a teacher in the world who would describe their job that way), but very much glad to be back. I don't know, it's actually kind of easier the second time around.
Anyways, term 1 ended about a month ago, and I had 3 weeks off for the winter holiday, and started thinking about Illeria again. I started considering old problems that I had been having, and wanted to share a few of them.
The big one I wanted to talk about was magic. During the last game I playtested, my roommate started saying that the magic system seemed to be broken, and that making one of each character's doppelgangers (remember, in this game each character is linked to a being in another world, a “doppelganger” is the term I use to refer to that other being), but not both, a spellcaster seemed to be the optimal strategy. I guess I should step back and explain my magic system first. As I think I already described, each character gets 2 abilities in each world. For 1 ability point, a character could become a spellcaster, and gain access to 1 group of spells (for 2 points, they could further improve their magic-using abilities). A spell group gives you access to 5 different spells, and there are 7 groups. Without getting into the nitty-gritty, spells are not cast automatically (the way they are in, say, D&D), but rather they have a failure chance. The harder the spell, the higher the failure chance. Also, each time a character casts a spell, she gains something called Residual Magic (RM), which increases her failure chance for all future spells. Thus, if I throw a fireball on turn 1, I have a 50% chance of casting it correctly. If I throw another one, I have a 25% chance, and so on. I have it arranged so that your first spell is nearly an automatic success (unless it is something like a big summon or a fireball), but after that it starts getting harder. Also, whenever you fail to cast a spell, something bad might happen (from taking damage, to having your target redirected, to summoning an evil monster). I keep toying between something bad happening 33% or 44% of the time, though am heavily leaning towards the later (unless it really is way too much).
So, my roommate complained that this was too good, because for 1 ability point, you effectively got 5 abilities. As he put it, if you wanted someone with a bow and a the ability to summon wolves, that costs 2 points. If you chose Metal Magic, you got that, plus a curse-type spell, and it only cost you 1 point. Also, because RM is shared between both doppelgangers, it is too much of a deterrent for a player to make both a spellcaster. I think he had a good point, so here is what I've thought about.
The changes I'm proposing thus far are this: If you only spend 1 ability point on being a spellcaster, you can casts spells, but are rather crappy. To gain the ability to cast spells at any decent level, you'll need to spend both points. However, spellcasting ability is cumulative, so if you spend 1 point in each world, it's the same as spending 2 in one world. Thus, if you want to either be a very good spellcaster, or else to gain any other type of magic ability, you'll need to be a spellcaster in both worlds. Along with that, I'm thinking of making it that you have some ability to share spells between worlds, and to make it easier to cast spells which you can use in both, which I hope should offset the fact that you share your RM with both doppelgangers.
I'm debating whether I want to do more than that. I've considered increasing the difficult of all spells slightly, although I'm not sure if I want to go that far. The way I feel is that if you get Fire Magic, sure you have access to 5 different abilities, however every time you use them you risk blowing yourself up, so perhaps that balances things out. I don't know, that's the one annoying thing about this continent, all of my gaming buddies are an ocean away, so mostly I am just stuck with theory.
Anyways though, thanks for listening. I need to stop taking a break and get back to grading homework. Next time I'll mention group actions, and a few other small-ish changes.
Simon
Monday, December 10, 2007
in LAX...
In LAX, getting ready to take off. The journey is already sort of beginning. At this point, I have:
a) all of the artwork I need (I think)
b) working ruleset (at least one I can play without problems, though more testing will be needed)
c) a small amount of buzz going (again, I think)
d) desire to finish this
I still need to fix up my backgrounds, test the game (or get others to), contact Lulu and Key20, and edit everything with a fine-toothed comb. But, this is doable. I'm not too worried. It will definitely give me something to do when I'm bored in the village (and hey, I'll actually have electricity now!).
Simon
a) all of the artwork I need (I think)
b) working ruleset (at least one I can play without problems, though more testing will be needed)
c) a small amount of buzz going (again, I think)
d) desire to finish this
I still need to fix up my backgrounds, test the game (or get others to), contact Lulu and Key20, and edit everything with a fine-toothed comb. But, this is doable. I'm not too worried. It will definitely give me something to do when I'm bored in the village (and hey, I'll actually have electricity now!).
Simon
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Spell Hazards and rare events
First off, I leave for Africa next Monday. Yikes! I'm almost ready to go though, which is good.
So, now on to the gaming stuff. I've noticed that as my game has evolved, rare events have become more common, and simpler. The spell hazard is probably the best example of this. Basically, in the world of Illeria, magic is still somewhat not understood, and not fully controllable. Because of this, whenever a wizard fails to cast a spell, there is a small chance that something bad happens to them. In my original game, every time you fail to cast a spell, there is a 1 in 10 chance of spell hazards, and there are 10 possible things that can happen. Later I changed it to 1 in 10 and 6 types of hazards. Then it became 1 in 6, and now I'm thinking of making it 1 in 3 (and the beauty of the most recent one is that there is only one dice roll, rather than two).
I think I might know what's been causing this transition, and that's a shift in my view on what flavor rules like this are for. Originally, they were mostly just for that, flavor. I know that in Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition (my first real wargame), there was a 1 in 100 chance that a Terminator squad would be lost in the warp when tele-porting, and a 1 in 216 chance that an assault cannon would explode when fired. AD&D used to have a 1 in 400 chance of an insta-kill whenever an attack is made (I think, I can't quite remember how the rules worked out, but I think it was something like that, or maybe less). There are also magic items which are randomly generated <.01% of the time. I've never once seen any of these things happen, but the idea is that they could. It gives you an interesting look into the game universe, and *maybe* once in your gaming career affects the outcome of a battle.
The more I think about it though, I feel like if I'm going to put all the effort into making a special rule, if the gamer is going to need to learn it, and *especially* if the gamer is going to have to roll extra dice for it, then really there should be a chance that it really happens. It always seemed a little silly that my DM's Guide had two pages devoted to intelligent magic items, given that it was basically impossible to find them randomly. What's more, I kind of like the idea that in some ways it will effect strategy. In my game with my roommate, he said that he never really worried about spell hazards, since failing a spell check was so uncommon (especially the way he played), that a 1 in 6 chance on top of that was really not something to be concerned with. It was a fluke, not a calculated risk. On the other hand, now it's a 1 in 3 chance, and that might discourage risky spell casting. And this has seemed like it would be a way to counteract a built-in advantage of spells: that they give you options. (I know he complained about, "Why would I get 'Call Animals' when I could get a spell group that would allow me to cast both 'Summon Elementals' and 'Fireball'?")
And I guess the thing about skirmish games is that you need high probabilities, otherwise they're never going to happen. I mean, I remember this analysis once, where someone said, "If you make a rule that says there is a 1 in 5000 chance that a person will decapitate themself in melee, and you have 10,000 soldiers, each making 10 attacks, then you will get 20 self-inflicted decapitations in a battle." However, if you have 10 soldiers making 5 attacks, then a self-decapitation will only occur once per 100 games (and thus falls into the random fluke category).
Simon
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." – General Lee
So, now on to the gaming stuff. I've noticed that as my game has evolved, rare events have become more common, and simpler. The spell hazard is probably the best example of this. Basically, in the world of Illeria, magic is still somewhat not understood, and not fully controllable. Because of this, whenever a wizard fails to cast a spell, there is a small chance that something bad happens to them. In my original game, every time you fail to cast a spell, there is a 1 in 10 chance of spell hazards, and there are 10 possible things that can happen. Later I changed it to 1 in 10 and 6 types of hazards. Then it became 1 in 6, and now I'm thinking of making it 1 in 3 (and the beauty of the most recent one is that there is only one dice roll, rather than two).
I think I might know what's been causing this transition, and that's a shift in my view on what flavor rules like this are for. Originally, they were mostly just for that, flavor. I know that in Warhammer 40,000 2nd edition (my first real wargame), there was a 1 in 100 chance that a Terminator squad would be lost in the warp when tele-porting, and a 1 in 216 chance that an assault cannon would explode when fired. AD&D used to have a 1 in 400 chance of an insta-kill whenever an attack is made (I think, I can't quite remember how the rules worked out, but I think it was something like that, or maybe less). There are also magic items which are randomly generated <.01% of the time. I've never once seen any of these things happen, but the idea is that they could. It gives you an interesting look into the game universe, and *maybe* once in your gaming career affects the outcome of a battle.
The more I think about it though, I feel like if I'm going to put all the effort into making a special rule, if the gamer is going to need to learn it, and *especially* if the gamer is going to have to roll extra dice for it, then really there should be a chance that it really happens. It always seemed a little silly that my DM's Guide had two pages devoted to intelligent magic items, given that it was basically impossible to find them randomly. What's more, I kind of like the idea that in some ways it will effect strategy. In my game with my roommate, he said that he never really worried about spell hazards, since failing a spell check was so uncommon (especially the way he played), that a 1 in 6 chance on top of that was really not something to be concerned with. It was a fluke, not a calculated risk. On the other hand, now it's a 1 in 3 chance, and that might discourage risky spell casting. And this has seemed like it would be a way to counteract a built-in advantage of spells: that they give you options. (I know he complained about, "Why would I get 'Call Animals' when I could get a spell group that would allow me to cast both 'Summon Elementals' and 'Fireball'?")
And I guess the thing about skirmish games is that you need high probabilities, otherwise they're never going to happen. I mean, I remember this analysis once, where someone said, "If you make a rule that says there is a 1 in 5000 chance that a person will decapitate themself in melee, and you have 10,000 soldiers, each making 10 attacks, then you will get 20 self-inflicted decapitations in a battle." However, if you have 10 soldiers making 5 attacks, then a self-decapitation will only occur once per 100 games (and thus falls into the random fluke category).
Simon
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." – General Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)