- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 19,652
- Reaction score
- 5,634
- Location
- St-Légier
- First name
- Robin
- Country
Excellent analysis, jrv.
A "random shuffle" of a deck is almost impossible. My mind reels when thinking about how non-random the result would be if dice were replaced by a deck.is of opinion that deck dice or some other implementation resulting in guaranteed (?) fair roll results would be much better.
Where the heck did yopu get that wild idea from?isn't this game suppose to be fun?
To be fair to the original poster, I think I understand what he is trying to achieve. It is maddening to watch your opponent streak off with 4, 3, 3, 2 (leader-led), 6 (with ROF), 3, "hey, where did all my targets go?" from his heavy machine guns. There is nothing in the ASL rules that requires that the dice be "fair" in the sense of each DR being independent of all others. Depending on the parameters of the deck and the current history of the draws, a constrained-deck draw would make such a streak less likely or impossible. I don't think this suggestion can be thrown out without some consideration. Unlike, say, an election where fairness is an overwhelming goal, we are looking at the design of a game. Our randomizer (i.e. a DR in ASL) is not even a goal of the game, but a part to achieve that goal. We might choose not to use memory-less dice if that made the game "better," and that would be ok. Although they are convenient, I have no religious attachment to dice as our randomization mechanism.A "random shuffle" of a deck is almost impossible. My mind reels when thinking about how non-random the result would be if dice were replaced by a deck.
Pretty foolish of me thinking that, eh?Where the heck did yopu get that wild idea from?
The reason card counting in gambling is possible is actually an economic one. I think that gaming houses would prefer a completely random system for something like blackjack, i.e. a fresh, shuffled deck for each game. The house sets the payoffs so that if everything is perfectly random, they win (in the long run). I suspect the reason they don't shuffle between each play is because of the cost. The time spent shuffling is time that could be spent gambling, i.e. it's lost potential revenue. Having vast stacks of shuffled decks would also be a logistic problem.Card counting is not illegal.
By all means, let's alter one of the basic mechanics of one of the best designed, most immersive and enjoyable war games ever created in order to accommodate those players who are either poor tacticians, sore losers, or both.I have a friend who has a rather profound distaste for dice. "They ruin the game" and is of opinion that deck dice or some other implementation resulting in guaranteed (?) fair roll results would be much better.
I recently guided him and another friend through Retaking Vierville and and his frustration arose from the first roll onwards. He was rather silent though when dice were in his favor...
I don't agree that the player who is objecting is necessarily one of those. The problem being addressed is a true problem. In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense. I think everyone would like every scenario go to the last CC DR of the last turn. I think the proposed change would not achieve that goal and would cost something extra. I would be in favor of it if it did achieve that goal without cost.By all means, let's alter one of the basic mechanics of one of the best designed, most immersive and enjoyable war games ever created in order to accommodate those players who are either poor tacticians, sore losers, or both.
This is a valid concern, probably made more acute by the current trend in small scenarios. Scenario designers can always make SSRs to prevent early malfunction of key weapons ("This weapon has a -1DRM for malfunction purposes only, unless using Intensive/Sustained Fire, during the first 3 turns of the game", for instance). It won't change the fact that a lucky/unlucky sequence of DRs can leave a small OB decimated, though.In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense.
The 'real problem' in this example is not the dice but rather a flawed scenario design. I would agree that any time spent playing such a dog would indeed be a waste of time.I don't agree that the player who is objecting is necessarily one of those. The problem being addressed is a true problem. In certain scenarios certain DRs can destroy nearly all chance of winning, e.g. the loss of a key weapon at a key time to breakdown. Such a happenstance makes all the time spent on the scenario to that point "wasted" in some sense.
JR
Which is why the Continuous Shuffling Machine (CSM) was invented and put into play by many casinos. Probably a little cost prohibitive for the typical ASL player --- wait, what am I saying?The reason card counting in gambling is possible is actually an economic one. I think that gaming houses would prefer a completely random system for something like blackjack, i.e. a fresh, shuffled deck for each game. The house sets the payoffs so that if everything is perfectly random, they win (in the long run). I suspect the reason they don't shuffle between each play is because of the cost. The time spent shuffling is time that could be spent gambling, i.e. it's lost potential revenue. Having vast stacks of shuffled decks would also be a logistic problem.