tRoS Combat simulator

[Brian Leybourne]

Hi all.

I'm working on a new version of the tRoS combat simulator that you may have downloaded from the webpage. It's a prettier windows based simulator and should contain a lot more combat options and suchlike than the existing one.

Version One (almost ready) will be functionally much the same as the existing simulator but with more combat options (and it looks nicer).

Version Two will have armour, shields, and various weapons, plus all of the combat maneuvers (plus anything else the testers suggest should go in there).

Version Three (and this is a big maybe) may allow matchmaking across IP, so that two people can have a duel over the internet if they both have the software.

An alternate version three may allow battles versus a computer opponent, but don't count on it - the algorithm to even approximate any kind of intelligent decision making in the tRoS system will be a HELL of a task. I'm not sure if I'm man enough for that :-)

Anyway, what I would like is a couple of playtesters. I anticipate a new subversion (adding a couple of new features and fixing bugs) every few days to a week. I need a couple of people who can devote the time to playing with the thing and putting it through its paces, then getting back to me promptly each time with bugs, suggestions, ideas etc. Jacob is the third tester.

Any takers?

Cheers,
Brian.

[Lance D. Allen]

::Stares for a long moment::

Well, that just blows me out of the water. I was working on a version as well, mostly because I enjoy using what little programming skills I currently possess, but that blows me away. Mine was to be another DOS-based version (I took Pascal 5-6 years ago in HS) but with more combat features.. Oh well.

Sign me up as a playtester. I have a fair amount of freetime, so I'll be able to play with it, and I'm usually very good about regular check ins.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I'll have free time in 10 days.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Hi all.

An alternate version three may allow battles versus a computer opponent, but don't count on it - the algorithm to even approximate any kind of intelligent decision making in the tRoS system will be a HELL of a task. I'm not sure if I'm man enough for that :-)

Brian.

I just read that again.  And I thought about it.... and yeah, that would be icky.  Conceptually, I know how to do it, but it'd be Hell to code, I think.  Definitely not something to do until the simulator is done.  I'm just talking about someone who would attack and parry... the other maneuvers would just be plain Hell to add on.  However, if you want an AI that would be able to attack and parry/block, and could decide dice splits depending on a varying agression level, that I know how to do.  The agression stat would be a 4-point scale ranging from "suicidal" to "Total defense", based on the difference of means & the Standard deviation around that.  If you'd like that assistance, now or later, PM me.  Otherwise, I won't clutter the Forge with evil statistical stuff :)

PS: sorry again about the review comments

[Brian Leybourne]

OK, sounds good. Thanks guys.

Now I see why the previous simulator only had a subset of the crit tables! It took me about 5 hours and several hundred lines of code last night just to do the cut table, and that has only 7 body locations (times an average of 4 specific locations, times five levels of severity!). Thrust will be the same again, and then bash has all 14 body locations. Oh my! :-) Fortunately, version 1 (longsword, no shield) only requires cut, thrust, and one location of the bash tables (for counters that become pommel to the face).

Wolfen - you should have spoken to Jake about it, then he could have told you I was doing one, or could have told me you were :-) Oh well.

Nevermet - 1) stop apologising, they were fair comments. On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*. 2) Coding the algorithm is the easy part, it's designing it that's tricky (there are SO many variables to consider). If this is your forte, then yes, lets get together when I get to that part of the program and see what we can come up with.

V1 is basically done, except only has the cut tables. I'll try to do the thrust table over this weekend and get it out early next week.

Brian.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Nevermet - 1) stop apologising, they were fair comments. On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*. 2) Coding the algorithm is the easy part, it's designing it that's tricky (there are SO many variables to consider). If this is your forte, then yes, lets get together when I get to that part of the program and see what we can come up with.
Brian.

*grin* Apologizing is one of my few talents.  *Glares up at the player who did my Chargen, shaking my fist angrily for not min/maxing me more*

As for the coding, cool.
I've got a quarter-assed version set up on Excel already of what would need to be compared.  Basically, the AI i envision would ask itself how much of a percentage chance it wants to have getting hit, and acts accordingly.
I knew those 5 statistics courses would come in handy somehow.

[Nick the Nevermet]

On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*

While I would love to write a review of TROS for rpg.net, I'm not going to for two reasons.

The first -and more minor - reason is that I was clearly one of the "Pro-TROS" people in the very long TROS thread in rpg.net's forum.  As I saw with the reaction to the Mechanical Dream reviews, this violates a perception of 'objectivity' that rpg.net readers appreciate.

The second, and IMO more substantive, reason for not writing a review is I agree with several of the concerns people here at the Forge brought up about the game and what needs to get emphasized better in the edition getting printed for August.  I don't think it'd be very appropriate to write a game review that points out errors I know aren't going to exist in 3 months.

When the new ed. comes out, then I may write a review.  Either way, though, I think Jake should find out how rpg.net's 'official' reviews occur (with free copies and whatnot).  No shouts of fanboyism, and Driftwood should have confidence that their game is good.

[Skywalker]

Hi Nevermet

It is sad what happened about Mechanical Dream reviews on RPGnet, (I wrote one of the reviews).  Just two comments -

First Conan McKegg, the other reviewer, is on the review staff at RPGnet and he also got slammed so beware - "official" channels don't necessarily work.  He knew nothing about the game and was just impressed with it when he got it.  RPGnetters seem to be very cynical at the moment about new games and they dislike any statement that the RPG is new or innovative.  

Second, as for comments about impartiality I think its all about perception.  Again Conan had not posted on RPGnet, had not followed the game and he was an official reviewer.  It was all perception of the readers.  I think your approach may be a good idea in waiting for the general release so you can look "impartial".  I just think its a sorry situation where people who buy and like (or dislike) a game don't review it on RPGnet because of the negative reaction it creates but that is the state of affairs there at the moment (even the TROS review suffered from this a little) :(

[Jake Norwood]

When the new ed. comes out, then I may write a review.  Either way, though, I think Jake should find out how rpg.net's 'official' reviews occur (with free copies and whatnot).  No shouts of fanboyism, and Driftwood should have confidence that their game is good.

Actually, I DID go the "right way," and left a free copy with one of RPG.net's regular reviewers at the GAMA show back in late March. The review was written by the beginning of April, and the way I wandered onto RPG.net in the first place was to see it, as it was supposed to go up within a week of it's being written. Alas, I never saw the review, and I've emailed the reviewer SEVERAL times trying to find out what's up (as well as follow up on an offer to write a supplement that he made). I'll withhold names for now, but he IS one of the regular reviewers.

Too bad, because it would have been a great review. The guy was really jazzed when I spoke with him. He had a really cool adventure idea, too.

Jake

[Nick the Nevermet]

That is a shame
and sorry for the presumption about the review copy.  Didn't know you gave one out.  My bad.

[Brian Leybourne]

Gidday all.

The first test version of the combat sim is ready, but Wolfen and Nevermet - your email addresses aren't in your profiles. Email me at bleybourne@hotmail and let me know where to send it. I've just sent Jake a copy. (by the way - if anyone else is prepared to playtest for me, let me know).

The full cut & thrust hit tables are in there, as well as the following attacks:

Cut, Thrust, Evasive Attack, Beat, Stop Short

and the following defenses:

Parry, Counter, Full Evasion, Partial Evasion, Duck & Weave

As far as I am aware, I've covered all the possibilities in all cases (like, the bonuses of duck and weave, and when you get 5+ successes margin as the defender on a stop short, and botching when evading, and so on.

As soon as I get your email addresses, I'll send it off, have a play, try out everything, and see what works, what is broken, and what needs to be improved (plus suggestions on how to make it look nicer if necessary).

Over the next couple of days, I'll add expulsion as a defense, and half sword as an option for attacking and defending. I left half sword for last because it means implementing range rules, which I was leaving until I added the extra weapons etc in there. Within a week or two I expect to have armour, different weapons, half swording, range, and the other maneuvers that I didn't need to implement until I had the extra weapons (bash, double attack, simultaneous block/strike, etc).

Then after THAT, I'll start thinking about an AI that you can battle.

Brian.

[Lance D. Allen]

Awesome. Just e-mailed you. I'm looking forward to checkin' it out..

As for future update priorities, I'm looking specifically for weapons and armor.. And I'd rather have the net interface so two people can fight each other over the net than AI.. but that's just me.

I'm psyched.

[Brian Leybourne]

Posted. Let me know.

[Brian Leybourne]

Whats happened to my playtesters?

I've had feedback from Jake, but nothing from the other guys. What's up guys? :-)

I'm just waiting for your feedback so I can send you the next revision! It adds the following:

* red/red initiative
* weapon choices (2-handed or 1-handed longsword is the only choice at the moment, but that'll grow)
* Shields (if using a 1-handed weapon, obviously)
* Armour
* New shield based maneuvers such as parry and block open & strike
* The bash tables have been done

Some changes, as suggested by Jake:

* die allocation to maneuvers defaults to zero instead of maximum, and you can't click "go" on the maneuver until you allocate some dice, so no more accidental all-or-nothing attacks
* Evasion has been fixed so it only gives its bonus the same exchange as it's used (i.e. in red/red initiative)
* The combat pool has been moved up and its color changed so its more prominent

I'm up to 9,000 lines of code and still going strong :-)

[Jake Norwood]

9000 lines, huh...

Brian, you da man...

I played with the last one you sent me for about half an hour yesterday just fighting myself...it was great fun.

Jake