Re: Many-onto-one combats

From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:01:08 +0100

In article <20030721215240.A13830_at_...>, Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...> writes
>On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:26:49PM +0100, Kevin Blackburn wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>> Four onto one therefore seems reasonably to be yet a further mastery,
>> suggesting three onto one should be perhaps +13, and the fourth just
>> adding +7. After this it seems likely that the multiple attackers will
>> severely get in each others way ??? perhaps the fifth +4 and the sixth +2.
>
>If one interpolates a logarithmic progression, with the assumption
>stated above, one gets the following:
>
> +20: 2
> +32: 3
> +40: 4
> +46: 5
> +52: 6
> +56: 7
> +60: 8
> +63: 9
> +66: 10
>... etc.
>
>However, I doubt you can get *anything* like nominal, much less beyond
>nomimal, benefit from much beyond say 4 attackers, in any normal
>situation.

I was assuming the benefits are likely to tail off about 6 attacks of your size (though 20 rats might do the trick) - this was the point of my comment "After this it seems likely that the multiple attackers will severely get in each others way". I wasn't trying too hard for a logarithmic progression, more what feels right - which I suppose is against the spirit of my original post.
>
>
>> If we know two attackers rating as a pair, what should they be
>> individually? Well, the one has to basically win two contests, so it
>> sounds like each should be at (plus a mastery, minus five = +15). "Minus
>> five" because we concluded that for a contest ability +5 equates to
>> winning two combats in a row.
>
>What's the interest in working in this direction? This is essentially
>the same problem, of course, and hinges on the same basic question:
>how well do the Many combine with each other for a collective effect?

Consider if the "two" are the PCs and the "one" the villain - the players will want to make their own rolls, and thus need their own bonuses. The original reasoning about the "many onto one" is of the "many" taken as being a single rating. Alternatively, I wanted to know what happens if a PC is the one and they say "I want to take down X, and ignore Y".
>
>> This is really a little too detailed for the rather free flowing Hero
>> Wars rules, but if something is going horribly wrong in what the rules
>> say and what feels right to happen, then pulling out the above rules
>> might help.
>
>I concur on both sentiments.

Quite, though I hope it amuses.

-- 
Kevin Blackburn                         Kevin_at_...