Julian:
> The "non-Euclidian" maths involve translating game world quanta
> (themselves log-based : bigness of herds frinstance) into TNs.
That was as clear as mud. Can you try again? (I'm tempted to say "actually try this time".)
> Erm : adding CC 7 and CC 10, that's a difference of 3, so the "sum" is a net
CC
> of 19 ?
>
> Something broken in your maths I'm afraid. Basically, you're failing to take
> the _size_ of the added TN into proper account, and failing to address the
game
> world quanta problem.
It's deeply counter-intuitive, but it's correct, given the assumptions, to wit specifically that a +10 represents a doubling of effect. (And that adding effects really is additive.)
> The basic rule should be that you should add 1/5 of the added number to your
> score. Rounded up. This keeps everything consistent : the TNs, the
Augmentation
> roolz, the game world, and the focus on Heroes' actions (not on game world
> simulation).
That would be "suggestive of" consistency with Augmentation, but that'd be about it: it has no basis in any of t'other stuff. And it's quite unlogarithmic: "adding" your strength of 14 to the Big Man's has exactly the same _game-rules_ effect as adding it to someone of the same strength (to wit, a +3), which makes not a lick of sense in the game world (where you're not changing the former one whit, and you're doubling the latter).
> So, adding CC 20 and CC10W yields CC 14W (and 50 APs, assuming these are two
> fighters combining their efforts). Adding CC 20W and CC 10W2 yields 20W2 (and
> 90 APs). Adding CC 7 and CC 10 yields CC 12 (and 17 APs). But then, a squad
> with one CC 10W Hero and 20 CC 17 grunts would have 10W + (20 * 17)/5 = CC
18W4
> (and 370 APs), so this approach needs fixing too.
It needs fixing because it's fundamentally incorrect, and not just in the case of multiple additions.
> The anally retentive calculation method for the squad's enhanced CC would be
> the
> following one :
>
> 10W + ((17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 +
> (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + (17 + 17/5)
> /5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)/5)
I think that might be a little bit excessive, given the basic unsoundness of the rule...
> And now Alex may
> understand my "non-Euclidean" maths a little more clearly ? And that 5 points
> of TN does actually work out as a doubling of the quanta being represented
> (numbers of cows frinstance) and not 10 points ? 10 points of TN is actually a
> *huge* difference in real terms.
In a word, no. You've provided this explanation in the context of a _totally different_ rule for the one I asked you to explain, and I'm afraid to say it doesn't much any sense to me in the context of either.
Your first rule (the log-adding) one made sense if +5 represents a doubling of effect (except that you "explained" it in terms of +10 per doubling); this latter rules doesn't work at all, regardless of whether +5 or +10 is a doubling. I suspect your answer has convinced everyone we're dabbling with Riemann spaces and the like, but the basic issue is pretty straightforward, really: does +10 make you "twice as strong" (for example) in the game world, or four times as strong? Or is there in fact no real consistent interpretation to the ability scores, in which case we're somewhat stuck.
> Wealth is an exception, because you actually *need* a simulationist rule for
> it, and some method of translating the TN into accountancy. Hence my Adding
> Wealth table, although I now take back my suggestion that it can be used for
> other HW purposes. It can't.
Except that your wealth table works the way I suggested for adding abilities (only using a still-unexplained doubling per +5 rule), and doesn't relate it back to game-world quantities, which is what you need it for: so I'd say that on the contrary, that's the last place one should use a log-add table.
Powered by hypermail