Firebird HQ still being worked on?

[RazorFire191]

Hey all

new to the forum. Ended up here from a google search for Phoenix Command search and saw Eukies post, from 2015, on the work they were doing on Phoenix Command retroclone. I am adapting concepts from phoenix command in the combat system for my Tabletop RPG in development, so was curious if anything else was done on it. Had questions.

 

[Eukie]

Heya! I'm still working on Firebird Headquarters, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

 

[RazorFire191]

Heya! I'm still working on Firebird Headquarters, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Click to shrink...

Eukie

Great. I read your initial post where you cover your derivation and design of some of the mechanics, and I also read your in-progress document. I am most interested in how you derived some of your mechanics/tables as I develop my own system. A few question topics are below


Speed
-------------------------------------------
I saw your table of speeds from INT and firearms skill giving a decimal value for speed, but I didn't see anything in your rules document showing how that was turned into CAs? I also see that you split out movement from CAs to avoid super fast people from having super running speed, probably a wise choice.

Rayleigh Distribution
------------------------------------
Can't say I quite understand how you derived that one, care to explain a few more steps of you how you derived r/sigma figure and related log table?

Ballistic Accuracy
-------------------------------------------
Do you have any ideas on how to calculate this, or are you just using the published data? I was wanting to come up with a good formula for my system to determine BA's.


I appreciate any help you can offer, thanks.

 

[Eukie]

I saw your table of speeds from INT and firearms skill giving a decimal value for speed, but I didn't see anything in your rules document showing how that was turned into CAs? I also see that you split out movement from CAs to avoid super fast people from having super running speed, probably a wise choice.

Click to shrink...

The INT+Firearms multiplier is multiplied by the Maximum Speed to get the number of CA.

Rayleigh Distribution

Click to shrink...

The quick and dirty of it is that the hit probability for a bullet is given by the equation:

P(hit) = 1-e^{-\frac{r}{\sigma}}

Where r is the target radius, and σ is ⅔ the average miss radius. Phoenix Command, which I'm developing off of, uses a logarithmic scale for r/σ. This makes it

P(hit) = 1-e^{-2^{\frac{A}{5}}

Where:

A = \log_2(r) - \log_2(\sigma)

Allowing us to use tabulate P(hit) for multiple values of A.

Ballistic Accuracy

Click to shrink...

To calculate BA for a given range r, you can use:

BA = 18 + 9 \times \log_2(j/r)

Where j is the weapon's 'effective range', which can usually be found on Wikipedia, in field manuals, etc.

 

[Verdom]

@Eukie umm,I'm seeing this
Instead of whatever you wanted to post.

 

[RazorFire191]

The INT+Firearms multiplier is multiplied by the Maximum Speed to get the number of CA.



The quick and dirty of it is that the hit probability for a bullet is given by the equation:

P(hit) = 1-e^{-\frac{r}{\sigma}}

Where r is the target radius, and σ is ⅔ the average miss radius. Phoenix Command, which I'm developing off of, uses a logarithmic scale for r/σ. This makes it

P(hit) = 1-e^{-2^{\frac{A}{5}}

Where:

A = \log_2(r) - \log_2(\sigma)

Allowing us to use tabulate P(hit) for multiple values of A.



To calculate BA for a given range r, you can use:

BA = 18 + 9 \times \log_2(j/r)

Where j is the weapon's 'effective range', which can usually be found on Wikipedia, in field manuals, etc.

Click to shrink...

Eukie

Thanks for the info, took me a bit but got a handle of the r/sigma element of the formula, pretty clever. So that's how you derived you EAL to TN table then?

Also, thanks for the BA formula, pretty useful can adapt it for my system.

Now a few comments on your original thread

SUPPRESSION INDEX
I actually like this a lot, I have read the study on the concepts behind it, and it makes people act more realisticaly in combat, and adds value to massed fire, and makes flanking and similar tactics viable.

From what I read in the document, it looks like you have a pretty usable system. Though not seeing the tables. As I said, suppresion as part of tactics is smart, and makes it possible for people to advance and flank without getting massacred.

So, is there anything I can help or comment on to help you with your work on this, as you said you are still working on it. THugh to be fair, some of the math is pretty hard for me to grok, but I get it after a while of messing around with it.

Thanks again for your answering my questions.

 

[JR Gratty]

I am definitely interested in this project, and I'm happy to hear it's still be worked on. I've gotten into Phoenix Command and Living Steel recently. It bugs me to no end that certain supplements and expansions are referred to by name in Phoenix Command books, but they never came out! The Direct Fire Artillery Supplement, for instance, that was supposed to handle ATGMs in detail. I've got RPG developer friends who are creating games somewhat similar to Phoenix Command and Living Steel - games with an emphasis on firearms and their usage. It's always useful to look at how others have approached the same game design questions! I hope you keep up the good work on this project.

 

[Eukie]

It bugs me to no end that certain supplements and expansions are referred to by name in Phoenix Command books, but they never came out! The Direct Fire Artillery Supplement, for instance, that was supposed to handle ATGMs in detail.

Click to shrink...

You too huh? The Mechanized Direct Fire Supplement was supposed to have all the really gritty details for explosive shells doing nasty things to the insides of vehicles and people, but never came out. Likewise, the Air/Ground warfare thing would have done something about aircraft, which are sadly otherwise completely untreated by the game. ~*sadness*~

Though ATGMs specifically are surprisingly easy to model. It turns out the way guided missiles works can largely be modelled by some driving functions that - through a horribly complicated mathematical process - become surprisingly simple equations describing a decaying oscillation towards the target. And warheads are warheads, with a fair number of examples to work from. It's certainly enough to make PCCS-style rules for ATGMs that are better than just "88% at ranges of 200 yards or more"!

I've got RPG developer friends who are creating games somewhat similar to Phoenix Command and Living Steel - games with an emphasis on firearms and their usage. It's always useful to look at how others have approached the same game design questions! I hope you keep up the good work on this project.

Click to shrink...

Thanks! Currently I've gotten bogged a bit down in the Mechanized supplement, trying to reverse-engineer enough equations to make a Centurion. This was after trying to work the last quirks out of the wounding system. Things are kind of reaching a plateau where I have almost all of the core systems down, I just need to take those and make them into a system that can be used. I have the world's best tabletop ballistics simulator - now what do I do with it? Release it as a slot-in system for the ludoballistically insane? Usurp Paul Mulcahy's throne?

 

[open_sketch]

Hey Eukie, can I kinda hijack this thread here because I have a legit curiosity I need satisfied.

@RazorFire191 @JR Gratty, I'm a tabletop game designer (I've worked with Eukie on some stuff), but the games I write tend to be a lot less crunchy. Do you think you can put into words exactly why you play games like Living Steel etc? Like, what do you personally get out of checking a bunch of charts to resolve a gunshot? Why is this interesting to you?

I'm not trying to be hateful or nothin': I'm legit curious why this is something you want, and I want to know what you find compelling about it so I can use that knowledge.