Calculations Vs Information

Since I don't mind calculating a bit in games I play, I feel like System 2 is the most interesting.
System 1 is good also but maybe too simple. And System 3 may be a little hard to read.

Personally, I don't mind calculating either.
However, most players actually do mind.
So, please keep that in mind.

Personal experience:
I kept my system as simple as possible for this. So all players have to do is choose the lowest number.
And this works. The other variables steer the players.
It is comparable with your system 2. But I had to simplify a bit more. Players had to look up more with my previous system. And looking up can cause mistakes. So, try to refrain from looking up as much as possible.
Comparing information with 2 play cards placed together however is simple (but I did not have that luxury in my game and used a table of contents)

Freedom in variables:
You might want to ask yourself; "how much freedom do you want for your variables". This means that you, as designer, as balancer, want to give yourself freedom in the designing and balancing. It also can make things harder for you if you don't have experience.

System 1 is solid. Just 1 variable to modify. While the player has to calculate the numbers.
System 2 leaves more room open for design. 3 variables to modify.
System 3 has 3 variables. But indeed predetermined for the player. System 1 fits in this one as well. You might consider using system 1, but written out for the players.

Please not that I am only counting variables of where numbers can be assigned. Because a type, has the number 3 as you have mentioned. It will be A, B or C.

Balance issue's:
This is opposite to the number of variables.
System 1 is the easiest to balance. System 2 and 3 are harder to balance.

In total. I suggest that you use system 3. You could start with system 1 and upgrade later on to 3 if you feel the need. But you have plenty of freedom at first for your design process if you start with 3 right away.

I foresee trouble, balancing system 2. It only works if you have a clear plan in mind for your types.

I hope that this was of help.

I am not sure where you got that from Masacroso? There are several things about arithmetics that are pretty hardcoded into human brains from what I understand, so I do not think your statement is always true?

For instance one thing I find confusing is in Fields of Fire where the range of units is listed as Point-Blank, Short, Long, or Very Long. What it means is just 0, 1, 2, 3, so why not print that? Now the player mentally has to convert Long to 2 every time. It is just an extra step to take because the designer felt it would be more thematic to use descriptive names instead of simple numbers.

Or like in Infantry Attacks (and also Panzer Grenadier) where the leaders have only a title, not a number. So you need to remember that a Major outranks a Captain outranks a Corporal (plus several other ranks), or look that up in the rulebook. Which is not too much work. Except then you play as the Germans or Russians and they have the titles printed in those languages. I am sure there are wargame geeks out there that remembers the ranks of Russian officers and think it is as natural as "steel is stronger than wood" but I would much rather just have the numbers printed on them (or in addition to the text). Never assume that players are going to think that what is obvious to you will be obvious to them.

Or slightly less worse: The coins in Eight Minute Empires Legends that are silver or copper, and you have to remember that silver means 3 copper. Why not print a big 1 or 3 on the coins as a reminder for new players? Such oversights are pretty difficult to understand. It is just yet another detail that you need to mention and teach every new player that distracts them from something more important.

I can't think of any game that used names where I did not think "why do I have to remember or look up every time what the precise meaning of this is, when a simple number would have been sufficient to instantly know what will happen".

Of course I would not want to have it like in some monster wargames, like the Europa series, where players find it perfectly normal that you need to bring calculators to the table to be able to calculate combat results. :) I do not think there is anything particularly positive about calculations. If they can be avoided by clever use of tables or simple numbers printed on components I very much prefer that. But I do not see anything bad at all with them being numbers rather than strings of letters, if they have a numeric meaning anyway.

Well, I think I agree then. Using symbols to reinforce the numbers sounds like a good thing.

Other problem that I see with calculation, not related to the playability for newcomers and broad audience, is that if you put calculus then it make harder to play the game in a more abstract level i.e. in a more strategical or metagame level.

If I need to make calculus about what is more efficient in some situation it make harder to plan what I must try to play in a long sequence of turns/time.

Then sometimes what happen is that more complexity in a game make the game less deeper because you must focus a lot on different areas that the "big plan" or philosophy to play behind your decisions.

A not so complex game in the basic mechanics sometimes make that you play the game in higher dimensions of abstraction because the base level is simple, so a "simple" game become a deep game.

And for a complex mechanics very often make a game as hard to master that you must focus too much in the calculus and never get the time/knowledge to put the game in an advanced level of strategy or philosophy.

In our memories Im sure that many good moments of play are when something epic (or funny) happen, and this kind of situations are more related to strategy or attitude (thinking about what to do in several turns/time) than just in concrete or isolated turns.

----------------------------------------------

I love math... I really love a lot math... but I dont like lost time with computer-friendly things, calculus. Indeed I read, time to time, some books of math, these days Im studying measure theory and probability theory, and something about stochastic calculus by example.

Im not a computer or a robot so I hate work like one... I prefer to use and expand the human-friendly capabilities of the mind.