Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
Posts: 5654
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 Nov 2018, 7:06 am

You can post directly here or I can post your email comments.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
Posts: 5654
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 Nov 2018, 7:07 am

Comments regards grid positioning...

Bruce R. wrote:Well, I am glad to see that all the different Balance options were chosen by at least one player. I had thought that everyone would try the +3 Balance option, so deliberately tried to go against that type with -3. Since others had the same analysis (curses to Tatum & Long), I think the car to watch will be Rando’s design. I expect to see lots of dice rolling from his team and am excited to see how the race plays out.
My initial thought on car design was that not being able to bid skill for pole position has reduced the value of a high start speed. At WBC a few years ago, we ran this track and I played a car with 120 start speed to good effect. Because these test rules dictate we have to bid pole with wear only, it may be too great a sacrifice to have a high start speed if wear is needed for running the corners. I see that nobody built 120 start or even 100 start in this race. Perhaps we should bring back the Speed Circuit rule that pole is won by highest start speed to complement the Balance rules, or some combination of start speed and wear bid?
I will save my other thoughts until after the race end, once the race has played out and we see how this demo shakes out.
Good luck to all!

Chris L. wrote:Going back to the old AH style of start speed dictating pole position is a really interesting idea.  I like the idea that it could be a combination of both.  Like every wear you bid would add +20mph to your start speed?  That way, you'd still have the flexibility of the option to bid for pole, but start speed would still be very meaningful for positioning, AND you wouldn't have the problem of random chance of all the 0 bids being determined by dice rolls.

Will K. wrote:I don't know. That to me seems like a rich get richer kind of thing. I mean, that sort of determination means that 100 starts get an even larger gap to start on the backfield. Added to Chris, your suggestion would not be cost effective, at least under current Build Speed rules. Perhaps 2/20 could work, but even in that case I would do it without the SS dictating.

A thought came to my mind also though. Perhaps a replacement for skill with "Car Stress" basically a driver could bid engine/break mods as halfs with wear, like skill before. Yes this would make it so a -3er would likely bid high cause they are never rolling, but it would give an alternate way to risk.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
Posts: 5654
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 08 Nov 2018, 8:01 am

To put this another way, you're adding your start speed (1 per each 20 mph) to your wear bid.

The idea has merit in that better pole bids still cost more resources. Let's say, for example, you think you'll be bidding 7 points on the start. Here are your choices and your costs:

#1: 3 (60 SS) + 4 (wear) = 0 + 1.33 = 1.33 build points.
#2: 5 (100 SS) + 2 (wear) = 1 + 0.66 = 1.66 build points
#3: 6 (120 SS) + 1 (wear) = 2 + 0.33 = 2.33 build points

That's a pretty small marginal cost (1/3 of a build point) to improve your SS by 40 while maintaining grid position. Maybe it makes SS too powerful? Then again, I'm comparing to CFR rules, not Speed Circuit rules. Maybe a move back towards SS being more valuable is desirable. I did not include 20 SS since I wouldn't expect a bid of 7 from such a car.
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
Posts: 1
Joined: 27 Feb 2015, 9:32 pm

Post 08 Nov 2018, 8:42 am

I like the idea of making the start speed a component of grid position. The analysis of start speed plus bid is interesting. I DO understand the reasoning behind using lower of start or accel when restarting after a spin, so it doesn't make start speed too overpowered. Anyway... good discussion. I'm all for keeping things simpler. I don't want CFR to become like ASL where we would spend a quarter of our time making moves and three quarters of our time reading rules! :D
User avatar
Posts: 6881
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Nov 2018, 9:35 am

Ahh, ASL rulebooks. Good memories.