Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Thread: Influence of color red in wargaming Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-30-15 10:01 PM
dragonkingofthestars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Tall One View Post
Of course, but I do think we should consider both effects.

Perhaps some of you could experiment with Blood-Angels with Ultramarine allies, divide your deployment in two and see which side your opponent considers most threatening?
That's a poor idea because Blood Angels and Ultras are, though similar are mechanically different. A blood angel land raider IS more threatening then an ultramarine one because it is faster.

A better test would be two identical codex's with identical army lists, but one with red models the other with blue, and then track the loss and win rate of the two against each other with each list playing a wide verity of different codex's and army lists and tracking who gets first blood, who gets more victory points on average and the survival rate of different units, (does the red land raider die more often then then blue one)
06-29-15 07:23 AM
Tha Tall One
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars View Post
but warhammer and other table top games are also about threat assessment, so will a Red Land raider be seen as more threatening then a blue one and therefore will it's destruction be valued higher then it other wise should be? would a bright red army make a opponent play more conservatively then he should? or will he be more aggressive against a blue army?
Of course, but I do think we should consider both effects.

Perhaps some of you could experiment with Blood-Angels with Ultramarine allies, divide your deployment in two and see which side your opponent considers most threatening?
06-28-15 11:50 PM
Squire Interesting discussion. A FPS is a lot different because reactions, quick decisions and muscle memory are all going on at once so subconscious factors like colour influencing decisions seems very credible to me. On the tabletop it doesn't seem so likely since the opponent moving his red land raider forward doesn't force you to instantly decide how to react to it. With time to think between and during turns I can't imagine you'd make different decisions depending on the colour of the enemy army

Then again... I'm not so sure about that. Maybe playing against Blood Angels would make you slightly more likely to choose defensive decisions when such decisions occur. I'm struggling to think of good situations where defensive and offensive decisions are both valid- maybe the option to flat out a vehicle onto an objective or stay still and fire all weapons at full BS?

Realistically it doesn't seem like there will be an answer to this since armies are all different and unless someone had two of the same list but one painted red and the other painted blue and they then went and played a lot of games against the same opponent/s and recorded the results- how would we know?
06-28-15 09:14 PM
dragonkingofthestars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Tall One View Post
The same video also says that BLUE players in strategy games win more often because their mindset becomes more focussed on long term goals. Red players win more in First Person Shooters. While I'm unsure about 40K, I do believe warhammer is more a strategy game than an FPS.
but warhammer and other table top games are also about threat assessment, so will a Red Land raider be seen as more threatening then a blue one and therefore will it's destruction be valued higher then it other wise should be? would a bright red army make a opponent play more conservatively then he should? or will he be more aggressive against a blue army?
06-27-15 08:54 AM
Tha Tall One The same video also says that BLUE players in strategy games win more often because their mindset becomes more focussed on long term goals. Red players win more in First Person Shooters. While I'm unsure about 40K, I do believe warhammer is more a strategy game than an FPS.
06-27-15 08:14 AM
Iraqiel If colour was influencing the game, it would be in player mindset and game developer thought, not in statistical game play.

Typical Red armies:
Blood Angels
Other Red Marines
Mechanicus
Khorne Daemonkin
Other Red CSM
Eldar Fire Dragons
Saim Hann
Speed Freak/Evil Sunz orks

Fantasy
Khornate Chaos
Vampires

Infinity
Yu Jin

All of these armies are typically assault or aggressive play focussed, but aren't necessarily armies that are associated with winning very often. If the colour bias was in effect, it appears to be at a game developer level with red units more aggressive, but not necessarily better for game play.

Interesting mental exercise, nice question.
06-27-15 06:20 AM
Kreuger Not in my experience. I knew a very savvy blood angel player but his win record was the result of skillful generalship and an efficient all comers list, not paint scheme.

Otherwise no. The winningest player I know played UltraSmurfs, blue Alaitoc-looking Craftworld Eldar (e.g. painted using the same paints as ultramarines), and Harlequins.

There is however research and color theory which acknowledges that red is the most vivid and instantly recognizable color. Humans pay more attention to red things and they catch our attention much more easily.

If anything this thread is anecdotally supporting a bias for paying attention to red. Possibly also a confirmation bias. =)
06-26-15 10:43 AM
Old Man78 AllI know is that red ones go faster!
06-26-15 10:40 AM
dragonkingofthestars
Influence of color red in wargaming

Recently I watched a video about color in online computer games, If i understand how the system works it should be right down bellow my text here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X31K6jammH0

the video states and backs up that red teams win more often in FPS due to our brains being programed to see red as power and danger, meaning we act bolder if we our red, and more skittishly if not. (summarizing) and after some periminary looking around, this does seem to be backed up by multiple srouces with even just a simple "red winning" google" getting sites like Nat Geo and discover magazine echoing the research.

but here is my question: does this also apply to wargames like 40K or Warmchine? I was curious and tried goggling it, but the existence of "Wargame Red Dragon" makes any such google-fu tricky for me, so I thought I'd ask you guys here, (in off topic since it seemed a bit too "out there" for general discussion) if you knew anything.

So: here is my question: can any body point out any evidence (beyond anecdote evidence you experience personally) that red painted army's in 40k have a higher win rating then a blue one?

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome