(OT) Do you prefer to know game formulas?

[Zen]

Hrm. I'm the type of guy who prefers to have the common information concrete and availiable that doesn't give outrageous advantage to the studied, while the mechanics obscured.

Example: I like to know that my mage can cast Orb Lightning 8 times based on the rules of fatigue before he tuckers out.

I don't like to know that a siege is (str)*.45/Defense (x3.2 Mindless) etc.

I would prefer to have accurate generalities and steer clear of pure formulaic or the *Feeling* of needing to know the existing or unknown formulaic (as some feel the need to do).

[Evil Dave]

I think I'm in the same boat as Zen, but I'd phrase it a little differently. I want rules complex enough to make an interesting game (lots of tactical and strategic choices and plenty of replay value), but not so complex that deep understanding of the rules is the margin of victory.

[liga]

I like to know the formulas ... obviously (I'm always asking about that) but I prefer (at least in comouter games) complex dinamic so that knowing the formula is an help but not the solution to the problem.

As an example: I would like to know if the size alter the morale of a squads if the breaking number is 10-15 or 20 ... so probably I'll try to make squads of the right dimension ... but that is not enough to win ... also I lik to know how precision works ... if I know that is something like 2d6 + precision + a factor I like to know how the factor is realted to the distance ... so I know well which is the different between a 25 or a 30 range spell hitting at 10 ... I don't think this knowledge is the key to win the game

... any way ... good play!
Liga