I'm trying to come up with a clean combat resolution system.
Part of the problem is that I've seen relatively few systems and therefore lack the experience to compare them and build from them.
Is there are resource out there that perhaps catalogs various mechanics?
Part of a personal challenge to me is that I tend to design overly complex mechanics and then try to simplify them. Sometimes high complexity can work, but if there are many other parts to the game, it quickly becomes the bottleneck.
In a previous game (fantasy strategy), I had roughly company sized military units.
Attributes included: separate attack and defense scores, range, movement speed and type (mounted, flying, etc.) magic attributes, armor attributes, supply cost, etc, etc.
In other words, a fairly high level of detail.
But, since this was the main focus of the game, it was probably justified.
To determine a battle outcome, you would roll 2d10 + your attack score for a particular unit. To hit a unit, you would need to roll the target's defense score or higher. (There are some other modifiers, but that's the basic mechanic)
However, in a new game I'm designing that level of detail is not wanted. First, the units are battalion or brigade sized. Second, there are other parts of the game that need more focus.
I want to reduce the combat strength to a single number.
But I still want to represent the idea that:
• A tank unit is tougher than an infantry unit (both damage it can deal, and damage it can absorb)
• Battles between equal units should take roughly the same time as battles with differently strengthed equal units. (important for other play issues)
• There is some granularity in the attrition rate to give the waring sides a chance to gauge the battle and retreat if necessary. (not all or nothing)
Originally, I had each unit have an attack value and an armor value.
On a d20, you would have to roll (your attack value - target's armor), or lower to score a kill. Additionally, some units got to roll additional dice, and some got and additional hit before dying. Most needed rolls would be less than 8, many even lower. This provided attrition granularity.
This worked balance-wise but was still too complicated.
So, I dropped the additional hits and dice, and tried to represent than in an increased combat score.
I though about rolling (your combat score - your target's score) or lower to hit, with 1 always hitting and 12 always missing.
That lead to some strange results (equal units were the same as units with a 1 point difference) and in many cases the battle took too long to resolve (needing 1 or 2 on d10.
Then I though of subtracting only half the targets combat score. But that seemed messy and suspiciously close to having two separate combat values again.
Here's what I'm currently thinking.
Each unit decides to attack a specific unit in the battle and rolls a d12. Normally, a 1-6 hits, 7-12 misses.
But this will be modified based on the relative strengths of the units to each other.
For every point below your target's score, you subtract a point from the numbers that can hit.
For every point above your target's score, you add a point to the numbers that can hit.
A roll of 1 always hits, and a 12 always misses regardless of the needed roll.
So in a battle with a 6 vs. 7, (difference of 1)
The 6 strength would need a 1-5 to hit
And the 7 strength would need a 1-7 to hit
(These odds are the same for all battles with a difference of one point)
So, any battle between units with a difference of two means that the stronger unit is twice as likely to hit.
A battle between units with a difference of four means that the stronger unit is five times as likely to hit.
Scores don't represent an absolute value, but rather a relative value to any given opponent.
So 2 vs. 4 is equivalent to 10 vs. 12
This system will give six different possible odds in a battle.
I originally tried this with a d10 (hit on a 5 or lower) but found that the range of odds was limiting. And that a difference of only 1 point made for too decisive of an advantage. And I felt that the low amount of possible rolls meant that there was too much uncertainty.
My next thought was to use a d20 (hit on 10 or lower) and change combat scores accordingly. (Also 1-2 always hit, 19-20 always miss)
This would allow introduction of minor differences in strength; a difference of 1 point would only yield a 10% advantage.
But somehow, using a d20 seemed a bit unwieldy, and seemed to take a bit longer to compute your hit roll, and a bit longer to read the number rolled. But maybe that's just me.
I think the best would be a d14 (hit on 7 or lower), but they are much more expensive than other dice ($5 apiece!)
So I'm compromising and using a d12 right now. But for some reason they seem to take an unusually long time to stop rolling, more so than even a d20!
So, what do you guys think of such a system? It seems pretty straight forward to me, but do you see it as too complex?
Do you see a complexity increase with the increase in the die faces? (d12 vs. d20)
Perhaps you know of a different mechanic that I should consider?
Also, let me know if you need me to describe some typical units or a typical battle in more detail.
Wait, I'm confused. You first said Ugh, and then said it's good. Can you clarify? Do you mean Ugh to the first game, and good to the second game?
The reason I think d14 would be nice is because there is a greater range of odds possibilities, while not being as "numbery" as using d20. Also, a greater range means better fidelity for the first few odds ratios. And this seems desired.
On a d10, a 1 point difference yields a 3/2 advantage in battle outcome. 2 points gives greater than 2/1 at 7/3. That seems quite high, and not enough options in beetween.
d12 gives 7/5 odds for 1 point advantage, 2 points is 2/1. Perhaps still a bit high, but playable I think.
d14 gives 4/3 for 1 point, 9/5 for 2 points, and doesn't breach 2/1 until 3 points difference at 5/2 odds.
d20 gives 11/9 at 1 point, 3/2 at 2 points, 13/7 at 3 points, etc. I don't think all that much detail adds much value from d14, and so it is wasted complexity.
So, d14 seems like a good mid-range value.
But yes, 1-7 hit, 8-14 miss, are the base values. And 1 always hits, and 14 always misses.
Actually, Axis & Allies was may starting point (for the newer game). The limitation in Axis is that a unit had the same chance of hitting opposing infantry as it did going up against opposing tanks. I want to reflect that tanks are also harder to kill, not just more damaging.
Furthermore, in Axis you'll notice that the units have both an attack and defence score. (though only one is used at a time) I'm hoping to confine the combat score to just one number in my effort to simplify. Again, I originaly had additional hit points if my first draft of the new system, but I removed it to make things more streamlined.
I'm not opposed to bringing back a defence or armor score, but I hope to resolve this without adding more numbers if I don't need to.
I'm noticing, however, that removing complexity in one area can have the effect of increasing it in another area if I try to retain unit interactions.
In this case, removing hits and defence scores makes the player have to do a bit of math to resolve combat. I don't think figuring out how far apart your scores are is a huge burden. Perhaps subtracting that from your needed hit roll is getting there though?
Though in requireing even a tiny bit of math, I feel like a little bit of elegance has been lost somehow. But maybe I'm worrying about it too much.
What do you think?