Yeah, I need advice on a method of battle system. My idea is about using three types of troops in a game; this sounds plain and lame, but I'm explaining it in the simplest of ways. The three troop types are archers, horsemen, and footmen. I may throw this idea away, but I like the idea of having a circle of advantages: archers good against horsemen, horsemen good against footmen, and footmen good against archers. The only problem is I can't think of a simple, yet effective way of doing the battle system. I was thinking of having the achers fire in combat first, then the horsemen go, then the footmen; but it doesn't seem to balance out right. If anyone can add/give any ideas towards this, I would appriciate it.
Help with a battle/combat system
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 00:42
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 00:57
#1
Re: Help with a battle/combat system
AvidGamer wrote:
This type of relationship is called non-transitive. I think searching the forums for the term will be helpful to you.I like the idea of having a circle of advantages: archers good against horsemen, horsemen good against footmen, and footmen good against archers.
AvidGamer wrote:
What does this mean?
...it doesn't seem to balance out right.
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 09:33
#2
Help with a battle/combat system
Well....historically it would make sense if the archers beat the footmen, the footmen beat the horsemen, and the horsemen beat the archers. Why? Let's assume that the footmen have pikes or pole arms of some sort, they would be able to attack the horsement at least once before the horsemen would fully approach them. That said, the archers would be able to fire upon the footmen prior to them closing in with the pikes. The horsemen would then be able to close the gap against the archers quicker, thus denying them a good chance to aim.
Then again this is over simplified and not real accurate, though it would work for the scenario you are seeking.
If you wanted something more detailed, I would simply give the archers a 'ranged attack', the footmen 'melee reach', and the horsemen 'charge attack'. Melee Reach would allow the footmen to attack troops that were on an adjacent space and the Charge Attack would allow the horsemen to gain a bonus if they move a certain number of spaces and then attack.
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 10:35
#3
Re: Help with a battle/combat system
AvidGamer wrote:
I was thinking of having the achers fire in combat first, then the horsemen go, then the footmen; but it doesn't seem to balance out right. If anyone can add/give any ideas towards this, I would appriciate it.
This is basically how combat works in Samurai Swords, and it's pretty effective. I'm using a pretty similar combat mechanic in a game I'm developing about the 30 Years War (rulebook here), and I have two twists. The first is that the "to-hit" rolls of each type of unit are variable, and depend on the general you have leading your army. The other twist is that units have different "muster costs", but there are restrictions on your ability to muster troops.
Assuming you're going to have a random element in your combat system, the decision that you're trying to emphasize is the one where players choose what troops to muster. You can make this interesting in a variety of ways, such as by having different costs, or different combat strengths. For example, perhaps infantry are more likely to hit than archers but archers fire first; which is "better"? Or perhaps the decision is whether to have a "balanced" army or a army that leans to one type of unit. Or perhaps there's a dichotomy between "fast" and "slow" troops. The game will be more fun if players can experiment with different army compositions and try them out against each other (but there shouldn't be a single "killer composition" that beats all others and is most cost-effective). It's definitely possible to inject this level of decision making even in a combat resolution mechanic that is quick and simplistic. Samurai Swords is a great example of this, and I recommend checking it out.
For a more Rock-Paper-Scissors or War type combat system, you might look at Empires of the Ancient World. In that game, different units are represented from cards, and you arrange your army in a deck of 5 cards, from fastest to slowest, then flip them one at a time and compare to the cards of your opponent. It's quick but still allows some of this kind of flavor.
I agree with Nando; let us know what problems you're having and perhaps we can help.
Good luck,
Jeff
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 23:26
#4
Re: Help with a battle/combat system
AvidGamer wrote:
The only problem is I can't think of a simple, yet effective way of doing the battle system.
We are in the process of testing such a game that my son (8 years old) and I are developing. It's not too complex, but we wanted it to be fun for both of us. We are using the non-transitive dice that Nando mentioned. Non-transitive dice work better if you have 4 types. So, we added pikemen to the mix.
Pikemen beat Cavalry
Cavalry beat Infantry
Infantry beat Archers
Archers beat Pikemen
Each type has a color code that indicates which die to roll. With non-transitive dice there is a 2/3 chance that the advantage type will win a roll. It works out pretty slick. The advantages are in the dice so no complex calculations, just need to remember what beats what.
We also added nobles (they get to pick which die they want to use. There are only 3 for each side, and the object of the game is to capture the other players nobles)
Currently, we are considering if we what multiple hit points or not.
Sat, 03/25/2006 - 23:38
#5
Help with a battle/combat system
I am a fan of the non-transitive relationships between game elements too. One thing that can make this simple system into a non-trivial system is to allow the relationships between the elements be able to change slightly (too much and the game system breaks down).
In a war game, these could be terrain. Hills could make attacking up them harder (eg: does less damge, less range, etc), and attacking down hill could be easier (more damage, greater range, etc). Trees could limit archers and charges (making foottroops more powerful), swampy ground could slow troops up (making archers more powerful) and hedge rows could slow down foot troops (but horses could jump them) would make cavalry more powerful as they could position them selves better on the battle field.
Remember, though, that each extra factor that you put in will make the number of combinations increase exponentially and this could blow out the number of factors that you have to balance (making it hard to balance and learn).
To give the Pikemen, Archers and cavalry a system that impliments the Scissors/Paper/Rock relationship that you are after could be done like this:
Pikemen get a first strike and the ability to attack with multiple ranks. This allows them to hit the cavalry before they can be hit (reducing the number that can attack them too), But this sould only apply to one direction (player nominated), so if the cavalry out manouver them then they can be at a disadvantage.
Cavalry can move fast and have a decent melee ability and armour. This will allow them to close rapidly with archers and attack them without taking too much damage.
Archers have a ranged attack and the ability to move and use their ranged attack (at a reduced chance to hit). Also have their movement slightly faster than the Pikemen, but slower than the cavalry. This will allow them to skirmish against the pikemen (hit and run attacks), but the cavalry will be able to run them down.
Sun, 03/26/2006 - 08:26
#6
Help with a battle/combat system
There is a very popular set of wargame rules for ancients miniature battles called DBA.
This system has a paper scissors rock mechanism based on different troop types at it's heart, though it is deliberately complicated by the following factors:
Terrain : some troops receive penalties in 'bad going' terrain, while others do not. Normally the weaker troops become powerful in bad going, and the stronger types weaker.
Quick Kill: Some troop types can 'quick kill' other types. For example, knights quick kill infantry in the open even if they only just beat the infanty in a dice roll (normally one must achieve a score of double the enemy score to kill the unit.
Formations: Troops lined up edge to edge such that they form a line get +1 for each element width they overlap the enemy line. Sometimes rear ranks add extra bonuses.
This ruleset is popular because it is very quick playing and although there are a few combat modifiers and such as yout'd expect to find in a wargame, it is much simpler than most. A typical game plays in about 30-45 minutes, which is super quick for wargames. The whole game feels quite abstract. It has a whole host of ideas which are ripe for adaption to more abstract card or board based games. I'll probably try and use some of these ideas to make an abstract battle game one day.
Check it out at http://www.dbaonline.com
There are links there to articles discussing strategy, which go into lots of detail about how the various troop types match up against each other. Finally, you can download the client software and use it to play against other people online (which you have to pay a small fee for), or you can play against yourself or an opponent using the same computer. In any case, you can get a feel for how the game plays.
HTH,
Dan
Sun, 03/26/2006 - 12:23
#7
Help with a battle/combat system
By coincidence, Boing-boing posted this item about non-transitive dice which would make for a fun solution to your problem.
Although I must confess that I was more taken with the dice set cited on the 'Geek, called the Sicherman dice.
These have faces
1 3 4 5 6 8
1 2 2 3 3 4
which produces exactly the same set of results as two regular six-sided dice, but in an entirely different way, and a very different probability of rolling doubles. How cool is that?!
Fri, 03/31/2006 - 09:45
#9
Help with a battle/combat system
Ah, so you have to overthrow the current government and then the factions (Players) get to war over the division of the land? NEAT!
First off, I have to say thanks to all the people who gave their two cents worth; I greatly appriciated it. To the idea of pikemen, I think it would make the game; A:To confusing, fun board games are built on simplicity, and B: I am planning on the three unit types be able to be upgraded into more advanced forms of troops, that means ALOT of pieces. However, you all have given me alot to ponder on. I seem to have a semi-workable idea, but as with anything, it's going to need ALOT of playtesting.... A few friends and I will take all these ideas and hammer them on the anvil of gamemaking, you know, see if their good for this game. I've had some good fortune, having come up with an idea for this game; in the same catagory as Settlers of Cataan, Peurto Rico, and other such games. I've even come up with some ideas that make this game unique, like a cardboard AI for a NPC (non-playable character). For those interested in the AI, it's a simple system that in the beginning of the game, the players have to work together to destroy, gain land, and then the fun starts as the players are put against each other.
More ideas are always welcome...