Skip to Content
 

Idea for combat. I need your opinion

13 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

Please tell me what you think and tell me if its too complicated.

The combat is for a Feudal Japanese game. The Idea is to reward combined arms (Different kinds of warriors). The three types of warriors each have a unique ability and are as follows:

Peasant Spearman- Their ability is that they do not have to be supported by rice patties
Samurai Swordsman - Roll 2 dice in combat
Samurai archers - They role first each round and remove casualties before the round.

So anyway here is how combat works. When I mention dice I am using D6. Each unit in combat gets 1 dice except for the swordsman, who get 2.

For 1 type of unit, you must roll a 1 or less to get a "hit" (If you have 20 spearman you get 20 dice and each 1 you roll you score a hit.)

For 2 types of unit you must roll a 2 or less (If you a samurai and a spearman in battle you roll 3 dice [remember swordsman get 2 dice] any roll of 2 or less is a a hit.

For 3 types of army units you must roll a 3 or less. (Example: you have 1 archer 1 swordsman and 2 spearman. First you roll 1 dice for the archer, on a 3 or more you hit and the casualty is immediately removed. Next, your swordsman and 2 spearman roll 3 dice and any 3 or less' is a hit.

Combat is considered simultaneous .

So what do yall think?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Idea for combat. I need your opinion

galeninjapan wrote:
So what do yall think?

So the idea is to reward using a variety of troop types? Interesting.

Is it likely someone might use 10 Swordsmen, 1 Archer and 1 Spearman, instead of 12 Swordsman to get 22 rolls at 50% instead of 24 rolls at 16%?

- Seth

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

Yea sort of. The chances of getting an army that big are very low. Normaly armies will be around 4-7 units tops. 2-4 is the average. I am trying to figure out way to incorporate Ronin into the over all game.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

galeninjapan wrote:
Yea sort of. The chances of getting an army that big are very low. Normaly armies will be around 4-7 units tops. 2-4 is the average. I am trying to figure out way to incorporate Ronin into the over all game.

So I still figure the obvious choice might be 1 Archer, 1 Spearman, and X-2 Swordsmen for maximum chances... but then again, maybe more Archers would be best because they have First Strike... maybe you just need to try it and see. Do archers choose which units they hit? Still seems like you'd want Archers and Swordsmen most, and only Pikemen for the extra damage bonus. Now, if you lost your pikeman during battle and that meant you had to roll under 3 (instead of under 4), then that might encourage more pikemen as fodder. Also they might be cheaper units...

As for Ronin, you could maybe have 'combination units'... that is to say you 'trade in' an Archer and a Pikeman for a Ronin or something, where a Ronin is a badass.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

That sounds like an interesting idea for encouraging mixed arms.

One thing you might want to do is to have a fixed hit-removal order. First the spearmen are removed, then the swordsmen, then the archers (for example). This, as Seth suggested, might give a reason to have more spearmen to protect the powerful swordsmen.

I'd say it's worth testing to see how the players change their approaches to what units to build.

-Bryk

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

I like the system. It's simple enough and I can see how it might make for some interesting decisions, especially if players choose which of their units will be "casualties". Do you keep a "weaker" unit so that you still have a diversified army after the attack or do you simply keep a better unit?

Of course, since it is better to have a diversified army, it should also be more difficult to get a diversified army. Perhaps you can only build one type of unit in one turn, or buying different types of units in the same turn costs more, or different types of units start in a different area on the map. I'm sure you can come up with something better!

Good luck with the game!

- René Wiersma

rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

Definately an interesting combat mech. I can't wait to see what you come up with :)

As for the difficulty of making a diverse army, I think that's a much if a diverse army gets you more power.

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

Yea you definatly want to have a mixed army. The spearman are good for a number of reasons. They can be taken as casualties and they do not have to be supported by rice patties.

One example someone mentioned was, What would happen if say you had 1 of each then lost a spearman. Would you lose the benifit. The answer is yes.

Another thing is that you can only score as many hits as you have people. So If you roll 2 dice but only have one guy and both die hit, then you only score one hit.

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

Very interesting system, I like the variations in the different types of warriors without the mixing troops bonus/penalty. Am I correct in thinking that "rice paddies" are some kind of sustinence that you must have in sufficient quantities to feed your troops? Otherwise you lose troops?

I do feel that the bonus awarded for having various warrior types is a little counter-intuitive. Would a warrior type really have a better chance of hitting a target (up to 3x better) because of the presence of other warrior types? I like having a bonus for having more than 1 type, but wonder if there is a better way to reward those who do. How about allowing players to reroll 1 die per warrior type present. Say a player has 4 archers and 1 samurai and a spearman. He rolls lousy and gets only one "1." Having all three warrior types would allow him to reroll up to 3 dice of his choice. Just a thought.

Something to consider would be the possibility that a warrior type could be eliminated by archers before the other player can attack with them. If an archer took out an enemy's only samurai, would that enemy no longer be able to take advantage of the multiple warrior bonus?

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

SiskNY wrote:
Very interesting system, I like the variations in the different types of warriors without the mixing troops bonus/penalty. Am I correct in thinking that "rice paddies" are some kind of sustinence that you must have in sufficient quantities to feed your troops? Otherwise you lose troops?

You are correct. Each tile has a number of Rice patties and/or villages. To win you need to capture so many villages. Each rice pattie supports 1 unit.

Quote:

Something to consider would be the possibility that a warrior type could be eliminated by archers before the other player can attack with them. If an archer took out an enemy's only samurai, would that enemy no longer be able to take advantage of the multiple warrior bonus?

You are correct. If the archer fires and hits and kills the players only samurai, then he no longer gets the bonus.

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

I think combined arms represents battles well. For example an army of all bowman may be good. but very easy to exploit. By combining arms you cover all your angles so to speak

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

I see your point, it just seems to me that the scale is off. If you started with a 20 sided die, then going from having to roll a 1 (5% probability) to having to roll a 1 or 2 (10%) or even 1-3 (15%) isn't that great of a difference in probability (only 10% from lowest to highest). Going from 1 in 6 (about 16%) to 3 in 6 (50%) is a pretty big jump (34% from low to high) and seems a little drastic. (Bear in mind that I'm not suggesting using a 20 sided die, just using it to explain my hesitance regarding your probability).

It's possible that it balances out OK in the scope of the game itself, but you mention very small scale armies (4-7 I think you said was typical), so it may be an issue. I like your system of combat, but wonder if there was another way to reward players for having more than 1 type of warrior.

Just my $.02 worth, good luck with your game!

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

There was more to combat that I didnt explain the first time because I didnt want to overwhelm anyone. The combat is fought in rounds. The first round only 1 unit from each side is committed to the battle. The second round 2 MORE units are committed to battle. The third round 3 MORE units are committed. So theoretically if no one dies their could be 6 units in battle during the third round.

Another thing to note is, while armies are small battles can be large because of multiply armies attacking.

Anonymous
Idea for combat. I need your opinion

I have built a similar combined arms system using 3 units, like what you have galeninjapan.

My system uses 3 base types in a SPS relationship:
Fast: This unit can move further than the Range unit can shoot.
Range: Can shoot further than the Tough Unit can move.
Tough: Can take and deal more Damage the the Fast unit (and has the same attack range as the Fast)

These can be themed in many diferent ways.
Fast = Cavalry/Motorised Infantry
Range = Archers/Artillery
Tough = Heavy Footsoldiers/Tanks

As for the Ronin...
The Ronin was a samuri without a master/lord. The Ronin could have no upkeep cost (rice paddies), but normal units will all have that upkeep, and will not allow the player to claim victory points (or honnor, money, etc) when used in battle.

I hope these Ideas will help

ps:If anyone want to pich this mechanic feel free, but do put in a thanks 8) (PM me if you want more info)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut