Skip to Content
 

Idea for combat mechanic

11 replies [Last post]
xantheman
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I have a game that needed a new combat system. It was my first game and the combat system was to much like Shogun (Samurai Swords).Here is my basic idea for a new system.

There are 6 types of pieces divided into 3 ranges.
Short range - Militia, Infantry, and Cavalry
Medium Range - Bowmen, Gunners
Long Range - Artillery
Pieces are organized into armies of 15 pieces or fewer.

For each type of unit you roll 1d, (4, 6, or 8 sided). Multiples of 1 type of unit improves your chance to hit with that unit type by 1. Long range rolls 1st, then remove casualties, then mid range, then short range.

Example: Militia roll d8, infantry roll d6, and cavalry roll d4. If you have 1 militia in your army, you roll 1d8 and hit on a 1, 2 militia roll 1d8 and hit on a 2, etc. 1 infantry rolls 1d6 and hits on 1, 2 inf roll 1d6 and hit on 2, 3 inf roll 1d6 and hit on 3 and so on.

Different pieces cause different numbers of casualties on a successful hit roll. Example: militia cause 1 casualty on a hit, infantry cause 2 casualties on a hit, cavalry cause 2 casualties + 1 per 2 cavalry in the army.

Some units take 1 casualty to destroy some take 2 or 3.

The idea is that pieces with a better chance to hit roll a smaller die. 1 cav has a 1 in 4 chance to hit while 1 militia has a 1 in 8 chance to hit. Each additional piece of the same type increases your chance to hit by 1. 2 cav have a 1 in 2 chance to hit while 2 militia only have a 1 in 4 chance. 4 cav together would be very powerful because they would hit on 4 on a d4 and inflict 4 casualties.

Bowmen roll d6 and cause 1 casualty, gunners roll d8 and cause 2 casualties, artillery roll d8 and cause 1 casualty + 1 per 3 artillery in the same army and can destroy buildings when attacking towns.

Each type of piece can only score 1 hit per battle for 1 - 4 casualties. The player to cause the most casualties is the winner of the battle.

I think that this system would allow for some interesting strategies in assembling your armies. Having a diverse army would lower your chances to hit, but would increase your maximum casualty capability. Concentrating an army on 2 or 3 types of pieces would increase your chances to hit because you could have more of each piece in the army, but would also decrease the number of potential casualties that you could inflict.

I am also thinking that each army should not have more of a piece then the die that the piece rolls. So an army could have a max of 4 cav, 6 inf, 8 mil, 6 bowmen, 8 gunners, and 8 artillery, as long as the total pieces in the army does not exceed 15.

Any questions, comments, concerns, etc?

Thanks
Xan Lynch

www.rentoys.com

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Idea for combat mechanic

I think you need to limit the size of squads to way fewer than 15... or there will be a LOT of carnage! Maybe 4 max (so you can max out your d4 guys, or at best get 50-50 with your d8's).

Scratch that, a few more than 4 should be allowed, maybe 6- enough to get 75% odds on your d8 guys if you try, or max out d4 guys and also have 2 other guys...

I don't know if having 'auto hits' is good though. Maybe a 1 on any die should always miss. So if you have 4 Cav, you only hit 75% of the time. I also think 4 casulties is a bit much as well - why not 1 + 1 per additional Cav... so 1-3 casulties?

- Seth

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Idea for combat mechanic

Hi

I find the basic idea interesting (when my brain had absorbed it) but I don’t see how this as described can be an interesting system in more then theory.
You have (in the example) 6 different unit types. The thing the players will do is optimizing the units (still your example but I think that it is more behind it than you have described):
Unit 1-4 Cav (Hard hit inflict more wounds)
Unit 5 D4 unit
Unit 6 D4 Unit
Unit 7 D6 Unit
Unit 8 D6 Unit
Unit 9 D8 Unit
It is better to have many dice in this case (better chance to inflict more damage).
Then you have 6 units left and you should add more militanta (I believe that these units are cheep and can be used as cannon fodder).

The reason why I don’t think that this is a interesting system is that this system promotes to learn how to optimize your chances. When that is done why should you try do anything different?

I totally agree with sedjtroll that it shall always be possible to miss.

Your problem will also be that if you add more rules and more types of dice, the player's downtime will increase. If you have a 5-6 player game, that can be a huge problem.
On the other side if this is a 2 player game system then it can work (if the battle is just a part of the game).

// Johan

xantheman
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat mechanic

Thanks for the input. There are some bugs that need to be worked out. I agree that my basic concept gives to much power to cavalry. I like the idea of having an automatic miss, I would use the high number on each die for an auto miss. So rolling a 4 on a d4 unit will always miss, 6 on d6 unit misses, etc regardless of how many of that unit you have.

One thing that I am not sure that I made clear is that you never roll more then 1d per type of unit, regardless of how many of each unit you have. This limits the number of die rolls per battle to 6 or less per player. To get 6 dice in 1 battle you would have to have all 6 types of pieces in 1 army.

Also, each type of unit could only hit once per battle. Bowmen could never inflict more then 1 casualty per battle, regardless of how many of them you have. Gunners could never inflict more then 2 casualties per battle, regardless of how many you have. So you could optimize your units for the best chance to hit but, then you won't be able to do much damage.

Example: A 15 unit army includes the following units (assuming high number on each die is a miss)
3 artillery - roll 1d8, hit on a 3 or less, inflict 2 casualties on a hit

2 bowmen - roll 1d6, hit on 2 or less, inflict 1 casualty on a hit

4 gunners - roll 1d8, hit on 4 or less, inflict 2 casualties on a hit

3 cavalry - roll 1d4, hit on 3 or less, inflict 3 casualties on a hit

2 militia - roll 1d8, hit on 2 or less, inflict 1 casualty on a hit

1 infantry - roll 1d6, hit on a 1, inflict 2 casualties on a hit

This example would allow a high potential casualty rate, but also gives many units a poor chance to hit. You could count on the cavalry (3 in 4 chance to hit) and probably the gunners (4 in 8 chance to hit or 1 in 2). After that, you have artillery at 3 in 5 chance to hit, bowmen at 1 in 3, militia at 1 in 4, and infantry at 1 in 6. You could maybe count on 1 hit from these units.

As far as battle resolution time goes, I was hoping to make battles shorter then they are in Samurai Swords or Axis and Allies by elliminating the 1d per piece rolling system. The most rolling possible for any battle would be as follows.

Long range - each player rolls 1d8, remove casualties

Mid range - each player rolls 1d8 and 1d6, remove casualties

Short range - each player rolls 1d4, 1d6, and 1d8 remove casualties

Player who causes the most casualties wins and loser must retreat.
I thought that it would result in quick battles with minimal die rolling.

Also, the primary aspect of the game is kingdom building. Combat should be expensive to minimize battles to small raids and an occasional siege of a town.

I hope that clears up a few things, I always have trouble putting my ineas in writing clearly.
Xan

www.rentoys.com

xantheman
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat mechanic

sedjtroll wrote:
I think you need to limit the size of squads to way fewer than 15... or there will be a LOT of carnage! Maybe 4 max (so you can max out your d4 guys, or at best get 50-50 with your d8's).

Scratch that, a few more than 4 should be allowed, maybe 6- enough to get 75% odds on your d8 guys if you try, or max out d4 guys and also have 2 other guys...
- Seth

The problem with concentrating an army on 1 type of unit is then you would only get 1d for each battle. I want to encourage a mix of troops in each army. Or at least allow the players the option to go for a higher chance to hit or a chance at more casualties.

Xan

www.rentoys.com

Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat mechanic

It is an interesting system, however I think it is fairly complicated (but if that is not a problem for the game then it not a problem).

You seem to have made a system that is simulating a combined arms system.

In traditional combined arms (using only 3 units to give an example):
Archers beat Infantry. Archers have range and lighter equipment so they can skirmish against infantry without the infantry getting a good attack in.
Infantry beat Cavalry. Ifnatry can form a line which cavalry find hard to charge, also infantry can have pole arms that can attack the cavalry before they can strike the infantry.
Cavalry beat Archers. Cavalry can move fast and so can ride down archers if they try to skirmish. Also archers tend to be in looser formations and so cavalry have no troublr charging them.
This is a good system as there is no best unit type and you could use a simpler dice system.

Something you may have to be careful of with your system is haveing obsolete units. It may be posable to just use 2 or so unit types in an army and have the optimal army. This negates the need for the other units and it make the pieces for those units unnessesary (and a wast of developer and player money). Always make sure that the choices that you give the player are valid choices and not just psudo choices (choices that have no meaning, choices that arn't worth taking, etc).

Also it is not a good idea to have the relationship static. Have some situations where infantry can beat archers, etc. These could be cards, part of the board, or some other method under the player's control. This will allow the players to influence the battle in more ways than just what units they have.

xantheman
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat mechanic

I ran through some numbers in my head today while working and I think that Seth was right, there would be to many casualties per battle. In my example of a 15 unit army, there would probably be 6 - 9 casualties per battle, pretty heavy losses. If you took the approach of maximizing your most damaging units, you could probably guarentee 7 casualties pretty easily, still pretty heavy losses.

A little more info about the game may help. Each player can control up to 5 towns at once and each town can make a limited number of units each turn. A fully developed town, something that you would have 1 - 3 of, can make 3 militia, 2 infantry, 2 bowmen, 1 gunner, 1 cavalry, and 1 artillery per turn. This, combined with a higher purchase price, makes it slow to build an army full of 1 type of powerful unit. Also, there are 2 sizes of troop groups, armies and patrols.

I thought that if a go with d6, d8, and d10 instead of the original d4, d6, and d8 and maybe 12 unit armies and 8 unit patrols, that might help quite a bit. I also like the idea of giving bowmen and gunners a bonus against infantry and militia, infantry and militia a bonus against cavalry, and cavalry a bonus against bowmen and gunners. Artillery get a bonus attacking towns and forts making them most useful for sieges. Combine these changes with some tweaking of casualties caused by each type of unit and hits that it takes to destroy each unit and I think that I may be getting close to something fun, versatile, and fairly unique.

Xan

www.rentoys.com

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Idea for combat mechanic

I just wanted to give you an alternative idea that I designed for my games. It could help you improve yours (sorry if I already described this system).

I have discovered that what ever the culture or technological level, there is always 3 type of units : Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery. Technology can make infantry become range infantry when the rifle is develloped but that does not make them artillery. Consider that the cavalry will become tanks so the strength proportion will stay the same.

I used the same system than axis and allies, roll a dice below the unit's value to make a hit. But I decided to make a different battle phase for each of these 3 unit categories.

Phase 1 : Artillery attack, each successful hit destroy an opponent unit's Defender's choice.

Phase 2 : Infantry attack, Each successful hit destroy an opponent Infantry on the defender's Choice. If there is no infantry, other units are attacked defender's choice.

Phase 3 : Cavalry attack, Each successfull hit destroy and opponent unit Attacker's choice.

So as you can see, there is some sort of balance, all units are useful. The artillery allow you to weaken the entire army. The Infantry is essential to protect your units against opposing infantry whow could make easy kill on your cavalry and artillery. And the cavalry can be used to destroy the unit that the defender never want to sacrifice.

Now this is for land units, what about air and sea units. Well a race of winged people, can have air infantry, while air cavalry could be mounted pegasus or griffons, and air artillery could be an airship with cannons. If my info is right, in modern technology, bomber and fighter that attacks the ground are considered air artillery while helicopters are considered air cavalry. There is no air infantry in modern warfare ... until we develop a jetpack that you strap on your back.

I hope that this example can help you improve your system.

Anonymous
Reply to the original post...

On its surface, it definitely seems intriguing... especially the part with the different die to respresent the different units. Allowing the die to set the conditions of the roll makes things easier. It allows a player to know that a 1 or a 2 is always a hit without having to consult a chart. Whereas if you used one type of die then you have to specify what is a "hit" dependent on the type of unit. Is it a 1 and 2? Or a 1, 2, 3?

So I like that part. The large number of dice, rolling per unit could be a bit unwieldy? I don't know.

But have you fully charted the statistical probabilities for everything you want to do? That is my big question. If so, does it intermesh well? Is it historically accurate? or is that not a consideration for your game?

xantheman
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Reply to the original post...

ryan35 wrote:

The large number of dice, rolling per unit could be a bit unwieldy? I don't know.

But have you fully charted the statistical probabilities for everything you want to do? That is my big question. If so, does it intermesh well? Is it historically accurate? or is that not a consideration for your game?

You don't roll for each unit, you roll once for each type of unit. Having multiples of each unit just improves your chance to hit with that unit type.

Example: 1 cavalry unit rolls 1d6 and hits on a 1. 3 cavalry units still only roll 1d6 but now they hit on a 3 or less. The type of die rolled still determines the quality of the unit in that each additional cav improves your chance to hit by about 16.6% while each militia improves your chance to hit by only 10%. You could never roll more then 6 die per battle and that would only be if you had all 6 types of units in the battle. I am actually trying to eliminate excessive die rolls.

As for historical accuracy, I am not to concerned with it. My original combat system got to bogged down in rules because we kept trying to get more historically accurate.

I am working on a hit progression system and I will try to work in basic historical roles for each type of unit as part of it, as Larienna suggested (sort of).

Xan

www.rentoys.com

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Idea for combat mechanic

xantheman wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
I think you need to limit the size of squads to way fewer than 15... or there will be a LOT of carnage! Maybe 4 max (so you can max out your d4 guys, or at best get 50-50 with your d8's).

Scratch that, a few more than 4 should be allowed, maybe 6- enough to get 75% odds on your d8 guys if you try, or max out d4 guys and also have 2 other guys...
- Seth

The problem with concentrating an army on 1 type of unit is then you would only get 1d for each battle. I want to encourage a mix of troops in each army. Or at least allow the players the option to go for a higher chance to hit or a chance at more casualties.I see your point, and I didn't know your win condition for the battle was 'whoever scores themost hits' (I assumed it was a fight to the finish).

So yeah, chance to miss for each attack is good. The way you described the units in your big post sounded good.

Here's a link to a thread with some other ideas for promoting variety of units in your squad...
http://bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1489&postdays=0...

- Seth

Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Idea for combat mechanic

For working out weather the number of casualties (or damage) is ballanced in a game, I usually work on the "replacement" principle. In this method a player should be able to, at least, replace the losses (by focusing on unit creation) by the time that a second attack from an equaly skilled player occures. So if combat happens each round then the player should be able to replace (if the optimal decisions are made to do this) the units lost in 1 round.

This is ofcourse an optimal vew and would not occure often (if at all) in actual gameplay. This will allow a player to take a hit but still be in the race. If the replacement is slower than the loss then it will be a war of atrition and the player that started out on top first will nearly always win. If the replacement is much faster than the loss then combat becomes almost meaningless.

If you make the decision to enter combat a "hard" decision then the sense of drama that combat creates will be greater.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut