Skip to Content
 

Help with my movement / combat system.

10 replies [Last post]
KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013

Hi Folks. I'm new here, and I'm posting because I think I need some help with the game design I'm currently working on, and I wondered if anyone here might offer some advice.

A little bit of rough background (bear with me) :
The game is for 2 to 4 players (initially.. it can potentially go to 10 players).
It is essentially a wargame, and each player has an army with a bunch of pieces. These pieces have an Attack Strength and a Defence Strength (among other stats).

Combat between pieces is as follows; The attacker rolls X-dice, which is the number of the piece's Attack Strength, and the defender rolls Y-dice, being the number of their piece's Defence Strength.

If the "attack dice" results are greater than a certain number (e.g, if they are a 4, a 5 or a 6), then it is a "Hit". And likewise if the "Defence Dice" results are greater than a certain number (e.g. 4,5,6) then it is a "Block". If the number of Hits is greater than the number of Blocks, then the difference is removed from the defender's health (So, X Hits minus Y Blocks).

The board is divided into spaces, and pieces move around the board based on their movement rate, i.e. if the piece has a movement rate of 3, then it can move 3 spaces.

In a 2 player game, with each player having say, 4 different "soldiers", then a typical turn would be something like this:
Player 1 moves piece #1, attacks one of Player 2's pieces.
Player 1 then moves piece #2,
Player 1 then moves piece #3, again decides to attack one of Player 2's pieces.
Player 1 uses piece #4 to attack one of Player 2's pieces, then it moves.

After Player 1 has moved their pieces and done their attacks, then it's time for Player 2 to do their moves and attacks.

There are other things thrown in the mix, like resources, territory, limited special action (for multiple attacks, re-rolls etc.)

Okay - so that's a rough sketch of how things work at the moment. The reason I'm here asking for some advice is because.. well, I've been working on this for quite some time now (many months), and I'm very "close" to the project. For me, this system works very well. During Player 1's turn, the other players are interacting with Player 1, in the sense that they are defending from attacks, planning which special actions they might have to spend etc. I feel like there isn't really a lot of down-time between players turns.

However, being as close as I am to this, and after having read about many of the traps that designers fall into, I am concerned that I may be slightly 'blind' to some issues.

So, my problem is - I intend for this to be scaled up considerably, i.e. Each player could have between 10-20 pieces, and there could be up to 10 players, and the game board would be considerably larger. (For a 2-player game, the current board size is approx~ 8x8 spaces, for the larger versions, I'm thinking at least 32x32 possibly going to 64x64).

And here comes the real issue that I'm trying to explain; I think the current system works, but I want to scale it - and I fear that when it is scaled that it will no longer work. I really don't have the first idea about how to change the system to make it work.. or even if I *should* change it. This is why I'm asking for some advice.

I have considered things like a "Move Phase / Attack Phase", whereby all players move all their pieces, then all players do their attacks - but then that could lead to things like "During the Move Phase, Player 1 moves his piece next to Player 2's piece to do an attack, then on Player 2's turn, player 2 simply moves his piece out of the way before the Attack Phase" - which could just lead to random "running around the board" with no real purpose.

I thought about: Player 1 moves/attacks with #1 piece, then Player 2 moves/attacks with #1 piece, then it's back to Player 1 who moves/attacks with #2 piece, and then Player 2 moves/attacks with #2 piece, and so on. But I feel this is kind of "stuttery" (if that makes sense) ... I don't know, this way just doesn't feel right.

The next thing I thought about would be to use a system similar to the Fantasy Flight X-wing miniatures combat system, whereby combat is done in a "highest rank goes first". Each of the 'soldiers' in the army already have a different rank/skill level - so this may be possible to implement... but I really didn't want to rip-off that idea.

So.. my apologies for the massive wall of text. I hope you understand what I mean, and what I'm asking, and I hope someone can help.. any advice or comments are deeply appreciated.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
An idea for you

Use custom d6s and have like a bunch of them...

The player rolls the dice and based on what he gets, he determines which dice he wants to do for which actions.

Basically it's a HYBRID between use ALL your pieces and use ONE of your pieces.

Oh yeah, this will SCALE to any size army! You just need to add more dice to the mix... So like 5 to 10 custom dice for 10 to 20 pieces...

Why custom? Because you can have different coloured dices for different purposes. Gives you a mix of what a player can do on his turn... Very random and varied!

Hope that helps a bit!

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Interesting idea!

Hmm interesting, yeah I kind of like that. Firstly, thanks for the response, and secondly, let me see if I understand you properly; so it would be something like, the Player rolls X-amount of dice, and the dice have things like "Movement" or "Attack" on them. So the player can use the X-amount of dice as actions essentially...

So for example, the player rolls 5 dice, they get 3 'moves' and 2 'attacks', then they can move 3 pieces and attack with 2... is that what you mean?

I think this sounds quite good. I can see how it will scale for larger armies. I can also see how it can throw spanners in the works, as it were.. possibly simulating 'orders not reaching the troops in time' in order to carry out the overall battleplan, that sort of thing.

I have a little bit of a concern though (and by a concern, I just mean that I'm stubborn as heck and don't want to see my ideas changing.. but! That's why I'm here :P) So the concern is that a big element of the game is a 'forward planning, strategising' behaviour, such that it's possible to plan reasonably well; the player can think "I will move some pieces here, some pieces there, attack with these guys somewhere else" and the player only really has to think of contingencies for the individual skirmishes between soldiers.. And this idea you've suggested would remove some of that. Edit: Although I've just realised that this idea would force the player to consider greater contingencies for the overall battle......

Yeah... I think this helps quite a lot - thanks for taking the time to read the massive post and respond ;)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
No problem...

First thing that came to mind after reading your message.

You need a HYBRID solution between ALL and ONE. Dice are a fantastic way to add some randomness and reduce the play time for one play.

And yes - you understood my idea correctly.

I would use colours for custom dice and different actions on the dice themselves... So a normally Attack dice could get a 1 out of 6 odds for a BONUS move. Things like that!

You can play around with the custom part and add more strategy to your game!

Like Green dice for movement, Red dice for attack and Blue dice for Defence. But you could have a 1 out 6 odds for a Move on the Red dice... As mentioned above!

You can also have another strategy with custom dice: 3 different attack dice with numbers that indicate how many Light Infantry can attack, Medium Vehicle or Heavy Artillery.

Like 3 red dice with different faces so that you can understand that a 1 on one dice = 1 Light Infantry and then 2 Medium and 4 Heavy... Would make for interesting play. You could also do the same with movement dice... Different dice for different units. Works with a Medieval theme also...

That concept would require NINE (9) dice (if you have 3 RANKS of units). And you could potentially move 18 units on one turn... Depends on the composition of your army...

But you could also limit the number of values on a dice. The attack dice could be 1 Light(L), 1L, 2L, 2L, 3L, and Move 1 Light Infantry.

There are all sorts of possibilities with custom d6s!!!

Cheers

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Thanks,

Nice input :) Regarding the second idea (the dice results say how many of the pieces can move) - sounds very intriguing, but I'm not sure how that would intertwine with the other things going on with the game. From my first impressions, it seems to me that it may turn out that players are moving and attacking at pretty much the same rate that the current system does... but this is pure speculation on my part until I playtest it. It's certainly worth investigating though, thanks.

As for the first idea - I can instantly see how that will fit with the other things going on in the game, and I can already visualise scenarios with how that will work. I'm remembering some of the playtests I've done and I can see immediately how they would have been different (and more fun!) with this idea. There was a lot of 'dancing about' on the board, because we would be able to move all our pieces whenever we wanted.. but with this idea, it certainly will restrict this and force a lot more strategic thinking.

I will get to work on ironing out some of the details with this and throw it right into the next playtesting sessions and see how it works out. Thanks for the input, you've renewed some of the confidence I was losing due to worrying about this!

Sidekick
Offline
Joined: 04/13/2009
Feedback

You state that it can potentially go to 10 players. Most gamers who play this type of game (Dudes on a Map) don't have a problem with downtime, but a group this large would quickly get bored waiting that long for their turn. Also, by the time they do get to take their turn, the board may have changed so dramatically that they can throw strategy right out the window. I'd stick with a maximum of 6 players.

I like the combat method that you initially described, where each player can move and attack with all of their pieces, but only if the attack/move actions are fairly quick. You don't want to be waiting too long for each player's turn.

However, if a player has 10 soldiers, and it's a 6 player game, you might want to consider limiting the number of soldiers that a player can move/attack. This would keep the game moving along, as well as keeping tension in the game because players would have tough decisions on what pieces to move/attack each turn. You could also have bonus moves/attacks as special actions, maybe based on paying resources or card play.

Has diplomacy played a big part in your playtesting so far?

If you are sure that you want to scale the game to 10 players, then the only advice I can give you is to do playtesting with 10 people.

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Thanks for the feedback

Hi Sidekick,
Well after reviewing the idea that QuestCCG proposed - I'm now thinking of a slightly different way to implement that, rather than what he had initially proposed. I know that it 'feels right' to go with the idea of using dice to determine how many of the pieces can be used, out of all a players' pieces.

So I'm thinking that if (for example) a player has 10 pieces, he can then roll 5 "action" dice, 20 pieces would be 10 action dice etc. Then these action dice either have a "1" or blank - I'm thinking something like 4/6 chance of getting a "1".. something like that perhaps. So the end result would be: Player 1 has 10 pieces, he rolls 5 action dice, gets 4 "1"'s and a blank; They can now use 4 pieces. (A possible modification would be 3/6 to get a 1, then 1/6 to get a 2, and 1/6 to get a blank.. the whole thing needs quite a few playtests though)

I have to admit that I was completely blinkered and hadn't even thought about this kind of possibility - but it seems like it could work.

The way that combat works at the moment, well - I firmly believe that it works perfectly well (totally biased...) - It's fairly quick, but depending on other special actions etc, it's not always as simple as "2 people roll dice". But yeah.. with more than 3 people, and with more than 4 pieces each, the whole thing starts to really bog down.

And yep I understand what you are saying - with a large amount of players, from Player 1's turn to Player 10's turn... the entire scope of the game will definitely have changed. So with the potential being that a player can move a maximum of only half of their pieces, and probably only a few (somewhere between 25-40%), it should shorten the downtime drastically, and hopefully increase strategic thinking.

There are indeed resources and cards involved, and special actions that are given by the resources, which are used to do things like "re-roll some attack dice", or "block X hits" etc, so I can probably work in some higher-value cards which can let a player exceed the 50% piece limit.

As for diplomacy.. well, so far that hasn't been factored into the playtests, but it will be allowable in the scope of any game which has at least 4 players.. I'm thinking that there's a possibility that a 'natural' way to play it would be that there become 2 teams against each other, until 1 team is defeated, then the winning team disbands and the chaos continues.. So perhaps in this sort of circumstance, then the play between the teams can be interleaved; someone from Team 1, then someone from Team 2, back to Team 1 etc.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. I'm in the process of trying to work out how the action dice idea fits in with everything else in the game - there are a few things I need to tweak now to keep everything making sense. Diplomacy rules and "best practices" are a little bit further away from me at the moment.. I'm still not sure whether to actually state explicit rules for that, or whether to let people naturally do what people do... Still undecided - but yeah, it's on the to-do list :)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Keep us updated!

Let us know how you are progressing and what your various playtest conclusions are.

I know that the use of dice can be resolved in several different ways. I'd just like to know what your final solution will be!

I almost stayed up all night thinking about the 2nd idea about the quantity of troops to move. I really thought that dividing the troops into ranks led to interesting possibilities.

But I did not want to stay up all night thinking about your game! ;) So I figured I'd wait until you did some testing and posted some of your results... This way I could get a better understanding about how you want to resolve the open issue.

Again keep us posted with updates!

Best of luck with your game!...

KiltedNinja
KiltedNinja's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2013
Thanks,

(Heh - it's a little weird to think that I'm not the only person losing sleep over this... )

I think with all the other things going on with the game that it will take a little bit of time to implement this new way of operating properly, and there will probably be a fair bit of trial and error too! It's not easy to explain how this will fit with the other mechanics(as I have many many pages of rules at the moment - and there is still more to develop.)

So from your idea, Quest (the first idea), there are a couple of variations that I'm thinking about - although 2 of them will completely remove some quite important parts of the existing mechanics.. ..well, I *say* they're important.. they're important to me - but I guess if it makes the gameplay quicker/smoother/better, then it's something I really need to consider carefully.

I have been thinking about the second idea - I'm just trying to picture a system which will be the same for all players, regardless of the configuration of their armies. Essentially I would like to make the system really simple to pick up and play, but allow for emergent complexity based on how a player develops their own styles. I also have a slight concern about the manufacturing possibilities further down the line.. the more custom dice that are involved, the higher the manufacturing costs.. Although, having said that, I *do* love dice.

And again, without posting all the rules, it's difficult to let you understand how/where these things will fit.

I'll be totally honest, I'm finding it quite difficult to share this sort of stuff with other people.. I've posted little bits here and there, but I've been kind of smothering the idea a little - I'm slowly coming to terms with that... ..but it's still difficult - it's a pretty personal project for me. So I'm not quite ready to share the rest of it yet.. but I know that I will probably have to do that at some point.

I am also acutely aware that if I'm asking for help with something, then it makes sense to tell you guys as much as possible so that you can offer the best type of advice.. but yeah.. It's still a learning curve for me, I guess.

So! I'll be trying to get some playtesting done within the next 2 or 3 weeks (trying to get people organised is more difficult than I thought too) - And I will indeed post some updates in my blog section about how that went and what the final outcomes are.

Thanks again for the assistance and advice - it is truly appreciated ;)

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Custom dice

Just one thing... You can use PLASTIC dice with nothing on them and have the people (who buy your game) place STICKERS on the dice. That will dramatically reduce the COST of producing the dice. That is The Game Crafter's (TGC) solution to custom dice.

It may sound like a cheap alternative - but it's not so stupid.

Let me price it for you:

-Custom blank d6 = $0.40 each
https://www.thegamecrafter.com/parts/d6-indented-blank-black

-Stickers (120!) = $2.75 per sheet

So you would get 120 stickers to 1 sheet. That's enough for 20 dice... :) Then you need to buy sufficient blank dice. If you need 10, that's $4.00. A little bit pricey - but cheaper than custom moulded dice (I believe).

That's why I said there are a lot of possibilities (using stickers) with custom dice! Even if you go with a manufacturer, you can still ask them to sell you blank dice and use stickers. Again probably cheaper than custom moulded dice...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
System #2

Okay I know you are working on how to use the dice... I figured I'd just state what I had in mind for System #2, custom dice with values.

So my initial thought was let's say you have 20 troops. You want to be able to "move" those troops. I thought that instead of just having a "bunch of troops" (like 20), you divided them into three (3) orders:

1-Light troops: a Warrior, a Mage, a Paladin, a Thief or a Ranger.
2-Medium troops: a Knight, a Cavalier, a Beserker, a Crusader.
3-Heavy troops: a catapult, a ram, a Griffon Rider

You would have three (3) movement dice, one for each order.

Obviously the premise is that it COSTS MORE to produce Heavy troops (resources) to recruit these bad boys. But they are siege weapons.

So let's distribute this (instead of 20):

1-10 Light troops
2-5 Medium troops
3-3 Heavy troops

That's 18 troops (close enough to our 20).

There could be one (1) Movement dice per order. And it could be something like:

1-Light movement = 5-5-8-8-8-10

In the best case you can move up to 10 Light troops. On the average you could move up to 8 and on the low end only 5.

The real average is 7.3

2-Light attack = 3-5-5-5-8-8

In the best case you could attack with 8 Light troops. On the average you could attack up to 5 and on the low end only 3.

The real average is 5.7

3-Light defence = 3-4-5-6-7-8

The average is 5.5, the max is 8 and the min is 3. Defence dice are rolled by the opponent and offsets the number of attackers. So if Player #1 rolls a 5 on Light attack and Player #2 rolls 4 on the Light defence, it means only 1 Light troop may attack Player #2 on that turn. Values can be scored and the dice can be rolled by each other opponent.

Strategically a player should roll all six (6) dice: 3 attack and 3 movement. Then each other player should roll 3 defence dice (one after the other). Each player remembering how many attacks the player has.

The *next* logical step is to figure out which opponent's units are proximate (so movement) and how many attacks you may perform against that player.

So you need to be really strategic about when/where to move and who to attack.

Obviously the exercise needs to be repeated for Medium and Heavy troops. But the concept remains the same.

This is the thinking that I have put into System #2... It only uses nine (9) custom dice and with the correct values on each dice, it allows players to maximize their tactics...

I just figured I'd post up the results of that long night! ;)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut