Skip to Content
 

Combat system: Stats RPS VS Roll vs TN

17 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

Summary: I am trying to compare a semi-deterministic Rock-Paper-Scisor system, VS an Axis and Allies rolling system where each unit roll under a TN to hit.

In both systems, there is 2 groups Infantry and Vehicle. By default, each group can target only their own group.

Rock-Paper-Scisor

This is the system I was currently exploring. Every unit has a strength and health. If STR > HLT, you can make the kill. A die roll can either allow you to attack, or gives a -1 or +1 modifier to STR to vary the outcome of the battle. Units that cannot attack could use their support ability, especially helping another unit to make the kill (so 2 unit auto kill 1)

The problems with this system

  • The mental computation involved in the combat resolution, you need to modify your STR, then compare with enemy health and use support units if necessary. Repeat for every unit, verify all combinations, etc.

  • You can also pre-calculate the combat outcome before the start of the battle. If there is no +1/-1 modifier, you can know if you are in an impossible to win situation.

  • That means that you cannot estimate combat results, send a group of units and hope for the best. Which has the consequence of increasing analysis paralysis and it's not fun to simulate combat resolution in your head before choosing which unit to send in battles.

  • Since the average nb of units in combat on each side is around 3, it seems problematic to use this system. Very limited combat outcome.

Roll VS TN System

Under this system, each unit rolls a die (Probably a D10). If they roll under the unit strength, they make a hit. A hit can kill a unit, that can be chosen by the defender or the attacker depending on the situation. Different attacks or weaponry will each roll a die, with different STR and rules. Optionally, armor can be added to defending unit, if present any hit < than Armor cannot be used.

Benefits of this system

  • All units have a chance to hit, so there is no impossible combats.

  • Combat is somewhat more intuitive, since you only compare a die roll with one of your stats.

  • You need to compare less stuff with your opponent unless armor is used intensively which I do not intend to.

  • No need to forward plan too much, the most pre-calculation you would need to do is if you do not have the matching group of units. Ex. All infantry attacking all vehicles could lead to an impossible win battle. But the planning is not too hard to see.

  • One drawback of this system is generally unit padding that takes all the kill while the good unit stays behind. Still if there is an inf/veh split and if some attacks allow choosing their target, there should be little unit padding.

  • Star Wars rebellion allowed unit to cross attack if lucky, so inf vs veh, or veh vs inf. There is many ways to handle this: Combined attacks, support cards etc. I'll just have to explore if I want random or deterministic options, but that could reduce impossible battle situations. Or at least, if you only have vehicle, and the opponent sends infantry, there is something fishy (player might have a support card).

  • There seems to be more stat variability that can be embedded for each attack: Strength, initiative, who select target, Does it kill or stun, is it armor piercing, etc.

  • Making units use multiple attacks though upgrades or support card is easy. If could make a unit have a preemptive weak attack and a regular attack. Simply 2 die roll with different initiative, strength, and targeting method. Multi-attack seem to overcome the issue with battles that have in average only 3 units.

  • It creates a quality vs quantity situation. Do you have few strong attacks that should hit, or many weak attacks that could hit.

  • Designing faction with different capabilities seams easier, the possibility space seems bigger.

One of the major drawback of changing system is how will the AI be handled since it should be primarily a solitaire game. Are there any good solo game that uses the roll VS TN system? (maybe that is worth exploring) Originally, I was using a CRT for each unit that fusion die roll variability and support card play by AI. If I change system, I would need to find another AI solution to determine AI card play and target selection. Still, CRT took a lot of space, so a more compact solution is welcomed.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:Summary: I am

larienna wrote:
Summary: I am trying to compare a semi-deterministic Rock-Paper-Scisor system, VS an Axis and Allies rolling system where each unit roll under a TN to hit.

In both systems, there is 2 groups Infantry and Vehicle. By default, each group can target only their own group.

I remember a bit of this combat system. You need to have a lot of support if a situation arrises where infantry vs vehicles happens. Right? Or am I wrong? Was it completely impossible instead?

larienna wrote:

__Rock-Paper-Scisor__

This is the system I was currently exploring. Every unit has a strength and health. If STR > HLT, you can make the kill. A die roll can either allow you to attack, or gives a -1 or +1 modifier to STR to vary the outcome of the battle. Units that cannot attack could use their support ability, especially helping another unit to make the kill (so 2 unit auto kill 1)

Sounds good so far.

larienna wrote:

The problems with this system

* The mental computation involved in the combat resolution, you need to modify your STR, then compare with enemy health and use support units if necessary. Repeat for every unit, verify all combinations, etc.

I know this problem. I think that the best solution is. Doing the attacks. The defender arranges the victims. Then you use the left over as support to make the kills. Which means, less computing to do for the attacker. I don't know if this would work well for the game.

larienna wrote:

* You can also pre-calculate the combat outcome before the start of the battle. If there is no +1/-1 modifier, you can know if you are in an impossible to win situation.
I prefer that there is always a chance. Even if it means, doing damage. But that is my cup of tea.

larienna wrote:

* That means that you cannot estimate combat results, send a group of units and hope for the best. Which has the consequence of increasing analysis paralysis and it's not fun to simulate combat resolution in your head before choosing which unit to send in battles.
Not only analysis paralysis. But if the results are going to be less attractive, the player will not even attack. A 40% chance of winning is completely different than a result where the attacker has 40% and the defender has 60% left overs.
That said, I too have similar situations. But the defender might be exhausted in my game. And thus making the 60% left over, non responsive in the next turn.

larienna wrote:

* Since the average nb of units in combat on each side is around 3, it seems problematic to use this system. Very limited combat outcome.
I bet there are combinations that have a lot, really a lot of situations that they can't win at all. If this is true, I recommend finding a different combat mechanic. One that gives the attacker a chance to harm even the strongest enemy with the weakest (completed) force.

larienna wrote:

__Roll VS TN System__

Under this system, each unit rolls a die (Probably a D10). If they roll under the unit strength, they make a hit. A hit can kill a unit, that can be chosen by the defender or the attacker depending on the situation. Different attacks or weaponry will each roll a die, with different STR and rules. Optionally, armor can be added to defending unit, if present any hit < than Armor cannot be used.


This sounds to me more like an accuracy system. Strenght = 5? Then the chance to hit is 50%. Which is ok. But sounds counter intuitive to me. Oppinions might differ in this regard.

larienna wrote:

Benefits of this system

* All units have a chance to hit, so there is no impossible combats.

* Combat is somewhat more intuitive, since you only compare a die roll with one of your stats.

This is good imho. Try to get the decision making as much as possible on the attacker and dice side. Don't have afterwards additions.

larienna wrote:

* You need to compare less stuff with your opponent unless armor is used intensively which I do not intend to.
I had a durability roll. This made an incredible down time. The durability roll was on the defender. Which meant that the attacker had to roll groups of dice, until the defender lost an unit. Then we moved to the next unit. With bucket of dice, this was annoying. "We might need 3 dice" We roll 3 dice, 2 fail and 1 succeeded. "We might need 2 dice" We roll 2 dice, 1 fails and 1 succeeded. "We need 1 die" We roll the die. The die failed...next die please!!
Very, very annoying. So my recommendation is that the additional armor is only applied as a permanent adjustment. Let's say, you can upgrade an unit with this armor. And this unit simply has more armor from that point onwards. A decision made, outside the combat phase. And easily to track?

larienna wrote:

* No need to forward plan too much, the most pre-calculation you would need to do is if you do not have the matching group of units. Ex. All infantry attacking all vehicles could lead to an impossible win battle. But the planning is not too hard to see.
Not much planning ahead is good. Albeit I dislike the impossible situation. Unless it can be done for slowing down the opponent. Or wasting the opponents actions and stuff.

larienna wrote:

* One drawback of this system is generally unit padding that takes all the kill while the good unit stays behind. Still if there is an inf/veh split and if some attacks allow choosing their target, there should be little unit padding.
Not sure what you meant here. But if you mean fodder. That is ok? Unless in the long run, you get a stalemate in combat resolutions. Both sides loose 5, and add 5 constantly.... That would be silly.

larienna wrote:

* Star Wars rebellion allowed unit to cross attack if lucky, so inf vs veh, or veh vs inf. There is many ways to handle this: Combined attacks, support cards etc. I'll just have to explore if I want random or deterministic options, but that could reduce impossible battle situations. Or at least, if you only have vehicle, and the opponent sends infantry, there is something fishy (player might have a support card).
I too think you should have infantry that are anti vehicle. You only need to add a few to get a new RPS going. Or at least have something in place that even infantry have a chance. Or an all infantry only army should have some sort of benefit too.

larienna wrote:

* There seems to be more stat variability that can be embedded for each attack: Strength, initiative, who select target, Does it kill or stun, is it armor piercing, etc.
Sounds like a lot of options. Are you planning expansions?

larienna wrote:

* Making units use multiple attacks though upgrades or support card is easy. If could make a unit have a preemptive weak attack and a regular attack. Simply 2 die roll with different initiative, strength, and targeting method. Multi-attack seem to overcome the issue with battles that have in average only 3 units.
How does this work? Are the damages added up? Or do you simply increase the rolls and thus chances to hit?

larienna wrote:

* It creates a quality vs quantity situation. Do you have few strong attacks that should hit, or many weak attacks that could hit.
I love them both. The RPS here would be that many weak attacks are supposed to be good against fodder. While the strong few hits, should be strong against the tanks. But I am not sure if it works that way in your game.

larienna wrote:

* Designing faction with different capabilities seams easier, the possibility space seems bigger.
I am having an analysis paralysis right now in regards to faction design. The problem is the options I created for myself. Freedom is great. But too much freedom is not.

larienna wrote:

One of the major drawback of changing system is how will the AI be handled since it should be primarily a solitaire game. Are there any good solo game that uses the roll VS TN system? (maybe that is worth exploring) Originally, I was using a CRT for each unit that fusion die roll variability and support card play by AI. If I change system, I would need to find another AI solution to determine AI card play and target selection. Still, CRT took a lot of space, so a more compact solution is welcomed.
My AI doesn't have to make decisions when being attacked. It simply defends. And is scripted to have either fodder or tanks by a die roll or a quick AI card with the script.

The goal here is that the defender has only 1 decision to make. Which units are the sacrifice. Other than that, if you have a lot of combining to do for the AI, this will make it very hard to set a good AI. The combat mechanic that you have thought of might get in the way.

I for one, would have all the decision making for the player only. And if the AI has a decision, it should be limited to only 1 or 2 yes/no situations. A die roll can help. A logic comparison can help.

Good Luck with the project. I hope you find a good solution. But improve both systems where they lack fun/logic/simplicity. One might be running ahead pretty fast. It will help you make a decision faster.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Not sure what you meant

Quote:
Not sure what you meant here. But if you mean fodder. That is ok?

Yes, cannon fodder. I always find it stupid in Twilight Imperium 3 that your War Sun could use fighters as armor plating. So you needed to kill all fighters before killing the War sun.

Quote:
Sounds like a lot of options. Are you planning expansions?

No, I just need approximately 32 unique units.

Quote:
How does this work? Are the damages added up? Or do you simply increase the rolls and thus chances to hit?

Simple, if a unit lay mines and shoot. 2 different attacks, let say init+str of each action is:

A3 : Lay mines
B5 : Shoot

During A initiative, you roll 1 die <=3 to hit.
Then during B initiative, you roll 1 die <= 5 to hit.

Either all attacks could be performed, or either in some cases, you must chose an attack from the options you have. I would need to find a way to standardize this. Maybe max 2 attacks per unit, 1 assault and 1 supporting action.

Quote:
The RPS here would be that many weak attacks are supposed to be good against fodder. While the strong few hits, should be strong against the tanks. But I am not sure if it works that way in your game.

Not exactly, but I could indirectly have that effect if I use armor. Armor will block low values, so if you have many weak attacks, you are more likely to hit armor.

Quote:
I am having an analysis paralysis right now in regards to faction design.

It looks easier to design a series of attack pattern than trying to put an Str and health stat on a unit. I had huge problem determining what thematic aspect could affect the stat of a foot soldier when you have 4 different kind of them. Health is the most complicated. Strength, the problem is if one is weaker, it needs another advantage somewhere to compensate, probably via text abilities.

If my hypothesis is correct, I should be able to easily design many units with different attack patterns and start making some tests before introducing special text abilities. With the previous system, I had an hard time doing that.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:Quote:Not sure

larienna wrote:
Quote:
Not sure what you meant here. But if you mean fodder. That is ok?

Yes, cannon fodder. I always find it stupid in Twilight Imperium 3 that your War Sun could use fighters as armor plating. So you needed to kill all fighters before killing the War sun.

I preach on using a bigger sized unit(s) providing cover for the support unit(s). Meaning that if a tank value is 6, and infantry is 2. You need at least 3 of these infantry to be fodder. If not, the tank can be targeted as well.

larienna wrote:

Quote:
How does this work? Are the damages added up? Or do you simply increase the rolls and thus chances to hit?

Simple, if a unit lay mines and shoot. 2 different attacks, let say init+str of each action is:

A3 : Lay mines
B5 : Shoot

During A initiative, you roll 1 die <=3 to hit.
Then during B initiative, you roll 1 die <= 5 to hit.

Either all attacks could be performed, or either in some cases, you must chose an attack from the options you have. I would need to find a way to standardize this. Maybe max 2 attacks per unit, 1 assault and 1 supporting action.


You can consider one or more of the following:
- The unit has to choose which weapon it uses. Only this weapon will be used. And it is decided prior to the roll.
- The unit uses both weapons at the same time. The effect can be added up. Perhaps you can have one weapon being support to the other.
- The unit uses both weapons at the same time. The best effect will be used.

larienna wrote:
It looks easier to design a series of attack pattern than trying to put an Str and health stat on a unit. I had huge problem determining what thematic aspect could affect the stat of a foot soldier when you have 4 different kind of them. Health is the most complicated. Strength, the problem is if one is weaker, it needs another advantage somewhere to compensate, probably via text abilities.

If my hypothesis is correct, I should be able to easily design many units with different attack patterns and start making some tests before introducing special text abilities. With the previous system, I had an hard time doing that.

Yeah, my problem is having too many options.
Every option that I add, adds RPS to the game.
Do you have a wild guess how many different designs are possible in your game?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Do you have a wild

Quote:
Do you have a wild guess how many different designs are possible in your game?

Do you mean the possibility space?

In the older version, I did try to compute permutation, but the system had way too much comparison. So I had to reduce the number of stats.

I am doing a statistics class right now, and easy way to evaluate this is to just multiply the range of each stat together. So if for example, each unit can have the following stats:

Strength 1-8
Health 1-8
Speed 1-5

Then uou have 8x8x5=320 possibilities. Normally you will never use all possible combinations because some of them could be inneficient or problematic.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well...

With that many options already.
You have a lot of testing to do.

Imagine having two close relatives in your design options. Completely being out whack with each other.

So, my suggestion here is to pick a design that you want to use. And start testing 1 design after another. Changing only 1 stat, with 1 difference, at a time.

Good luck!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
That was just an example, I

That was just an example, I don remember the details, but in an older design, I only tried having 2 stats(STR, HT) of value 1-3. That basically means 9 combinations. Units would differentiate with special abilities, but it harder to make the core system because the specials are not there yet.

The goal was just to make a kill matrix.

Then I think I tried to split the ST and HT into 2 separate values. ST in direct or splash damage, HT in armored or dodge. A kill matrix could be made, but comparing the right numbers together was very confusing and slowing down the game considerably.

Finally, I think I tried expanding the range to approximately 5 points, to support upgrade-able units with better stats (elite units). I gained some flexibility, then I tried adding +1 and -1 randomly to have some variability while using the die face as initiative.

It was playable, but not that much exciting and it was hard to see how units interacted with each other, and determine your odds to win.

But with the Axis and Allies rolling system, It feel more exiting even though I have not tried it yet.

As for rolling multiple actions, easiest solution, choose 1 action and roll a die. It will be more complicated for an AI to chose. Else roll everything, but that is easier for the AI. Worst case scenario, the player chooses in case of doubt, but the AI has more units.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Somebody suggested the board

Somebody suggested the board game "Talon" which is a space battle fleet combat game.

The AI I would need could be summarized in 2 things

- Target selection: Talon has a large list of rules to follow to select the target in priority order.
- Weapon selection: Which weapon is more efficient and should be used. In talon, everything is fired.

Both are interrelated as the weapon chosen could change according to the target selected.

So a solution could be to make all weapon fires, so that there is no ambiguity on weapon selection, the only thing that remains is target selection.

There could also be priority index on each unit, like a sorting order that could also be selected randomly for more variety. But will be irrelevant to the situation.

In the end, I think it is possible to do it, so I should not worry too much about it. I just need to see if the system works.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
AI mechanics

If you are concerned about your AI working properly.
Then it is a good idea to pick the mechanics that support the AI.

Of course, decision making will always be scripted. But will it be the same route for the AI or not?
What I think the best thing you can do is, consider all the mechanics that can or need to be scripted. List them.
Then make a menu or something: aggresive AI, defensive AI, chaotic AI, etc.
This way, if you plan multiple single player missions, you can create new combinations of the AI.

The real fun starts when you put 2 different AI in your game.
Or when the 2 AI start fighting each other for some reason.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I imagine that when I am late

I imagine that when I am late in the development, I could make AI fight each other if done well. Then check of there are holes in the pattern. Still, I don't want to have an AI with a dozen of conditions to validate for example unit targeting. That is the case of Talon.

I am aiming for a good enough AI that will probably have more resource than the player to compensate for the lack of intelligence. Else, a random selection could be in some situation a good enough solution.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:I imagine that

larienna wrote:
I imagine that when I am late in the development, I could make AI fight each other if done well. Then check of there are holes in the pattern. Still, I don't want to have an AI with a dozen of conditions to validate for example unit targeting. That is the case of Talon.
Oof, you remind me of the early AI of my prototype game. You don't want to know what I tried there :D
Let's just say, eventually we have written a table with combinations. So 1 die roll was needed.

larienna wrote:

I am aiming for a good enough AI that will probably have more resource than the player to compensate for the lack of intelligence. Else, a random selection could be in some situation a good enough solution.

Good old fashioned solution.
Surprisingly, I did this when making my Starcraft single player missions.

You kinda need to do some reverse engineering.

First question. How long do you want the AI to last?
Then, how much will the AI need in order to last that long? (Read as, does the AI need to run out on things if the war takes too long? The exhaustion strategy)
Third, what should the resource rate be?
Final question. What should the total storage be?

Then you also need to consider. Can the player take over resources? And what is the difficulty in taking these extra resources? If that is the case. I can only advice you to do what feels good.

I mostly skipped the second question. But for board games it feels very important.
I could tell you how I builded up the resources for my missions. But I think you are going for 1 mission only campaigns?

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
The AI I used in Star Craft

The AI I used in Star Craft Solitaire did not do all the accounting of a real player. For example, there was no resource management. A simple CRT was used for new technological developments, and there was a fixed production pattern.

I intend to do something similar, AI will send waves of units to prevent you from reaching your objective, but I don't think it will try to win on it's own. It wins, if you do not win.

Take a look at my SC Invasion solitaire variant guide to know the details. I took pictures to explain the rules. It's the kind of AI I am aiming for.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
If this is the

If this is the one...

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/index.php?n=Guide.StarcraftInvasionsPage3

It seems a lot to take in at once.
But I think, one needs to know the game.
And the AI will make completely sense.

I see that the highest tier unit is produced first in that example. I bet you have a completely logical reason for that.

My game works completely different. Thus my AI needs to be completely different. And we kinda had a difficulty worked out in terms of AI. A higher tier unit, didn't mean a better tier unit in our case. So, we had a script that followed a build order, which was either a mix or a goal. A script that choose randomly in 2, 3 or 6 choices. And a script that would test what the player had in the closest proximity.

A fixed patern was predictable. And a player simply needed to counter act. And could do this in advance...
So, we discarded that option pretty damn fast.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
From what I remember, the

From what I remember, the best example is terran, you produce 3 marine. One for each unit track. Once a unit is unlocked, the marine is replaced by the new unit. So you always produce 3 units, but the quality will increase as new units get unlocked.

I am not sure if I really want to go this route, maybe something similar, maybe a random card to change the behavior. One thing I cam considering is that tech resource access could affect units unlocked or producible. Giving a reason to cut access to a certain resources (Still to be determined)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not sure either

I think that upgrading units personally would fit a game much better. So, if you build up a force. You place the basic unit. Then you replace it with the upgrades.

I rather follow the RTS route. But I have the little guys being in higher numbers anyway. So, a replacement is only a change, not an improvement in my case.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Upgrading directly on the

Upgrading directly on the battlefield is quite powerful as normally, you would have built it on the back and brought it to the front.

By the way, I listed the stats I wanted to use and when I'll have the time, I should be designings unit weapons.

There is a couple of stats I am not sure of keeping as I am not sure how they are going to be used. That includes: Melee VS range, flying VS ground, etc.

One idea I had worth exploring is that infantry have less weapons, but more control points to conquer areas. While vehicle has more weapons, but less control points.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What about key structures

Infantry can take over structures.
Tanks cannot.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Exactly, that is why they get

Exactly, that is why they get a better control value.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut