I have realized that I often get stuck in my design when I need to have a combat system. I often use a temporary system as a substitute until the real system is designed, but most of the time, the rest of the game is closely tied with the combat system which forces you to design it first.
There is also the theory that sometimes, the combat system is almost the core of the game, so if you use a substitute system you do not have a good feeling of the game. So I tried to dress up a list of common problems found in combat system design and see if I could not find any solutions.
Missing Information: Sometimes, combat system implies a lot of information like for example unit types which each has various statistics and special abilities. It creates some sort of design loop where you cannot define this information until you have a working combat system, but you cannot test your combat system until you have that information.
The only solution so far that I found so far is to improvise some stats, partially design the information and start with more general and essential information and complete later with the details and special abilities.
Too Much variables: Most combat system implies a certain amount of randomness or hidden information. To make the system work, the game will supply different variables that will influence the results of the combat. Sometimes, the number of variables that needs to influence a combat system is so high that it get's complicated to find a way to resolve combat with a simple roll of dice.
One idea that I found is to combine some variables together. It reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics, where the armor of your character increased it's HP instead of reducing the damage received. So it combines both variables into 1 stat.
Another solution would be to remove variables and change them as constants. For example, you could say that the terrain where the battle occurs has no influence anymore on the combat resolution.
No Strategy: Another thing common in combat system is the lack of strategy. Compared to video games where you often have the possibility to resolve a combat on a battle map separate from the main game, in board games, it is much more harder to implement due to the amount of time it would take to resolve that many battles.
So most of the time, the combats are resolved with a few dice rolls and there are actually no decision to take. I find this a bit bland since in many games, that is why you are playing for.
One of the first solution to make sure it does not end up in a complete dice fest is to give a low level of decision. For example, In my Fallen Kingdoms game, the decision you have to make is A) how much units do you send, B) when do you retreat and C) do you rampage if you can. In a game like Twilight Imperium it will be: A) Which unit do you send, B) which unit gets damaged first, C) when do you retreat and D) do I use an action card.
As you can see, there is not many decision and it will probably please most players. But there can be a trap since many decision could be obvious. For example, when you assign damage, there will be no reason to choose you best ship as your first target, you will generally always want to sacrifice some fighters before sacrificing capital ships. So in that case, it's an illusion of decision because there is only 1 good answer.
Tell me what you think, and if you have any tips or solutions you can post them here.
Indeed the scale is important because that kind of problems rarely occurs on a detailed scale level like in a tactical game. It is more likely to occur when you try to abstract a large battlefield war with a couple values and dice rolls.