Skip to Content
 

How to make one on one combat strategic?

18 replies [Last post]
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 12:26
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I have a few games ideas that would feature having 2 entities fighting each other in board or video game context. For example: 2 wrestler, 2 boxers or 2 mecha fighting each other, an RPG with only one character and one opponent.

The problem, is that such combat can become pretty dull rapidly. For example, in the original "Dragon Quest"(Dragon Warrior), the player and the monster simply alternate attacking each other until one of them died. This was pretty boring.

So I was wondering how strategy could be added to such games without using a 2D tactical movement grid. Solutions I have found so far:

* Give a lot of possible actions, having different synergies with opponent reaction.
* Randomize possible actions. Use cards to only give player a sub-set of the possible actions. Less thematic, but works well. Ex: "Sentinels of multiverse", "Magic the gathering".
* Make the combat a puzzle, there is only a few ways to resolve the conflict, and players must find how. Reminds me of "Punch Out"
* Asymmetric timing: Instead of each side doing action per turn, have a cooldown/initiative system that could make an entity to perform more (shorter) actions than it's opponent over the duration of the battle.
* Stances or states: Changes the behavior of certain actions and othe rules. For example, the "Bunker" character in "Sentinels of multiverse" which have "Mode" cards that changes how the character is played.

Any other suggestions?

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 14:26
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm just going to jump in because...

When you wrote "Asymmetric Timing" ... I was like: "OMG that is so freaken AWESOME as an idea!!!"

"Cooldown" can be derived from a STAT and the Weapon itself. So say you have a WARRIOR with a LONG SWORD, the STAT using the weapon is STRENGTH. So "somehow" (Don't ask me how... IDK!) you do a weapon STAT & STRENGTH computation to determine the "Cooldown" time which could be a HORIZONTAL or VERTICAL BAR that goes RED-to-GREEN from either RIGHT-to-LEFT or TOP-to-BOTTOM...

And that means you can ATTACK AGAIN with the LONG SWORD once the BAR is entirely GREEN...

That would be so FREAKEN AWESOME in a game such as your "Wizardry Re-make"! Instead of TURN-BASED, it's TURN-DRIVEN but is more real-time in terms of combat. I think that's a GOOD approach for that franchise!

Cheers (and GREAT THINKING!)

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 14:50
#2
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Making combat more STRATEGIC

This reminds me a bit of Duel II which was run in a play-by-mail format, so obviously all equipment and tactics had to be spelled out ahead of the fight.

I was surprised to find out that this game is still running!

A character has stats and a fighting style which presumably impact how effective certain weapons and tactics will work. Armor offers protection but adds weight (endurance drain).

Each minute has required blanks for Offensive Effort, Activity Level, and Kill Desire, plus optional Attack Location, Protect Location, Offensive Tactic, and Defensive Tactic.

While you probably don't want something with that many moving parts, I can see a card-based system with choices played face-down then revealed to determine what happens that round. Take advantage of the immediateness by having "riposte" cards that let you replace it with a normal card after the opponent has revealed their hand (though for balance, that new card would need to be nerfed, require a skill check, or both).

New cards become available through a fighting-style skill tree.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 16:23
#3
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Hmmm, let's see

We had plenty of 1 on 1 matches in the old days.
Where units would rely on their remaining Action Points.
These could be spend on movement, attacks and both.
Sometimes, an unit should take more distance in order to not be pummeled on if the opponent still had plenty of AP remaining.

Then we had Event Cards. Making certain actions better for a turn. Or the actions of the opponent got worse.

The options of Actions was in synergy with the modifications of the same actions by the Event Cards. It could be either good or bad.

And players had to plan ahead the usage of the Event Cards.

Although, the units did not have certain block options. For that, we needed small teams.
But what you could try, is to have an action block another action. And if the combination is right, the blocking action could actually be dealing some damage as well.

What I mean is that if it is like a fighter game. If a highkick is blocked with an arm. The other arm could hit the leg as well and deal a bit of damage.

Then, you could even add something like damage on a particular place. Not knowing what kind of game your really intend on making. But if for example, one of the legs is injured a lot. The effectivness will go down. And that character will not use the leg anymore, thus the options go down as well.

So, yeah:
Synergy between 2 different kind of options.
Opportunity matchups between 2 actions.
The reduction of actions.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 17:22
#4
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Asymmetric timing, yes I

Asymmetric timing, yes I intended to use it in Wizardry, with the possibility to act now or at the end of the delay (spell concentration). Actions would have different speed, so making quick actions would allow acting more often, but probably less powerful. If you can see your opponent's timing, you could try to do certain actions before they can act. It does not have to be real time. And yes this system can apply to 1 vs 1 battles.

Hit locations could be something to consider especially if you have access to all your character's action. Each location could have pro and cons which could add strategy. Thematically, it would work very well for mecha vs mecha themes. Localized casualties like used in mechwarrior was always interesting.

I like the idea of action points, but I do not intend to have any movement. Both entities are standing in front of each other and fighting. But with an action point system, it could allow you to make a combination of actions, rather than 1 action. It's another alternative to asymmetric initiative.

Playing secretly and revealing simultaneously can bring mind games to the strategy. I am not a fan of such mechanism, but it works.

I think not having a random pool of action is that what would make it challenging to design. Because if there is a dominant strategy in the character actions, players could used the same action over and over. Mage wars has no randomness, but each card can only be used once per game.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 18:17
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
This could work for ALL attacks not only MAGIC and SPELLS...

larienna wrote:
with the possibility to act now or at the end of the delay (spell concentration). Actions would have different speed, so making quick actions would allow acting more often, but probably less powerful. If you can see your opponent's timing, you could try to do certain actions before they can act.

I see you say "Spell Concentration", while there could be a DELAY for such actions too... (Casting Spells) the mechanism may be used to normal weapons too. Say a Thieves' Dagger or a Warrior's Long Sword or a Ranger's Bow, etc. Sure there is a DELAY between casting various spells and that could work for ALL characters which could vary from Cantrips to Magical Scrolls, etc.

Maybe you can have 3 Bars: Hand-To-Hand Combat, Item Use (Magical or not), Spells (including Cantrips and Magical Scrolls).

So even a Warrior or Ranger could use Magical Scrolls (perhaps not as effectively as a Wizard or Mage - that's another topic in itself) and therefore have a Spell Cooldown period between uses. And a Scroll could maybe have a count of times it may be used (which varies depending on the nature and potency of the spell).

Same for ITEM USAGE... You can Drink a Healing Potion (get healed) and have to wait some time before you can use ANOTHER ITEM...

I think those 3 "Cooldown" BARS (per character) is what you need to implement in Wizardry. TBH I think this will REVOLUTIONIZE your game. I've never seen any Nintendo games such as Dragon's Quest... It's always been ALL turned-based. Same with most Wizardry Clones... All TURN-BASED. Add a sort of quasi-real-time component and voila... Something NEW and FRESH!

I'm definitely FOR something like that! Would be VERY COOL!!!

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 18:28
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Another DIRECTION: PROGRAMMING

I also thought about the Asymmetric Timing... And came up with the idea of "Programming". Something like options:

A- This unit will do basic combat (melee or ranged).

B- This unit will cast offensive spells.

C- This unit will cast defensive spells.

D- This unit will defend.

This sort of PROGRAMMING I have seen in other Turn-Based games. Where you choose HOW you units will react and make a selection and the units will go about and USE that selection.

It's ultimately your choice on how to PROGRAM each unit such that the combat is successful and that none of your party dies in the process. This is very BROAD and generalized... There could be more options and they can VARY per class of character too.

I just gave a GENERALIZED version of what I called "programming" but each class can have specifics which are different and add more DETAIL to how each character may behave in combat.

That's another alternative... But this one I have seen in MANY Nintendo games.

It could be another choice... It's up to you to explore which is better and more of interest to your game TBH. I mean, yeah programming is more popular that Asymmetric Timing ... But it may still be of value and easier to code (IDK TBH!?) ... Or perhaps many RPG Quest-like games use programming as a way to do battle.

Anyhow just wanted to SHARE. Cheers.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 19:01
#7
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
As a follow-up...

I would favor "Asymmetric Timing" over "Programming" because you have much finer grain control over your units/heroes. Programming sometimes the AI that you build-in is a bit "stupid" (pardon the poor choice of words) but yeah the AI does not DO what you want it to do.

Even with CLASS-specific Programming ... You may still lose a unit because the AI didn't heal when instead it decided to cast a "Fireball", etc. Conflicting execution of actions that is not within the player's full control.

I think "Programming" in general is more FRUSTRATING and leads to much more development work (Coding the RULES and figuring out the AI or quasi-AI) because of all the possibilities... Like "When to use a Magical Healing Potion" over a "Clerical Heal Spell"...?! It's those kind of DECISIONS that are hard to program and can sometimes alter the outcome of a battle (unfortunately to a disfavorable outcome).

So my bet is "Asymmetric Timing" is BETTER for you and Wizardry. I still think it's a very original concept and programming wise ... I think you should be able to handle it. It's not that complicated TBH.

Sincerely.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2023 - 21:07
#8
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Still thinking cards

Still thinking card-based game, but could have an analogue in a videogame as well, and in either case would gel with the asymmetric timing aspect and the programming idea.

Each action takes a certain number of "beats" to execute with a base value on the card and a reasonable selection of modifiers from stat/class/stance/etc. For a physical game you need a notion of the maximum number of "beats" an action could take, and make a track that long for each kind of action available (weapon action, item action, magic/willpower action).

Place the desired action card facedown at the player's side of the track. Each "beat" it slides one down the track, meanwhile either player might be feeding cards into other tracks.

When the card gets within a certain number of steps of the opponent's end, that number depending primarily on opponent's perception stats and item effects (and could be different for each track), the card is flipped over revealing the incoming action.

There are probably still a few "beats" left until the action resolves, and the opponent may try to adjust something now that they've figured out what the player is doing. (For that to work, there needs to be some mechanism for changing a card already in a track, even if the choices are very limited.)

By now, the follow-up attack is probably already in the track already. It'd have to be spaced out by cooldown cards or something. Making it simple to avoid cheating here will be a thing.

A card might not reveal a real action but a "stealthy move" that keeps the card behind it hidden for some extra "beats" (trading a slower attack pace for hiding the nature of the attack until the last moment). Definitive/confident actions happen exactly when they reach the end, "parry" style actions stay active until the cooldown ends, opportunistic actions can happen at any point until the cooldown ends (but fizzle if not used by then), and other possibilities.

Of course, a computer could do all the bookkeeping, but in either format you're forcing players to plan out their moves a few moments ahead. Is this a good time to commit to a lunge? Am I being too cautious with all this parrying? Healing potion or shield block?

Top
Sat, 03/11/2023 - 15:14
#9
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
@FrankM

Hey, that track mechanic. If I read it right. The effects on the card could be linked to the position on the track?

For example, if a card has 3 options, and they get different or stronger, the more it slides on the track. Would it be an option for the player to decide when it is activated?

Would it be smart to have the cards being placed upright, so they can at least see for themselves which effects are avaiable? Maybe you could even introduce "empty" spots?

Top
Sat, 03/11/2023 - 17:53
#10
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Lots of mechanics issues to work out

Yes, there are a lot of issues to work out if these were done with cards. You'd want a player to be able to see their own cards, but not let the opponent see them until the reveal.

A "rush it a beat faster for a penalty" option sounds reasonable, but the action cards would probably commit the player to a specific action. There'd be a parry action and a lunge action, and eventually a parry-riposte action that sort of combines them, but if there was some kind of "pick parry or lunge at the last moment" card it would be crazy-late in the skill tree.

Also, the mechanics of doing this on cards would necessitate following each action with the right number of cooldown cards. They look just like action cards when face-down, because otherwise the opponent can infer what you're doing and when by counting the blank spaces.

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 09:14
#11
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
To visualize this in cards,

To visualize this in cards, effectively, it would be like putting cards on a large track according to their initiative value. Then you slide all the cards by 1 space continuously to the left, then when a cards reach the left most space, you execute it.

This is for the Wait-then-Act model. Else it could be just player tokens/pawn, on an initiative track that would determine when they would act again. This would be the Act-then-Wait model.

I think there is a solo mecha print and play game that use this mechanism.

For wizardry, I intend to remove programming to avoid the need to reallocate targets if some target dies. It also makes the game more strategic this way especially with the assynchronous timing.

I don't think it's completely novel, I think such mechanism existed but in other format. My friend told me that in Final Fantasy Tactics, he could manage to make the same character act 6 times before any enemy could move. Same concept, but computed differently.

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 17:48
#12
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
This would need a LOT of cards

larienna wrote:
To visualize this in cards, effectively, it would be like putting cards on a large track according to their initiative value. Then you slide all the cards by 1 space continuously to the left, then when a cards reach the left most space, you execute it.

This is for the Wait-then-Act model. Else it could be just player tokens/pawn, on an initiative track that would determine when they would act again. This would be the Act-then-Wait model.

The intent is to force the player to commit to their next action before knowing exactly how the previous one will work out. If I want to slash high then backslash low, I need to know that ahead of time and do my footwork appropriately.

To do this with physical cards, the player would need to follow each real action with a series of cooldown cards. When facedown, these cooldown cards look identical to regular action cards for that track, so the opponent can't tell when the next real action is coming until it's revealed.

The smarter or more perceptive the opponent, the earlier cards reveal before reaching the end. My prior would be that item actions would reveal relatively early (hard to sneak that you're pulling a potion from your belt), weapon actions would reveal relatively late (weapon training includes deceiving the opponent), and magic/willpower actions would vary widely depending on the opponent type.

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 18:29
#13
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Would it be an idea to...

Have some cards a 1, a 2 or even a 3 displayed on their backs.
And then have them move that much places.
Which means, that if the slide has 7 spots. A 1 could be placed. Then after 2 rounds, a 2, and after another round a 3.
Then all 3 cards could be activated at the same time. And the enemy would know that this is about to happen.

Thus the enemy could prepare for this. Maybe having defence cards move faster.

Perhaps if cards reach the end. They are now ready (slow summoning sickness). And they can be activated any time the player likes.

Perhaps a die can be rolled. And the number on the die indicates how much the cards can move. This way, the player could rush a card to the end of the slide. Or have a whole stack move forward. But has to wait to roll a good die to have them all activate at once.

Just some idea's.

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 19:19
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I fail to understand this statement...?

FrankM wrote:
This would need a LOT of cards

Let say you had a HAND of eight (8) cards... And you are allowed to initially PLAY "3" cards down according to their weight:

Card #3
Card #2
Card #1

Logically Card #1 would be next to Act. But what if you PADDED those cards with three (3) OTHER ones like this:

Card #3
Card Bluff
Card #2
Card Defend
Card #1
Card Bluff

Based on whatever you OPPONENT plays ... You have one last Round like this:

Card #3
Card #4
Card Bluff
Card #2
Card Defend
Card #5
Card #1
Card #6
Card Bluff

So that would mean Nine (9) cards to create a TRACK with a sequence of OPERATIONS... "Bluff" means NOTHING (You can ignore this card and proceed to the NEXT one)...

So first thing that OCCURS is Card #6. In the case of a "Defend" (Discard your opponent's NEXT card... As such discard this Defend card as well)...

Therefore you would have a "programmatic" sequence of Nine (9) cards created during three (3) separate rounds. This is not a "LOT of cards"... Sure there are a bit of cards (9 to be exact) per side...

But it makes something COMPLICATED relatively EASY to accomplish?! No...?

Maybe there is something that I fail to see or understand... Please clarify if my understanding is INCORRECT.

Sincerely.

Note #1: You could DRAW the PADDED cards from a COMMON DECK used by both players... And the result could be DRAW five (5) cards and play only three (3)...

Of course this ASSUMES nothing about your OPPONENT's hand except how you PAD your sequence to COUNTER what "you believe" is your opponent's sequence...?!

Note #2: You started with a HAND of eight (8) cards and you played initially three (3)... Next you refresh your hand to eight (8) again ... And the 3rd Round (or Phase) would be PLAY three (3) cards from your HAND into your sequence... Making the sequence having nine (9) cards.

The ONLY problem I see is what happens if ONE (1) Sequence is LARGER than the other?! Maybe those are FREE "actions" and occur without any countering by the opponent's sequence. IDK... That remains to be seen. TBH...

Note #3: You can define OTHER "Actions" besides "Defend" and "Bluff"... Right now that's all I have. But I'm sure there could be more! Like for example: "Alert" (Allows you to play ONE of your Action on the TOP of the sequence)... Kind of like "speed up", do it NOW! Like I said, I'm sure there are other "Actions" you could define which vary as per the exact nature of the design (Game).

Note #4: You can also have a RULE which is when one (1) Player's sequence is completed, discard all opponent's remaining card and start a NEW sequence. That could be the OPPOSITE of "free actions" as I had explained above!

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 21:17
#15
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Visualizing the idea

This may better illustrate what I had in mind, with the expectation that the player has at least as many cooldown cards as they want. They might have every card unlocked by the skill tree at their disposal, or a hand of available actions.

The number of cooldowns necessary will depend primarily upon the action, but can get modified by skill, haste, slow, poison, stun, etc. Presumably there is some way for a player to do more than passively react (rush an action for a penalty, swap cards at a cost, pause a track, etc.), but that's beyond the scope of this illustration.

On the left we have Player 1's three tracks that head down, and on the right we have Player 2's three tracks that head up. If the card name is in parentheses, then it's facedown. The owner can look at it, but the opponent only sees a cardback that says "Weapon" or "Item" or "Magic".

In this particular matchup, Player 2 has much better perception into Player 1's magic/willpower actions than the reverse. The last 5 spaces of the Magic 1 track are revealed, but only the last 2 spaces of the Magic 2 track.

Weapon1 Item1 Magic1 Magic2 Item2 Weapon2
(Cool) (Block) (Cool) Haste Cool Cool
(Cool) (Cool) (Cool) Cool Cool Bite
(Lunge) (Cool) (Cantrip) (Cool) Block Cool
(Stealth) (Cool) (Cool) (Cool) Cool (Cool)
(Cool) (Cool) (Cool) (Cool) Cool (Cool)
(Cool) Potion (Cool) (Cool) Cool (Stealth)
(Cool) Cool Cure Poison (Cool) (Cool) (Punch)
(Cool) Cool Cool (Cool) (Potion) (Cool)
Cool Cool Cool (Haste) (Cool) (Cool)
Parry Cool Cool (Cool) (Cool) (Cool)
Cool Block Cure Poison (Cool) (Cool) (Kick)

Most actions are followed by a number of "Cool" (cooldown) cards. The "Stealth" card keeps the card behind it facedown for some extra steps along the track. The "Stealth" comes in after the full cooldown, so being sneaky will always slow down an action by at least one beat.

An action like a shield block or a weapon parry would stay active until the cooldown ends. An opportunistic action like a "Riposte" would remain available until the cooldown ends, but fizzle if not used by then.

Top
Sun, 03/12/2023 - 22:48
#16
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some additional thoughts

So I don't know WHY(?) you feel the need for "cooldown" cards. They are USELESS IF you go with the philosophy that EACH "Card" (#1 to #6 -- In my example) could have it's OWN "duration" STAT. I don't know WHY(?) again you would want 3 different TRACKS when you can only need ONE (1) for a Board (or card) Game...

Nevermind what I suggested for "3" Tracks in the Wizardry Game... That's all computer-handled and simple to code.

While you think in terms of "cooldown", I think in times of "duration"... So while you use the "Potion" and that takes "2" Time-Blocks which could mean that in the process the opponent may land a "Punch" because that take "3" Time-Blocks.

Ultimately it breaks down to a SIMPLE comparison:

A> If it take "2" Time-Blocks to drink a potion.

B> And if it take "3" Time-Blocks to deal a punch.

So by the time you've drank the potions ("2") less the "2" Time-Blocks to deal a punch... You have 3 - 2 = 1 Time-Block for Player #1 to do something ELSE like a "Defend" which can last like "4" Time-Blocks... For example.

You would need to WAIT "3" Time-Blocks to land that punch. And if the 3rd Time-Block is NOT "defensive" you will deal DAMAGE to the opponent.

Again I might be WRONG... I just don't see the need for such "extra" complexity... Again... For a Video Game FINE. But not for a Board Game...

Is there something that I am missing??? Something CLEVER that I'm just not seeing in how having three (3) Tracks in better than one (1)???

I'm far from perfect... Perhaps there is something that I MISSED...? Or was my example too simple (with the one Track)?? And BTW that's the thing about Board & Card Games... You need ALWAYS to simplify the mechanics otherwise it may take 5 pages just to explain how to SEQUENCE actions...

My Bad I misread the part about (Cool) = Face-down and "Cool" = Face-up. I will review your multiple Tracks and see if there is indeed a difference between what I propose as a "duration" for each Action versus the use of "cooldown" cards. TBH I feel that the "cooldown" cards are not necessary and add a level of "complexity" without any additional benefit. PLUS they are prone to HUMAN ERROR. Like should it be "4" or "3" cooldown cards after Action "X"... Better to have a "Duration" on each Action Card and do the MATH to see what gets resolved first and what needs to be dealt with on a SUBSEQUENT Action.

Best!

Top
Mon, 03/13/2023 - 00:50
#17
FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Wasn't trying to sell that as a viable model

Sorry, I wasn't trying to sell that as a viable model for a card game; I just didn't seem to get my point across and therefore tried again.

The advantage of doing that way with cooldown cards is that everything moves in sync. The cost, of course, is that it's thoroughly unworkable in a physical setup.

Top
Tue, 03/14/2023 - 05:39
#18
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I might have found a solution

I might have found a solution for a game with no random action list, but it's very abstract to explain and would be hard to make it fit to all themes. I am currently programming the Minimax algorithm and this is what I am basing myself on.

Take for example chess. Imagine you had a card for each possible piece movement in the game (Yes lot of cards). At the game start, even if you are allowed to use any action card, many of them will be locked since you can only move the pawns and the knight on first turn.

As you play actions cards, new cards will be unlocked for play, but some cards could be locked again if a piece get stuck in a certain position. The idea would be to use that kind of action sequence planning, where playing certain actions locks and unlock cards for you and your opponent.

A way to translate this concept into mechanics, for example in a mecha game, you could have various status stats like: Power, Hull, Heat, Momentum.etc. Certain actions could generate heat and have maximum heat to be used. On the other hand, some cards could require a minimum of power to be built up before being used. A flame weapon could damage and increase opponent's heat.

So the idea is to create a kind of mind games where the action of both players interrelated. Using status stats could be an easy mathematical way to implement this. I imagine the same could be done with text abilities.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut