I wanted to get some thoughts and insights on the role of combat mechanics in games that are NOT war games, but basically Euro-style in the sense of having main objectives involving building or progress of each player's individual "engine".
For a couple of examples, take Scythe and Manhattan Project. I haven't played these, but I've read the manuals through and watched demo videos. I wish I had a huge base of personal experience from such games to draw from, but no one can play every game out there, right?
Personally, I'm seeking insight on making sure I end up using the best fit of such a mechanic in my game project, so I figured why not discuss how these minor combat roles are implemented in various games.
So please share any examples of games you've played or researched!
In Scythe, I've looked through forum discussions on BBG, and even participated in some. The combat in this game is fairly simple, and most people seem to be satisfied with how it's implemented. It's not a war game - combat is just a way to interfere with other players, but not meant to hijack the main point of the game.
I get that completely, and my only thought is that the combat doesn't really seem to have much of a combat "feel". It's basically just a hidden bid that both players reveal at the same time. "I choose to use this many points from my power track plus a few extra from a card, and you chose to use so many points from yours respectively..."
In Manhattan Project, the focus of the game is worker placement to get the necessary resources and buildings to build nukes, and to score points from that. Combat involves building a supply of bombers and fighters. Fighters can be sent to reduce an opponent's number of fighters or bombers, or kept to defend against a similar attack. Bombers can be sent to damage buildings, so opponents must repair them in order to continue their work.
These are examples of mechanics that are designed to interfere with the gameplay of the other players. There are games where combat is very basic, like 7 Wonders, where you don't really interfere - you score points for having a bigger military than neighbors, or you lose a point if your military is weaker.
I'd like to focus the discussion mainly on the interference type of mechanic, since that's what I'm working on, but anything that's relevant will help!
To start it off, I see these interference mechanics as types of mini-games, since they usually have a special set of rules and components that are not used in any other parts of the main game. That may not be an absolute definition - in Scythe, for example, having mechs on the board is a way of deterring opponents from making certain choices, and characters can be used in combat, but they have important functions in exploration as well.
So how simple should these mini-game interference mechanics be? Are there examples of games with a lot of complexity in them that still work well? Or does complexity always steal from the main theme?
For me, simple seems best, but if the concept of interference is combat-oriented, I think it should have enough complexity to strategize a little. As I posted recently in another thread, strategy or tactics require options, and the more options, the more complex the mechanic gets, so to me, balancing that out is the trick.
I never thought of road building that way, but you're right, it does serve as an interference mechanic. There isn't much of a feeling of tactics or strategy, as you said it's just "get there first".
Using combat units isn't necessary for battle - my mini-game uses dice, upgrades, and cards which represent combat events. Even in the examples I used above of Scythe and Manhattan Project, where there are units it doesn't turn things into a war game.