Skip to Content
 

My Next Strategy Combat Iteration

11 replies [Last post]
BlueRift
BlueRift's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2012

Some of you may have noticed I've posted more than once about my space-themed strategy combat. I've gone through a number of iterations. Suffice it to say, they didn't work out. So here's the new one.

I've abandoned dice in favor of a drawing combat mechanic. The system works by each ship adding either attack or defense points. Ships are always in fleets so a given battle uses the sum of the points contributed by all the ships in a given fleet.

A round of combat consists of drawing tokens from the bag. Each player draws tokens according to how many ships they have (1-3 ships is 1 token, 4-6 is 2 tokens, and 7+ is 3). At the end of a round, players remove ships from their fleet and reduce their attack/defense tokens appropriately. Players repeat until one player gives in and retreats.

Say Fleet A has 10 attack points and Fleet B has 5 defense points. Players use a bag and place attack and defense tokens inside. Combat is resolved by 5 ( 3 from A and 2 from B) tokens being drawn from the bag one at a time. For each defense token drawn, an attacker's ship is destroyed and visa versa.

I've decided to go with limiting fleet size to a maximum of 10 ships. This puts implicit limits on the number of combat points meaning with a maximum bonus of 2, the most a fleet can have is 20 points. Note that more than one fleet can attack the same target, they will just fight successive battles.

Additional combat mechanic to consider:
I would also like to incorporate special attack and defense tokens that make the result of winning better some of the time, like a critical win. These would be a ship that adds a token that destroys two ships instead of one.

What do you think?

So far, play tests are good. Recalculating tokens isn't hard but figuring out how many tokens to draw can be somewhat taxing. Should I change this in some way to make it easier to know how many tokens to draw? By having a 4 ships to 1 draw, larger battles result in more mayhem, which is a good thing. It also means that 1/4 (or more) of the ships involved die each round.

Updated May 7 to accomodate changes discussed in the first few posts.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Clarifications

This system sounds interesting, but it's hard to comment usefully without further context. Questions follow.

BlueRift wrote:
I only plan on a given ship adding 2 points to either pool so it shouldn't be too hard to add up totals.

This sounds like a ship can count 2 for defense OR 2 for offense, and not 1 point to each. I assume that's wrong since your example includes a fleet with 5 defensive points. Is it correct that every ship is worth 2 points which can be allocated to any combination of pools?

BlueRift wrote:

Issues with this combat mechanic:

One issue that struck me is the speed of resolution: this method seems slow. If I understand correctly, only 1 ship gets destroyed per engagement, no matter how large the opposing fleets. Assuming no one wants to burn ships by "pressing the attack" or "standing ground," it would take a very long time to defeat a large fleet, even if it had no defensive points.

This attack system does have interesting statistical behavior, but I don't know if represents the feel of fleet-level engagements.

BlueRift wrote:

One problem is how to cap these numbers? I cannot have an infinite number of attack and defense tokens or special attack and defense tokens. I have two options: explicitly limit the maximum attack and defense points or implicitly limit them by limiting the maximum number of ships in a given fleet. I am inclined to explicitly limit the number of points usable. This way players can have as many of whatever they want. The only thing is if I limit the number of ships, players will have to choose a balance of attack and defense points instead of getting both.

If you limit the number of points, you run into strangeness when both fleets exceed the max. Suddenly, relative fleet sizes have no effect on the probability of success. For example, if the point limit is 10 and a strength 30 fleet engages a strength 15 fleet, the more powerful fleet loses its 2:1 advantage because the ratio of points is 10:10, or 1:1. That seems strange.

Unfortunately, the only solutions that don't distort the math involve working with proportions, which is overly complex for a board game.

> The only thing is if I limit the number of ships, players will have to choose a balance of attack and defense points instead of getting both.

Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't "choosing a balance" equivalent to "getting both?" I'm missing the point. :(

BlueRift wrote:

First additional combat mechanic to consider:
I would like to add a "press the attack" and "hold your ground" mechanic.
What do you think of this mechanic? Does it favor the larger fleets too much because losing a ship is not as significant?

Second additional combat mechanic to consider:
I would also like to incorporate special attack and defense tokens that make the result of winning better some of the time, like a critical win.

I think a combined variation of these mechanics might be interesting -- I'll explain in a minute -- but first, let me discuss them separately.

Both "pressing the attack" and "holding ground" feel too costly. I assume there is an important territorial aspect to the game, otherwise there would be no point in sacrificing a ship. Even so, this mechanic seems too brutal. It also doesn't make much sense in certain cases. Suppose I have 10:1 odds versus a defender but he gets a lucky draw and I lose a ship. My overwhelmingly powerful fleet must automatically lose a second vessel to deliver the killing blow? It's too much -- the defender already got in one lucky shot.

As for the second idea, special tokens seem neat, but I'm not sure what you mean by "upgrades...which wouldn't help you win the battle." Doesn't destroying two ships help me win? Doesn't being able to destroy from a defensive position also help me win? I know I'm missing the point again. :(

That said, I think you could combine your two optional rules for an interesting slant on combat. Suppose each player has these special attack and defense tokens, but he can only use them if his opponent decides to press the attack or stand his ground (which no longer automatically burn ships). For example:

Player A, with 10 attack points, engages player B, with 5 defense points. A draws a defense token and loses a ship. A decides to push the attack, giving B the opportunity to add a "special defense" token to the bag. Tokens are now:

9 Attack
5 + 1 (special) defense

A draws again and pulls a regular defense token, losing another ship. A decides to press the attack once more, and B deposits a second special defense token. Tokens are now:

8 attack
5 + 2 (special) defense

A draws a special defense token, which costs him an additional ship and forces him to retreat.
(Note that I've assumed that the tokens in the bag get reset between every round of combat. If that's not the case, then the token counts would be: 10:5, 10:(4 + 1 special), 10:(3 + 2 special), which seems a little odd).

As a player, I would be tempted to push my attack and stand my ground more often if the cost wasn't guaranteed.

Overall, sounds like an interesting system. I hope you can work out the kinks.

BlueRift
BlueRift's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2012
My lengthy corrections

Sorry, I wrote this in a hurry and didn't have time to check it for clarity. I appreciate your response.

BlueRift wrote:
I only plan on a given ship adding 2 points to either pool so it shouldn't be too hard to add up totals.

This should be adding UP TO 2 points. Sorry for the lack of clarity. This way I can have ships of differing price and quality which is one of the design goals I have.

MarkKreitler wrote:
One issue that struck me is the speed of resolution: this method seems slow. If I understand correctly, only 1 ship gets destroyed per engagement, no matter how large the opposing fleets. Assuming no one wants to burn ships by "pressing the attack" or "standing ground," it would take a very long time to defeat a large fleet, even if it had no defensive points.

My previous combat mechanics made for ships that had large impacts on the success of a fight that, when lost, were very costly to replace. That meant having a smaller fleet usually meant you frequently lost. That led to inflation in incomes and high fleet turnover. To mitigate this, I incorporated a mechanic for retreating.

That being said, this new combat mechanic can lend itself to more affordable ships and therefore more acceptable losses. One possibility would be to have players draw multiple tokens at a time. What I like about this is in a multiple draw, the probability of drawing the same token in a row is diminished with each token grabbed.

Players draw for multiple rounds (recalculating tokens each time) until one player gives and retreats. Retreating is only situationally advantageous and a fleet can be cut off where a normal retreat is not possible which would result in very bad outcomes. Also, cards available to players can allow an opponent to punish another for retreating.

The question then is, how many do you draw? 3 per round? Even in fights involving a total of 3 ships? It would be nice if this scaled so that larger battles resulted in more drawing (like you draw once per 4 ships involved in the fight). My only concern is I don't want this to become too math heavy which it easily could.

MarkKreitler wrote:
If you limit the number of points, you run into strangeness when both fleets exceed the max. Suddenly, relative fleet sizes have no effect on the probability of success. For example, if the point limit is 10 and a strength 30 fleet engages a strength 15 fleet, the more powerful fleet loses its 2:1 advantage because the ratio of points is 10:10, or 1:1. That seems strange.

I necessarily have to limit the tokens because I cannot provide an infinite number in the box. At the same time, I don't want players to have to add up tons of ships and get to tons of tokens. That being said, the explanation of the point limit could be a "saturation" limit where more ships doesn't help you because they get in each other's way.

I would also like to incentivize players to not stack all their ships together and run around stomping on smaller fleets. At the same time, I want to allow a fair amount of scalability so players can feel like their fleet is powerful.

One way to accommodate this is to limit the number of ships in a given fleet. This answers another of your questions on "choosing a balance" of attack and defense. If there is no fleet cap, then players are free to max out both attack and defense pools. If instead, I say that no more than 10 ships can be in a fleet at a time, this implicitly limits the maximum attack points to 20 (if all ships are +2 attack). Simultaneously, this fleet automatically would have 0 defense. So then players with maxed out fleets must choose how they wish to distribute their maximum of 20 points between attack and defense pools. I know that this can lead to min/maxing but maybe that isn't the worst thing in the world.

Limiting fleet size also makes more powerful ships more valuable because they provide better benefit over a fixed number of slots and can be priced accordingly. If fleets did not have a cap, it would have to be more economical to buy the bigger ships. I feel like I didn't explain that last point perfectly so let me provide an example:

There are two ships: A is weak and only provides 1 attack, B is more powerful and provides 2 attack. Without a fleet size cap where ship A costs 2, ship B would have to cost less than double (Say 3) because it is destroyed at the same rate as ship A (which maybe I could make stronger ships last longer but that gets even more complicated). With a fleet cap, ship B has the same disadvantage of being destroyed at the same rate but it provides a larger marginal benefit. This isn't necessarily a problem but it will affect how players play the game.

MarkKreitler wrote:
Both "pressing the attack" and "holding ground" feel too costly.

I agree. I like your solution of adding a token to the winner if the loser wants to "press on." I mostly wanted to allow an underdog an actual chance at victory but maybe that's too much.

MarkKreitler wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "upgrades...which wouldn't help you win the battle."

Le me rephrase: if the tokens are upgraded, they don't increase the odds of winning, only the impact of the result. So if I have 2 attack tokens versus 6 defense tokens, I would have a 25% chance of winning if they get upgraded to special attack tokens or not. If instead special attack tokens are additional and not upgraded, the pool would be 4 attack to 6 defense which is now a 40% chance of winning and a 20% chance of doing double damage.

MarkKreitler wrote:
Note that I've assumed that the tokens in the bag get reset between every round of combat.

That is the case.

I hope that answered your questions and I'm sure will spawn new ones. One additional thing I'd like to ask: Do any of you have ideas for additional ships beyond combinations of attack and defense bonuses?

I was just toying with the idea of specific weapons having circumstantial bonuses. I'm just concerned that things could quickly get way to complicated.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Much clearer!

Thanks for answering my questions, Blue. I see the system more clearly, now.

You have it developed enough that it should work pretty well, once you finagle these value:

-- Number of draws constituting a combat round
-- Limit on number of ships / number of tokens
-- Ship types and their contribution to attack/defense points

The only problem remaining is an aesthetic one: most of these numbers are arbitrary limits. These limits will create "poles" in your math, and influence the game system. It would be great if the system contained natural limits (as if any game ever achieves that...).

So, I'm about to go off-road here, and don't take any of this as, "you should change your system as follows." I'm just outlining an example of a principle that may help with the above 3 points. Or not. I won't blame you if you ignore every word.

When I find myself with complexities like the above, I like to remove elements and see what happens. In this case, I thought about removing the attack and defense tokens. Just the TOKENS, though, not the idea of attack and defense points.

For example, let there be 3 kinds of ships:

Scout
Frigate
Carrier

And instead of having players put all tokens into a single bag, let each player place his fleet's ships in his own bag.

For combat, players simultaneously draw a ship and compare. Destroyed ships are removed from the game. Surviving ships are placed aside for possible future combat.

The fighting continues until one player empties his bag. At that point, both players have a retreat opportunity. If both opt for continue fighting, or if one player tries and fails to retreat, players return the surviving ships to their bags and repeat the process.

You'll need rules to mediate the contests of individual ships. For my example, I choose rock-paper-scissors (tired as that is):

Scouts beat Carrier
Carriers beat Frigates
Frigates beat Scouts

(yeah, it's bad, but naval warfare isn't my strong suit).

By getting rid of the tokens, you've answered all 3 points above:

1) Draw until one bag is empty: this scales to any size fleet.

2) Limit of tokens / ships: the limit is the number of ships available to the player, which is always the ultimate limit.

3) Free to do some crazy things here to create interesting interactions.

I like your idea about special weapons. I think you could leverage that into a system that's much more interesting than rock-paper-scissors. I just went with the simplest example so as not to distract from the larger point of simplifying to reduce edge cases.

Hope something in there was of use...

Soulmate
Soulmate's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/23/2011
Command Ships?

BlueRift wrote:
Players draw for multiple rounds (recalculating tokens each time) until one player gives and retreats. Retreating is only situationally advantageous and a fleet can be cut off where a normal retreat is not possible which would result in very bad outcomes. Also, cards available to players can allow an opponent to punish another for retreating.

The question then is, how many do you draw? 3 per round? Even in fights involving a total of 3 ships? It would be nice if this scaled so that larger battles resulted in more drawing (like you draw once per 4 ships involved in the fight). My only concern is I don't want this to become too math heavy which it easily could.

This 'mathiness' is something that is hard for the newer player, but might be more fun for the veteran players. However, I see a possible solution for this particular problem: What if players can build ships without any defence/attack points, but ships that gives your 1 or 2 rounds of attack (or defence). This is very easy to count ("How many Command Ships do you have?"), and might give players some more strategic choices.

Hope I helped :)

BlueRift
BlueRift's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2012
Good Idea

Soulmate wrote:

What if players can build ships without any defence/attack points, but ships that gives your 1 or 2 rounds of attack (or defence). This is very easy to count ("How many Command Ships do you have?"), and might give players some more strategic choices.

I had this idea as well but the incentive to use these ships is complicated. Having more doesn't make your odds of winning higher, they might even make them lower as each successive pull has decreased odds for whatever side is already drawn. Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that larger fleets will have more of these ships.

Maybe I can clearly define a "strategy rating" where the number of ships you have determines your strategy rating which will be something you adjust as you gain or lose ships. That way players draw as many times as they have strategy rating. I'll have to finish my prototype and test it out.

Sugarrush
Offline
Joined: 05/03/2012
What about letting these

What about letting these "command ships" have an effect that you may draw twice from the bag and keep your favorite outcome, making the chances of success a bit higher.

Should both side in a battle have a command ship, they should negate each other.

Or maybe give the command ships a rating: where the command ship with the highest rating gets the effect.

BlueRift
BlueRift's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2012
A Test

So I liked the command ship idea enough to try it out. It turns out that it slows down combat without enough benefit. Effectively, it just increases odds similar to adding additional combat points. So it does the same thing but in a more confusing way.

I'm toying with going to just removing combat points and players draw their ships instead. There are advantages and drawbacks to this method. This way, players don't have to count anything, they just throw all their ships together and draw some. This means that I have to have player (color) specific ships instead of the neutral ships like now. It also means that better ships can only destroy more instead of increasing odds of success. It's also difficult to remove ships between rounds when they are all in the bag together.

I am inclined to keep it as it is but the concept of removing a step (counting combat points) from combat is appealing.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Maybe...

BlueRift wrote:
It also means that better ships can only destroy more instead of increasing odds of success. It's also difficult to remove ships between rounds when they are all in the bag together.

Not necessarily. If you go with your earlier idea about special weapons and/or ship types, you could introduce rules like, "if you pulled a scout in the last draw, your next ship can only lose to a frigate" or some such.

That example sounds cumbersome, but I bet you could come up with something more streamlined that still had interesting properties.

BlueRift
BlueRift's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2012
RPS

My only concern with a rock-paper-scissors system is that a larger fleet doesn't automatically mean better. I'd have to develop a bonus for having more ships. That doesn't mean it's undoable, I'll just have to mull it over for the next day or two.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Agreed

BlueRift wrote:
My only concern with a rock-paper-scissors system is that a larger fleet doesn't automatically mean better. I'd have to develop a bonus for having more ships. That doesn't mean it's undoable, I'll just have to mull it over for the next day or two.

I agree that rock-paper-scissors isn't a good way to go. I was just using that as an example to illustrate the different way to think about it. I like your original idea of special weapons better. I think you could come up with some interesting interactions that side-step the problems of rock-paper-scissors.

Anyway -- good luck. Simple-but-interesting combat is a tough nut to crack...

EDIT: Just had a thought that uses "command points" and "special weapons" to present a limited kind of rock-paper-scissors gameplay. This uses the model where each player has his own bag of ships and players draw simultaneously, then compare ships and determine the winner of the draw.

Instead of the flawed rock-paper-scissors, system, use a simpler, 3-size ship system:

Frigate = biggest, destroys every ship its size and smaller (frigate vs frigate = mutual destruction)
Cruiser = medium-sized ship, destroys cruisers and below
Scout = smallest ship, destroys other scouts

Each player has a small number of "command points" available in each battle (don't know how these are earned, if they can be increased, etc -- too dependent on other factors in your game). Players can use their command points during battle to activate a ship's special weapons.

Frigate
-- Offensive special weapon: anti-matter barrage -- defender's current vessel is destroyed and defender must draw again and compare to the offensive player's frigate.

-- Defensive special weapon: none

Cruiser
-- Offensive special weapon: proton bomb: destroys defender's ship, but cruiser is destroyed as well

-- Defensive special weapon: force screens: cruiser ignores a "destruction" result this draw

Scout
-- Offensive special weapon: immune to electronic warfare

-- Defensive special weapon: electronic warfare: scout ignores a "destruction" result (except from "proton bomb") and attacking vessel is removed from combat as if destroyed (but is re-added to the attacker's fleet following combat).

As with the original rock-paper-scissors idea, I don't mean to suggest these as actual design elements. They're meant to illustrate the broader idea.

I've always liked your special weapons idea because it adds character to the ships and a tactical dimension to fleet composition. I hope you can find a way to make it work.

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Command points and special weapons

I like the basic idea of drawing the attacker/defender chips from the bag.

I agree that the "fleet strength / 4" is not an elegant solution to figuring out how many chips to draw. It also creates mathematical anomalies around multiples of 4.

One way to figure out how many chips to draw would be to have a "Command" rating on certain types of ships. For each battle, draw chips = 1 + total command points of the attacking and defending fleets. In this mechanic, ships with Command are naturally aggressive/offensive, while ships without are naturally passive/defensive. This lets players tailor the mix of ships in their fleets based on how "risky" they want to play -- more Command ships means you can inflict more casualties before the enemy has a chance to retreat, but it may also mean you receive more casualties.

E.g.
Cruiser Assault ship has Strength=1, Command=1.
Destroyer Escort ship has Strength=1.
5 CA vs 5 CA would draw 11 chips (guaranteed destruction of one fleet)
5 CA vs 5 DE would draw 6 chips
5 DE vs 5 DE would draw 1 chip (they take a few pot shots and then sail away)

For special weapons, one way would be to put some "Special attacker" and "Special defender" chips in the bag. When a "Special attacker" chip is drawn the attacking player can choose one of his ships to use its special ability.

E.g.
Cruiser Assault ship has special "Command", which inflicts one casualty on the opposing fleet only if your fleet has more Command points than theirs.
Destroyer Escort has "EMP Blast", which freezes one enemy ship for the rest of the battle (target ship cannot use abilities nor be removed as a casualty; target ship is captured if its fleet retreats).
Hasperex Mothership has "Magnetic Web", which once activated makes the fleet immune to EMP Blast for the rest of the battle or until the Mothership is destroyed.

Just some random ideas for thought.
kos

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut