Skip to Content
 

In need of a simple combat mechanic

7 replies [Last post]
MoldtDK
MoldtDK's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2013

Combat... That is one of the things I usually postpone when working on a design because in games where combat will play a role or even is the majority of the game I know that it is important to not only balace it right, but also to make it easy to learn, fairly quick to do and of course still fun.

My problem always boils down to the fact that I want combat to be less about luck and more about making smart moves and using tactics and strategy. However at the same time I do love the unpredictability of a die roll as history has shown us so many times that a small force can indeed defeat a larger force.

The game I am working on that needs combat is a 1800s wargame and the only units that a player can move around is Infantry and Cavalry. Each player will also have a general in each sub unit who can boost the power of the units around him.

But how to do the actual fighting? The most simple way I could think of would be to take 1 unit from both the attacker and the defender in a tile until one of them is no longer present. So that if 3 units attack 2 units then 1 unit would remain as both sides lost 2. But this way seems bad to me as it makes combat predictable and in many cases it would mean that you could break through the enemy line and have NO units left to push on the attack.

Then I thought about a die roll mechanic where players roll a number and adds one per unit engaged in that combat. But this does not seem very simple to me when you also need to differentiate between cavalry and infanrty and even generals.

I even considered to use cards for combat or a sort of Rock, Paper, Scissors system, but the latter seems like a lazy way to handle combat.

Anyone in here know of a good way to handle combat? Or have good ideas for it?

Shoe
Shoe's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/21/2012
What about a roll-under

What about a roll-under mechanic. Have number of attacking units, minus number of defending units. Roll 1d6. If you roll equal to or lower than the difference, consider the attacker to be the winner.

Then you could remove units equal to the number on the die...

Just a thought. I assume the game will be dealing with decently large sized numbers if units?

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Routing?

Do you have routing in your game? Barring overwhelming odds, that's how the winner survives a battle: minor mutual damage and major demoralization and general runawaying.

If you do a straight matchup, you can flip counters as each side is demoralized. Then use a die roll to determine how much of the demoralized units are destroyed with the losing side taking like double losses.

e.g. D = demoralized, M = Morale
1) 20 units w general vs. 10 units
2) initial flipping: 10M + 10D vs. 10D
3) general recovers 30% of D
4) 13M + 7D vs. 10D
5) die roll... 20% D loss for winner --> 40% for loser
6) 13M + 6D vs. 6D
7) winner recovers
19M vs 6D pinned (can't move for X rounds)

Really just as an example of one way routing could be used, super-dependent on your game structure.

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
I have no idea how your game

I have no idea how your game works in terms of unit development and placement. But I feel like there are enough risk clones in the world, what about something more like Go, where success in battle depends upon your ability to gain favorable placement over your enemies. Placement is of course helped by more units (makes it easier to surround or what have you) but it's strategy that will win you battles.

I'm imagining something where maybe you have a capture mechanic (1 guy to 1 guy they both die) or a flank victory (2 guys flanking versus 1 guy, 1 guy dies, 2 survive)

This is simple, but it allows an inferior force with superior forethought to come out victorious

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
What I am doing

I am currently in the same boat as you. What I have found successful is this: Print off and research the combat rules for games similar to yours. Many 1800 games can be found from Victory Point Games, Simons has a Napoleon game, Columbia games may have some, I am sure GMT has a few.

Research other games and find a mechanic that fits yours, and if you want to be original, mix a few of them together. You will find something. Out of the many war games available, somebody did it right.

laperen
Offline
Joined: 04/30/2013
does your game have

does your game have something like a grid board? there are many variables in combat to consider, even more so for war combat

generally the larger your terrain size per grid space, the larger the scale of your game, the more abstact combat becomes. scale refering to how big an army you control at one time, is it a unit(600-1000 soldiers), battalion(100 to 300 soldiers), platoon(20-40 soldiers), squad(6-10 soldiers), group(2 to 4 soldiers), individual(1 soldier), limbs(just kidding)

i like the idea of fighting fronts, partly because its how wars are won. reducing the fighting front increases the winning chances of a small army against a large one, using cover and flexibility to their advantage.

eg, the fighting front of a narrow pass is restricted by the width of the pass(300 spartans), the fighting front of a forest is restricted by the vegetation coverage of the area

a very diluted version from the book, but this documentary might give some inspiration for a strategic, but simple combat system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZ2YidTZp4
the comparison between Chess and Go might be a point to take notice of in the documentary

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Can you refine the question?

> Anyone in here know of a good way to handle combat? Or have good ideas for it?

It's hard to answer this question without knowing what you hope to achieve with your game. For example, of combat is a "side dish" in a game that's primarily about economic warfare, then a straight-up comparison of units might be fine. Conversely, if this is a miniatures-based simulation of the Civil War, you'll need detailed stats for each unit, rules for line-of-sight and terrain modifiers, and so on.

It's important to note that combat mechanics that would be "good" for one game would be equally "bad" in another -- depending on your overall design.

So, ask yourself, what purpose does combat serve in your game, and what mechanics reinforce that purpose?

If you tell us that, we can give you much better answers.

ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Ideas:

-Axis & Allies: certain units have a number they need to roll below to hit/kill. General could perhaps increase probability to hit.
-Diplomacy: All players negotiate/work together to amass a large enough force to neutralize a threat.
-Nothing I've heard of: a hex or grid-based system, make surrounding your enemy matter in terms of your die rolling to hit: if you have 3 guys facing an enemy, you have a 3/6 chance to hit (assuming hexes), while if they're almost completely surrounded, the probability rises to 5/6. for a grid, make it an 8-sided die (though it wouldn't work as well). This mechanic could be boosted by a general in a near vicinity who increases friendly rolls, as well as perhaps surrounding a soldier and his friends. It would promote the kind of tactical feel you want while reducing the luck factor. Having a cannon that can blast into the ranks would make this particularly interesting...
-Provide several ways to add bonuses to certain dice rolls. Ideas might include a mechanic where kills are easier when your units are supported by friendlies in groups (based on the number of men working together), or bonuses are given based on skills or unit types versus others (grenadiers might be good against cavalry [they scare the horses], while infantry can take out a grenadier relatively easily).

Just ideas to get you thinking

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut