In my "wargame" prototype, there is a serious problem with an attacker disadvantage. Players field units of varying stats onto a small field jockeying for position as they capture bases and kill each other off for victory points. Combat is handled by one unopposed dice roll with a variety of hits, misses, retreats and special powers. All units effectively have 1HP and a defense value between 1-5. This value must be met or exceeded by combat hit results to kill the unit. This is binary and no damage remains on the unit. After attacking a unit exhausts and may not longer take any actions until a new round.
For the purpose of example, let's say red player and blue player have an identical tank fielded that has 5 movement, 1 range, 3 attack and 3 defense. They are spaced on a square grid 7 spaces apart. Units may move, then fire as an action that will leave it exhausted. With a range of 1, they must be adjacent to attack.
The blue tank is moved the full 5 spaces toward the red tank and is now at a range of 2. As red tank is not adjacent, blue tank may not fire. Now it is the red tank's turn and it is moved just 1 space forward to be adjacent and then attacks, scoring exactly 3 hits and killing the blue unit.
This scenario has created a negative pressure on attacking and players would have little incentive to move into another player's threat radius of move/attack range if they could not fire first.
Coincidentally there is an attacker advantage (killing the target) if the attacker can get into range first and actually fire, but this requires going through the disadvantage range which is large and often.
The design restrictions:
>Units may only have 1HP, to remove upkeep fiddliness and limit needed components.
>No unit counters or trackers are used. Units are alive or dead.
>Terrain does modify movement and defense values. (i.e. infantry in the mountains has +2 defense and water ends movement.) Calculating terrain advantage is very important when positioning.
The imperfect solutions I've so far come up with are:
1) Units could have more than 1 health point, supporting more back and forth volleys.
>>Unfortunately this leads to lots upkeep and does not meet the design requirements.
2) Attack strength is based on HP & units counterattack.
>>This is the Advance Wars solution that by attacking first, the defender is weakened and will not be able to do as much damage during the counterattack. This leaves the attacker in less danger as long as they attack. This does not support the 1HP requirement and still has the move partially into range problem.
3) Units may move OR fire (instead of both.)
>>This makes it choice to fight or flee when an attacker moves nearby. It also puts emphasis on using unit powers effectively or inherent asymmetrical stats to pair the best attacker with the weakest unit to it. It also would slow the game down significantly so is not ideal.
Are there any other solutions you can think of to allow attackers to retain an advantage when moving? Or at least not be overly vulnerable when sitting in the 'danger zone'? Any good examples that don't have lots of HP to track?
-Adam
Thanks for all the great suggestions. To boil down it down so far:
>>Terrain with defense benefits
>>Units with extra defense may be more likely to be able to survive an attack
>>Attacking after moving reduces attack strength by X (or based on distance moved)
>>Weak counterattacks (or based on distance moved)
>>Increased range for all units allows overlapping defensive coverage
>>An Exhausted state allows for at least one response before destruction (Units can be: Readied, Exhausted, Damaged)
>>Units may have more than 1 HP and/or attack based on HP strength
>>Units may move or fire, but not both.
I will add a few more defensive units and support abilities (i.e. Shield a friendly nearby unit.) I think the terrain is already supporting tactical movement as certain spaces increase defense (but not attack.)
I really like the simplicity of reducing a unit's attack after moving because it increases the chance of the player that moves into threat range (but not combat range) a little bit. The first player to initiate combat initiative still can win if they roll well or use the right ability, but it's less guaranteed while maneuvering. However I would probably flip it on its head and state you gain +1 ATTACK bonus when attacking without moving. This will take a little balancing but should feel more positive and less a penalty.
So for the example the blue tank moves 5 spaces and then stops. The red tank still has to move 1 to get into range and fires with normal attack value of 3 getting a 50% chance to destroy blue. If they are unsuccessful blue can then attack stationary for a boosted 4 attack value getting a 67% chance to destroy red. Add to that that either tank could have stopped on a +1 Defense terrain to increase their odds and that should feel fairly tactical for equivalent units.
Also this increases the value of the range unit class as they will have reason to plant and fire (artillery for instance.) Also I agree there will be interesting choices to be made such as: either move the full distance and attack or move and stop just outside the other unit's range. Then try to survive their next attack to be able to gain the boosted attack the next round (as mentioned above.)
I’ll put that into this into playtesting first and see how it works out! :) Open to additional ideas too!