RPS Combat System

The problem is that some people are "dice-averse" gamers. They don't want to play games where Luck is a large factor to the equation. I've had that happen with my own game where we use 1d6 to roll for "Initiative".

Basically it's as you suggest: a roll to determine who has the upper hand in the battle.

That one dice roll, as small as it might be has seen some people walk away from the table - because they say too much is left to chance (no matter how realistic it is...)

And yet Magic: the Gathering is purely 100% deterministic in that there are no dice rolls... So there are alternative ways of playing which don't require or need dice rolls in order to build tension. Wouldn't you say that MOST (if not all) Magic games have a sense to tension? And with that, there are no dice rolls being parts/components of that game (yes — dice can be used as counters)...

If there is no "dice rolling"... What are players supposed to be doing?

(Right)??? And it's a valid question — because I too enjoy using dice in my games. But in "Quest AC v2.0", I am trying to design a game that had NO DICE. Believe me this is not as easy as you would think.

Some quick ideas are to use "Action Points" (APs) or define a strict "Turn Order" which helps guide players along with their turn.

The real FACT is that designing such games is far more involving that mere dice games because you MUST replace the LUCK-Factor with some kind of thinking strategy... And that can be at times difficult to do. Or the design LEANS towards requiring a die roll — because something is "too simple" or "too left to exactitude"...

You even hit the nail on the head when you explained "Your Ship = 5 Atk", "My Ship = 4 Dfs", therefore your ship beats mine.

That's a BRILLIANT situation where combat resolution is "just too simple". Maybe there is a SPEED stat which makes it that "Your Ship = 3 Speed" and "My Ship = 5 Speed" means that my "DICE ROLL" (Like you were talking about) gets a +2 ROLL Bonus...

This is one way of handling it...

ANOTHER way is my +2 BONUS is like a special "resource": it allows me to play up to 2 Points of Tactic cards which can alter the outcome of the battle. So my "+2 Bonus" allows me to play "Fight or Flight" (+2 Dfs) and therefore the attack would be stopped using a sort of "Instant" card that has a beneficial effect for me...

So there are usually "alternatives" to dice rolling. It's up to the designer to "get creative" and imagine other ways that the game could be played — and without the use of dice (if that's one of your design goals)...

That's patently incorrect. MTG has decks which you shuffle and draw in a limited fashion from. This is equivalent to rolling a large die and using a lookup table to find which cards you may place in your hand, provided you reroll all duplicate results. MTG is absolutely not deterministic, the dice are just hidden in plain sight.

Yeah but knowing that you can't say it's deterministic by any stretch. It's not.

Do you have examples of both Games and Combat Mechanics that can be considered deterministic???

I ask this, because I figure ANYTHING with "Cards" cannot be deterministic by your definition. So if you use cards, the game has an element of randomness... and therefore cannot be considered "deterministic".

And so Scythe too could not be "deterministic" because there is an Event deck which is random as to what events get played (each round). Even if you tried to play exactly the same, the events and their capabilities would affect the overall outcome of the game... How much, IDK. But enough that the game would have different choices and therefore... NOT deterministic.

What about "Combat Mechanics"??? Is it possible that the game is non-deterministic but yet that the "Combat Mechanics" are deterministic???

I ask this no-doubt because "someone" said something about Magic BEING "deterministic"... Could it be only the "Combat" portion of that game?... Is Combat in Magic: the Gathering "deterministic"???

Annoying you can't delete double posts here.

Seems to me that "World of Warships" could be partly the inspiration for this game... Here's the link: https://worldofwarships.com

I've never played ... Just keep seeing the AD online for this game everywhere I practically go! MSN, Hotmail, BGG, etc.

Just to wrap up the "digression", Magic's combat is "deterministic"... So that means no Random Factor (given the same identical set of cards, the outcome will be the same).

And I think this is IMPORTANT when deciding on Combat Mechanics. Do you want "Randomness" or do you want it more strategic and then you have various "Stats" to rely on and I have suggested a "Speed" Stat which you can use as a BONUS resource which allows you to "counter" with various "Initiative" cards costing maybe 1, 2 or 3 points.

Personally I think people over-estimate the influence of dice. And to be real honest, working on "Quest AC v2.0" (in which I wanted NO DICE) has allowed me to learn more about how to balance out a Combat Engine that doesn't need "Randomness" to feel "beefy"! (Gotta love that steak!) LOL

That's my take on it... TBone may feel differently. It's his game... So he is left with the decision on how to make "meaningful" decisions especially when it comes to something as important as Combat.

Cheers mate!

Here's an idea that may be SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE.

ADD A RULE like this:

• When a ship is "destroyed", it takes "X" turns before the ship is completely submerged and underwater.

During the time that ship sinks, your opponent CANNOT put a ship in its place UNTIL it is done... This will create HIGH TENSION!

Why? Because it creates a WINDOW (I would say try 2 turns) for the opposing player to attack the island. So the player has maybe 1 or 2 turns to attack the island and hopefully defeat his opponent.

And the logic makes sense... in a very simple way.

If your "islands" are HEXES and your "board" (play area) is divided in such a way that the HEXES adjacent to the island can allow an opposing player to attack an island.

Here's the thing: there are 6 "adjacent" HEXES next to an island.

While you could have ships to "patrol" the spaces, it's not like a player has all 6 of his ships blocking access to the island.

The other point is that EVEN if another player is attacking the island. The defending player cannot stop the attacks but can retaliate and attack the lone opposing ship...

I don't know much about your "board"... If it's SQUARES, well then there are 4 positions "adjacent" to protect with ships. If you have only 3, one position is open for an opponent to position themselves and make their island attacks!

Tell me what you think about this idea. Better, worst, about the same, room for change, etc.

Cheers!

Again take it or leave it (no worries) — Just working with your DESIGN-constraints.

Here it is:

Your version was a 4x4 grid (16 spaces). Mine is a 3x5 grid (15 spaces).

The difference between my grid is that there is ONE (1) LESS space (no big deal)... But it makes the ISLANDS have THREE (3) Points of attack:

• Right, on the right-hand-side. [A]
• Center, in-front [B]
• Left, on the left-hand-side. [C]

Something like that could EXPAND your horizons (in term of the design).

Again just some ideas — Feel free to ask questions or if you have concerns... Cheers!

Update: If you place the cards along the longside (90 degrees), this would make the spacing even better in my "proposed" layout. and of course if your ships are "longer" that could also be more appropriate too (length-wise instead of height-wise).

Something more to think about!