Simple Combat Systems

For a really cool and simple combat system with "no luck". I like to borrow stuff form MtG. The vanilla combat system has some really interesting strategy aspects.
But now to add some RPS.

Example Rules:
- Attacker attacks first.
- Defender decides on blocking. multiple defenders can block 1 attacker.
- Remaining non blocked attackers can choose defender targets.
- In case of overkill, the remaining damage without the bonus can be placed on another defender. In other words, the bonus is only on the first target. And the remaining damage can be divided on new targets.
- Unlike MtG, you use up all attack power.

Example Units:
Attack/Defence, BonusAttack/BonusDefence
- Unit A: 1/1 with +1/0 against B
- Unit B: 2/2 with +1/0 against C
- Unit C: 3/1 with +1/0 against A

If you test this list out, well, every one kills every one. But having a health system of 2 for each. Makes it a bit more interesting. If you don't want to use health, you simply multiply the defence with a factor.

I am sure that a simple cost calculation can be done on this system.
And instead of a "unit bonus target", you could do a "unit [type] bonus target".

If you're looking for a no-luck system, I'd certainly go with Rock-Paper-Scissors, but I'd expand it to incorporate the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock system include more varied units, however this will obviously limit the variety to 5.

Unless you're looking for more variety...that should work.

If you're looking for more range, you're going to need to quantize (assign numbers) and then a Magic-based system.

Either that or just a number with a "higher number wins" (a la Stratego)

You can also use a size differential. Physically make the units different sizes...larger units win over smaller units.

Maybe you can use a sign system. Create a hierarchy of symbols and explanations of which units they win over. Then assign the signs to the units. Or...if you're really good with graphic design, create an easy symbol system that makes it easy to identify which units win.

So these are a couple of ideas. Hope this works.

If it is a "war-ish" game that doesn't have combat as the focus then the central mechanic should be what informs the combat system.

For example, if terrain is a big part of the non-combat element then have it influence your battles. I.e. cavalry get a bonus on plains hexes, alpine troops get a bonus on mountain hexes.

Alternately, if the game has an economic focus then make maintaining supply lines a vital part of game play. An army that is cut off without a clear line of supply (could work like LOS) halves its score.

Just keep your theme in mind when defining the combat mechanism.

Another thing you could do is have your armies represented by a single token that corresponds with an army card that can be modified with counters and attribute cards. For example, Army A has 4 infantry counters and 2 tank counters on its army card, as well as a tech card giving it superior firepower and a training card giving it jungle fighting experience. Combat removes counters, and the army token is removed once all of the counters are exhausted -- along with those hard won training/tech cards.

Lastly, consider having ancillary values. You can designate one unit as the primary, which receives support benefits from ancillary units that differ from what they would provide in a primary role. The primary is the first to be removed as a casualty, so the value of an army is constantly shifting as the unit roles change.

One potential problem with a straight comparison no luck system is that if players can see the strength of the other player's units then they know if they'll win or lose before they attack. Rock paper scissors would at least keep some element of suspense even if it's clearly lopsided.

One possible way to resolve this is to keep the unit strength hidden. Depending on the other game mechanics, this may be easy or difficult.

Another possible way to resolve it is to allow each unit to allocate their strength to some battle capability (such as either attack or defense), and then resolve it by straight comparison between the amount allocated to each capability.

Some Examples:

===

Army A allocates 5 units to attack. Army B allocates 3 units to attack. Since Army B allocated 0 units to defense, they're wiped out. Since Army A also allocated 0 units to defense, they lose 3 units. This is essentially what your 1v1 system is.

Army A allocates 3 units to attack and 2 to defense. Army B allocates 3 units to attack. Army B's attack exceeds Army A's defense by 1, so Army A loses 1 unit. Army A's attack exceeds Army B's defense (of 0) by 3, so Army B is wiped out.

Army A allocates 3 units to attack and 2 to defense. Army B allocates 3 units to defense. Army A's attack doesn't exceed Army B's defense, and Army B didn't attack, so neither army loses any units. (This might make sense if Army B had a chance to flee or retreat after the first round of battle).

===

This system would give a strong advantage to the larger army, but still leave room for some variation in strategy, especially when armies of the same or similar size fight. It also adds a little element of poker face and learning to take advantage of the typical strategies of other players (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on how much you want to de-emphasize combat).

Note that you could use other ways to allocate strength (e.g. ranged attack vs. hand-to-hand, etc.) or add uncertainty through special capabilities that negate some level of certain types of attack or defense. But in any case, some small level of uncertainty might be good.