Skip to Content

War games

6 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

I find it really hard to create a good combat style, and even harder to combine this with a kind of an civilization element.

I would like to hear from boardgames wich uses a combat element and wich are fun to play. Also I want the different army tokens minimize to 2 but I even prefer 1 more.

The idea I came up myself is that lets say the board is made out of squares and a army my travel that many squares equel to the armies on the square (inclusive himself) he is standing on. So if he is standing on a square wich contains for armies he may travel for squares in an straight line. The next army may hen travel 3 squares etc..

The fight is without luck and goes like this:

For each army you have more then the enemy he loses one army.
If you attack from more then one side, the enemy loses one army for each side he is attacked extra.
For the rest its just an exchange for one to one.
If you defend its also an exchange from one to one no matter or you have more armies.

the problem is that the pieces moves to slow and get to separated from each other and its no fun to play.

TargetBoy
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2008
Some thoughts

I'm probably the least experienced person around, but I'll give what ideas I can.

For unit types, if you only want two they need to be significantly different. I have two thoughts. First, vary by range: one unit attacks adjacent squares, the other attacks up to two squares away. Second, attacker/defender: One type counts as two when attacking, the other counts as two when defending.

For movement, the larger the army the slower it should move. If you have a maximum armies allowed in a square, you could make teh movement max-armies+1. So, if the max is 5 and there are 4 armies in the square, they can move 2 squares. If there are 2 armies, they can move 4 squares. This gives a tactical choice; do I have too few armies get to their destination, or do I have enough armies arrive too late?

For combat, I can see the one-for-one, but the odds bonus should count for everyone and odds losses should be removed before one-for-one losses. For example, Red has three units, Blue has 2. Since Red has one unit more, blue immediately loses one army. Then the one-for-one happens. Blue loses the remaining army and red loses one. Two red units remain. Add in Attack and Defense specialized units and it could get interesting. Maybe. If you test it out let me know how it turns out.

erael
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
War games

Trasa,

What's the core of your game? Having really simple movement/combat like that can be fine if you have interesting things going on in the rest of the game.

Just at a glance, it sounds to me like you've got a strange mechanism more suited to an abstract game than any other kind of game (move equal to # of armies in space). If you're looking for a combat system that's fairly luckless and can be adapted to civilization-building games there's:

Civilization (!) (remove units equally with imbalance coming from smaller force)

Diplomacy-style (bigger side wins, smaller side runs away)

Borderlands (bigger side wins, smaller side destroyed--twist that units don't move, they just "are")

Vinci (I go and kill you, then you go and kill me)

A Game of Thrones (Diplomacy with cards)

And you could check out the new game Tempus which is apparently a civilization-building game which uses a deck of cards for many purposes, including combat resolution.

And then if you're willing to include dice there are obviously a lot more possibilities...

BagpipeDan
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Check out my thread

http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3346

I posted a question about different combat styles just like what you are asking here. My system is a little different because I am trying to add a card system for leaders, but ideas for luckless (or at least reduced luck) combat are also what I'm looking for. Hopefully some helpful ideas should be mentioned there.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
War games

Remember, reduced luck also results from increasing the number of randomizers, so that a probability curve makes the desired results occur most frequently.

Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
War games

I have a boardgame protype where there ais no randomness in the combats (infact no randomness in the game at all). However in the game I have 3 units. The first unit is the Capital Ship (it's a space colonisation game), the second is the Bomber and the last is the Fighter.

The system that I use is that:
1) Fighter's beat Bombers (they are faster and more manouverable).
2) Bombers beat Capital Ships (the bombers can attack from a range outside the capital ship's range).
3) Capital Ships beat Fighters (The capital ships are so massivly armored that fighters just don't do enough damage to them).

Yes, this is Scissor/Paper/Rock (in space!). :)

So the attribute I use are: Fighters can move more spaces than the bombers range. Bombers can fire further than capital ships or fighters, and Capital ships have more armor and can fire the same distance as the fighters.

Because of this cyclic relationship between ther units, the gameplay is still indeterminate dispite the game having no randomness in it.

For your game you could use 3 units to achieve the same effect. You just have to give each unit a mechanic that allows it to beat the other (I find this more elegant than just a table that states A beats B beats C beats A - and easier to remember especially if tied to the theme).

If your game has a medieval setting then a simple unit setup could be:
Archer: Can shoot a long distance (actually it's the same as my bomber).
Cavalry: Can move fast enough to reach the archers without letting the archers get an attack in (the same as my fighters).
Pikemen: Can damage Cavalry before the cavalry get to attack but move slower than Archers(similar to my capital ships).

With this setup the cavalry can beat the archers as they can mov in quickly. The Archers can beat the Pikemen as they can shoot at range (and not get attacked back by them). And the Pikemen can beat the Cavalry because they get first strike against them.

You must have the cavalry move further than the archers can shoot, and the cavalry move faster than the archers can move. If the units can make a move and attack then archers and pikemen can have the same movement speed, otherwise if you can only move or shoot then you will need to have the archers move further than the pikemen.

This also lends itself to combining the units (actualy it's a simplfied combaind arms theory) to get the best effect (eg: I have archers and pikemen and you have cavalry, then I will position my pikemen between your cavalry and my archers. But you could also then bring up archers of your own and take out my pikemen. And so on).

To theem them as Modern units you could have:
1) Motorized Infantry: Fast movement (equal to the cavalry).
2) Artillery: Ranged (equal to the archer).
3) Tanks: Tough (equal to the pikemen).

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
War games

On use use dices with almost successfull probabilities.

For example, In my war game, when a unit attack another unit, it has around 75% chance to win. In a deterministic game, it would had won, but bad luck happen. So there is 25% that the results are not what it was expected. You can ajust the probabilities as you like it for your game.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut