What is your favorite combat system and why?

I like lots of different mechanics. I like tile-laying, for example, and very much to my surprise it turns out I like crayon rail games (which I thought I

Hmmm, the Dune game seems to be a really cool game.
Gotta try it out sometime.

Speaking about mechanisms, im really a resource management junkie.
It doesnt matter if we are talking balancing mana or creatures in magic the gathering or if we talk optimizing in Settlers of Catan.

One thing that i really would like to see more of is sabotage in different forms.
Many games could need a couple of ways to sabotage/destroy the plans for the opposition, many really dull games would definately get a boost from this.
Sabotage is really a fun way of interacting :-]
There are often many subtile ways of sabotaging but im looking for mechanisms that are well balanced and more straight forward.

Quote:
24-04-2003 at 10:59, Mind4u2c wrote:
What combat system or mechanism employed by a board game do you find most appealing and why?

Button Men has a good combat system, one that can be applied to big armies (rolling dice of various sizes- bigger dice represent strength, smaller dice represent speed).

I read an article somewhere talking about how that system can be used for large scale combat.

- Seth

Hmm I think it depends on the game, of course. I also play A&A now and then and like it ok but ... I just can

Quote:
23-06-2003 at 05:13, zaiga wrote:
For example, instead of rolling dice to determine the outcome of a battle you could let players simultaneously reveal a card from their hand. Add the number of this card to the attack/defense number of your unit, highest number wins.

That

I am not against dice as a method of handling combat, per se. I mentioned in an earlier post that the method used in Axis and Allies is fair enough and that game uses a lot of dice rolling.

I can also see how you have to play the odds in games with randomness (either rolling dice or drawing cards or whatever) and how that requires skill. Heck, I played a lot of high-level Magic and have seen many a player complain about an opponent

Maybe I worded it poorly; my point is that both of us are treading ground that is well-worn. The fact that we may not have been aware of the previous designs that used these mechanics just means we came up with it independently, but if we tried to market our games, people won't say "ah, this is the same combat mechanic as Cosmic Encounter, but at least he came up with it on his own." No, they'll expect you to be aware of what has gone before, and will evaluate your game as if you were. That's not to say that reusing other people's mechanics is "bad" or anything; we all like Puerto Rico, which has very little mechanical originality. The point is more that Seyfearth couldn't say "the character mechanic was completely my own invention". But whether he did or not doesn't affect the quality of the game. As you say, the mechanic must be evaluated for how it solves the particular problems of the design, and how it fits into the framework of the whole game.

I would have thought this too until I played "Wallenstein" which uses a "cube tower" for battle resolution. Players commit forces, then throw their cubes into the tower, and the results are determined by which cubes come out. The kicker is that some will stick in the tower, and could come out in later battles. Thus, you don't have to rely on the statistics of "eventually, the dice will go my way". You go into future battles with the "dice" already somewhat "loaded", in a sense. I find this to be a much more elegant solution than dice. It still retains the surprise element of combat, yet doesn't require tons of battles or rolls for statistics to even out. It also leads to much more interesting decisions -- do I commit many troops to the battle, knowing that some may get trapped in the tower, thus giving me more "tower-power" but less "board-power"?

Of course, this is also a much more expensive and less accessible element than dice. But I'd like to see it in more combat-heavy games.

Some stuff to think about: a Risk variant that is very popular here in Holland is "Fanaat Risk". There are no dice in that variant. Instead, when you move your units into enemy territory, both players trade their units one for one. For example, John moves 6 units into Pete's territory which contains 3 units: both players lose 3 units. End result: John has now 3 units in what was formerly Pete's territory. Think about how this changes the dynamics of the game (for better or for worse, I'll leave that up to you).

Also, try to imagine a game of chess where you resolve a fight by rolling dice. The attacker rolls 2d6, the defender rolls 1d6. Highest roll wins. Ties are won by the defender. Would this change the game fundamentally? Would it be a better game or worse?

True, having random or unknown quantities in a game prevents min/maxing. If all information is known, players might be tempted to analyze all the possible permutations before reaching a decision, which leads to downtime for the other players (analysis paralysis). That is the reason why I like to have at least a bit of hidden information and/or randomness in my designs. That way a player has to make a more intuitive decision, which is more fun.

That's a good way of putting it. I think the second method is typically more satisfying for a player. Sometimes dice can give you something for nothing or vice versa. You have to play the odds, but sometimes the odds are against you. The dice rolls may average out in a long game, but not every roll is equally important. In the "resource allocation" method you can at least decide for yourself how you value each action.

To make it a bit more abstract, I think you could use any one of 4 methods in a game:
1. Perfect information & actions decided by resource allocation -> predictable outcome, may lead to analysis paralysis and min/maxing. Examples: Through the Desert, Puerto Rico, Chess.
2. Perfect information & outcome of actions decided by random means (ie. dice) -> uncertain, variable outcome, may lead to unsatisfying or unrealistic situations when the odds are against you in certain crucial actions. Examples: Axis & Allies, Formula DE.
3. Non-perfect information & outcome of actions decided by random means (ie. dice) -> uncertain, unpredictable and random outcome. Almost impossible to follow a strategy, you just have to go with the flow. Examples: ???
4. Non-perfect information & actions decided by resource allocation -> uncertain, variable outcome, but players decide when and how much they want to invest in certain actions. Examples: Magic, Lost Cities, Euphrates & Tigris, Settlers of Catan, Robo Rally.

I personally tend to go for method #4 in my designs, but I think any of these four methods can work in the right game and when implemented in the right way. Of course there are several gradations of "non-perfect information" and "randomness", so take that into account.

-Rene Wiersma