I also like shaping my designs with a bit of the unknowable. That is one reason for my interest in using dice or cards. In most strategic game ideas I have, I still want some little random element. However, now thinking about it, in something strategic like Chess, the touch of randomness comes from the possibility of your opponent doing something unexpected. Hmm, that very idea may have something if it can be isolated and exploited in a design.
I agree. It's something I've been pouring over too, lately. Who needs dice as a randomizer when you have opponents?
Chess, Through the Desert, Clans and Puerto Rico are all games with no luck (or very little), but they have "low clarity" which means that there are a great number of permutations of moves and it's impossible to think them all through. This then leads to opponents making moves that are not totally random, yet not totally predictable either.
Through the Desert and Clans have a variable setup, so that each game is different. Clans has a bit of hidden information to introduce an element of bluff and Puerto Rico has a little bit of randomization in the plantation draws which ensures that each game plays different. These games are also playable with more than 2 players. It is these little things that set them apart from pure 2-player abstracts such as Chess.
-Rene Wiersma
Combat is inherently risky; otherwise only one side would engage in it.
At some point as the battle is joined the generals can only watch and hope, they can't fight in every duel, so rolling the dice and waiting on the outcome seems to be a neat simulation.
My favourite combat system is in a game called Empires in Arms which covers the Napoleonic wars. There are two troop types regulars and irregulars. Regulars contribute more to the total strength of the army than the same number of irregulars, the extent to which they do depends on the tactics.
First; the defender and attacker each select from three tactical options.
eg; assault, outflank, and probe vs withdraw, echelon, counterattack. This is a rock/scissors/paper type choice, with the combination of tactics determining the effectiveness of the regular and irregular troops.
Then odds are determined and dice rolled and the results table is consulted to determine who wins, and who retreats and how much losses each side takes.
There are some morale effects and terrain effects that are factored in as well.
I like the tactical choices adding another level of simulation below the grand strategy. You can sometimes guess an opponents tactics from his army composition and situation, like the field commander must.