War Games

by war games.

When I was younger, 'war games' meant specifically Avalon-Hill style games which had very complicated rules and were supposedly historically accurate, rather than basically abstract games like Risk.

I don't know if they still use the phrase 'war games' for things like Heroclix or Warhammer do they?

A Game of Thrones has non-random combat resolution. Each side adds up their visible combat strength; then calls for "support" from nearby forces (which may include other opponents); then throws in a card from their hand. Cards may add strength and/or alter the values of your own or your opponent's pieces. You know what cards your opponent can play, but not which one he will play; and of course the played cards are discarded and can't be used again for a while. It works surprisingly well.

Antike and Imperial use a simple non-random system with no surprises. Combat units are simply discarded in pairs (one of yours, one of mine) until somebody runs out of units. Because combat is so predictable, you don't attack unless you know you're going to win. (Actually I think it's illegal if you aren't going to win.) Clearly this only works for games with very simple bits (it wouldn't be fair for one side to lose a tank while the other loses a foot soldier), and in which there's more going on than just conquering territory (true in both Antike and Imperial).

War of the Ring uses dice, but also includes the use of cards that can alter the conditions of battle. These cards are dual purpose, so if you use one in battle you are giving up the chance to use its other non-battle power.

So yes, there's precedent; and yes, I think a system like you propose could work. I suspect you'll need to combine it with some sort of resource-production system (for getting more cards), so players have to choose between pressing their military advancement and building up their hand. I also think it might benefit from the dual-purpose mechanism. This gives more choices (and more agonizing decisions) to your players. The "other" purposes might include things like mustering new units, faster travel in non-combat situations, supplying your troops, increasing your "card harvest", and sabotaging your opponent's activities.

At the simplest:

Both players pick a card from their hand.

They turn the cards over at the same time.

The attacker's strength is the strength of the unit + that of the card. The defender's strength is worked out in the same way.

The two strengths are cross-referenced to give various possible results, such as one unit retreating, one or both being destroyed, the defending unit having to counter-attack next turn, one or both units being 'pinned' and unable to move except to attack, etc.

Both players then draw a replacement card.

It seems like a system along those lines might have the virtues of rolling dice (you don't know what's going to happen), but add an element of player skill (you can make an unimportant attack and play a dud card in the hope of drawing into something better for a more important area).

You could also give cards a non-combat use, so that players have to balance the card's value in combat against whatever else it can do (perhaps it helps you create treaties with other players, or cause discontent among their citizens).

Re: use of randomness in wargames

There's an excellent article written by Dan Simmons on this very topic -- written specifically in reference to his very popular war-game "Bonaparte at Marengo," which famously uses no dice -- but more generally dealing with the use of chance within general game design, its pitfalls, and its benefits. I strongly recommend you check it out.

http://simmonsgames.com/design/Chance.html