In between random and non-random

I don't have an answer for you yet, but you've got me thinking. I like this question. It pokes parts of my brain that like to be poked.

If I think of anything, I'll let you know. =)

I really liked your Idea, please can you tell me more?
I don't mind long texts, as long as I'm interested to read it I'll finish it...

You could combine the number comparison and dice rolling by using the dice as modifiers. That way, you have a general idea going into the conflict who has the advantage, but the dice may alter the outcome. Of course, if there is a huge difference between the two numbers, the roll won't be enough to compensate, and the player can plan to use that to his advantage.

Isn't some variation of the good old CRT an obvious reason? One or two dice (sometimes 3-4) and a table or a few tables and you can have as many outcomes as you want, with any distribution of probabilities that you want. Can be combined with hidden units or cards (as seen in many existing games).

When it comes to replacing dice with cards, many people erroneously believe that it somehow makes a game more fair, forgetting that different "die rolls" are of different importance, that the cards will distort probabilities (less likely to "roll doubles" for instance), and that if you don't use up all the tokens exactly (no cards left in the deck at game end) players can get different numbers of each result anyway... Plus card-counting will enter the game, which is only fine if that is something you want in the game (and sometimes it is a nice mechanic).

One possibility might be to use a deck of cards which gangs up multiple results into a single random draw - perhaps by having a sequence of values to use in-order; perhaps by specifying a set of modifiers to apply to a "highest score" comparison (red whoozits get +2, green whoozits get -1, black whoozits get +1, and any diseased whoozits get an additional -3); or perhaps by having the resolution criteria be specified by the card itself.

Similar to the modifier-based card, you could also have a single die-roll (of whatever sort) which applies some sort of overall modifier / alteration / limitation to a non-random resolution - eg, "In this brawl, up to [roll] 5 angry senators on each side can get their licks in before Security breaks it up. Total up the Partisan Vitriol for each faction."

I think perhaps the "a little of both randomness and non-randomness" and "streamline large numbers of resolutions" are really separate constraints? For example, you can mix randomness and non-randomness by having a (known) set of tiles stacked in a partially-known ordering (eg: the hexes in Tikal), but while that's not intrinsically slow, it's not really a streamlining mechanic, either.

Hey, what if there are damage card piles, say low, med, and high, and each unit can pull from the pile, adding up to the total of the attack. pile low might even have from -2 to +2, med might had 0 to +5, and high might have from +1 to + 8. You could have any number of piles, such damage type piles, or just piles W, X, Y, Z each with varying amounts of higher and lower damage.

I'm thinking of something similar for my game but also adding when unit A and unit B are together it adds +2 or something, and when unit A is involved in an attack against enemy unit C it gets +1. However this too is getting a bit bogged down, but with the simple card idea there is just drawing cards and adding.

Finally, i had similar a problem with people massing troops and though that a good way to reduce this problem is making it beneficial for people to be aggressive early. In my game i have land regions that range varying distances, meaning that troops can sometimes move 1/4 across the board from one land region, bring them in close proximity to the enemy, though sometimes a move leaves them in the starting space. Anyways, by making settlements established early worth more as time goes on, players will establish more aggressively in the initial fazes, meaning less money for war, and earlier and more prevalent war, meaning less troops on the board at any one time.

Hope these ideas inspire something great in you! Cheers!

You might also consider keeping your primarily "known" strengths as the basis for your outcome, but include a deck of cards that might play the role of "luck" or "fate" in the battle. The cards could have a sway amount to give +/- effects to the attackers or the defenders ... this would also be an opportunity for some nice flavor text as well.

To extend this a bit -- and to play a bit on something JB mentioned -- players might be able to draw from this deck throughout the game, and then play a card or cards (depending on how many leader units they have in the fight?) when the battle takes place.

This would still give players the knowledge of the "known" information as the primary source of resolution ... but then throw in some variance (other than rolling dice) that can be tweaked throughout the game.

-Bryk