Note: this post is a pretty long summary of my conclusions drawn from a recently created thread here on BGDF. I've summed it up as a separate post in order to draw readers from outside of BGDF, in order to get feedback from a wider audience.
Krakatoa - the lost island is progressing slowly and is now feeling like a quite solid family game. The one thing I think still needs some polishing is the combat system. Combat is not central in this game, many players will go through the entire game without fighting once, but there are a few characters that are geared towards hunting and for them combat is more in focus. In this post I will explain the problems with the current system and give an account of two other combat systems I am contemplating. I will try to give as full an account as possible to make sure you understand the background even though this will result in quite a long post.
Current system
Currently if you encounter a beast you must chose to escape or fight. If you escape you are moved to an adjacent territory and your turn ends. If you fight and win you may stay and finish your turn, but if you fight and lose you must suffer the consequences of escaping and in addition discard a token. The combat is resolved by another player hiding the beast token in one of his hands and holding out both. The active player guesses where the beast is and if the guess is right the combat is won, otherwise it is lost. I have used this system from the first draft and it has worked well with the only exception that a few players have found it a bit silly. On the other hand, when playing with kids it has been a quite popular moment of interaction. The main problem has appeared in the later play test rounds where I have started running the advanced characters who focus more on combat. For these characters a beast token may be worth up to 6 or 9 points. Since you must discard a token when you lose a combat the net value at stake may be up to 12 or 15 points if you only have valuable tokens on your hand. What makes things worse is that with the basic rules a beast is discarded after combat regardless of who wins. So if you lose the combat, you get no second chance to get those points which you fought for. There’s an optional rule that lets animals stay on the map when they are not killed in combat, and with this rule combat becomes a bit more balanced, but the 50% factor is still limiting and there’s not many ways to improve on it within the boundaries of this system.
I therefore have two other combat systems in mind that would be improvements, although it comes at a cost. Both of these systems include differencing between the beasts. Previously all beasts were equally difficult to defeat but I’m now planning to use three size levels (1, 2 and 3). Bigger beasts are worth more but are also more difficult to defeat.
System 1 - The combat die
The combat die is a six sided die with two blank sides, two sides with 1 hit, one with 2 and one with 3. It is rolled to resolve the outcome of a combat. In order to defeat a beast you need the number of hits that correspond to (or exceeds) the animal’s size level. Weapons will alter this roll, the pistol adds one hit, the rifle adds one plus it allows a re-roll.
This system doesn’t solve that case where you encounter a big beast and 9 or more points are at stake over just one roll. These cases will be rarer though under this system, and there will be other factors in play than just the 50% factor. I also think that casual players (who play with the basic rules) are less inclined to be bothered by a balancing issue like this, and the players who would be bothered by it will be more likely to play with the advanced rule anyway, where this problem is less prevalent.
BGDF user let-off studios suggested adding bullet counters that could be discarded to cause one extra hit (inspired by the combat system in "Zombies"). While I don’t want to change the game structure that way, I think it could be possible to let players add one damage by discarding any one acquired token. This would compensate for bad luck rolls a bit, but it must be play tested to ensure it doesn't make combat too simple.
System 2 - Weapons have attack and durability
The other system (suggested by BGDF users X3M and czarcastic) changes things a bit more. It relies on the weapons and gives them an attack value and a limited number of uses. For instance the rifle would cause 3 damage and have three uses (you place three attack counters by it upon acquiring it to keep track of the uses). The pistol would have 2/3 and the machete 1/4. In combat you can spend any amount of counters from weapons to defeat the beast. With this system there’s no randomness involved in combat which renders the ”discard on defeat” rule pointless, which is fine by me. It also makes unarmed combat impossible, which means the only option when encountering a beast is to escape. This is quite thematic anyway so I can accept that change as well.
My biggest issue with this system is that it is not obvious how to deal with duplicates of weapons. Players are not allowed to pick up an item which they already have, this is important for game balance. So what happens if my machete has no uses left and I find a brand new machete? I think the best solution is to say that instead of picking up a weapon which you already have you may replenish your own combat tokens for that weapon, while still leaving the weapon face-up in the territory. It can turn out strange, but I think its better than the alternatives.
This system is more tactical and closer to my personal preference in terms of game mechanics. But I wonder if it is too separated from the theme and if it rids the game of the excitement of encountering a wild beast. Being a family game the adventurous flavor is one of the game’s selling points. But I’d be interested in hearing what folks in general would prefer in a family game, the excitement of die-rolls in system 1 or the tactical dimension offered by system 2. Do you even agree on my categorization: tactical=predictable=unexciting vs luck-driven=unpredictable=exciting?
