The idea behind the combat system is essentially "tactical without dice and very quick". I think I may have created a pretty decent ground-level approach.
Pre-combat
1). Attacker chooses a territory with at least one soldier unit
2). Attacker secretly chooses a number of units to attack with
3). Defender secretly chooses a number of units to defend with
4). Attacker and defender reveal units attacker and uses power equal to the distance from the territories + the number of units they use.
Combat
1). Defender lines units up out in front of them
2). Attacker places units against the defenders one by one
3). Both defender and attacker secretly chose the tactic for each unit by shifting the position of the unit/card (flank = diagonal; stealth = horizontal; engage = vertical)
4). Reveal tactics to see who has won (=>) (flank => engage [Conquer] engage => stealth [Kill] stealth => flank [Capture])
5). If you conquer a unit your unit is placed in the same territory exhausted. If you kill a unit the unit is removed and your unit returns to its starting territory exhausted. If you capture a unit the unit captured and your unit are placed at the starting territory exhausted and injured. If there is a tie (both units use the same tactic) those units stay for another round.
6). Whoever has the only units left after a round gains one Civilization point.
7). If you are the attacker you gain 1 Civ point for capturing, 2 Civ points for killing, and 3 Civ points for conquering.
What are your thoughts? This is one of a few other mechanics so I don't need it very complex. Is this easy to follow? Does it sound fun? Let me know your thoughts.
Comments
Combat Incentive
I have some issues with the words you're using, but maybe it's only because I've not seen the game in action. For example, can you incentivize recruiting by allowing forces of larger numbers the opportunity to choose Flank? Smaller forces should not be allowed to Flank, in most cases. Large, clunky "tank" types of units generally do not have the option to use Stealth, either. Are players limited to the choices they can make for battles based on the units they use for the attack, or are all units considered a "full spectrum soldier?" In other words, can the same unit type choose to Conquer, or Kill, or Capture?
Finally, is there any in-game difference between the three different options, except for point values awarded for a successful maneuver? Do you have three different options solely because this is a RPS system?
I suppose my big picture question about this combat system is: how does it mesh with the theme? Is Conquering always better than Killing? Can any military unit use any kind of tactic? If the answer to one of these questions is "no" then it may be worth re-examining your combat system.
It's not a question of "is it easy to follow my combat system?" Because I think it is, to a point. I'm looking at it more as a question of, "does my combat system make sense?"
Again I've not seen the game on the table, so I might just be misunderstanding something.
Question
In bullet 7). If you are the attacker you gain 1 Civ point for capturing, 2 Civ points for killing, and 3 Civ points for conquering. I think that the victor of the battle should do this (unless you want a constant bloodbath happening, in which case this works really well). It gives the attacker very little repercussions to attacking an army that is larger than him by being a little lucky. Say that the attacker sends 1 unit into combat against 3 units. All the attacker has to do is either kill or conquer with his unit and he comes out ahead of an engagement that cost him little to nothing.
I think that the attacker should get 1 victory point for engaging the battle to encourage combat (even risky combat) and then both players score based on the capturing, killing, and conquering.