"The Rules have Changed!"
No, it's not a slogan. I just changed the rules :)
Inspired by the book ShamBattle: How to Play with Toy Soldiers (anno 1929), this is an attempt at creating a generic war game with a simple rule set. The motivation for this game is to create a very simple War game for ages 8yr+.
This game is a work in progress!
EQUIPTMENT:
(~10) d6 dice
(1) battle field
(?) army of units per player
(?) tokens for currency (ie: poker chips where each player has their own color)
BATTLE FIELD:
This game in intended to be played as a board game or with miniatures (ie: toy soldiers). The rules for movement and range can be modified for purpose.
UNITS:
Each unit type is assigned the following stats:
[S]trength (5-?)
[A]rmor (5-?)
[M]ovement (?)
[R]ange (?)
DICE:
Dice are weighted such that:
{1} = 1 point
{2} = 2 points
{3} = 3 points
{4,5,6} = 0 points
ROLLING DICE:
An attacking unit rolls the number of dice indicated by it's strength plus any attack modifiers. Only the top strength dice are counted. The defending unit's armor plus any defense modifiers are subtracted from the total. The outcome is as follows:
result < 1: no damage
result = 1: unit is disabled
result > 1: unit is eliminated
*A disabled unit stays on the board, but can no longer move or attack. A disabled unit can be revived (work in progress).
*It's possible to attack a disabled unit. Battle mechanics apply as above with the exception that a result > 0 will eliminate the unit.
MODIFIERS:
Modifiers effect attributes and thus allow bonuses in an attack or defense.
(example) Terrain type may produce a +1 modifier to armor.
(example) The proximity of another unit may provide +1 to strength
ECONOMY:
(work in progress)
Each player will receive a number of tokens per turn. Tokens can be used to purchase new units or perform special actions.
Capturing a production spot on the map will provide an extra tokens per turn. Captured positions are indicated by a player placing their token at the position on the map.
TURN/ROUND:
A player's turn follows the sequence:
(1) Collect
(2) Spend
(3) Deploy
(4) Move/Attack
Player tokens are tallied and collected at the start of a turn. Purchases are made from available tokens. Only one purchase is allowed per turn. New units are placed on the map. If a player purchased a special attack, that must be performed first. A player can move up to 3 units. If a special attack or deployment was performed, then only 2 moves are allowed. After each move, the player may attack.
*Capturing a position ends a move.
*If a player defeats a fortified position, they may capture it by placing a token on it. However, this can only be done if the fortified position was defeated by an attacking unit.
*If a fortified position is defeated in a special attack, the position becomes free. Anyone can capture it when touched by a unit.
*A unit on top of a fortified position has a +1 modifier to both strength and armor. If the unit is defeated, both the unit and token are lost. However, if the unit is disabled, both the unit and token remain on the map.
Comments
Complexity
This design reminds me a little of ASL and a little of Titan. I assume that you are focused primarily on combat resolution at the moment and a movement, command and setup/objective mechanic is forthcoming.
But, based upon what I have read so far, I would caution against requiring both the attacker and defender to roll. It doubles the amount of effort and there often is an alternative way of structuring it that requires only one roll.
Also, the units seem qualitatively indistinguishable. I see only one mechanic here, with a variety of quantitative distinctions, but nothing that really separates one unit from another other than probabilities. As a result, it may only generate uni-dimensional strategies. So, I think it would be nice to see some other dynamics that run orthogonal to the attack/defense dimension that I see here.
Simplicity
You are correct in regards to the bland combat system. The unit distinction is little more than a balance of strength and armor, and because of the balanced combat system, strength and armor are a one to one match. I was striving for simplicity. However, that simplicity may lead to a rather boring game.
I thank you for your comment on requiring both attacker and defender rolling for combat resolution. I've really flipped back and forth on how I wanted to do it. At first, I just wanted the attacker to roll for point value, then subtract the defender's armor from the score. If the result is a positive value, the defender takes damage. The flaw I had in that system is that the attacker must know that a strength of 1 will never penetrate an armor of 3. I suppose that's not a bad thing, but I liked the ability for any unit to be able to attack any other unit no matter what the odds were. This thought of a lower strength unit being able to inflict "lucky" damage on a higher armored unit doesn't sit well with some folks, but I'm OK with it. In the worst case, a strength of 1 will roll for 2 points and a defending unit with an armor of 3 would roll for 0 points. It only causes 2 points of damage. Lucky hit, but not nearly good enough for a kill.
The other reason I let the defender roll is it presented itself an easy way I could add modifiers to armor just like I do for strength. I'm still torn on how I want to implement defense in the battle mechanics. I like having it equal to the attacker, but I also prefer to only deal with one person rolling the dice. I'll need to try some game play with both implementations.
I didn't understand the rest of your comments. I hope you can clarify what you meant about orthogonal mechanics. So far I've put most of my thought into battle mechanics. I've not worked on [M]ovement or [R]ange attributes yet. One of the reasons I was keeping my stats so simple is that I wanted an easy way to assign cost to a unit. Right now it's simple. Add strength and armor together and that's the cost of a unit. That's where I came up with the combat point concept. Since strength and armor are equal in combat, one should be able to assign a combat point to either stat and both would have equal value.
Today I just thought of how I can work [R]ange into the combat point system. Meaning how does the value of range compare to the importance of strength or armor. I'm not sure if my Math is right, but I think it works out to be about 1 [R]ange point equals 1/2 a combat point. In unit vs unit comparison, it's like saying a unit with [S]trength=3 [R]ange=0 is about the same value as a unit with [S]trength=2 and [R]ange=2. It's hard to say which unit would really have more value on the battlefield, but it sounds and feels just about right to me. This is where play testing will help.
Since [R]ange and [M]ovement are similar, it might seem reasonable that [M]ovement would have the same combat point value as [R]ange. If this is the case, then unit cost would be Strength + Armor + Range + Movement. My thought was if I kept my stats simple enough, I wouldn't need to worry about unit balance issues. Unit balance would be figured by adding the stats of each unit. And for an army, the total cost of an army would be the sum of all the stats of each unit.
At this time, I should admit that I've not really designed a game. It's just a generic foundation for building a game. I was striving for simplicity and balance. I fear that my simplicity may be it's ruin. But that's been my design goal. I want to see if I can make a decent game with some strategic complexity, but built on simple game mechanics. I'm not looking to make a unique game. When complete, it should be something most everyone is already familiar with.
I had a new thought on how to
I had a new thought on how to implement unit [L]evels. At first I was going to let each player have a certain number of level 1 and 2 units. Then I was thinking I might let players buy a [L]evel for a unit, but I couldn't put an easy combat point value on [L]evel cost. Now I'm thinking I will do [L]eveling like in the game Wesnoth.
A unit gets awarded a new level based on combat. For each victory, a unit will move up in [L]evel. There's only two [L]evels, so after two victories, a unit will be at it's maximum statistical performance.
It's simple, and I'm starting to like it. Having veteran status would be nice, but it does seem to come cheap (one kill = new level). Statistically, veteran status is a substantial improvement. Especially when [S]trength is at 3. But it also mean losing a veteran unit would be a substantial loss.
I'll have to shelve this idea and do some play testing. It's the sort of thing I could see tipping the balance of battle to quickly. One player gets a few lucky rolls and levels up their units. Now those units have a huge advantage over fresh opponents. It might be too difficult for a losing player to catch up.
Still, the thought has merit.
How to represent a unit?
The driving force behind the simple (and balanced) combat mechanics is that I wanted as easy way to put a cost on a unit. The thought was that a player, given 10 combat points, could craft their own units. Assign those points to strength, armor, range, and movement any way they choose. The flexibility is great, but I can see it making a mess of the battlefield.
(idea #1) One thought is each unit would have individual stats and like Heroscape, one would need character cards to track each unit. The cards would be generic and look the same for all units. The only thing different is how the combat points would be stacked on those cards. There would need to be a mapping from each card to the unit on the board. This could be done via number on the card matching a number on the unit. Simple enough, but it'd make reading the battlefield very difficult.
(idea #2) Instead of cards, one could place markers on the unit to indicate all four attributes (plus level?). This would certainly clean up the battlefield. It would be far easier to visualize where the strong units are and were the fast ones are. But it makes for messy upkeep of the unit pieces and would clutter the board. I shutter at the thought of someone bumping the table.
(idea #3) Forget unit customizations. Go back to what most games do. Have predefined unit types. Each player must make a purchase from available unit types. I would still need to track individual unit [L]evels if that's something I still want to implement. I'm leaning toward this design as a path forward.
Dimensionality
When it comes to rolling dice, you need not be limited only to the standard d6. You can always fool around with dice with a larger range or with a mechanic that uses multiple dice (with each 'hit' being a score). I believe that Warhammer40K uses a mechanic like that, and Memoir44 simplifies it even further. Regardless, there should be a way to introduce a range of attack, defense, level and terrain modifiers into one streamlined system. Personally I favor a system that uses multiple d12s. But, that's neither here nor there.
By orthogonal, I mean a set of considerations which are not corelated with the ones that you currently have. So, it isn't simply a matter of giving more or less points to something, but of altering the very nature of the interactions between objects... so that players need to consider more than just the probability/cost of attack vs. defense. Whenever you have movement, range and terrain, the locationality of the pieces becomes an orthogonal consideration to the one of strength because you introduce maneuverability and concentrated fire to the tactical calculus. Likewise, a logistical and resource system, with dependencies and supply chains, can become another dimension to consider by the players... since the person who can spend more may be able to win even with inferior troops. And, logistics introduces aspects of allocating resources to interference, sabotage, guerilla warfare and attacks of opportunity that need to be balanced against those you devote to your army.
So, attack/defense, location and logistics, are each a dimension of war, but whose considerations run orthogonal to each other and ideally create immense complexity in their interaction. You might be able to find others as well... but it totally depends upon the game you want to build.
With regard to your question of levels and customization... you have introduced an interesting (open) question about whether and how it is possible to advance and customize units in a board game in real time without making it cumbersome on the players. The digital medium is a perfect solution to the problem, since it can handle experience, level gains, morale and health automatically and in a single player game the player can spend as much time making his own units as he wants. However, if that medium is not available, is there another way to do it or should you focus on standard units.
My inclination is that you should focus on standard units and let players customize their armies before hand (a la D&D minis & Heroclix) or create scenarios with predetermined units and locations which are balanced against the objectives (a la ASL and Memoir44). It's good from a marketing standpoint because it means that you can sell more and different units. But, from a design standpoint it begs the question. So, is there an alternative way to do it on the fly that works for a tabletop? I'm not sure. I'll have to ponder.
Thanks for the feedback
I thought of different dice, but I had a love for the standard d6 (it's a magic numer :). For the game I'm working on, I'm really using a d3. The easiest way for me to get that was using an evenly weighted d6. Another weight scheme I like for the d6 is {1,2,3}=0, {4,5}=1, and {6}=2. That was my initial scheme for the game, but doing an even weight just worked out better. Whatever the dice scheme I came up with, I wanted to keep the dice pool small. That's why I put a hard limit at 5. There could be a better scheme, but 5d6 provides a good statistical variation yet retaining simplicity.
I think I understand more of your orthogonal comment. Up to this point I've mostly focused on battle mechanics and unit cost. I'm just starting to introduce range, movement, and terrain into the game. The other element I'm missing is the economy. I feel I'm close to pulling it all together.
Range and movement will tie into unit stats by assigning a combat value of 1/2 to each. So now I have an easy means to get a total cost for a unit. I didn't want to resort to play testing in order to determine unit balance and assign an appropriate cost based on that balance. I'm striving for a simple algorithmic means to determine cost that just so happens to give acceptable balance as well. This thought may or may not work, but I'd like to see how close I get.
Providing my balanced unit cost is appropriate, then a combat point system is all in place. This game will have only one resource: Combat Points (for lack of a better name). Like Heroscape, players will create an army from a limited pool of combat points. In game, have a means to attain more combat points. Like WarCraft/StarCraft games, have a supply limit to those combat points. For example, a player starts the game with 20 combat points. From which they could purchase 20 points worth of units. During the game they could earn up to 10 additional combat points. At no point can a player have an army exceeding 30 points total (that includes any unspent combat points). So my usage of combat points is really a merge of resources and supply limit used in WarCraft. It's a resource in that you earn and spend it, but it's a supply limit in that you can't exceed the cap. Part of the strategy is to have an appropriate army, not just the largest army.
Strategies or incentives in the game will center around combat points and perks. Leveling up a unit would be considered a perk. Certain terrain tiles would be perks as well. For example, a castle tile might provide an extra armor bonus. A forest tile might provide a strategy bonus to ranged units. I've not outlined terrain effects yet, but that is something I plan. Whatever I do, I'll try to keep it ridiculously simple.
Combat points will be somewhat akin to how resources are used in common RTS games. You want them so you can bring more units into the game. I've had ideas on how to earn combat points. The first being combat. Might be an incentive to do some killing each turn as it'll give an extra point per kill. I also thought about having special terrain tiles which when occupied would provide some bonus combat points. An interesting idea might be how captured villages in Wesnoth provide extra food per turn. Do the same thing, but with combat points. Have various village tiles on the map. Once a village is captured, a player puts a colored token on the spot indicating it's been captured. If an opponent then lands on that village, they can replace the token with their own indicating a change in ownership. The owner/ruler of that village will receive one extra combat point. I could even make that an end game scenario. Once a player captures all villages on the board, they're declared the winner.
Funny, this game was initially inspired by ShamBattle with unit stats and army customization borrowed from Heroscape. I've had have this strong drive for simplicity and economy inspired by simple RTS games like WarCraft. And now it looks like the turn based strategy game Wesnoth is giving me the glue to how to implement the economy and a possible veteran system.
By the way, I agree with having predefined unit types. I like the idea of customizations, but it's just not practical if using generic game pieces. It would be easier to have several predefined types to choose from. I do have one last gimmick for pulling off unit customizations, but I'll need to think about it.
Notice What Games Inspire You
So, I will play the devil's advocate now and ask you what you hope to achieve by the game.
You have listed a very old home-rule miniatures game, a famous RTS and a turn-based strategy computer game along with Heroscape as your inspirations. Only one out of four of those games qualifies as a commercially viable current miniatures game. Whereas, I mentioned a few miniature games and war simulation games throughout our conversation as well... but, of which, only a couple are currently still in print.
Strategic command and control gaming used to be done on a large game board by soldiers and enthusiasts alike, but almost all of it has moved to the digital medium. There are currently dozens of RTS and turn based strategy games available through the computer, console or cellphone, and only a handful of games available on the tabletop... half of which predate computer gaming.
One ought to be cautious then when confronted with a trend like this to go in the reverse direction. It is strange to try to figure out a way to make a boardgame that does what a computer game does well... especially in a genre where computer games replaced boardgames (in large part because they handled things that boardgames could not). Rather, you have to think about what computer games do not do well and work off of that.
For example, they are not tactile... so actually rolling dice and moving/deploying units is pleasurable. But, if it ever becomes monotonous, repetitive or cumbersome to do it, you lose that pleasure. So, you want to reduce accounting as much as you can. In fact, you cannot ever reduce accounting too much... to compete against the high sensory input of the computer, tabletop players need to be in the moment constantly, where every action moves the board forward on its own account and there is no housekeeping at all.
But, in order to do this, you cannot simply copy existing computer models, you have to think in terms of abstract relationships between objects and elements in the game. All those logistically messy things should be handled on the fly by the players without them even really being aware of it because it is an emergent by-product of the actions they take. It should seem completely natural and flow without pauses to count things.
At least, that's what I see as the viable options these days with just so much (good) digital gaming available.
wargames
I guess in the 80's and 90's there was a trend of old gamers moving from board and miniatures wargames to computer games, but I think many (like me) still see boardgames (and miniatures) as a fun way to get away from the computer for a few hours. I grew up playing wargames on the computer, but have been moving more and more towards non-computer games. Also the quality of board/miniatures games have greatly improved in many ways in the last 10 years or so (partly thanks to influence from euro game(rs)?).
Besides I think computer games largely fails (for me) because of the lack of abstractions. Just throwing increasingly complex rules and larger databases at problems will not make a game more fun or realistic really. I definitely agree that copying computer models is a bad idea.
"In fact, you cannot ever reduce accounting too much". There is a thread on this subject on theminiaturespage.com forums right now (I think in their Game Design subforum). Not everyone agree. :) I think there is a growing reaction from players (to some extent including me) that want somewhat less abstract games (although I still like them fast and easy to learn). There seems to be a market of some size for different complexity/abstraction levels, but the market for very abstract games is probably quite saturated at the moment I'd say.
I say go with whatever theme or mechanics you think will make a fun game, not what you think can sell.
I suppose the big question to
I suppose the big question to answer is, "What's my motivation?"
For one, I'm not out to make money. This is just a muse for me at the moment. The fun has been in creating a game.
It's true RTS computer gaming has been an influence, but I'm not necessarily trying to copy any particular formula. I'm also not trying to be different. I'm not trying to make my mark by doing something unique. If anything, I'm trying to make something obvious.
One thing I am guilt of is trying to take some of my RTS experience and transfer it into a board top game. It might be a failure. It might work, but boring to play (failure again). One thing I really don't expect is a huge success. So why am I doing it? For the experience. Win or lose, I'm sure to learn something from the process.
Both of you have brought up some great comments. Some have already been nagging me from the start. I completely agree about repetitive book keeping and long drawn out turns. Before my computer gaming days, I did try my hand at D&D and Axis&Allies. Both games, although huge with the masses, were failures for me. The setup and play time for both was tedious and boring.
So pelle, I will completely follow your advice. I'll try to make something I will enjoy. I already know I don't follow popular opinion when it comes to gaming.
rcjames14, your comments have been in consideration since the start of this project. I lumped it all together by saying I want to keep it simple. Although I said the game is geared towards 8+ year olds, I'd like to make it entertaining for all ages. I just want an 8+ year old to be able to comprehend everything. Even the mechanics. You did influence me to sway back to not using a defensive roll. Your argument was exactly my motivation as well. I want simple quick turns.
Computers ARE great for book keeping. It's great to have a computer track two or more resources. It's even better that computers can track individual unit stats. I'm trying to accomplish both in a board game and it's understandable how any scheme might fail.
It's why I only wanted one resource with low purchasing costs. I think the economy I have in mind will work. It's simple enough, and the book keeping per turn is relatively simple. But the individual unit stats may prove to be a big fail. Doesn't matter if I track health on unit stat cards (ala Heroscape) or on the units them self. It's a book keeping nightmare. I may scrap the [H]ealth stat all together. I really wanted a means to heal wounded units. Maybe I should implement a scheme like in ShamBattle where a unit can be wounded or killed. (I'll think on it)
The other fail I have is the unit [L]evel concept. It's nice to implement a veteran system, but there's no easy way to track the stat with the unit. It's the same dilemma as the [H]ealth attribute. And even if [L]evel could easily be tracked, it would be a book keeping hassle on a per unit basis. I'm thinking of dropping the [L]evel stat in favor of just using bonus modifiers (ie: various terrain modifies stats).
rcjames14, I follow your comments on abstractions. It'd be nice to have a game where one can employ multiple strategies to win. Not just roll, get lucky, make larger army, hope to stay lucky, then win. Oh, did I just describe Risk? I fear my idea turning into another Risk like game. Luck does play a big roll (bad pun) in my game, but I'll have to see just how much. I'm hoping strategy can help offset that. It's why I wanted an economy system and a means in which players can influence that economy. It's a work in progress.
One last comment about motivation. I wanted the game to be accessible for free. Simple 5d6 dice. No custom card decks or special game board. Units can be whatever is at hand. Although I'm designing the game with a hex map in mind (for play testing), I'm intrigued by the 3'x5' hand drawn map idea used in ShamBattle. This is something I want to play with my son. Making the battlefield, picking the units, assigning custom stats (within guidelines), stating the objectives, then drafting an army and playing a game. My goal is to create the experience, not just play the game.
Perpetual Feedback
I think it's awesome that you want to figure out a way to turn stuff at hand into fun with your kid.
About a decade ago, I wrote rules to game that could use legos for a monster truck demolition derby. The board I printed out for it was huge and took up two full length gaming tables pushed together. Everyone got an hour to construct their cars out of legos with a budget associated with certain special parts like guns, monster wheels, smokescreens, etc... and then we played. The game rarely finished in the 2 and a half hours we had the room, but fun was had by all. And, I knew at the time that the Lego company would never be able to sell it, even though it would be cool to figure out a way to introduce it to others. Their market is kids, mine was adults that played with legos as a kid. But, it didn't stop me from improving the game design each time and streamlining it. Before it finally ended, I reduced everything to a card play system so that people could act simultaneously (a turn based game with 20 people is a nightmare!). And that's where I would pick up the design again if the opportunity to play again arose.
So a labor of love can also learn from the experience of playing it and be spurred to improvement. And, there is no bigger playtester group than the marketplace itself. It has figured out what works and what doesn't. Of course, a lot of its 'findings' are incoherent, incorrect or contradictory, but there is a lot of intellectual capital being produced by it that we are wise to exploit. In fact, I believe that's pretty much how the team behind D&D understands its relationship with the market. It became very clear, as of 3.5ed and the SRD that they were looking at the game as one that would be perpetually and continously improved by updates that come from feedback from the player/consumers. And, why do you think Google is always in beta?!
With regard to your issue with tracking health and levels, for a couple of example on how wargames in the past have handled health, look at Memoir44, ASL and Heroclix. A hit in Memoir44 removes one of the minitures on the hex. When all are gone, the unit is dead. But, up until that point, it still fights with full capacity. So, you might say that the number of starting number of units on the hex is its health. In ASL, 'Morale' functions primarily as health. If a unit is broken it flips over and runs away. On a subsequent turn, a leader (with self-rallying) can attempt to rally a unit. But, if it suffers another hit while turned over it is KIA. In Heroclix, you rotate the base as you receive damage. This effects all its stats and allows you to create great range of health effects... but it also requires an expensive production process.
Personally, of all three games, I think that Memoir44 (also Battlecry and Battlelore by the same author) is the most elegant. It's health system is simple, intuitive, clear and tactile-pleasing without losing too much along the way. Along with a couple of other mechanics, it keeps the pace of the game brisk so there's no rules checking or down time and it completes oftentimes in under 30 mins. The only issue with Memoir44 is that sometimes it feels like there's just a little too much luck to the game (mostly in the cards that you draw given your limited hand size).
I'm in the process of
I'm in the process of revamping some of the initial rules. Basically I'm removing the stats that are tracked on a per unit basis. I may use such a system if I make a simplified D&D like game, but it's too much hassle/upkeep in the battle game I'm trying to make.
I'm not familiar with any of the games you mentioned, but your description of Memoir44 reminds me of Risk. The country is as healthy as the number of units on it in relation to surrounding countries. For as simple a game as Risk is, there's lots of good mechanics in the game. Unit movement acts like a supply chain of sorts.
I personally don't like Risk much. I don't mind loosing, but I hate loosing when I feel I was unlucky. That's how Risk always made me feel. When I played the game, I felt like the Fates were against me. When I started designing my game, that's the first thing I thought of. I knew each battle would be determined by luck, but I wanted an easy way for one to think of that risk vs reward choice. When you roll 2 dice, you have an average of doing 2 points of damage. If you roll 1 point, you know immediately you were unlucky. If you roll 3 points, you know did better than average. Over several rolls, you should know immediately if you've been hitting the odds. It also makes risk vs reward decisions easier. I have a strength of 2 and I can either chance hitting an armor of 2 or go for the easier armor of 1. I could still loose either battle, but it's a lot easier to make that risk vs reward decision (I think).
It's funny, but I read your message after I updated some of the game rules. Looks like I've decided to implement something similar to ASL. Except the idea isn't original. It's exactly what the rules are in ShamBattle (anno 1929). The only change I'm making is how units are healed. I don't like the usage of medics and hospitals in ShamBattle. I'm thinking of using a healing unit that when touching a disabled unit will bring it back. Revived units will need to wait one turn before it can move or attack. I also added the ability to kill off injured/disabled units.
The game is taking form, but one fear that's lurking for me is the omnipresence of luck. I want luck in the game. I want the ability to make risk vs reward decisions. However I don't want the whole game to feel like it's controlled by luck. I'll admit things look that way now. So I'm hoping the economy system will have a strong impact.
Short on game supplies
You'll note in the revised rules that a token (previously called combat point) functions as a unit as well as a modifier when place on the map. It's a cheap move on my part to cut down on game supplies.
It works well if the token is a colored poker chip. That way a unit can be place on top of it, thus gaining a +1 modifier.
I think the general rules are almost complete. I'll need to play test to see if the simple economy works. By works, I mean it helps move the game along. I also get to see if luck is going to kill the game.
Approaching Infinity
It's been a while since I've played Risk, but I remember set collection to be the determining factor in the game. Being able to cash in on a set of cards at just the right time usually allows you to take an amassed army in one corner and run the board. So, up until that point, you want to win battles to earn cards, but for the most part, conserve your forces. Risk is also heavily weighted in favor of the offense. I mean, at most the defense can kill 2 attacker units to the attackers 3 KIA... and that's leaving out the HUGE strategic advantage of being able to choose the place and time of a battle that naturally goes to the Attacker.
So, I don't remember it being too susceptible to chance. In fact, if anything, it's probably the least 'risky' of all dice rolling wargames considering the huge number of rolls that you make. Chance normalizes as the number of rolls reaches infinity. So, only one single roll to determine the outcome of a battle is the worst situation to be in from a risk management perspective. But, this is not always intuitive to people... that you actually want to increase the number of dice your roll at all times, if you want to get a true outcome of probability. And, one of my friends, exploits this fact EVERY time he plays Axis & Allies against others. He proves time and again that the Allies are not the dominant side, no matter what edition you play.
But, to get back to your wargame... if you don't like chance, then introduce lots of dice. And, it need not be complicated. You can always borrow from Axis & Allies and Warhammer, which use a lot of dice rolling in a pretty simplistic fashion. But the precise algorithm for combat resolution ultimately does not make the game. What makes or breaks a wargame is how movement, range, visibility/knowledge, concentration of fire power, command and control and resources/logistics interact with the dice rolling combat resolution. Each of these orthogonal dimensions gives a player something to consider and an area of control, which, for obvious reasons, the dice do not.
Or, here's an original mechanic:
Attack Value (of attacker) = x
Defense Value (of defender) = y
To attack roll Z d6, where z = x - y
Terrain Value = t (between 2 and 6)
If any of the die results are > t, you score a hit (h)
Armor Value = a
Unit takes damage d, where d = h - a.
Then, depending upon how you handle health, the unit could either reduce (Memoir44) by d, or if d > health, it could route (ASL) or be removed from the board altogether. Personally, I prefer reduction mechanisms because it makes the board simpler over time. But, it requires superposition of objects and some way to resolve targeting and reduction if units are not all identical. However, I have always thought that a wargame that allows contested control of a space (due to superposition) to be a fascinating idea. (and more realistic) So, the question of superposition might be exactly where you want to focus.
elegance
I'm not sure I would say that the loss system in Memoir44 (which is basically the same as in very many miniature games, isn't it?) is more elegant than ASL. The games have very different scopes and the battle mechanics show completely different things. A squad in ASL that fails its morale roll is flipped, showing that it is broken. This is different from when it is damaged and replaced with a half-squad. A broken unit can't fire, must under some circumstances run away towards cover, might be eliminated or taken prisoner if surrounded, is not so good in close combat, etc etc (all this is about one page of very dense text in the rulebook, possibly more). Also a broken unit very often, in most scenarios, will be back after a few turns, and often at its original strength. There are a lot of interesting things going on really that could never happen in simpler games (and this is without mentioning all the special damage effects that can happen like berzerks, wounded leaders, hero creation ... whatever it is). I don't think you can say the system is less elegant since it can handle details way beyond any other system I have heard off. Less elegant imo than Memoir44 would be a game that has the same effects from being damaged, but does so in a way that uses more pages of rules and/or requires more time to play. Obviously if someone could create a game that had all the dynamics of ASL but had a rulebook the size of the Memoir44 rulebook you could explain to any new player in a few minutes THAT would be a very elegant game.
As a variant to showing step losses, TCS uses step-loss counters, numbered 1 to 4, that are placed below unit counters to show how many steps they have lost (5th step lost means the unit is destroyed; or second step for some smaller units). It also has (like ASL) some other possible combat results like units being surpressed or paralyzed, and there are also retreat results forcing units to run away a few hexes.
The traditional board wargame approach is of course the "first step loss you flip the counter, second step loss the counter is removed". With the variant that after the second step-loss you replace the counter with another counter. The benefit of course (like the ASL replacing a squad with a half-squad) is that you can have different numbers on different sides, so you can easily, without added complexity or more text in the rulebook, make different units degrade in different ways when damaged. This I find very elegant.
Block games are worth mentioning also, for the gimmick of rotating the blocks to be able to show up to 4 steps on each unit. There are also some old games using cardboard counters that do the same, having you to rotate the counter, but I'm not convinced that works well in practice.
Some games I have played use a counter you place below a counter that is numbered 1-4 on the sides, and 5-8 on the other side, so you can place it below a counter and depending on what way it is rotated it can show any number of steps from 1 to 8. Someone in a bgg(?) thread had some fancy name for that kind of damage counter, but I can't remember it now. This is I guess a cheap version of the clix system. :)
die rolls
So, I don't remember it being too susceptible to chance. In fact, if anything, it's probably the least 'risky' of all dice rolling wargames considering the huge number of rolls that you make. Chance normalizes as the number of rolls reaches infinity. So, only one single roll to determine the outcome of a battle is the worst situation to be in from a risk management perspective. But, this is not always intuitive to people...
I agree with the increased number of die rolls making the game less random. That is why in ASL tournaments you always seems to find the same guys fighting for the top positions, or indeed why there can be such a phenomenon as ASL tournaments. However for this to be true there must also be a way for a player to influence the odds of the die rolls. In Risk you can pick the right battles, and you can try to remember how much advantage you must attack with to have a statistically good chance of winning a territory (I don't remember the cut-off point, but the larger the battle the more advantage to the attacker). If there are no or few opportunities for players to affect the probabilities of success the game will still be random. The more effect player action has on the outcome of each die roll the less random will the result be.
Someone came up with an example based on chess: Imagine if you added a die-roll to each time you tried to capture a piece in chess. If the probability of success was 99 %, then it would be very similar to normal chess, with the player making the best moves probably winning. If the probability of capture is 1 % then the game would become almost entierly random, requiring probably thousands of die rolls before you see any advantage to the better player. (No, I'm not sure how to handle a failed capture, but that's out of scope for the example. :) )
Obviously (ok, once you're past the initial intuitive thinking) more die rolls will make, on the average after a large number of plays, a fair game, but if players have little control the result will just be that any player playing any other player will have a roughly 50 % chance to win, and that is probably not the goal of most game designers (good for children's games though).
I'm not convinced that risk is very far towards the latter example really. It seems quite random to me, with the starting positions (that you can't influence), card draws (also not able to influence) and not much control over combat either. Compare to a game that has different unit types, different terrain, different weather, different ... the die rolls in risk are compared to that very "random". I think a risk tournament will show greater variance in what players reach the top spots compared to an ASL tournament for instance.
Competing Values
In game design, there is a difference between accuracy and elegance. They need not conflict, but when they do, a designer has to decide which is more important. ASL errs on the side of accuracy. Memoir44 on the side of elegance. Chess is a beautifully elegant game but so abstract that it's difficult for you to claim its accurate about anything other than itself.
Likewise, there is a difference between statistical volatility and strategic simplicity. With one 2d6 roll per attack with a lot of modifiers, and one morale roll per defender, when applicable, ASL is highly volatile, but also strategically complicated. On the other hand, with armies of two or three dozen, a single attack in Risk usually involves dozens of (very repetitive) dice rolls for the attacker. Unfortunately, Risk is so heavily weighted in favor of attack, that the game becomes a matter of long-term attrition. Subsequently it feels like chance because it is simple. There's really little novelty in the strategy you can pursue, so even a small statistical variance determines the overall outcome. But that is not on account of it's volatility. It is because of its strategic simplicity.
mechanics not the best
I agree that my battle mechanics are not the best. Given equal stats (ie: strength of 2 vs armor of 2), an attacker only has 33% chance of winning, and only an 11% chance of winning with a kill. That kinda sucks!
It was better when I had the defender roll. The attacker stood a better chance of winning. However, the improvement wasn't much. With S=3 vs A=3, it was still only a 40% chance the attacker would win. 23% chance of winning with a kill.
The chances get much better if there's a +1 modifier to strength and much more acceptable if armor defense is 1 less than strength. A simple solution would be designing units to have armor generally be one less than strength, or I could try new battle mechanics.
elegance and volatility
I think strategic simplicity is what makes it likely that Risk is more resolved by randomness than by what player can make the better decisions. ASL on the other hand, even with all the die rolls and unpredictable combat, there are so many different strategies available at any given moment that there is a lot of room for a better player to influence the odds, even if often only by a few small +drm for each roll, that the better player is likely to win the game in the end.
My memory of playing scenarios with tanks in ASL (which involves rules that I never knew very well) is that any time I tried to shoot at an enemy tank I had something like a 3/36 chance to hit, but when my more experienced opponent fired he had more like a 50 % chance to hit. Also he tended to be able to attack from flanks were a hit was more likely to cause the tank to be eliminated. Under those circumstances maybe the worse player can win 1 game in 1000 (except for very small scenarios were there are too few die rolls). I don't see any possibilities like that for the better player to play better in Risk.
If all a player can do is to get a small increase in probability, then the chance of him winning in the end will also only be slightly better than that of any other player. If there are only a few non-obvious choices to make in a game (too much strategic simplicity) the better player will have a difficult time to improve his odds. Skill will be insignificant compared to randomness.
Memoir44 doesn't err on the side of elegance. If anything it errs on the side of simplicity. Well, I think that is perfectly OK, not really a problem, but I don't think that the system is extremely elegant. There are games that have mechanics that manage to create very complex and interesting play with interesting player choices (the opposite of strategic simplicity) using simple rules, which I find elegant, but I can't remember much of that in Memoir44 combat system.
Snake-Eyes on the Heavy Machine Gun
We are definitely agreed about Risk. There is so little decision-making in it that is non-obvious that everyone does the same thing and even the smallest degree of variance ends upon determining who wins the game. So, you are right, the game is determined by chance... but only because the game has no significant strategy.
If I'm correct, releppes is concerned that fluctuations in dice rolls might have a big impact upon the outcome of battles. So, I interpreted that to be a question of volatility... which can be solved by increasing dice rolling. If there is little to no strategy to the game, I can suggest nothing to eliminate the effect of chance. Except, perhaps, to settle the winner by rolling 2d6 before you setup the game.
standard deviation
I thought on it some more and I disagree on the solution of throwing more dice. Or maybe I'm just looking at the problem all wrong.
In a simple example, say the probability of getting a critical hit is 1/6. Rolling 1 die or rolling 50 and taking an average is going to give the same outcome. Even with the Risk examples mentioned earlier. One could take ANY battle, sum the attackers men, sum the opponents men and break it down to a single weighted die where the sides equal the sum of all units in battle (the weights being the probable outcomes). Then just roll that one die to determine the result. The example is a little unpractical, but the point being more rolls doesn't change the overall probability.
I think what was bothering me is standard deviation. Not the probability of each outcome, but rather the consistency of that outcome. I didn't say I wanted to eliminate luck. I want luck for that risk vs reward part of the game. Yes, the gamble is part of the strategy. At least that's the way I was looking at it. I think I contradicted myself when I implied I wanted consistent results.
Consistent results would make the game more strategic. However, I don't really want to make the game play like checkers (checkers being a better example than chess because my game is so minimalistic). As much and I downplayed luck, it's really what I was going for.
I think the strategy in my game (as it is now) is thinly veiled. You have minor control in luck based on how you attack. Pick a S3 vs A3 battle or S3 vs A2 battle. I was trying to introduce more strategy into the game with economy. It adds slightly more decisions into the game. Buy cheap fast units to capture points or save for better units to win more battles. The strategy element is still pretty thin, but I'd like to play test what I have so far to see if I'm on the right track or if it's a miserable failure (failure being the fun value).
Back to my thoughts on consistency. If that's what I really want, than the easiest way to get that is change the weight on my dice:
{1} = 0 points
{2,3,4,5} = 1 points
{6} = 2 points
This scheme will still give on average a result of 3 if rolling 3 dice, but the probability of getting a 3 is now 40.74% whereas with evenly weighted dice it was only 25.93%. If I wanted even more consistency, I would use a d12 and weight appropriately. I agree that rolling more dice could accomplish the same effect, but I was focused on the easiest minimalistic method.
After giving myself a headache with my conflicting design ideas, I think what I have is really what I was after. Simple and minimalistic. But there is still one thing that bothers me. It's the tie breaker situation!
the tie breaker
So does anyone have a suggestion for mechanics that eliminate tie breakers?
For the mechanics in my game Strength3 vs Armor3 is roughly equal in regards to probability. However it's not equal in regards to win or lose. Since in the event a tie the defender wins, the defender has a pretty large advantage. What I want is a 50% win/lost for an evenly matched battle.
One solution (the easiest) is to roll again in the event of a tie. This would definitely give me the 50/50 odds of an even battle. But it seems clunky. The highest probability is to get a tie. The chances of repeating a tie greatly diminishes for each repeated roll, so I guess it's not that clunky. But is there a more elegant solution?
Volatility
That is volatility.
If you want an quick way of seeing how rolling more dice reduces volatility... try this experiment:
grab a coin and a twelve sided die
assign one value of the coin to be 0 and the other to be 1
now, flip the coin eleven times and roll the die once
add 1 to the result of all the coin tosses and you will end up with a number between 1 and 12.
likewise, with the die roll you will end up with a number between 1 and 12
perform this task until you get a result of 1 by either flip or roll
i would be willing to bet serious money that it will be the die that gives you the one result first.
and yet, it could be either one, so there is a small, but existing, chance that i would lose my money (since both are possible)... but the volatility on 11 coin flips is significantly lower than 1 die roll. so i will most likely win.
So, to apply this to your game, let's say that we both have armies of 100 soldiers, and equal independent odds of killing the other's troops. The possible range of outcomes from the battle are that I end up with anywhere between 0 and 100 troops at the end and you end up with anywhere between 0 and 100 troops. If we roll 1d101 each, then we will end up with some number between the two with equal probability as any other number. But, if we roll 100d1 (coin flip), there is a very good likelihood that each of us will end up with a number between 40 and 60. And, thus, we have increased the consistency of the result.
Both of these methods are silly for a tabletop game, but the lessons from the thought experiment can be applied to rolling six sided dice as long as you create a mechanic that allows for lots of dice rolling. But that also requires a reconceptualization of other things like what defense and armor value mean.
ASL rolls one set of 2d6 and applies modifiers. So, it is very volatile.
Risk rolls 3d6 against 2d6 with no modifiers repetitively. So, with large armies, most outcomes fall near the mean.
rcjames14 wrote:If you want
grab a coin and a twelve sided die
assign one value of the coin to be 0 and the other to be 1
now, flip the coin eleven times and roll the die once
add 1 to the result of all the coin tosses and you will end up with a number between 1 and 12.
likewise, with the die roll you will end up with a number between 1 and 12
perform this task until you get a result of 1 by either flip or roll
i would be willing to bet serious money that it will be the die that gives you the one result first.
A good example, but flawed logic. You're no longer comparing Apple to Apples. How about you change your example to using a d4 die? Would you still be willing to bet serious money?
And no, really I'm talking about standard deviation (a measure of variability from the average). When I think of volatility, I think of the measure of random events such as the stock market. The measure of random events on a d6 dice are not the same. Both are random, but not the same. I'm not even sure if volatility applies. Variance may apply, which is just the square of the standard deviation. Maybe I'm just confused on the volatility you're talking about, but I am pretty sure my interest is in standard deviation.
As for your example, you're trying to compare:
(1/2)^11 vs 1/12
That's not volatility or deviation. That's a comparison of completely different probabilities.
I didn't follow the second example. I realize it was a take on the bad example I gave. However, if you took your 1d100 die and weighted each side with an appropriate average, then yes, the example would work and function the same as if you performed 100d{0..1}. But like my example, it's unpractical.
I did some fiddling with AnyDice to answer a question in the forums and I stumbled apon my own dilemma. In answering the question, I got my own answer as well. It seems quite simple to change the standard deviation without adding more dice. All one needs to do is weight the dice more towards the average.
For example: Take a d6 die and evenly weight it (like in my game) with 0, 1, and 2:
{1,2} = 0
{3,4} = 1
{5,6} = 2
Roll that die 5 times and sum the score. On average you'll get a 5. In fact it's a 20.99% chance you'll get a score of 5 with a 12.35% chance you'll get a score of 3.
Now take that d6 die and give more weight towards the center. Make it:
{1} = 0
{2,3,4,5} = 1
{6} = 2
Summing 5 rolls of the die will still give an average score of 5, but now you'll get 5 31.17% of the time with only 9.26% chance of getting a score of 3.
Here's the visual:
http://anydice.com/program/2dc
The second graph shows a smaller standard deviation.
This was a fun exercise, but I decided I'm not going to fuss with the deviation. I'm coming to grips that my game (as it stands) is mostly based on luck. I may change the mechanics a bit more, but I think I'll play it through just to see how bad it is. Mind you, this was not meant to be an ultimate strategy game. It's a first attempt at making a game. I'm going to have to try it out on my son. It's the sort of thing that might lead him into other games. Or it can always be that conversation piece of, "Hey Dad. Remember that stupid War101 game you taught me? Well, we turned it into a drinking game at college..."
rcjames14 wrote: ASL rolls
ASL rolls one set of 2d6 and applies modifiers. So, it is very volatile.
Risk rolls 3d6 against 2d6 with no modifiers repetitively. So, with large armies, most outcomes fall near the mean.
I agree with everything else you wrote, but this part is slightly odd. Modifiers doesn't really change the volatility, it just shifts the range of possible results. 2d6 and 2d6+2 has the exact same distribution just shifted from 2-12 to 4-14. The modifiers just mean that the way a player prepares an attack has some effect on the outcome, making it "less random" from the player perspective.
About rolling repeatedly, of course in ASL you usually roll only 2d6 per attack (or 2d6 plus 2d6 morale check), but what you see in Risk is more like two stacks of units in ASL firing away at each other over several phases or turns, not comparable to just one single attack against one unit. Besides a game of ASL has probably an order of 100 more attacks in a short scenario than a full game of risk has, so overall the results will tend towards the mean anyway.
It isn't really a problem if the result of a single attack has some variance as long as there are enough attacks in a full game that there is a distinct advantage to the player being able to set up even so slightly better odds for his attacks.
releppes wrote:So does anyone
For the mechanics in my game Strength3 vs Armor3 is roughly equal in regards to probability. However it's not equal in regards to win or lose. Since in the event a tie the defender wins, the defender has a pretty large advantage. What I want is a 50% win/lost for an evenly matched battle.
Would it be a problem to simply decrease the armor ratings by 1, letting defender win ties? Or is it important that a 3 vs 3 attack is 50 %, rather than a 3 vs 2 attack?
Understandable mechanics
This whole game started with me fiddling around with various mechanics. My design goals for mechanics were:
(1) The value of a roll could easily be counted
(2) An attacker, on average, would roll the value of it's attack
(3) An even battle would produce even odds
As I started making a game out of the initial mechanics, I added a few goals:
(4) Two units with different stats could mathematically be equal on the battlefield
(5) Have a 1:1 relation between the number of dice rolled and the value of an attack
I've been able to accomplish goals #1,2, and 5.
Goal number #3 is a compromise. If I don't have the defender roll, the odds are generally equal for, but things begin to break down when I add modifiers in the mix. The relation is adding dice to an attack and counting the top strength vs adding points to armor for defense. As modifiers go up, the odds of winning favor the defender. I prefer equal odds all around. So a S=3 vs A=3 should be 50/50. A S=3+2 vs A=3+2 should be 50/50 as well. The percentage of winning for the attacker drops
3+0: 37.04%
3+1: 33.33%
3+2: 20.99%
Does it need to be this way? No, but it's what I'd expect in a battle. The compromise is still acceptable, but it nags at me. Makes me want to go back and make defense roll to produce truly even odds.
The other thing that nags at me is a feature that breaks when I add modifiers. Right now I have it such that a Strength of X will roll and outcome between 0..2X with the average being X. This I like because it makes sense. I have a strength of 2, the max damage I can do is 4, but on average I'll do a damage of 2. It doesn't need to be this way, but it feels logical.
Unfortunately, it means a unit with S=1 can ONLY beat a unit with A=1. And based on my rules, it'll never do an instant kill! The best a weak unit could hope for is to maim another weak unit. This is a BIG nag for me. Modifiers make it worse. One has to mentally calculate if an attack is even going to produce a success rate. The Math is simple, but it's a process I want to avoid. So because of this one BIG nag, I'm experimenting with different mechanics. I should point out that this mess disappears if I make defense roll. As much as I don't like the extra dice rolling, it really simplifies some of the mechanics.
New Battle Mechanics!
Forget the gibberish in my previous post(s). I think I have a solution that's going to work.
The first change is how I weighted my dice:
{1} = 1
{2} = 2
{3} = 3
{4,5,6} = 0
With the above weight scheme I still get the averaging I want (ie: roll 4 dice, expect to get a score of 4 on average). Plus it's mentally easier to ignore the 4,5,6 and just count the 1,2,3.
The second change isn't really a change. It was how I was interpreting my stats. I kept looking at the probabilities of getting certain scores. All I'm really interested in are results=1 and results>2. When I narrowed my focus to that, I could see that my stats weren't as random as I thought.
Lastly, YOU GUYS WERE RIGHT!
Seems I'm getting much more consistent results the more dice I roll. I was too fixated on rolling 1,2, or 3 dice because I had this notion my unit stats were going to be a simple 1,2, or 3 for strength and armor. If I define my units stats with strength and armor in the range of 4 or above, the probabilities work out much better.
As for my unit balance issue, pelle had the best advice. Just define armor to be one less than strength when defining stats. It appears that works out perfect! If unit stats are equal (ie: 4 vs 4), the defense has about a 60% chance to win. If it's a 4 vs 3 battle, the attacker has a 55% chance to win. I don't need a tie breaking roll. I just need to define unit stats appropriately.
For anyone interested, here's the numbers for the battle mechanics:
http://anydice.com/program/2e4
If the link doesn't work, here's the calculations:
POINTS: {0:3,1:1,2:1,3:1}
loop BONUS over {0..2} {
loop DICE over {5..8} {
loop TARGET over {(DICE-2)..(DICE+2)} {
output [highest DICE of (DICE+BONUS)dPOINTS] - TARGET named "[DICE]+[BONUS] vs [TARGET]"
}
}
}
The best visual is to put the view on Graph and set the odds to At Least. The banding is a good approximation of:
(Strength+Modifier)d{0,0,0,1,2,3} vs (Armor+Modifier)
Since the results of 1 and 2 are the only ones of interest, only look at the vertical column of dots for 1 and 2. The rest can be ignored.
Storming the Stone Building
Agreed! Though, some people like a significant role for chance in order to allow a game to be accessible to a wider audience, I personally prefer games where Skill(winner) - Skill(loser) > Volatility. And, so, where two players are near equally matched, you also need lots of attacks/actions.
ASL is fun. But I have not found nearly enough die rolling in most of the scenarios. Given the self-reinforcing nature of success/failure in the game, small deviations at the beginning can very quickly snowball into tactical impotence, so you don't approach the next round with an equal chance to rectify the 'bad luck' with 'good luck'.
As a result, I have always treated ASL as a simulation. Something not to be taken as seriously from a strategic standpoint, but rather as a 'what weird thing will happen now?' experience in visualization and imagination.
But, I'm not convinced that chance is best used to resolve conflicts (as in most war games), but rather, it seems most welcome as a challenge to us to deal with new situations and make new decisions from things that we did not anticipate. People play bridge not because there is a tremendous amount of strategy in the game, but because there's a lot of novelty. Every hand is different... and thus every hand presents a new set of circumstances to figure out.
ASL has that, in all the weird triggered events, routing and morale checks... but not really enough of it. Ultimately, the dice are mostly there to determine whether what we want to do happens or not. And, thus, it acts as a prospective check on our ambitions to storm the stone building across machine gun fire. And, to come up with back up plans if plan a fails.
But, this places us in a very antagonistic relationship with chance... that is far more prone to frustration than elation. I just don't think that this is the relationship that most people have and like with chance.
OK, not quite done
Seems the battle mechanics don't quite play out as well as I'd like them to. Too much randomness. Although the probability stats are a nice bell curve, the chance of luck (or bad luck) is too much.
Also, throwing more dice didn't really accomplish much. I was too focused on getting consistent results. The only thing more dice showed was that 6+1 is the same as 7. Meaning, throw 7 dice and take the highest 6 gives the exact same results as if rolling 7 dice and taking the score of all dice. It's not really what I was after. But by design, it's exactly what I got.
This game started with battle mechanics, so I'm back to where I started. I'm starting with a different weighted dice scheme. The most logical choice being {0:1, 1:4, 2:1}, meaning 4 out of 6 times, you roll a 1 with 1 die. This helps to increase the chance of getting what you expect. Before delving into anything else, I need to work on the battle mechanics some more. If can't get that to resemble anything fun, than there's not much use in working on anything else.
Co-related Events
As much as finding the right number and value of dice to roll is important to reduce variance from the mean, the killer for most games is the snowball effect. When success or failure at one event makes it more or less likely that you will succeed or failure at the next event, chance can be absolutely brutal. Small variations early on can lead to huge differences in outcomes as long as events are co-related by a positive feedback mechanism. In a war game this usually comes from losing units. The less you have, oftentimes the less options and firepower you have in subsequent turns. So, your misfortune is compounded.
In addition to finding the right number and value for your dice, you will want to fight to keep randomness as independent as much as you can, otherwise you will find that no die rolling mechanic will produce a small enough variance.
I had conflicting thoughts
I had conflicting thoughts when I initially started. On one side, I wanted a battle system that behaved as expected (eg: I have a strength of 3, I expect to attack with a strength of 3). However, I didn't want a pure strategy game. I did want that element of chance (eg: Should I risk an inferior fight with a big payoff, or go for the sure thing?). Above all, I was going after a system that was cheap and simple.
I may not find what I'm after. I should have done more play testing before I got crazy analyzing probabilities. The predecessor to this game was a simple dice game my wife and I made up. In that game, there was far too much luck. I see this game following the same path. So I'm going to take a step back and experiment with other simple combat systems until I find something with more satisfying results. Satisfaction to me is consistently reaching an expected result (ie: big risk, big rewards vs small risk, expected reward).
As for the comment on snowball effect, I understand the issue. This game will likely play quick. So a turn with a major loss of units will likely turn into a losing game. However, this is so random, the opposite could be true as well. Both scenarios being unsatisfying. The economy in the game is non-luck based. The one thing each player can hopefully count on is the ability to replenish their army. It might not be enough, but I'll work on that aspect later. For now, the battle system, although simple, is too random.