Hi ya'll
I'm making a table-top wargame ("Complete Hazard") and like all the wargames I can think of, it uses dice.
Well I'm getting sick of dice, and I want to use something different to resolve the combat. Does anybody know what I can use instead of dice to resolve the game's combat issues?
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated
-Justin
What about cards? Or some sort of blind bidding mechanic where players secretly bid resources that add to combat strength and then reveal? Other cool randomizing devices: the cosmic ashtray from Andromeda, or the cube tower from Wallenstein. Or you could go with a deterministic model.
A simple and silly concept is to have numbers in the corners of your land tiles, which have no effect on the game map, but you each draw a land tile when fighting, and those are your rolls, then drop it back in the draw bag so it can still be used. That works if your primary concern is to remove the actual presence of dice from the game's box.
I agree with Rene, perhaps try out a deterministic model. I'm working on a game right now where I'm trying out a deterministic combat resolution, and hoping that the tension will come from where the combats will take place rather than what their outcome will be. We'll see how it works.
As Rene also mentioned, Wallenstein has probably the best randomized combat resolution mechanic I've ever seen -- the "cube tower", in which both sides throw their cubes into the tower, and some come out while other get stuck in the tower. What's nice is that it's self-balancing. If you lose badly in this battle, chances are your cubes will come out en masse in some future battle.
Other nice card-based combat systems include Dune, (in which your combat strength is determined in part by how many units you indicate you're willing to lose should you win the battle), Lord of the Rings:the Confrontation (kind of like Stratego with cards) and A Game of Thrones (blends the card-supplementing of LotR:Confrontation with Diplomacy-style support rules). Another good game that I've played only once is We the People.
Having said all that, I think that these games are good guideposts, but I think that for your game to really stand out, you should try your hand at a combat resolution mechanic of your own! Decide what aspects of the theme you think are most important to model, and build the system around that. (For example, in a simple model with Infantry/Artillery/Cavalry, Artillery would be able to attack from farther away, Cavalry would be faster, Infantry cheaper, etc). This is what will really set your game apart!
Good luck!
-Jeff
Re: a "device" a la Wallenstein, there are some pictures of the tower on the BoardGameGeek entry, which should give you an idea of what it looks like. Here's one: inside the tower and here's another: side view. It's something that you could probably make if you had cardboard and an XActo knife.
Re: Hamumu's idea: I would just recommend putting the numbers on the back of the tiles, since there's no reason not to and that way, the appearance of the front of the tiles won't be marred.
"Deterministic" means not random. It would be a model that had no randomness or uncertainty in combat resolution. An example might be something like "I have 5 guys in this region, and you have 4, therefore I win the battle". Vinci, for example, has a deterministic system.
Good luck,
Jeff
Hello
Do you still want to have a random combat or...
One way it to use the High takes the low as the base model. This is the same model that is used in Stratego. The stronger unit removes the weaker one.
Variant 1: Add a pool of command points or battle points. In each battle, secretly select a number of points to boost your army.
Variant 2: Add cards. You have a variant of this in "A game of thrones".
Another way is to use the same model as in Magic Realm (you get extra points if you succeed to understand the rules ;) ). This model will slow the game down, but you will have a combat system without dices.
The variant with a unit strange that you can divide in different types of actions is also a possible solution.
Example: You have three values that you can place your unit strange at: Attack, Defense and push back. When both players has placed the values, they checks there attack vs. the opponents defense and the push back vs. the opponents push back. Different units will react differently on the result.
...but I think that dice are ok. The dice can be used in many different ways.
// Johan
Hi ya'll
I'm making a table-top wargame ("Complete Hazard") and like all the wargames I can think of, it uses dice.
Well I'm getting sick of dice, and I want to use something different to resolve the combat. Does anybody know what I can use instead of dice to resolve the game's combat issues?
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated
-Justin
Another possibility is to use variances on the standard use of dice. You can use custom faced die, 'nonstandard' polyhedral die (8 sided, 10 sided, 12 sided, 20 sided, *4* sided, etc), or even variances on the meaning of the die. For example, instead of doing the standard 'roll all die and add them up then the highest wins', you can vary it so that 'hits' only occur on a 5 or 6. Or you can have each unit have a different 'to hit' target. For example, a seasoned veteran might have a 'to hit target' of 6,7,8 on 2 six sided die. Due to probability, these numbers will come up very often. Dice are, in reality, only random number generators. If you can think of a method for using these generated numbers in a refreshing way then you may have something. Now don't get me wrong, I too think dice are over used. All that I'm suggesting is that you don't discount them totally.
-Darke
One fun combat resolution that I've played around with is to give each player a number of cards (just one of each). When it comes time to resolve what would be a die roll, each player simply selects a card and plays it face down. Reveal the cards, add all the appropriate modifiers to the cards, and whoever wins, wins.
The key is that once a card is played, it stays discarded until all your cards have been played. At which point, you pick up the stack and start over.
So, for example, if there's a really important battle, I'll toss my high card. On the flip side, if I think you really want the battle, but I see a way to recover from the loss, I may toss my 1 card - saving a higher card for the future.
Note that this is basically a "War" variant, but it seems to go pretty well when worked into a more interesting game.
Or, instead of flipping a coin, you could flip multiple coins. Each side in an army has so many coins (representing individual soldiers) and when the one side attacks the other, the defender flips (or rolls, if there are too many coins to flip) their whole army. Heads kill 1, tails do nothing. Then the attacker flips the remainder of his forces (or retreats) and combat continues until one side gives up or loses completely. This particular scheme favors the defender, but you could just as easily let the attacker strike first.
I used this system for my first boardgame, Wormhole. Simple, but it works, and there's something satisfying about the units doubling as the "dice".
You could also dispose of chance altogether, and invent a deterministic system for handling battles. For instance, cavalry will defeat any single unit they encounter, but any unit assisted by artillery can defeat cavalry, etc, etc.
SQUARES uses rules like these to dispose of dice and other clutter. I haven't played the game, but found the rules rather inspiring. You can read them on Deer Valley game's website, here: http://www.dvgc.com/summary.html
I had come up with a similar problem for a board game I am working on. I needed 3 main unit types and no overt randomness in combat.
The system this I came up with the units exist in a scissors, paper, rock relationship (ie Pikemen beat Cavalry beat Archers beat Pikemen) and used cards to modify these relationships slightly.
When any 2 units fight each gets damage to it's health. If a unit reaches 0 health it is removed. (eg The Cavalry attacks Pikemen: Both the Cavalry and the Pikement take damage, but the Pikemen do more damge to the Cavalry than the Cavalry do to the Pikemen).
The players could play cards to change the outcome slightly (eg:The Cavalry player plays "Beserk". Now the Cavalry do more damage than they would normally). This change may sway thye outcome of the battle entierly.
I thought up something sort of like the Squares idea to play with our copy of Lord Of The Rings Risk (never played it, though). LOTR Risk has so many different types of pieces, because it uses different figures for good and evil, and has, for example, cavalry to represent 5 units. Instead, I used the different pieces (each player plays 1 good color and 1 evil color, so they have access to all pieces) as different units. There were dice involved (hey, I'm using the Risk components!), but only in otherwise boring cases. The units are Swordsman, Archer, Giant, Eagle, and Cavalry.
There are details, but the interesting part is the special trick each unit has, which basically creates "metaunits" in some cases. For example, Giants are nearly invincible (in fact, they can ONLY be beaten by another Giant), except if you team up 3 Swordsmen together, they defeat a giant automatically, and roll a die to see how many of the Swordsmen die in the process. Or you can team up 5 archers to do the same (no chance of dying), obviously not as easy to accomplish, but archers have other benefits, being the only unit that can attack from an adjacent space. The other special team is a set of 3 Cavalry. They don't have any kind of instant kill, but normally, you get to move only one unit at a time, and if you get 3 Cavalry together in one space, they may Charge into an adjacent space, all 3 attacking and moving simultaneously. Another special thing for Cavalry in general is that they instantly kill one enemy archer upon entering a space with one, before even trying to attack.
These abilities are probably a little too opaque to play without a reference guide (and are probably totally unbalanced, since I've never tested it), but the idea makes combat much more strategic and chess-like, as you watch where enemy units are gathering and suddenly your 'invincible' Giant is leery of heading near your opponent's set of 2 Swordsmen. If you add enough depth through things like this (and the artillery support mentioned above), then deterministic combat is still very exciting and uncertain, and it gets integrated into the overall gameplay - instead of having a combat phase where things get resolved, it's more like chess. You move your guy into a space, and go "ha! Now I have 3 Robonannies adjacent to your Spacebaby! SPANKED!" or "My Ninja is in the same space as my Warthog, so they can now move together as a Hog Rider, 2 spaces per turn" or "I'm loading my Expendable Soldier into the Corpse Cannon and firing him at your space, taking out 3 of your units." See how fun? Whether that much complexity can be placed in another game, or it must be the whole meat of the game itself is another question.
In fact this possible combat system does not avoid dice at all, but rather embraces it. But instead of the roll just being a straight up roll, allow for different methods within the game to change the outcomes of the role. Let people basically by roll upgrades.
Long time since my last post, so this might be off a little, I am a bit rusty :)
but what about something like this :
Take the N different units you have in the game and assign some power value to each unit (I assume you have an idea of how strong each unit in you game will be ).
Lets say we have
Footsoldiers (power 1)
Archers (power 2)
Cavalry (power 3)
When in combat players will add X colored power cubes (or square or marbles, etc) to a bag. One cube for each power of unit they have involved in the combat (Each player will be tracked with a different color.).
Lets say the combat involves Player 1 : with 5 Footsoldiers, 1 Archer and Player 2 : with 4 soliders, 1 Cavalry.
Player 1 would add 7 power cubes and Player 2 would add 7 power cubes, thus the result of combat will be 50-50. Even though the players have a different set of units in the fight.
Then you can have the attacking player blindly select a "power cube" from the bag. Which ever players power cube is selected wins the combat.
So if you had Player 1 : 5 Footsoliders, 3 archers and Player 2 : 3 Footsoliders, 1 archer and 1 Cavalry
The power cubes would be 11 to 8 in favor of Player 1.
I dunno sounds a little funny now that I re-read it, ah well.
When in combat players will add X cubes to a bag. Then you can have the attacking player blindly select a "power cube" from the bag. Which ever players power cube is selected wins the combat.
The idea is neat- as random as dice, but the probabilities are enforced- like using a 'deck of dice' instead of rolling dice.
- Seth
Then you can have the attacking player blindly select a "power cube" from the bag. Which ever players power cube is selected wins the combat. ... I dunno sounds a little funny now that I re-read it, ah well.
-Bryk
Zzzz, actually, I think the idea you're articulating is most like an Alan Moon game called "Andromeda", which I haven't played but have heard about. Which proves that your idea is a good one! (I think...)
I don't know - the system only allows boolean outcomes - one side or the other. Is that what you want?
I've always found the diceless Avalon Hill Dune boardgame combat resolution kinda neat, myself - where you set a dial to the amount of committed troops, and secretly add a leader and special cards to influence the combat.
This seems like a good thread in which to revive that 'momentum in combat' idea that Jeff articulated...
Any further thoughts on that, Jeff? And culd you summarise it again for those interested in diceless combat?
Well I'm getting sick of dice
This is a thought I wish all game designers would have, at least for a period of time of no fewer than five (5) years.
Dice have been done to death and in a world of limitless possibilities, dice are too often the "stand-by" answer to many game mechanic problems.
My friends and I buy and play lots of new games each and every week and we have all but given up on those that come with dice as any part of the experience -- another reason why we love games like Puerto Rico.
The discussion Seth is referencing is here.
Basically, what I was trying to derive was a combat model that was realistic but also simple. It hasn't evolved to the point of actually figuring out how combat is resolved, but deals more with the starting point of how the combatants themselves are modeled.
The "momentum" aspect of the concept basically involved a way to answer the question "who is attacking?" It was meant to get away from the "I attack then you attack then I attack" model and the "we attack simultaneously" model, neither of which strikes me as very realistic (I was thinking specifically of a hand-to-hand situation). The idea was simply that there would be a track (Seth's contribution, actually), and when the marker on the track was to the left of center, player A would be attacking, and to the right, player B. And, various things could happen that would shift the marker on the momentum track.
The other aspect of the model was the combatents themselves, which I modeled as having 3 attributes: power, speed, and energy. Power and speed tokens would be the "currency" with which you'd pay for actions; there would be power and speed tokens. When you run out of tokens, you pay an Energy token to replenish your supply of power and speed tokens. BUT, the number of power and speed tokens you receive are equal to the number of power and speed "cubes" you have, and these can be lost as you take damage or get tired or whatever.
I haven't gotten all that much farther along with taking the idea and making it into a game, and the main reason is that the model is, I think, quite flexible. I can see using it to model a Kung Fu battle, or a gladiator vs. a bear, or a knight vs. a dragon, etc. And because of the various directions it could go in, I haven't been able to just pick one direction and move it along.
I don't know how well it would work in a wargame context, although I think some of the ideas could definitely be ported. Certainly the momentum idea could, but it's probably also the less original aspect of the idea. Really, this model is meant to be applied in a combat resolution that will be resolved over many actions on the part of each combatant, so it wouldn't be appropriate for a game where a quick combat resolution (like a die roll, card drop, or tower throw) was desired.
I'm happy to talk about it further, but it might make more sense to resume the discussion over at that other thread, if it goes too far afield from the subject of this thread...
-J
The "momentum" aspect of the concept basically involved a way to answer the question "who is attacking?" It was meant to get away from the "I attack then you attack then I attack" model and the "we attack simultaneously" model, neither of which strikes me as very realistic (I was thinking specifically of a hand-to-hand situation). The idea was simply that there would be a track (Seth's contribution, actually), and when the marker on the track was to the left of center, player A would be attacking, and to the right, player B. And, various things could happen that would shift the marker on the momentum track.
-J
Sorry to continue the hijacking of this thread but...
Seth (and Scurra for that matter), this was exactly the kind of mechanic I was trying to explain for you to possibly use in the fencing portions of AFO (probably a moot point now that the game is so far along). One of the things about a sword fight is it's back and forth nature until one of the combatants is eventually subdued (I refered to it as an 'arm wrestling' mechanic). I think this type of mechanic would add great depth, especially if cards were played to modify 'momentum'. Just a suggestion.
-Darke
this was exactly the kind of mechanic I was trying to explain for you to possibly use in the fencing portions of AFO (probably a moot point now that the game is so far along). One of the things about a sword fight is it's back and forth nature until one of the combatants is eventually subdued (I refered to it as an 'arm wrestling' mechanic). I think this type of mechanic would add great depth, especially if cards were played to modify 'momentum'.
I think perhaps a Princess Bride game could be made with this 'Arm Wrestling' mechanic, and/or a number of other mechanics Scurra and I talked about for All For One. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Scurra DID make a Princess bride game using some of said mechanics... but that was before the Arm Wrestling thing came to light.
So... can we, as a group, work out a 'diceless' combat mechanic for a game (mayeb Princess Bride could be the theme) where combat is a major portion but not the whole game?
--- Here is where I go into a long stream of consciousness session ---
For example, if the Princess Bride IS to be the theme, the goals of the players would be to either rescue Buttercup or wed her (depending on weather you're playing Humperdink or Wesley), and along the way Wesley might have to duel Inigo or Fezzik. At the end perhaps Wesley and Humperdink can face off using this mechanic, while the buildup of the game dealt with gathering cards which will give you more options and help you win duels.
The Humperdink player could be dropping speedbumps in front of Wesley by sending Inigo and Fezzik. As Wesley fights each one he spends cards, reducing his options later. Maybe those go to Humperdink. Then, when Wesley defeats Inigo, the Spainiard joins his side and Wesley collects whatever cards inigo had left. Same with Fezzik.
So the Wesley player starts out with a set of 'Dread Pirate Roberts' cards which are decently powerful and have fencing moves based on a balance of agility, speed, and strength. As the game progresses he spends those, but gains some of Inigo's cards (swordplay, more style/finesse- cards that gain you momentum, reversals), and Fezzik's (strength and power, less momentum, more inflicting damage). Then at then end he fights humperdink, who has his own cards plus maybe some of those spent in the beginning of the game.
Any thoughts?
As long as we're sliding this thread into hand-to-hand combat, I'll share an idea for that. I have a game idea for a card game about kung fu, and the basic mechanic would be ideal for fencing and such: the cards are each different attacks, which have varying effects (pretty much all do damage, but e.g. a Jumpkick card would also say "dodges any low attack"). The key to it is that each card also has a list of different Stances it can be done from and says what stance it leaves you in when you execute it. So basically the cards flow into each other. The gameplay is simultaneous card-laying, and you're sort of building up combos - if I play Leaping Dragon, I'll be in the Flamingo stance afterward, so I'll be able to play my Crane Kick. You indicate your stance by leaving the last card played face up in front of you, so the stance is visible (some cards also leave you the option of not entering their stance, and instead going to 'default stance', by just discarding instead - you also generally end up in default stance when hit).
This is a very accurate model of how fencing really does work, too. You could have a Lunge, which is very effective (maybe you compare 'attack power' versus your opponent and whoever is higher scores a hit, unless one of your attacks causes a parry or something), but leaves you in the state Overextended, which has very few options and is very vulnerable (maybe it gives -3 attack power to moves done in it as well). You'd probably want to play Backstep to recover from it, and only a Lunge can hit someone who is doing a Backstep. Of course, in the Princess Bride game you'd also have left-handed and right-handed cards, and you'd be able to go from Overextended into a Flip or Vault.
Mike,
I think this is a very nice idea, and has potential to add a lot of accuracy and flavor to a game. However, I could also see it adding a bit of a learning curve as players learn all of the stances and combos, and a potential for analysis as players consider all their options. This last is what I'd worry about more, and it's partially what led me to consider abstracting these kinds of positional aspects and lumping them all under "momentum". So instead of a lunge leaving you Overextended, it simply costs you 2 momentum, say. It has the same overall effect -- lunging is potentially powerful but is likely to leave you exposed -- but the momentum framework is simpler, which I hope would also speed up gameplay, and that's important in a fighting simulation. But I suspect that your model could be great for folks who can think quickly (I'm not one of them) and want a bit more realism. Nice!
-Jeff
I could also see it adding a bit of a learning curve
This is another great point that people need to consider more often: there are SO many good games out there and a few truly great ones but oftentimes the problem is that with a sea of mediocrity to wade through, it's hard to get to those gems as it takes forever to even figure out what's going on. While having a great system is terrific and necessary and will captivate those who choose to sit around and figure things out, you need to hook people and fast and have a gradual learning curve that is more like a gentle hill that reaches upwards forever rather than the side of the mountain that someday turns into a plateau.
I'm not talking about this post in particular, but rather in general there are enough plateaus out there and not enough rolling hills.
I agree with you in principal, but I actually don't mind games that present a bit of a learning curve with respect to strategy. What I worry about more is games that take a long time to learn just the basics of how to play. I could see the first couple of playings of Mike's game involving a lot of trial and error, a la "I'll play Whooping Crane on you! Oh wait, I'm not in the Prone Gazelle position; I'll have to play something else". I like games whose mechanics can be internalized quickly. Happily, I do think Mike's proposed mechanic makes perfectly good intuitive sense, and that's a big help. It just has the potential to have details that will take time to fully digest.
But ultimately, I definitely recommend making the games that one wants to make -- give no thought (or not too much thought, anyway) to what the foolish masses prefer!
-J
Agreed to the learning curve being fine with getting better in a game -- that's perfectly acceptable.
In fact, I'd say it's a requirement that a game should be one where knowledge of the game will usually make one better in said game (see: Stratego).
However, using that example, you can teach anyone how to play Stratego in ... five minutes? ... ten? ... but actual play -- and lots of it -- will develop ones skill in mastering it.
As the saying goes for Othello: a minute to learn and a lifetime to master. More games should adopt that motto.
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (14) by Jacob |
 | TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (11) by larienna |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
| Toy play: Creating a log while playing (15) by questccg |
Well, unless you want to completely rule out randomness all together, you will need to simply find an elegant alternate randomizing device. I have seen games using random chit draws to determine results, but these are simply cardboard "dice". Can also use combat cards which you choose from, both players choosing one which roughly represents a "strategy" for that combat and are somehow related to determining the outcome. Or you can flip a coin :lol: