What makes combat "feel" like combat?

I wonder if a tabletop game more accurately models combat when there's a sense of loss when one "fails." When you feel like there's something more at stake, and "stakes is high."

I don't think it's so much about relishing in the "pew-pew" of laser guns as it is in the loser's cry of, "What are we gonna do now?!?!" Both the winner and the loser react to such an outburst: one positive, one negative.

Becoming invested in the abilities of those units, and then clearly losing a contest - where the feedback of the contest is that you now possess fewer units - can generate this sense of loss. Furthermore, the sense of dread for combat contests, unless you have a strong sense that you will win with overwhelming odds, becomes that much deeper when you see how much the loss of these units can negatively affect your position.

TL;DR = Combat can be effective if players tend to avoid it unless they feel they'll win with overwhelming odds, because the disappointment of losing the combat contest is significant.

Dexterity games tackle this in interesting ways. Take Catacombs for example (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/195137/catacombs-third-edition)

Combat is simulated by flicking large wooden disks at each other. You can literally "hit" an opponent, while also maintaining high stakes with the option of missing an attack. Not missing because you rolled an inopportune number, missing because you literally missed when you flicked a disk. There's a tactile satisfaction to this that doesn't exist in other board game combat.

I think the high stakes are important. To me Scythe does not simulate combat well, but instead simulates the threat of combat. A Cold War feeling. I think this is because of two things: you have non-combative units that can just be walked over, AND combat itself is so unpredictable it is better not to participate (in most cases). At least in my experience of the game that first battle- anyone could win, depending on how greatly they are willing to weaken themselves. But then, in any case, the winner is weak and others pounce to get that easy military star. So everyone is reluctant to engage.

To me, the biggest fault in the combat of Scythe is that the Mechs and leader don't have any innate combat ability. It's all determined by how great your power and battle card engine is. If my units are only a vessel by which to channel resources I've collected... that's just too abstract to me to "feel" like combat.

I think theme is very important. Mini's improve theme, art improves theme. Even language used to describe what is happening improves theme. In Scythe I'm bidding "power" and "cards"... meh. bad language if I'm trying to capture combat. I could equally be running a Electric Utility empire. In Blood Rage... well the name itself already elicits a certain feeling. And throughout the game you "pillage" and spend "rage." In Kemet language such as "blood," "strength," "Victory," "blades," "sacrifice," is used... it just gets you in the right head space to suspend disbelief.

An interesting question for me combat realism does not matter for me I think what make a good combat system is the following.

Simplicity:

What i mean by this is the system is easy to grasp some game have very convoluted systems that are is difficult to learn and takes a while to do as an example i am going to give d&d 3.5

Due to the sheer amount of options players and gm's have available there are a lot of exceptions to the core rules like monsters being immune to certain effects or being able to act out of turn.

Combat can take hours with countless rules queries and so on.

Now in recent years the combat has been streamlined to be quick and simple with out to much rule checking but keeping the tension with the fact you can succeed or fail based on a roll of the dice which leads to the next point tension.

Tension

I think this is an important point to have if your wanting combat to be interesting is to include a degree of success and failure usually this is handled by dice rolls but card based systems are used sometimes to. An example would be fury of Dracula that uses a sort of rock paper scissor style to combat with certain cards beating other cards.

When players feel they are walking a thin line between the two extremes i find it makes the game enjoyable as your at the edge of your seat.

Decisions

Players like to have options each being roughly of equal merit as if a player finds a way to win 60% of the time then that will make the game boring as that kind of option will be used to much.

But if players have different ways to achieve victory that are about equal to one another I think that brings more enjoyment to a wider audience.

Hope this helps.

I think this is a great topic and one that is important to consider as a designer. When I read a book that has combat I envision the scene as it unfolds. There is tension and evocative imagery in my mind as I read. The only thing that is "actually" going in is I'm reading printed letters that when conjoined represent words, which in turn represent ideas. No combat, no romance, nothing but letters. The thing at play here is the author's ability to direct my brain into connecting the dots and filling in space with my imagination.

I work as a therapist for a living (mental health, not physical) and study the way the brain works. As newborn babies, each of us were unable to connect the spacial dots as it were. Even after learning the faces of our parents, if they were to cover up half of their face they would become unrecognizable to us and for all we knew at the time, mom literally disappeared in front of our eyes! Over time we have learned to see what isn't present, ie: the hidden side of mom/dad's face, when someone leaves the room we learn they aren't gone forever etc. Words and other symbols became meaningful. The reason I mention this is because the people have developed a complex way of connecting the dots that are provided. In Ryan Laukat's Above and Below, we read through scenarios that transport us into another place and time where decisions have outcomes that play out through the gaming experience. As designers, it's our job to provide dots worth connecting. Keeping the players engaged in this process becomes meaningful and fun.

I talk about this to my students all the time...how does rolling of a dice interpret as armies fighting over a land territory in a game like Risk?

It doesn't, to be honest.

We use "simulation" in this case (this mechanism represents this other thing).

However, when we put mechanisms that have elements similar to the action we are doing, it makes the mechanism more thematic, however it doesn't fully represent the action.

For example, in Magic, you "tap" a card in order to use it. In terms of a land card, you are (theoretically) "drawing" the magic off the land. While you're not really "drawing" the magic out of the land, the process of turning the card kinda feels like you're turning a switch from on to off, going from active to inactive.

There's no way to accurately represent combat, but by applying mechanisms that simulate certain aspects of the combat, it will feel more thematic to the player.

In another example, with my game, Conquest at Kismet where players represent giant motherships trying to destroy the other ship. During combat, players alternate discarding cards into a central Combat Stack, shuffled, then the attacker pulls a card from the stack to determine the winner of the skirmish. Ultimately it's a lottery system, but by discarding multiple cards into a shared stack, it feels like you're sending a squad of ships instead of using resources to generate 1 or 2 units only to attack with those 1 or 2 units.

I'm not a fan of putting in a mechanism for mechanisms sake (or because I particularly like a mechanism). I've seen way too many games that have mechanics that just don't feel right or have no connection to simulate anything about what it represents.

I'd rather put in a mechanism that can easily simulate an aspect or two of the action I want it to represent.

As mentioned, board game combat is not trying to simulate the actual feeling of being in combat.

Seen the real thing, not looking to replicate that experience.

Board game combat is more about a risky venture that gives the player a sense of anticipation before resolution, tension during resolution, and accomplishment afterward. This doesn't require an element of chance, but it does need some kind of unknown.

(For example, two players could each select a hand of cards at the beginning of the game and be free to play any of those cards in any order. There are unknown elements in the opponent's hand and strategy.)

Not familiar with the Catan variant, but if it's just having N knights by turn T to avoid a bad outcome, it doesn't seem like "combat" in the sense I'm using it here. I also would not call an entire wargame "combat" though the individual skirmishes within it would be. The whole wargame has victory conditions with a certain combative theme, but that does not make it "combat" as I'm using the term. Hopefully this make sense.

A game could be designed to maximize the anticipation part of combat with careful planning and an appropriate sense of dread if an opponent strikes just before you're ready... but even if strategy is the focus, the battle itself should not be anti-climatic.

My preference is for a combat system with some exceptions to the normal resolution process (e.g., this unit is immune to fire damage) so that the flavor and theme actually matter, but not so convoluted that it requires multiple lookups in the rulebook. I also like the tactile sense of this-is-the-moment-of-resolution you get from throwing a handful of dice or both players turning over their cards simultaneously. IMHO, action-reaction sequences of indeterminate length just sap the fun out of a fight.

The combat system I used in my old 1978 Hyperwars game was intended as a simplification of miniature battles but used combat tables with odds and various damage results.

The revamp went all digital on me (hidden info will do that to a game and going digital let the computer do the paperwork) but the actual combat portion dropped the tables completely.

If there were no computer (still use a calculator - just to convert something like 17/31 to a number you can try to roll with percentage dice) the combat system is a combo of rolling for hits and drawing chits from a bag for damage inflicted.

So, each ship has drive,weapons,etc that can be destroyed by a hit in combat - simplified to 1 hit destroys 1 unit and a drive of 3 is actually 3 drive units.

To hit odds are determined by weapon total with me hitting you as me/(me+you).

Number of shots usually same as weapon total.

Each hit takes out an armor unit until armor is 0 and then a random unit on the ship (weapon and drive both 0 destroys the ship, system unit damage causes the ship to go dark).

Action is simultaneous (all players allocate all shots at known odds then all to hit rolls are made and damage inflicted - then a new combat round uses new numbers if any opponents remain).

--- BUT --- when a combat might involve 30 shots in a single round at one location (and there can be combats going on at more than one location) this method is way too cumbersome for a physical implementation.

With info hidden (only the owner can see actual damage - opponents only know ship type, total damage to the ship, and the shipyard equipment specs for each type of ship) the digital version has you aim all your shots at known odds and the computer processes and gives back reports of target, odds, shots fired, and hits to every player in that combat.

--- STILL ---
A method of odds to hit as a die roll, number of shots at those odds, and random damage inflicted as draw chits from a bag is suited for combats where the scale is fairly small without taking forever to resolve.

Interesting thread and some fantastic responses.
When thinking about this I immediatly though that you can't emulate the visceral feeling of being in a combat situation but you can try to emulate the reflective element* .
The physicality of combat is not possible to replicate but you can generate similar emotions to those that surface in those situations.

Now -fortunately- I haven't been in a firefight so everything I'm talking about is asumptions,

There are many things to consider. For example depending on the scale of the combat the emotional reaction changes, a one on one duel like in a western is not the same as detachedly commanding hundred of men into battle. They're different experiences and the bigger the number the greater the dehumanization.
On a indiviual level you can generate tension, dread. Here's what many of you talked about loss. Combat is dangerous, even if you're better prepared than the opponent. In a larger scale it's more intellectual, it's about expectations, planning and the nervousness of seeing if everything falls into place or falls appart.

How do you generate those emotions? I have no idea :P
I guess it'll depend on the theme and the mechanics you're using. Dice seems like it would be great for a one on one. You might have a mechanics that allows you to skew the odds in your favour but you're still vulnerable to a bad roll. That creates tension.
For a bigger scale I think using a deck of cards to prepare a plan of action might work well. You set your plan beforehand and then when combat happens you can see if your preparations worked and if you were able to take advantage of the terrain, positioning and the intel you gained from your opponent.

*When I talk about visceral and reflective I'm using the terms as described by Donald Norman in his book "Emotional Design"
http://www.jnd.org/books/emotional-design-why-we-love-or-hate-everyday-t...
A fantastic read, easy to follow as it doesn't get into technical jargon. I highly recommend it. Even if you're not into product design there is stuff there that's quite useful for boardgame design.

Just so happens. We decided to get rid of our timers. Actually, the first action sets everything else in motion any way. At least, the player that may start it all, can think about it carefully. Just like in real combat. Let's just say, throwing the first stone will be done with thought. And we got so much more freedom. And the moment before the action can be used as a legit pause.

Or is that not what you meant?

I second this. We experimented with different configurations in the player groups. 2 teams is best. You still can have leaders and subordinates. 3 teams leads to troubles. For any one remembering that I tried to design a RPS between 3 races. It leads to bad games, even if you have 3 players.

IF you want a third team or player. This one needs to get an entire different goal than just genocide.

Mercenary players, we played this often. But they are not really cooperative. It always leaded to 2 teams.

I hate morale. It is like a secondary health system. Instead, we often use XP to get attached to certain "hero's". And it is the players morale if he/she wants to put their "hero's" in danger or not.

I see. Then perhaps, you like the system that me and my buddies use.

Because that is exactly as how you have described it (lifts eyebrow). Except for the overwatch fire. We use a slightly larger scale themed name: Intercept. But, Lure, is also a similar action that players can use.

We have:
Primary random chosen player.
Secondary re-acting victim(s).
Tertiary (re-)acting bystander(s).

For a deeper and more academic discussion about what wargames are good at simulating or not I can highly recommend the book Simulating War by Phil Sabin. There are some other good books about the history of wargames, but they do not normally touch directly upon this subject.

The book Wargames - From Gladiators to Gigabytes by Martin van Creveld is a bit lighter, but it covers many ways of playing/pretending/simulating wars and battles throughout the ages (including boardgames and paintball of course), and it is an interesting read (and it has many long lists of references for further reading, so it might be a good entry point, but I have not checked out the references much).

I never was in real combat luckily and have no idea what it was like, but from books and articles what I understand is that when the military use simulations to teach fighting in wars they split the experience up into different parts. To teach the soldiers what it is like to be under fire they have simulations where they crawl in the mud and someone fires a real machinegun just over their heads for instance. Then they have simulations where they run around in the woods and play laser tag or paintball. And various boardgames and electronic simulators. Each of those focuses on simulating one particular aspect of battle, rather than trying to squash several of them into one, because if you do that it becomes real combat, and people die a lot, which would not be ideal for training purposes.

Boardgames are great for getting a top-down view of a battle with the tactics involved and sometimes a bit of command-and-control or fog of war. To me that is enough really and I do not think the medium is right for much more.

If a game can make me care about the soldiers that is of course a good thing for its entertainment value. Ambush! is the by far best example I have seen. A soldier that has been with your squad for 10 or 20 missions, increased their skills to really high levels, it gets very tense when they are in trouble and decades after playing a mission I can still remember details about how some soldier was killed. But I do not think that still has anything to do with real combat. While the game does simulate to some extent the effect of different types of waepons etc, and is quite complex by modern standards, it is still more of a simulation of Hollywood-style combat than of real combat (by design).

You can have a very complex simulating game like Advanced Squad Leader to look at many details of combat, but in the end it becomes more like a story-generator and does not have a lot of realistic decisions. It is rather gamey actually ("gamey" in the sense wargamers use it, to describe when players focus more on the rules than on the theme). Many other tactical wargames simulate war in this way, but rarely on anywhere near this detailed level.

From what I have read in various reviews and articles, Up Front is often regarded as the best simulation ever of what ww2 combat was like, and there might be something to that. But there are no bullets flying in the air, just a lot of confusion and chaos (and simulating quite many things as well). It is interesting that the game does away with positioning almost completely, and you do not have a good idea what the terrain looks like until one of your teams stumble upon something. It is very much seeing things from the eye-level of your soldiers, not really being sure what is hiding in front of you.

Fields of Fire (disclosure: I was a playtester) seems to me like a very good look at command and control of an infantry company in combat. It simulates how you need to get orders out to individual squads and teams to make them do what you want to (otherwise they tend to do what they want, like fire at the first enemy they see until you order them to not do that, because as I understand it that is actually what infantry squads tend to do in reality). It even abstracts fire-combat and terrain to a rather high level, but I still think it makes for a very good make-belief of being the company commander.

Simply let one weapon go first?
Sub turns if you will.

If you regard Ambush! so high. It is a shame that I do not own that game.

Marines in the US are often teased for their fanaticism but I am sure they are taught to think for themselves as we were in the US Army I was over there as well albeit longer ago in 1991 as well as other places but not that much has changed. If you perceive a threat you will engage without orders. I cannot fulfill my job if I wait for orders not to be killed by enemy activity. LOL.

Its all very dependent on the situation. So much so that it would require an AI to even remotely come close replicating the actions of Non player soldiers. Being just a game I understand that some suspension of reality must occur. Psychology is far too complicated to try to simulate even with a computer. Look at most Military RTS games. Even with Commercial PC AI's the stupidity of units is maddening. Close Combat 3.(which touted troop psychological profiles) I tossed it out my window. I watched tanks turn their rears to the enemy because of some AI glitch way to many times. I've been playing Company of Heroes Mod and its great visually but if you scrutinize the behavior of the Troops on their own. Its down right suicidal and illogical.

But technical things like Weight of Fire was calculated by Artillerymen in Word war two on the Spot without any PC's. So it easy quite easy to calculate that and create a table or other mechanism to represent it on a board. Same with tank Armor penetration. I have that in Excel. The Results can easily be displayed on a chart where the only math needed by the player is to compare one number to other and get a much more accurate result then say PanzerBlitz's heavy abstraction. That game is very popular but it is also often modified heavily to try to get the right "feel" by so many. The original Avalon Hill General has history of those attempts. Right off the bat many spoke of the lacking in detail and gameyness such as the Famed Panzerbush.

One major oversight of these command control ideas, is that You do not go in to a fight without a plan. People cling to the adage of the plan "Never surviving battle". Well to some extent things never play out as planed. But you do have contingencies for the most likely variation. Training and practice do very well to overcome things devolving into complete chaos. We were taught individual initiative because if everybody stayed on the radio waiting to be told what to do you'd be dead while the enemy conducted its business. Radio dicspline is taught so nets don't get jammed up. If one doesn't work, you have a runner. If you are isolated, don't wonder off.(that ones easy, who wants to be a gaggle isolated men on a battlefield?) We set up rally points for such an occurrence. Not to mention if a Platoon Leader cant find a part of his unit he will also send somebody to establish contact too.

The average infantrymen may perceive the massive noise ,speed and fire as chaos, but if your leaders are as unaware as you, you wont be alive to talk about it. you will found allot syndical gallows humor from the average soldier, which is understandable as they have their butts on the line. Anecdotes are fascinating but theya re telling one story in one situation.

It's no cake walk and its not a training exercise but, there is way to much focus on command paralysis in these games especially in World War Two and Beyond. AS I mentioned in earlier posts. The unusual or Black Swan has become the accepted norm.

Being detached at Squad level is not that uncommon. You may want feint or put one of your elements on point to scout or screen. Part of a good battle plan is to negate the need to have to micromanage your troops, such as picking their particular targets. We have set assignments for field of fire, rules for whom and what to engage. Fire plans, and other special orders prior to getting in combat. Sure you can get ambushed. Things can turn ugly fast. But training rams instinct into you and you take action without direction when needed in order to survive and accomplish your task.