In my game, I currently use a combat system where each side is rolling 2 dice and each roll of 4+ kill a unit. Player's alternate rolling until a player retreat or is annihilated.
I played with some euro gamers and they found that there was too much die rolls. They suggested using the following system: attacker roll 2d, remove casualties, then each defending units kills an attacking unit. Survivor wins. Additionally, you resolve combat separately when invading from multiple cities allowing a player to have more rolls if he surround his enemy.
This method seems much better because it implies more strategy, large stack of units harder to destroy and that system is already used for resolving invasions. It was used in invasions to make the resolution faster.
So it clearly seems a better option. But I think I am capable of making my game support both system without any rule conflict with technology cards or other rules.
So I was wondering if it was actually a good idea to have 2 different possible combat system in the same game. The new system could be the official game rule, and the old random system could be the optional rules.
That would make the game more flexible and allow people to play with more randomness or more strategy.
What do you think?
I made some testing and the new system seems better. I was just wondering if I should make some effort to make sure the system is backward compatible. Apparently not.