Skip to Content

Alternative battle mechanic for a more Euro-style game

5 replies [Last post]
Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016

I've been thinking over ways to simplify my battle mechanics for my game, since combat is not the main objective or focus of my game.

I'm trying to use the same basic elements of my previous model for combat, but using them in different ways. For example, instead of a gauge showing a permanent defense bonus and another gauge for a permanent Strike bonus, I want to use one gauge for a "Power" gauge. Let's say it represents your battle-ready units.

The goal is to lower your opponents power track to zero before they do the same to you.

I have strategy cards of varying points for this, as well as dice. But what I'm thinking is the attacking player has control over which of the two is used each round of combat.

Example: attacker decides to start with a strike card, so defender can counter with a Defense card. Points are subtracted from gauges, and attacker begins the next round. He decides to conserve his remaining cards for now, so he relies on the dice this round. He rolls the strike die, and defender rolls defense dice. Loser removed points based on the difference in dice rolls.

Each round, the attacker has the choice of whether to use dice or cards. There are reasons to conserve cards - they have secondary uses in sabotage, and it's also worth considering the cost of those cards, and what you're gaining from the battle to offset that cost.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
Frame of reference

Many of you have probably seen the other 2 threads I started relating to this, but please bear with me lol! This thread not only considers an alternate mechanic, but in the game, the purposes of combat interference is more distinct than it was previously.

So, for a frame of reference, you can send a worker golem to sabotage an opponent's Alchemy equipment or ingredients, for which you only need to lower their power gauge to where it is less than yours, so combat might be very brief, or not even be necessary. Sabotage is not always effective, and you lose your worker for a couple of turns, so that basically offsets the easier battle requirements.

The second reason to initiate combat is to compete over extra resources that build up in the center of the table (a wasteland between the player's Domains). You can send a worker to scavenge these resources, but other players can initiate combat out of turn to try to take the resources from you, and disable your worker.

Since the second battle is over a few resources, you wouldn't want to spend too many combat cards on it - using dice would cost nothing. But sabotage is more effective at slowing an opponent's Alchemy work, where the game points are, so it would be best to make the most of your cards in that case, and only resort to dice if the battle looks desperate.

I'm still trying to get some play testing done on this version, either at home or on Tabletopia, but friends and family have been too busy lately. Anyone here up for a Tabletopia test run??

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
The dice

Since I've posted about the other versions of my battles before, I neglected to mention here that the attacker uses 1D20 and the defender uses 2D8, unless they've built an upgrade that gives them a 3rd D8.

roger
roger's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2017
To simplify, just reduce the

To simplify, just reduce the number of options or elements. Like remove the dice altogether or the first 10 turns use only dice, then the next 10 turns only the cards.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
I've been considering

I've been considering eliminating the dice - gonna play test it both ways. But it dawned on me yesterday that allowing players to choose whether to use dice or cards in whichever order they want creates an interesting tactical element. Not only that, but cards cost resources, and dice don't (in my game anyway), so there's another risk/reward to consider - dice are free, but riskier. Cards are more precious, but you know for sure how much "damage" they'll deal.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
In addition to changing the

In addition to changing the resource production mechanic in my game, which I posted about in another thread, I also tested the above idea last night, and it really worked well! There were only 4 battles, but we were playing a bit cautiously because of all the other mechanics we were getting used to.

We didn't attempt any battles around the "sabotage" concept, only battles to compete over the excess resources building up in the center "wastelands" part of the table, so I need several more tests to make sure it holds up, but we really felt that the battles, while remaining fairly quick, were more significant in interfering with each other.

But the cool thing was having that choice between dice or cards each round of combat. The rounds are quite short - as described in the above posts, so overall a big improvement!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut