Combat Mechanic Question

I had the same issue and I decided to use the mechanic mechanic I put below to prevent players from turtling.

"The attacking player must first select a Unit of theirs to conduct an attack and an opponent's Unit to attack. Then the attacking player must roll an Attack die to decide how much damage their Unit will do. If a Unit has more than 1 Attack, they can either re-roll their Attack die until they are satisfied with their roll up to the attacking Unit's Attack stat.

*Note: If a Unit uses up their Attack by re-rolling an attack die, it cannot attack another Unit.

The player whose turn it is can attack multiple times with all their Units up to their Units’ attack stat. No 2 Units can ever conduct battle against each other more than once in the same turn. Once damage has been inflicted or prevented, the attacking Unit can select another Unit for an attack (if they have any attack rolls left).

The Unit being attacked does not roll for defense until the attacking player is finished rolling for their attack. The player being attacked can re-roll their defense up to the Level of their Defense stat.

*Note: If a Unit uses up their Defense by re-rolling against the same attack, the Unit cannot defend against another Unit's attack.

No matter how many times Attack and Defense dice are rolled only the highest number is used."

I'm with Dralius: even though this math is simple, it's still too much as presented here. There are ways to circumvent that, though.

For example:

1) Group attacking units into 'squads' of 3 (if there is a leftover squad with fewer than 3 units, it may not attack).
2) Each squad attacks with the accuracy of the lowest unit.
3) Roll a die for each squad and award a single hit for each successful roll.

This effectively "hides" the division and reduces the number of rolls. It also forces players to take care when combining units with different Accuracy ratings.

All this said, this is just an example of how to make "complex" math (like division) implicit in your system, rather than explicit. I'm not recommending this particular take on your idea.

Mark

What is your setting? Modern? Knowing this is helpful.

I'd go so far as to give each unit 3 statistics. Every unit (true throughout history) is a mix of power(also firepower), maneuverability, and durability(defense/armor). By giving every unit 3 statistics you can get a lot of depth and allows a lot of different unit combinations. I'd also separate your combat into phases, a ENGAGEMENT and ADVANCE phase. When a battle occurs the attacker divides his frontline forces into an ATTACK FORCE and his RESERVE. The defender responds accordingly and divides his forces into his own FRONTLINE and RESERVE. When combat begins the attacker totals his attack force's firepower and compares it to the firepower of the defending frontline units, if there is an advantage to either player THE DIFFERENCE is added to a single die roll for each player during the engagement phase. It is the total of the units statistic in each group that goes to the modifier rather then the number of dice. Damage is inflicted by comparing Firepower vs. Durability and units are reduced to both sides accordingly. It comes down to a single modified opposed die roll and mitigates randomness because players can bring overwhelming firepower at the critical point.

Now here is the second part. If the attacker EXCEEDS OR MATCHES the defender in the initial attack he can then ADVANCE with that reserve force. The two reserves maneuverability scores are compared and the same dice resolution mechanism is used but the variable is the maneuver statistic instead. If the attacker exceeds the defender he is allowed to either attack in the next territory by bypassing the defenders reserve, or cut off the defenders supply lines, if the attacker does not exceed the defender's roll they both go back into reserve. If the attacker wins the maneuver roll and chooses to attack the same sequence occurs as a regular attack etc. but into the NEXT territory, If he chooses to cut supplies then the defender cannot reinforce the units trapped in the territory from outside areas unless he fights through them, you can even attrit. the units in the pocket over time for as long as they are cutoff. Of course, if the defender has no reserve to begin with and the attacker does then he automatically gets to continue attacking or cut off supplies if that initial breakthrough succeeds. Again, that whole phase comes down to one opposed die roll.

As an extra mechanic I'd put pips or marks along each areas borders that would limit the maximum number of units allowed to attack and advance across that border. It is a very easy way to put terrain restrictions and bottlenecks into your map.

This system is quick to resolve, tense and puts each player into a series of tactical dilemmas. The attacker needs to evaluate which units to put into the attack to make that breakthrough and what to keep as an exploitation force, it requires combined arms and thinking ahead. The defender has the dilemma of what to put into the front line and what to hold back to counter. The interaction is good and only requires a maximum of three opposed die rolls.

I'm with you Red streamlining is key. I would only add that another way randomness can be achieved is through hidden information. If forces are somehow hidden until committed to a battle it becomes another and fairly realistic way to simulate randomness. I'd really like to know more from the poster about what type of warfare and setting he is trying to simulate. My above example assumes it's modern conventional 20century+ maneuver warfare.

Hey Jason,

Sorry for the jargon. Here's what I meant:

If the division is "explicit," you're telling people right out to "divide by 5." For a lot of people, this makes their head explode.

But you can make the division "implicit" -- or "implied" -- by asking players to divide their units into attack groups first. Few people object to taking their stack of tokens and grouping them by 3s (or 5s or whatever). Even though that's still division, it's a visual operation most people take for granted.

So that's the crux of my idea: instead of having each unit roll a die and dividing the total by 5, have the players separate their units into "attack groups", then have each group roll a single attack die, which are then added together. This "hidden" division won't scare people, and can give you similar mathematical results. It also has a neat side effect of creating another tactical decision: how should I group my mixed forces for maximum effect?

If you're imagining a scope and number of units similar to Axis and Allies, I'd say looking at stacks would be too fiddly. It's hard enough to keep the board organized in Axis and Allies without having to rustle through stacks to judge unit strengths.

You could make this easier by making each unit type a unique color. Then people could tell (mostly) what a stack held from its profile. I assume that you're using color for player identity, though.

Not sure what to say about your last two questions. There's always a risk of tipping your hand when surveying the board in a wargame -- but seasoned players can use this to mislead opponents. In the end, I'm not sure it matters very much.

And fog of war? The important question is, does that fit your vision of the game? Some war games have it, others don't. Wargamers play both kinds, so it's not a make-or-break mechanic. Pick what you feel is best for your game and let the chips fall where they may...