Skip to Content

New multi-unit combat usable in all kinds of games

14 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

In another thread, I mentioned an IDEA about a "multi-unit" combat mechanic using dice. Instead of rolling one (1) die for each unit, the simplicity of this mechanic is that using ONLY "Black" d6s ... You can easily make an approximation of the power of the number of units.

So without further waiting, here I go:

1> The first thing is to figure out "How many" Black d6s you will be rolling. To keep it as simple as possible, 1d6 for up to 6 units, 2d6 for up to 12 units and lastly 3d6 for more than 12 units. So we are effectively saying that the CAP on the Configuration Points is 18 Points.

2> Your squadrons can be between one (1) and eigtheen (18) units. What matters is SIMPLE Math. A Soldier costs 1 CPs and a Tank is 6 CPs (for example). This means you can have 6 soldiers or 1 tank.

3> Now that your squadron is populated with soldiers and other armed forces, you can now ROLL Black "X" amount of d6s. Your opponent's squadron can be completely different and he ROLLS White "Y" amount of d6s.

4> Whomever is HIGHEST in the total of their dice, is deemed the attacker. Yes this allows for a COUNTER-ATTACK too! Next subtract the 2 values and that gives you the "Z" amount Health (HP) lost in the battle.

5> The losing player needs to removed units by "Z" HPs. And if there is a BONUS damage due to classes/types of weapons/types of bullets/etc. That gets applied when the "colored" die is rolled...

This amounts to a very SIMPLE "combat" mechanic. Tell me what you all think?!?!

Cheers.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
An Example

Say Player #1 has 6 Grenadiers (1 CP each), 2 Jeeps (3 CPs each) and 1 Tank (6 CPs).

Say Player #2 has 3 Tanks (3 x 6 = 18 CPs).

Player #1 Rolls his three (3) Black d6s and rolls a 14.

Next Player #2 Rolls his three (3) White d6s and rolls a 16.

Black - White = HP loss = 14 - 16 = -2 HP. Player #1 is counter-attacked and he loses 2 HP. In this situation, he would lose 2 Grenadiers and his squadron would now look like:

4 Grenadiers, 2 Jeeps and 1 Tank. Pretty simple, no?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
This could snowball into a

This could snowball into a permanent victory pretty quick as soon as one of the 2 armies drops down to 2 dice.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Familiar System

This reminds me of the details I recall from the revamped D&D "Rules Cyclopedia," released in 1991. I can't recall the term they used, but there was a rules subset for large-scale battles.

Your comment about modifiers based on equipment was addressed in this rules subset. Training, races, equipment, support, fatigue, difference between opposing forces' population (that is, who had the bigger army and by how much), etc. and abstracted those variables into bonuses or penalties to the dice rolls. The end result determined which force suffered the most damage.

I figure you can use this kind of system as long as combat isn't the main draw of the game. It seems on par with Risk in this sense, as military combat wasn't the only thing that drew/draws players to that game.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
It's also similar to the law

It's also similar to the law of average. Where if 2 units hit while rolling 3 or less, then both units together in average will hit once per round.

Another idea of mine using this approach is that you give a strength to each participating unit. You sum the str, and for each slice of 5 points, you score a hit.

For the remaining amount, you rolled 1D6 lower than the remainder to hit. So only 1 die needs to be rolled.

My idea was for a pacific game where ships had various types of weaponry. In that case, the weapons with initiative could transfer it's remainder to the sum of the next weapon in initiative order.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Did you do a test of 12CP versus 13CP?

That would be rolling 2 dice against 3 dice. Right?

Even if the 12CP have this bonus damage against the units used in the 13CP. The attacker would be the one with the highest roll. And the one to do the damage.

The chances for the 13CP army are:
78% for higher
7% for a draw
15% for lower

That is a chance of 5 to 1!!!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe we need to implement a small RULE!

X3M wrote:
That would be rolling 2 dice against 3 dice. Right?...

That is a chance of 5 to 1!!!

Okay maybe there should be a slight "variation" (or a Rule). Something like this:

A> When the Attacker announces his "attack", he declares how many of his forces will be attacking, from 6 to 18 (increments of 6).

B> Next the Defender must "react" to the attack and he is given two (2) choices:

1. Firstly to roll the EXACT SAME amount of white dice as his opponent (which is a form of "blocking")... Or if he/she is strong enough to roll the amount of white dice as determined by his squadron.

2. The impact of this decision? By "blocking" the attack, the Defender only tries to stop casualties from occurring. So if the white roll is HIGHER than the black roll. In this situation the attack is a complete and total failure. But no harm or foul to either parties.

3. The opposite is true when determined by his/her squadron, if the white roll is HIGHER than the black roll... This means that a COUNTER-ATTACK will occur and the attacking player may lose some units.

Is this RULE better as a more "fair play" set of actions/rules???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Chosing not to

If the player that defended and thus blocked in the first place. Cannot do sufficient damage and thus might loose units in the counter attack. That play may choose not to do an counter attack. This sound very fair indeed.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What if...

What if you roll 3 dice for both players.
And then simply add the CP that they have?

12 vs 13 CP gives:
55% that 13 CP wins
9% draw
36% that 12 CP wins

That is roughly a 3 to 2 ratio.
Just like your dice.

12 vs 18 CP gives:
90% that 18 CP wins
4% draw
6% that 12 CP wins

So, I am not sure.
It sounds like that a player in the game Risk has better chances...

***

And what if you simply drop the lowest rolled dice for the smallest player. Despite CP difference?
Although, I need a bit more paper to calculate that one.

I will come back with the results at another time.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Ok, I got 2 more results

Both players roll 3 dice.
The smaller player drops the lowest rolled die.

65% the bigger CP wins
9% draw
25% the smaller CP wins

***

I got another one.

Both players roll 3 dice.
The smaller player drops the highest rolled die.
The bigger player drops the lowest rolled die.

78% the bigger CP wins
8% draw
14% the smaller CP wins

So, this one is worse then the previous one.

***

I suspect that you rather want the CP to have more influence, than just a yes/no situation. Right?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here's the thing...

If you BALANCE the "Configuration Points" (CPs) in such a way that you ROUND the number of points in terms of sixes (6s) ... That also may yield a more fair style of play. Let me explain:

If you have 12 CPs and your opponent has 13 CPs, we ROUND the results to multiples of sixes (6s), we then get a mutual roll of 2d6s for the Attacker and 2d6s for the Defender. In order to have an unbalanced situation, the defender would need to have 16 or higher to benefit from a 3rd dice.

And at that point it makes 100% sense that the Defender SHOULD be allowed to "counter-attack" because simply put: He has more forces than his opponent.

This is a somewhat moot point TBH. It's kind of like knowing that you have an "advantage" and wanting to take full advantage of it. It's very debatable to say: "Well the defender has more forces (or strength) and so the Attacker should at all costs AVOID this opponent unless he can get some stronger units for his own squadron to balance the battles out..."

Something like that...

Note #1: The other consideration is to NOT "Attack" this opponent and wait to be attacked so that you can effectively BLOCK this opposing squadron ... until say, reinforcement come to the location of the battle/skirmish...!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Would a weaker player attack?

A lot of war games have this issue.

Why would a weaker player attack?

If you find a way to get the weaker player to take the gamble. Or isn't weaker by other effects. Then you have a wargame that is above the rest.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Something different but simple and perhaps unique

I just got a suggestion from someone else.

What if the weapon is just a die roll against a die roll.
The better the piece, the better the die.
D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20.
If the die exists. It can be rolled.

Now the thing is, a big die can defend against only 1 smaller die. So if 2 smaller dice are rolled, 1 will always do damage (probably the lowest roll)

The balance would certainly be based on the results that are possible.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Since we are talking multi

Since we are talking multi unit battle, are you thinking to roll 1 die for each unit and do a Risk like matchup.

I have a game in my collection called Battlegroup, where combat roll where made by rolling various dices and matching them afterwards where each pair could score a hit (It I remember corectly).

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
To make things fair, and different again

You could simply allow both armies to do damage.
Have the die roll determine the group size to make 1 kill.

You have an army of 18 CP and roll a 6?
You can make 3 kills.

You have an army of 10 CP and roll a 5?
You can make 2 kills.

You have an army of 6 CP and roll a 1?
You can make 6 kills.

As RPS you can add the fact that certain units add more "cp" to a group with a certain target in mind.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut