Skip to Content

Going for the kills or the damage?

16 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

This is more of a "cup of tea" topic.
Just curious how you guys feel about this one.

There are plenty of players out there that freeze...
When they have the choice of: making kills or doing more damage.
An example would be; removing 1 opponents card from the table, or dealing damage to 3 cards (including the one which would have gotten removed instead).

This could happen in almost any game.

What would you do?
On what would your choice depend?
Allow even such a choice?
Making the choice obvious?

Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
Obviously

Obviously size up the situation:

I know this is a hypothetical statement and results but it all depends.

Stand point this statement or question is not real life scenario but it could or can be stated opinionated.

If a target of any size of real life height or imaginary is attacking you for any life or death situation: You would defend yourself with what knowledge you have to get away from the target.

If you had the knowledge to defend yourself from the target then first , you would defend by telling the target: I can defend myself in a calm , cool manner. This is called the open hand defense.

If the target for what ever reason keeps attacking, then prepare to take out the target with 1 punch or 1 kick. Closed fist defense. You have warned the target enough times to back down and the target doesn't. Then you have already stated what you could possibly do to defend yourself in a harmful way.

Now, what does this have to do with a board game or card game?

Plenty.

1: If your counter attacking the target with the it's high defense points , you as the defender must meet the requirements of getting the same amount of defense points as the target where both target and defender point cards are discarded and then repeat.

2: If you are defending/counter attacking the target and you have more advantage points with skills to take out the target to retreat another day, then the defender would use all of his or her skills to take out the target in one fell swoop to move on.

This is how I size up my monster encounter situation on the field in my Dymino Monsters tabletop game.

Jesse F

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Let me cite an example...

For my example, I'll use "Hearthstone" (HS). In HS most battles come out to constantly wiping clear the board of all threats. Because if you DON'T do this, at some point in time, you will have five or six creatures that attack your Hero and cause serious damage ... which could result in a loss in maybe two rounds or so.

But HS takes this "threat" level to another issue. The creatures that MUST be killed FIRST... So you may have one strong creature which acts like a "blocker" to all the other creatures. So instead of just five creatures, you have four and ONE (1) that you need to remove FAST, otherwise you get into the situation mentioned above.

I THINK (not sure?!) most games go to "killing" a creature over weakening a group because of like in HS, a creature with LESS health can FULLY attack an opposing Hero...

Which brings me to something INTERESTING...!

The ONLY way that "doing damage to multiple units" is SMARTER is IF and ONLY IF ... Your units lose "Attack" strength as they get weaker. Not ONLY Health like in MOST games.

What do I mean... If it's more like RL where you take an "injury" to the leg and that pain makes it harder to move or the pain makes it harder to remain focused, then MAYBE spreading out your wounds may be a better tactic.

However in MOST games this is NOT the case. You only lose HEALTH, not your capacity to DEAL DAMAGE (as some form of impairment).

So to conclude, in MOST games (almost all) it's better to go for a kill.

But this doesn't mean you can design a SMARTER game with live wounds and a factor which affects your Attacking Power. If you did this, A> It would be more realistic and B> It would be probably something maybe only seen in traditional war games.

TBH I don't think many games have a "live wounds" system which impairs a damaged creature to have a WEAKER attack. But I could be wrong... I guess I haven't played ENOUGH games to see something akin to this.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Interesting how someone views

Interesting how someone views this from a defenders point of view.
But what if the defender has no choice?
What if the choice would be entirely for the attacker?

***

Having a game where units are less effective after receiving damage. Sounds interesting, but complicated.
I think the game should be very simple in other aspects, to get this impairing done correctly?

IMHO, I do think that finishing of an opponent is the best way to do things. In the greater scheme, this opponent will not be doing any return damage. Which would simulate the impairing in a different way?

adversitygames
adversitygames's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2014
X3M wrote:This is more of a

X3M wrote:
This is more of a "cup of tea" topic.
Just curious how you guys feel about this one.

There are plenty of players out there that freeze...
When they have the choice of: making kills or doing more damage.
An example would be; removing 1 opponents card from the table, or dealing damage to 3 cards (including the one which would have gotten removed instead).

This could happen in almost any game.

What would you do?
On what would your choice depend?
Allow even such a choice?
Making the choice obvious?

Completely depends on the game.

Some games (eg Dungeon Twister or Memoir 44) only allow a player to take a fixed number of actions, no matter how many units they have. In this situation unless knocking out a specific unit gives some other tactical advantage (eg denying a position or special ability) then it can be better to go for max damage.

However in a lot of games (most wargames and miniatures games seem to do this) the amount you can do is dependent on how many units you have. In this situation, kills often matter more. There are going to be variations (eg a unit which can take a lot of damage but is very powerful, you probably wont get as many kills if you focus on it but the benefit when you kill it is worth the reduction in overall kills).

There's a ton of variations of course. But playing a new game with this sort of conflict the thing I look for first to start making play decisions is: "flat action rate" or "actions per unit"

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
So far

It looks like dealing the damage, needs a concequence. In order to be a valid choice.

The only other aspect is that I could think of, are RPS effects.

Leaving the guy alive that does 1 damage. Damaging the other guy instead to have the damage reduction of 4, after just 2 rounds instead of 3. Something like that, I suppose...

But thos would actually be a different situation than when RPS is not involved. Right?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about something SIMPLE like this

Each unit has a "Firepower" and that's the ONLY stat. When you are attacked you LOSE "Firepower" thus affecting your capabilities to retaliate or have a smaller sized squadron (as a result of an attack) and therefore doing less damage.

When you Attack, you "somehow" use the total "Attack" Firepower and deal damage to your opponent.

Note #1: I have NOT solved the problem about HOW to use this one (1) stat system. I'm just suggesting looking into it and seeing if you can build a combat system with only the one stat...

Note #2: When dealing damage you apply it DIRECTLY against the Firepower of the squadron. So IF I deal 4 Damage and previously had 12 Firepower, I would land up with 8 Firepower for future attacks.

Note #3: Again this is only a partial solution. It still doesn't explain how to address dice rolling. Or if there is even any need for dice rolling. Could it be purely deterministic??? I think you need some chance otherwise it's going to be boring as all hell.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Not trying to build here

I was just curious. This was a "cup of tea" topic.
Not asking for solutions to my game. Just, how would someone handle it in general.

I have another idea of adjusting the damage done by whatever piece you are using.

What if you use a die, that has the same sides as the maximum health of a piece?
Simply roll for a hit/miss, if there has been damage.
So, a card with 10 health max. Might have received 4 damage. The first roll to see if this card will be doing damage itself, would be rolling a number higher than 4.

It can represent reality a bit more than expected.
A very heavy damaged tank might be able to shoot and do maximum damage. But due to the damaged parts, the accuracy can be lower.
If you want the damage output to be lower as well. Simply have multiple dice, representing different weapons, or the same.

You could also do this with body parts as well.
And perhaps give different weapons a reduction on their accuracy.
A soldier could use for example a grenade (1 arm) or a rifle (both arms)
A tank could use for example a heavy machine gun, a cannon and perhaps even it's tracks.

Having the "accuracy" reduce on a part, would technically change the units behaviour in battle.

If one arm is damaged, no more grenades. The rifle hits half of the time.
If the tank has gained damage on its tracks. No more crushing people.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Not sure I understood correctly

X3M wrote:
...What if you use a die, that has the same sides as the maximum health of a piece?

Simply roll for a hit/miss, if there has been damage.

So, a card with 10 health max. Might have received 4 damage. The first roll to see if this card will be doing damage itself, would be rolling a number higher than 4...

I don't seem to be quite clear about this. 10 Health Max, get 4 Damage ... Now you roll WHY? And why does it need to be higher than 4?? Could you clarify your thoughts???

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
If an unit starts at 10

If an unit starts at 10 health.
And uses a d10.

Suddenly it takes 4 damage and thus drops down to 6 health.
It now also uses the d10 to determine if it can shoot.
Rolling 6 or less could be a hit.
But I thought you guys were all about rolling more than 4.
It is the same.
The accuracy simply drops to 6/10th to that of the original.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
MTG perspective

This scenario comes up frequently in multiplayer MtG. I know there are a few on here that aren't big MtG, but oh well. What I would do depends greatly on the situation. Generally speaking:
-If killing one player would put me at risk of being in kill range (typically 3 or less life), I'd probably spread the damage around. -If I can kill a player with minimal risk to being killed, then take out a player. It's usually beneficial to minimize the number of threats coming your way.

There are things that can sway this choice further:
-If I have a deck at a disadvantage to the surviving opponent's deck or can't deal with a card on the table, I would keep the other alive to help weaken the stronger player or to hopefully destroy the card.
-If I have a deck that favors more players being in the game.
-If the would be surviving player is using a burn deck, it's good to keep more targets around.

I think this is essential in combat strategy type games. Not really important in other game types.

In Magic, the choice is usually obvious. But there are circumstances that muddy up the decision. I really like that aspect of the game. Not too much analysis paralysis, but it does occur from time to time.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
That is certainly a different situation indeed

The way, how you describe it. I like the fact that killing one of your opponents would actually have another opponent charge at you.

A frog in slowly boiling water will stay put.

If I where to compare to a wargame. There should be an example where the enemy can't attack you yet. Because there is some sort of wall in the way. The only way to get through the wall is to destroy it.
Once destroyed, the enemy can get through easily.
Then again, damaging the wall, but not destroying them. Might lead to a situation where you can easily break through when needed.

AdamRobinGames-ARG
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Oops

Sorry, posted to the wrong thread and don't know how to delete this post. Anyone know how to delete this?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
No problemo

Our policy for deletions on BGDF is that "we don't delete". We just EDIT or do like you said (for the most part). It's just to ensure the integrity of the database and website. So don't worry about this "wrong thread" post, it's been moderated and it's okay. Cheers!

Mosker
Mosker's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/30/2014
Two tangential thoughts

X3M wrote:
If an unit starts at 10 health.
And uses a d10.

Suddenly it takes 4 damage and thus drops down to 6 health.
It now also uses the d10 to determine if it can shoot.
Rolling 6 or less could be a hit.
But I thought you guys were all about rolling more than 4.
It is the same.
The accuracy simply drops to 6/10th to that of the original.

1. Like the above example, the most simplified (early editions) Tunnels and Trolls monsters have one number, a Monster Rating(MR) which is both health and the basis of attack strength (calculated according to current, not original). So, getting those initial hits is critical.

2. From the videogame world: I finally started playing Darkest Dungeon, where the bodies of dead opponents still form obstructions, affecting range (and maybe more: I'm just wallowing in early levels). In a tactical game, there are all sorts of opportunities here for complications.

Biggle Bear
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2019
A paladin, a goblin and an ogre walk into a travern

In the situation where one opponent will need a very high score to actually damage you (say a "natural 20" for simplicities sake) then who cares if that goblin is wailing away at your defences, you are going to use your attacks to slowly wittle down that ogre. Maybe the paladin can only hurt the ogre on a high score too so it makes those first attacks even more critical.

But if the ogre also has to score a 20 to hurt my paladin then that would finely balance the choice again. I might off the goblin just to reduce the chance of a really bad critical roll. Then again if the ogre gets a critical roll then it doesn't need to get a good critical hit to lay down the hurt.

Perhaps a game where there is a direct correlation to damage output and hit points, but the to hit skill remains the same, might benefit from this consideration.

That said, it's a turn off if injuring opponents simply cause them to loose hit points. I will instantly put it down to lazy unimaginative design or a casual gamer approach.

I am waiting to meet the right gaming group to try out a certain game with. It is a skirmish game featuring titanic proportioned mechs called Horizon wars.

The system seems simple but a notable game mechanic is taking damage. On a low hit the defender chooses the type of damage, a strong hit the attacker chooses. The damage reduces one of four characteristic, including a hit points characteristic. The obvious target for the attacker is the HP stat but sometimes not. For example it might be more advantageous to reduce the move stat then move out of sight. That way an expensive, high firepower unit is suddenly rendered almost worthless because of being struck in an achilies heel (sorry, pun intended).

So as most people said, it depends on the situation and the game, but a very good topic. Thanks X3M.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
You are right

This mechanic works well for the somewhat higher stats games.

If I imagine this mechanic for a Role Playing Game.
On a 2D board.
Weapon Range, weapon damage, movement and health could all be factors.

A basic piece could have for example 6 damage, 6 range, 6 movement and 36 health.
Then, the weapon could do damage to health. Or reduce one of the other factors.

Going for health entirely would mean, the enemy can return 100 percent in damage in the same time, which is 36.
Going for damage instead, the enemy could return only 21 damage. And then it would mean that this enemy is incapicitated.

A type of weapon could be specialized in attacking another stat.
Axe: 2 on health, 2 on movement, 1 on each of the other 2.
Or even as choices.
Roll a 1, you may choose health or damage reduction.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut