Combat System Simplicity vs. Elaboration

Did a quick visual scan of my shelves for games with notable "non-standard" combat mechanisms. I think FRIEDRICH is always worth a mention--dead simple to understand, but amazing potential for game-swinging haymakers (even if most are tactical "I lose by 1 and retreat" outcomes).

HANNIBAL has the action kind of grind to a halt as you tote up the number of battle cards both players get after all the modifiers and then do the little matching sideshow, with plenty of die rolls to see if initiative changes or a general's special ability kicks in. The WASHINGTON'S WAR spin on this was to condense it all into die rolls with a pretty lengthy set of modifiers--I'm not sure I love it, and I have to look everything up again each time. Especially the good day/bad day general roll to see if he gets his full battle rating (but not to exceed number of CU) or half battle rating rounded down...going by memory so maybe that's not exactly it.

I guess this is all I post about now, but I really like the system in Triumph and Tragedy. I know, it's a wargame, so maybe it's one of those "combat IS the game" things, but it's not really just a wargame, there's also a whole diplomatic and economic game on top of it.

The thing I like is that the different types of unit (fleet, sub, armored, etc) always attack in a specific order. So air always attacks before your infantry do. But each type of unit "hits" on a different die roll—armored hit ground on 1–2, but infantry hit ground on 1–3, for example. So you are encouraged to bring a mixed force, where your armored soften up the infantry before your infantry ever actually fight. But because of the die rolls, sometimes it just doesn't pan out. You might bring 8 factors of air, but they only hit ground units on 1s, so maybe you're going to whiff all your rolls and then you feel a bit stupid for bringing all that air as your land pips fall off the board.

Ultimately, it feels like you are NEVER sure if you want to attack, but you know that you MUST attack, or your opponents are going to win. It causes this incredible tension that is really exciting to watch play out as the three powers jockey for superiority by the end of the 1936-45 period. It's fun even if you aren't participating in the current battle, but I suppose that it's not really a simple system at all.

Sagrilarus wrote: So all these games coming out with "variable player powers" that everyone wants to crow about seem really rigid to me, because in games with a varied contextual underlayment that variability is ever-changing, and you get an opportunity to influence it.

I really love this observation, and it puts into words something that I have felt the edges of but haven't been able to express. Thanks for saying it.

Thank you for separating this out, I was actually going to request that we do.

I don't know how I'd missed Dune and Root, those are great.

Skulls v shields I like in certain situations. Skirmish games, they're fine and it's essentially the system Al and I are using in our long fabled Kaiju game, though the math very much favors the attacker, even more so than Heroscape did. I don't like an attack being entirely blocked, and while it happens, it's not at all the norm.

A few more I thought of that are worth discussing.

Game of Thrones. I don't love this system, but it's fine. I do like the extra effects on the cards, I wouldn't mind seeing a game that really messes around with that. I definitely prefer the implementation in GoT than I do in Kemet, which I'll admit is a game I'm not a fan of at all.

Dune: Imperium. Is it really combat? It doesn't matter, it's fun. Really love how the buildup of combat is paced throughout the round, then further boosted with some unexpected reveals. The actual resolution is quick and the ebb and flow from round to round is just great.

Mare Nostrum - I kind of hate Mare Nostrum but I do find its take on combat at least interesting.

san il defanso wrote: In my experience, lots of games overestimate how inherently interesting combat actually is.

Post of the thread right here.

I really like the Spartacus combat system. I know that some people dislike dice-based combat, but I think that dice can add uncertainty and excitement to combat, while a more deterministic combat system can feel drab.

Some great combat systems mentioned here.

I love the Forbidden Stars system and regard it as, possibly, the evolution of the FFG card system for combat, following on from two other card systems I love in Middle Earth Quest and Rune Wars.
But then switching to dice but staying with FFG I think World of Warcraft: The Boardgame's system is probably the best I have ever seen in a game (of course that is purely subjective but I find it brilliant, possibly a bit too long for some but brilliant)

Nexus Ops is a great system with ranking of your units (Rune Wars did similar later on), as is Spartacus for single combatant combat.

Agree on Root, Nexus Ops, and Civilization... The latter definitely seemed to inspire Small World, which I think does a great job of simplified deterministic combat coupled with that single, turn-ending push your luck die roll.

Risk Legacy deserves a mention I think for taking one of the clunkier and slower opposed die roll games and making a few tweaks to it. In general armies are smaller so combat doesn't take forever. Next up is the addition of the "auto-6" missiles as a resource, complete with a meta-worry/curiosity of "what happens when we collectively use 3 in a single battle?"

I'm gonna stretch the meaning of combat a bit when I say that I like how both Dominion and Settlers of Catan express conflict. I like that the attacks are not targeted in Dominion, but they nevertheless elevate and divert the game from being a simple solo optimization puzzle. Often 3-piling and the alternate sources of VPs besides provinces come into play more when attacks are present. As for Catan, players ignore their military/development cards at their own economic peril... but have to use them in a way to maintain good trade relationships with those they wish to do business with.

my all time favorite combat system in a not exclusively combat game is the rock papers scissors combat in original Dungeonquest. theres just enough decision in it to let your friends screw with you and have some back and forth, but its over quickly and doesnt drag out the game.

One of the best things about the simple-but-deep combat system in Tiny Epic Kingdoms is the element that's similar to Dune: You have to commit the amount of resources that you're willing to lose in order to win the fight. Win or lose, those resources are gone, which impacts that rest of the round. Similarly, as the loser, if you want to save the unit involved in the fight, you have to be prepared to have sufficient Food in order to save it. It's a really simple system, but it involves very poker-like reading of opponents and their position, as well as an assessment of the opportunity cost involved for the rest of the round.

A big contrast to a lot of the games mentioned here is Neuroshima Hex. Not only are there "variable player powers" but even the timing of combat is random, as someone has to draw a Battle tile in order to trigger it. Until then, the tension is about the build-up that you can see growing in front of you. It's an interesting variation to the "pile of dudes" forming on the board that signals an impending fight because you never know quite when that fight will happen.

Jackwraith wrote: A big contrast to a lot of the games mentioned here is Neuroshima Hex. Not only are there "variable player powers" but even the timing of combat is random, as someone has to draw a Battle tile in order to trigger it. Until then, the tension is about the build-up that you can see growing in front of you. It's an interesting variation to the "pile of dudes" forming on the board that signals an impending fight because you never know quite when that fight will happen.

NH falls into the category of games where the combat IS the game. My original statement excluded these, though NH is a very good game and a fine example of what I meant when I said that combat games tend to not have this problem.

What I was talking about was area control, adventure, dungeon crawlers, etc, that have fun mechanisms but then have a combat system that I frequently catch myself trying to avoid because it just isn't as fun as the rest of the game. The more I think about it, Rebellion is the epitome of this, and both combat systems are guilty of it. You have this amazing worker placement -lie mission thing going on and then somebody has to go and more troops and suddenly you yanked right out of other fun things you were doing.

I saw Dungeonquest mentioned and I'm going to have to disagree. It's simple, but by no means is it as fun as everything else going on in the game.

I did remember two really great diceless combat systems, on of which is Runebound 3rd edition. The much maligned pog thing turned out to be awesome. And Fury of Dracula 3rd edition also has an excellent combat system.

I think that this might be an underlying cause for my moving away from thematic or narrative games. There's an infamous story in our circles where somebody attacked another player for no other reason than because he could, and this player said, "Why are you attacking me?" To which the other player replied, "Because it's fun." The attacked player is prone to overreacting to aggressive play, and we all got a bit of a laugh out of that. Now, years later and with a better understanding of the attacking player's antagonistic attitude outside of gaming, that story is alot less funny on its own and, as we're discussing here, I don't believe to be true at all. In most situations, the systems in place to attack other players are not fun to play around with. Might be a big reason as to why I've moved away from these games.

All of this said, the exception to that kind of aggressive play is Cosmic Frog. I don't think the combat is my favorite part of the game, not even close, but it really is funny to see what happens to the other player.

"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." -- Mike Tyson

I know it's an RPG, but this week I'm going to run Monster of the Week with my roleplaying group. Coming from D&D one of the weirdest things about it is that it it doesn't have a separate combat structure. (I believe this is true of lots of games that are based on Apocalypse World, but I don't actually know.)

Anyway I'm really excited about it now, because one of the most artificial things about any form of simulationist game like D&D or Call of Cthulhu, is that you need to basically enter a combat mode.

Josh Look wrote: NH falls into the category of games where the combat IS the game. My original statement excluded these, though NH is a very good game and a fine example of what I meant when I said that combat games tend to not have this problem.

Ah. OK. Lost the thread, I guess. And, in that respect, my example of TEK probably won't work, either, since it's an area control game and there are different aspects to it (building the tower, researching lore) but, in the end, it's basically a wargame.

To Nate's point and including yours, I agree that there are a lot of games that seem to have combat layered in because it's "necessary" for some kind of resolution. Arkham Horror, 2nd Ed. is a good example of that, in which fighting monsters in the streets almost seemed like a distraction from what you were really trying to do, which was close gates before the Ancient One awoke. And I was never a fan of the band of intrepid investigators taking down the other-dimensional, gigantic demon with my trusty shotgun...

However, I think a lot of games do really benefit from having some system of direct resolution. Cosmic Frog is a good example of that. Another one I can think of is Theseus.

I love dice in combat. Period. Exploding dice? Even better. The much maligned ship combat in M & M is very enjoyable to me. I think I may not mind it as much as most because I am used to combat in Man O War. There is definitely room for streamlining it, but I have not though too deep about it. Now that I am thinking about it though.....Merchants & Marauders with a Old World re-skin.......

I agree that combat should not necessarily be the focus of a non combat game. It also shouldn't make other people zone out while it is happening. However, dice combat does allow for the entire table to cheer for the underdog and maybe revel in the fickle winds of fate that take down a confident opponent.

There is a balancing act to the dicey combat though for me. Too simple, and there is no real drama, too long or separate from the game, not combatants get bored. I'd rather have the dice than not though.