Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think it would be hard to link the cards with position in the game, so like a +1 modifier to any card played on a flank attack, or +1 to Scissors if attacking at a certain range or after a particular movement option. Maybe units start with a deck of three cards and gain them for moving through particular squares or areas of the board.

fresus wrote:
A stronger unit will always destroy a weaker one, but won't be able to stomp all the opponent's army.

Ever played chess and have a Queen run amok?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now you're just showing that you don't understand En Garde nor RPS.

Blind selections of a limited number of choices that return an intersected result?

That is RPS in a nutshell.

In En Garde they are not blind selections, and your choices are limited and influenced by known strategic factors which create the potential to exploit skilful planning to enhance your chances of winning.

However this is going off topic so I suggest we let the point rest and the OP can look into the different game rules at his leisure and make up his own mind.

Sure, although I would note that you again misunderstand both En Garde and RPS. I wrote "blind" because I don't believe that you know what your opponent is choosing at the time you make your selection(s). That is, when you pick Parry, you don't know they're picking Feint. It's only at the reveal that you found out that you Parried a Feint for whatever the intersecting result happens to be.

Also, RPS "choices are limited and influenced by known strategic factors which create the potential to exploit skilful planning to enhance your chances of winning." Again, there are people who won't shoot RPS with their brothers/friends, because they know it's an 90% loss, rather than anything close to even odds. The history of rounds is known to both players, and one of them is doing a far better job of executing a strategy to exploiting that knowledge to win more often.

The point that you continue to fail to understand or accept is that En Garde is a RPS game. It's dressed up, but it's still fundamentally RPS at its core.

And, RPS is not a bad mechanic, and it is actually well-suited to Fencing, as fencers get to know each other over successive rounds of activity, so the predictability starts to work its way into the system. To the point that experienced fencers can predict other experienced fencers to advantage, versus the sheer unpredictable randomness of amateurs. If that is the sort of game that the designer intends to simulate, then a RPS resolution engine is actually a good choice.

 Dark Severance wrote:

I am still on the opinion though with no random aspect, the game becomes predicable and not fun. If a weaker unit can never beat a stronger or overcome that, then there is no real reason to have weaker one. It also makes targets predicable based on unit strengths. It also is unrealistic because in combat, although some units have more advantages than others, one being weaker doesn't mean it doesn't win.

If the mechanic is somehow modified where 2 weaker units could defeat a stronger unit in some method, that might work. I don't see that working as much in a wargame though. For a abstracted wargame in card format (not miniatures) it would be better suited for something along those lines.

I agree with this.

There is that point you reach in a game where you know you cannot win (as in the outcome is predictable), with a more random game you can fight till the end and still have a hope of pulling out a victory.

If you use the "Fudge " system I outline above, there would still be situational modifiers to reward tactical play, such as combined attacks, flanking, higher ground, etc.

For example, the scale is 1-5 with the higher number always winning. Unit A has Attack 2, Defense 2 and Unit B has Attack 3, Defense 3. In a straight up fight, Unit B will always beat unit A.

However, the use of situational mechanics means that in the right circumstances, Unit A would boost their abilities. For example, Unit A manages to flank Unit B giving them a temporary boost to attack of +2. Therefore, whenever Unit A successfully Flanks Unit B, Unit A would always win.

That is one simple example, but I am sure we can all think of further examples that would make sense. No dice rolling needed.