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.

As it says;

What is the absolute minimum number of stats that a unit or character in a wargame needs in order to be a good in-game representation, offer suitable playability and establish appropriate differentiation from other units?

I've been thinking about this as there seems to be a wide range out there. For example: WHFB/Wh40k units have 9 stats, while a Song of Blades and Heroes character has 3. Also, the approach to wargames stats differs. Some rulesets prefer to have certain stats (movement, shooting, etc) be the same for all units, so they codify it in the rules and exceptions are applied through special rules. On the other hand, some rulesets attempt to make the stat-line the all-encompassing description of most of a unit's abilities.

For the purposes of this poll:
-Ignore special rules. Most wargames have them, and trying to decide which qualify as a stat would be mind boggling.
-If a miniature has a list of weapons instead of (or in addition to) it's attack-type stats, count that entire list as one stat
-If a miniature has a specified armor instead of (or in addition to) it's defense-type stat count that as one stat.

EDIT for clarification: By Wargame, I mean tabletop miniatures wargame. NOT boardgame, card game, video game, etc, etc....

I think 3 is a reasonable minimum.

You can get away with having an attack value of some sort, a defense value of some sort, and a movement value, or leadership-esque value if movement is all the same.

I will 3 is the minimum functional number of statistics in a modern wargame, but I went with 5 since you are going to want some design space if you want the game to be good.

I'm assuming you don't count "cost" as a 'stat'.

Magic the Gathering, the card game, gets by remarkably with all their creatures having just two stats: An Attack stat and a Defense stat. Each card/creature still has a cost.

The difference between wargames and card games is that Wargames take place on a flat plane table whereas card games usually take place in an abstract world. Thus, a movement stat would be necessary such that all units don't move the same.
HOWEVER, you did state that Warhammer has 9 stats, and none of those is movement. Movement distances is covered by the unit type. Movement isn't even a stat in Warhammer and in functions in spite of this.

Thus: Two.

Dust Tactics/Warfare has:
Movement
Health
Armour
Weapons.
And I guess "type", though this is tied to armour, ie Infantry/2 or Vehicle/4.

However for infantry squads, Health is fairly superfluous - it is simply the number of models in the unit. Vehicles and Heroes do use health.
Movement is also fairly useless - currently, movement is 6" unless you have a jetpack, in which case it is 12".

Their analogies to 40k values:
Movement - not explicit in 40k, though pretty much everything in DW uses 6" movement too.
Armour/Type = Toughness / Armour (and effectively Leadership
Health = Wounds / Leadership
Weapons = WS/BS / Strength / Attacks
No need for initiative

The absolute bare minimum is none. Look at a game like Risk, for example.

But the practical answer depends on what you really want the game to accomplish. There are certain parameters you need to consider. You will want, for example, a stat to show how good the model is, comparatively, at fighting. And if perhaps another one to show how good it is at shooting. You don't need a separate 'armour' and 'toughness' stat. Both of them combine to show how difficult the warrior is to injure, so you can always get by with a single stat there. If you want a particular model to be extremely resilient, you'll either need a special rule (like the very hard to kill rule from WotR) or a wounds stat.

It all really depends on what you want in a game.

I'm no expert on Flames of War but I believe infantry there has two stats: Motivation and Skill. Seems pretty elegant to me and I hear it works great.

It depends on how you define a stat in the game design. I think it would be possible to get down to one unique stat depending on the game and how detailed you want to make it.

What I have in mind is a game in which there isn't much difference between one unit and another of the same general type, except for its current morale, organisation and tiredness status.

Take Napoleonics for example. There are two types of cavalry -- heavy and light. The main difference is that heavy are for charging and light are for reconnaissance, and get used for charging. Heavy are better at charging because they are big men on big horses. Thus, both types of cavalry are identical except that heavies have a higher combat strength. All cavalry can have the same movement stat, and all can have the same combat stat depending on heavy/light status. Since these stats are standard you don't need to record them on a per unit basis. All cavalry will have a base move of 12 inches, if you like. All heavy cavalry will have a combat factor of 10 per man in the unit, and lights will be 8. (I'm just making up numbers.)

The key difference between one cavalry unit and another is going to be its immediate readiness and will for combat. This will be based on its morale status, tactical organisation (if it has just charged the men will be scattered) and tiredness due to campaign and recent battle actions. You can mix in "national characteristics" such as the British heavy's tendency to charge madly, or the Russian Cossacks' tendency only to attack units who look very weak.

These factors could be summed up in a single stat which acts as a modifier for any morale and combat roles.

Thus, only one stat needs to be tracked for a cavalry unit.

I don't see any great virtue in having lots of stats for the sake of it, nor do they necessarily lead to more realism or better gaming.

Kaldor wrote:The absolute bare minimum is none. Look at a game like Risk, for example.

But the practical answer depends on what you really want the game to accomplish.

Pretty much this. It would depend entirely on the game structure.

Kaldor wrote:The absolute bare minimum is none. Look at a game like Risk, for example.

Risk doesn't have units or characters. Risk is a board game - the pieces represent data tracking, not actual positions on a battlefield.

Now Checkers, on the other hand, has one individual stat - kingship. Otherwise, all pieces move identically and are treated identically. Chess also has one individual stat - movement. Otherwise, all pieces are treated identically (capturing). Both kingship and movement lead to in-game value (a queen is more valuable than a pawn because of the movement difference).

But chess and checkers don't allow for any customization. So I think each unit/character needs two stats: a point cost and some in-game value. Otherwise, everything can be handled by well-defined global rules.

True checkers has only one stat, but I did specify...

Eilif wrote: By Wargame, I mean tabletop miniatures wargame. NOT boardgame, card game, video game, etc, etc....[/b]

Boardgames are a whole other animal where stats (if you can call them that) are mostly non-existant and rules govern play.

Eilif wrote:True checkers has only one stat, but I did specify...

Chess and checkers are wargames.

Sure movement is restricted and rules are simple. But conflicts are resolved by model interaction rather than an external set of rules where the game pieces are merely counters.

Just to add a bit more: 1 statistics is the minimum, but you need something to measure how the models interact and/or move on the board. I also think you need a cost value so games can be customized. So 2 stats minimum.

You can just go with chess-like rules, give each model a point cost and a movement value. If you touch or move over another model it is destroyed. Or just give models "fighting points" and standardized movement (everyone moves 6" at a time, if you have more points within 2" of an enemy unit, it dies).

Anything beyond that is adding complexity, which may add some tactical element to the game.

Eilif wrote:True checkers has only one stat, but I did specify...

Eilif wrote: By Wargame, I mean tabletop miniatures wargame. NOT boardgame, card game, video game, etc, etc....[/b]

Boardgames are a whole other animal where stats (if you can call them that) are mostly non-existant and rules govern play.

I think the distinction between the two is more blurred than first appears at a cursory glance. Take the Risk example. To compare it to WHFB: You move 'units' around a playing area, and use them to attack enemy 'units', and those attacks are represented by dice rolls. Based on the result of those attacks you can destroy enemy 'units' and eventually claim victory.

The only real difference is the level of complexity required, and what we as both designers and players, want out of a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Go is another example. Arguably more complex than checkers, with less 'stats'.

I really think it depends on the game. Flames of War (for example) has very few stats for infantry, but this works as infantry has a relatively has a relatively narrow range: every foot soldier int he system is human, generally armed with a ranged weapon as their primary weapon, and has light armor. They don't have to account for supermen in power armor, gribbly monster lizard-bugs, or drone-like robot skeletons.

Guys, we can go round and round with semantics, but the three terms I specified

Tabletop: Implies games played on a tabletop with terrain. If you play on a board, then it's a "boardgame"

Miniatures; Uses miniatures, that represent unique units. Risk doesn't count. It's miniatures are simply pawns representing armies that happened to be shaped like men. Besides, it's a "boardgame" See my explaination of "Tabletop".

Wargames: Yes, you can call chess and go a Wargame if you want, but are they played with terrain, AND miniatures.

Biccat and Kaldor,
Now that I've narrowed the focus... Do you guys have any opinion on number of stats necessary for a "Tabletop Miniatures Wargame"?

Eilif wrote:Now that I've narrowed the focus... Do you guys have any opinion on number of stats necessary for a "Tabletop Miniatures Wargame"?

Yes, two.

Here's a new tabletop rules set that you can use. You'll have to come up with your own stats.
Building an Army:
Determine with your opponent an army limit. Each model has a cost. Select a number of miniatures and add up their respective costs. This must be less than the army limit.

Movement:
Each model has a movement value. Each model may move up to its movement value in inches when activated. Models may not move over or past other models.

Combat:
If an activated model would move over or occupy the same space as an opponent's model, place the activated model in contact with the opponent's model and remove the opponent's model as a casualty.

Turns:
Determine who takes the first turn randomly. During each player's turn they may activate any one model.

Victory:
You win when all of your opponent's models have been removed.

Eilif wrote:Biccat and Kaldor,
Now that I've narrowed the focus... Do you guys have any opinion on number of stats necessary for a "Tabletop Miniatures Wargame"?

Yes. Take the Risk rules, play on a table with terrain shaped like a map with territories marked on it, and you don't need any unit stats at all.

Or to further simplify BIccat's system:

Each player starts with an equal number of pieces (so no cost required) and all pieces move at the same rate (so no movement stat required).

What the game is played on is irrelevant, and what the pieces represent is entirely abstract. Any principles that apply to risk, chess or checkers will also apply to tabletop miniatures games.

Congratulations.

You have managed to completely derail a thread that was attempting to ask a real, practical question about miniature wargaming.

You win.

It wasnt derailed at all, they came to the correct answer: none. Look at H G Wells' game Little Wars, the grandaddy of all tabletop gaming. The units had no stats whatsoever, both sides were identical and all unit interaction was governed by the general rules. I think we've come to a very valid answer, even if it's not what the OP wanted to hear.

I went for three.

Hit points / health
Attack / Damage done
and the third can either be a resource type stat or some sort of shooting stat.