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.

In contributing some analysis of resolution methods on a thread in the 40k proposed rules forum (Complete Rules Overhaul: How to make 40k actually playable) I punted the idea of making a wargame that did not use a random number generator (dice) at all. To avoid repeating myself I'll just reprint here the main post in which I floated the idea:

By now you are all probably expecting me to drop another chart.. and far be it for me to disappoint. So here is Method 2 with no random number generator at all..



Haha! after all that agonising over the poor range of probabilities that the d6 puts out, various fiendish torture techniques to stretch the d6 beyond its natural capabilities and even flirting with exotic lovelies like the sexy d10, all with the view to widening the "canyon of probabilities" as far as can be, I then go and throw up a chart with no random element at all, that canyon of probabilities snapped shut entirely. What am I trollling? Well maybe, well actually no. Ask yourself what is the best game ever, ever, ever created? Most people would probably say chess though myself I think wei chi, or "go" as the Koreans call it, is just a bit better than chess. Both chess and go have one thing that makes them go (pun intended), strict determinism no random element. Now what is the worst game ever created? For myself I would have to say Snakes and Ladders. Yes it is even worse than 40k or Age of Sigmar, much worse. Why is it the worst game ever created? Is it because of the simple rules? No the rules of chess and go are pretty simple and they are the best games ever, simplicity can't be it. The reason Snakes and Ladders is the worst game ever, is that playing only involves rolling dice, roll unlucky and you fall down a snake, roll lucky you climb a ladder, roll lucky enough often enough and you win. The player has no choices to make, no strategy to formulate, nothing to contribute at all except rolling dice.

Wargames are generally somewhere in between chess and snakes 'n' ladders in terms of determinism and randomness. There is a random element but there are also choices to make with somewhat deterministic consequences even if those choices can be upset by fickle dice. Also the more dice thrown the more the averages tend to win out over outlying probabilities. Throw down 1 die to win on a 4+ and you could get anything, but throw down 40 dice to see how many of your 40 spearmen successfully stabbed someone on a 4+ and you will tend to reliably get something pretty close to 20 stabs.

So this prompts me to wonder about a few things.. Could wargames be improved by reducing randomness? Could a wargame be created that had no random element at all? Would that game then have a chance to be considered in the same lofty realm as chess?

I have had a few ideas on how to do standard wargame stuff like to-hit and damage resolutions strictly deterministically and in playing around with it some really fun stuff pops out as options that otherwise would be unthinkable. An example is weapon range, normally weapon range is an either/or algorithm: if in range take a shot, if not do not. Sometimes there will be a roll modifier if the range is "short" or "long" but it is usually small like +1 or -1. This is all to fit with the dice. If you use a random number generator then every other factor has to be constrained by the dice properties in order to keep the random element relevant. If you ditch the dice entirely then the range itself becomes available as a modifier or factor in a much deeper way. So instead of if in range take a shot, or short range +1, the range itself becomes a variable for your computations. You can use 24" as -24 to hit, 23" as -23 to hit, 22" as -22 to hit. Combine it with target size, weapon accuracy, special actions, cover bonuses all without a single die roll and you get a deterministic system that borders on hard to predict yet powerfully driven by player choice rather than luck of the die.

So what do you all think? Is it too radical to make a wargame without any dice throws?

The aformentioned thread wasn't really the place to fully explore this concept so I have made this thread in which I wish to float some ideas and get some feedback.

For starters what do you all think about the concept? Feasible? Interesting? See poll.

WarpWar (Metagaming, 1977) features a deterministic combat system. It's a strategic interstellar war game, in which you build ships and send them out to capture new star systems.

In combat the effect of attacks is determined by the tactical selection of the two ships. For example if one side chooses aggressive attack and the other chooses evasive defence then X happens without the benefit of dice. I've got the game in case you want a more complete explanation.

In Panzer Pranks (Chaosium, 1980) the combat resolution is done using Paper, Scissors, Stone.

Using Go as an example, it's possible to imagine a tactical game with multiple units in which combat resolution is done by comparing the combined attack factors of several shooting units against one defender, varied by range, angle of attack and cover, etc. with a ratio table automatically giving results something like Nothing, Pinned, Damaged, Destroyed.

You can surely avoid dice (or any randomness generator).

The question is: do you really want it? Will be that game more fun without a randomness factor, or less?

I love deterministic games and I am sure it can be used in tabletop wargames (I played a lot of turn based deterministic combat computer games) and definitely in boardgames.

I feel the setting is what will make the game appealing.

Although people often blame dice as an issue with losing, often it is typically the strategy, playstyle or build that hurts them more than the actual dice results.

There are pros and cons for not using dice. Not using dice though does create a different type of sub-genre.

There was a study about dice replacing them with different methods. Not sure where it is anymore, but it was done by a couple companies and groups a couple years ago. I believe it was more in researching if they can replace things with a an app program which handled things. I don't mean simply a dice app but that there was an algorithm that took in account game setup, environment and levels of players.

They found that the majority of the people like to roll dice. They like having something heavy in their hand, that they can touch and interact with. They like rolling lots of dice (that doesn't mean more dice = better, usually about 4-6 seemed to be the cap). There was something about rolling, seeing what the results would be.

Although you can remove dice, you could make something be more about strategy than random. It comes down to, will that be fun? I like to play chess however I don't categorize chess as fun per say.

I'd happily play a game with no random elements, but a wargame? No. A wargame needs some element of things that are under neither players' control. Absent a 3rd party GM, some sort of random element (dice, cards, chit draw, the specifics aren't important) seems the best way to do that.

When entertaining the idea of a deterministic game system we should understand that in no way implies a predictable game system. Strictly speaking dice are not random at all (you have to go the quantum level to find truly random events) it is just that the results they throw up are the consequence of innumerable kinetic collisions from hand to table all of which while all deterministic events are too numerous and complex to calculate in advance even if you could measure precisely all the relevant initial conditions. Though in other way dice are highly predictable, no matter how many times you roll a (normally labelled) d6 you will never get 3.5, -1 or 7. So what I am thinking is to make a wargame where the game itself including the players is the die. If there are enough interacting factors then like with a die roll we can't even guess in advance how exactly it will play out even given a thorough knowledge of the initial conditions, except the game can produce a much greater range than 1-6.

To give a rough example of what I mean I'll just explain a draft process for doing to-hit resolutions.

Quite like a normal wargame there a number of factors that combine to produce a "chance to hit" however without dice we aren't really limited in how large those factors can be or how many of them there are. For a plain d6 to be relevant, then the range of modified values that will make a low chance through to a high chance can't range far beyond 1-6. Looking at WHFB's shooting to-hit method low BS is 2, high is 6, exceptional 7 or more, and there are only a few modifiers most of which are only impact the range by an increment of 1. Unmodified BS of 6 or more would auto hit but for a fudge factor that say rolls of 1 always fail. The die range constraint produces some funny chances that don't make sense, using the above WHFB hit roll a super sniper high elf with BS 7 has a 16.7% chance of missing a target at 30" even if it is a single goblin and also a 16.7% chance of missing a super sized dragon just 1" away....

Ok so my draft formula for "to-hit" is this:

(Accuracy + target size - range - cover +/- special actions)/100 x no of shots = hit profile.

Accuracy is a base shooting stat + weapon accuracy modifier which can be anything from 10-100

Target size is made by multiplying the model size by the number of models in the selected target which might be more than two different units.

Model size is a stat: grots 1, humans or elves 2, orks or space marines 3, ogres 5 and so on.
So if a 10 man squad of Imperial Guard were the target then target size would be 2 x10 = 20, if they lost a couple of blokes then their target size would become 16.

Range is a direct measurement of the distance between the firer and the target. So 22" is 22, 10" is 10.

Cover is a value associated with various levels of cover: 10 for open ground, 30 for woods, 40 for stone walls, 80 for bunkers etc.

Special Actions are a number of things that both the shooter or the target can do to influence the results, depending on their abilities and other circumstances, usually with some cost. So for example a targeted unit could choose to "Take Cover" in order to double their cover value at the cost of forgoing a round of their own shooting. Or a shooting unit could spend an a point purchased ammo counter for a doubling of their shots.

So 10 gaurdsmen behind a wall (cover 30) with modified accuracy of 40 shoot at a mob of 30 orks 20" away in open ground (cover 10). (40Accuracy + 90TSize - 20Range - 10Cover)/100 x 10shots = hit profile 10.

At range 10, (40 + 90 - 10 - 10)/ 100 x 10 = hit profile 11

Maybe the orks would "Take Cover" and reduce that hit profile to 10 but given that it makes little difference due to the size of their mob and the poor cover available they would probably prefer to tank those hits so that they can shoot back...

The orks (accuracy 25) shoot back at range 10, (25 + 20 - 10 - 30)/100 x 30 = hitprofile 1.5.

Maybe they spend an ammo runt and double that hitprofile to 3.

If the Guardmen "Take Cover" behind their wall they can drop that hitprofile down to -7.5 but then at that range they would be leaving themselves helpless if the orks would then make the likely choice of charging over that wall into close combat with their next action. Choices.. choices...

The hitprofile is a variable that abstractly represents the number of hits that may cause damage and is in turn fed into in another formula as a modifier for damage which works in a similar way.

No dice and it behaves rationally but it isn't so very predictable given the number of variables including player actions and the big ranges they have.

This is just a sketch of how it might work and far from a tried and tested method. The values I have used in the examples of course are highly provisional and just there to show how it might work.

As it stands it is a bit arthimetic rich... most people would probably have to play with a pocket calculator handy..

Alternative to a number rich method a more qualitative / algorithmic method might be devised but I haven't really explored that way much yet.

If you want your game to be played keep the math under the hood, not many players will play such a math heavy system.

Have you played games from Nintendo wars series? they a simple but well designed deterministic combat.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'd happily play a game with no random elements, but a wargame? No. A wargame needs some element of things that are under neither players' control. Absent a 3rd party GM, some sort of random element (dice, cards, chit draw, the specifics aren't important) seems the best way to do that.

Have you played WarpWar?

It's quite a gripping and cerebral game that works perfectly well without dice.

Looks interesting. I suppose there's something about space combat that lends itself to stripping back uncontrolled elements without affecting the theme too badly; there's no weather, no terrain and the effects of individual morale are so minimal as to be easily ignored.

It seems to me there are several different arguments about what people may be looking for.

Do people seek uncertainty in the game rules?
Can this be provided only by dice?
Do people just like rolling dice? (As in, Age of Sigmar is an excuse to push figures around while rolling dice.)

I reckon uncertainty can be provided by the interaction of two players' decisions without the necessary requirement of a random factor.

I take your point about the lack of terrain in space and so on, but I also can envisage for example a charge table in a tactical war game that allows players to select various different options that react with each other to produce a guaranteed result.

Let's say the attacker can select Aggressive, Cautious or Probing attacks. the defender can select Active, Passive or Reactive defence. That gives you a matric with the potential for nine different results, which is a variability of 11% per cell.

This is just a rough outline, of course.

Man, that example doesn't look fun at all. But I also think it's built around a flawed model, that is breaking things down into "hit" rolls, etc. So you get a slow system requiring lots of math. Yikes!

Instead, I would focus on interaction between unknowns. Say you have 2 units squaring off. Each side can pick from a number of options (move to cover, open fire, etc.) and lays a card face down reflecting that action. May lay down an alternate action as well. Then you compare the actions and stuff happens. For example, maybe a rock-paper-scissors relation ship with moving to cover/shooting/charging with ties in charging/shooting either eliminating both units or flipping the alternate action to determine winner. Perhaps after seeing the opponents action, you can go with an alternate action at some cost instead (IE if they shoot, you can pull shoot and move to cover instead, but don't get to play an action next turn).

The problem without a randomizing element is it's much more possible for games to be "solved," where, without the chance of failure and without managing risk, it becomes very dry and even about memorizing. It also exaggerates the disparity of skill, where a worse player might have no chance instead of poor chances, which isn't as fun IMHO.

I much prefer games with something more than linear probability (added dice for curves, resources that buy ability to manipulate probability or outcome, etc.) than linear (straight d#), but think I would take linear over no randomization. I believe in moderate to low randomization (and certainly don't prefer highly random games), but not all the way to none.

...Which isn't to say it can't be done, but I haven't seen anything interesting come out of a lack of randomness.

It depends.

I have played diceless games. Many of them devolved to fancy Rock-Scissors-Paper games. Or, they substitute other randomizers, like cards.

I have also played deterministic games in which things do flat damage and grind away.

If the game is chess/checkers-like, in that things have 1 HP and are insta-killed, it works OK.

If the game has huge amounts of math that is better left to an app, no thanks. I no longer have the patience to work through that sort of thing, and it is definitely work.

If you can streamline your concept into something that is clear and concise, I'd consider it.

Okay I'm dumping the idea of using an arithmetic approach. It might appeal to an exceedingly slim section of gamers who are wizards at mental arithmetic but would induce nausea and possibly vomiting in everyone else.

So that leaves an algorithmic or qualitative approach...

I'm still bit fuzzy about how to do that but I one thing pops out immediately. See before I said the problem with dice is that they produce only a narrow range of output numbers and that limits the range of stats and modifiers and so losing the dice allows a larger range of interacting factors. Well when scouting out the idea of doing resolutions qualitatively / algorithmically without dice another limitation with dice becomes apparent. Dice output numbers (unless weirdly labeled) so harnessing those numbers means either some kind of awkward translation of number to quality such as for example the Vehicle Damage Table in 40k or at its simplest seeing where a die result fits on some range of numbers and translating that to mean success or fail. Dice are number generators and lend themselves best to numerical processes. Working backwards from the dice we can see that the factors they work on are almost always numbers: stats & modifiers are always presented numerically.

If we ditch the die we can also ditch numbers too or at least a massive amount of them.

Instead of a weapon profile like this:
Range 24", Accuracy mod -1, Damage 8, AP 3

We might have something like:
Range: Medium, Optimal target: Large Armoured Vehicle

Instead of stats like:
Movement: 6, Skill: 5, Initiative: 4, Resilience 6, Armour: 4, Courage: 5

We might have something like:
Foot plodder, Adept, Decisive, Robust, Well Armoured, Brave.

So how then to feed in qualitative rather than numerical descriptions into some resolution method to determine outcomes of an action?

Killcrazy has suggested a matrix for splicing two sets of inputs (one from each player) to output a single outcome. Neat and lends itself well to qualitative inputs but I don't like resolution methods that involve look ups to charts and it is a bit limited in the number of inputs it can take.

I don't know yet. Numerical resolutions look easier to me but then I'm not numberphobic.

Look up tables are awesome!

What you need to do is work out all the different decision points where a player's unit has to interact with another unit (i.e. by shooting at it) or with a game feature (i.e. moving through dangerous terrain, getting ammo resupply, sending/receiving an order.) Each of these decision points will need a matrix or algorithm to resolve it.

@OP - I am not sure that you really understand dice can be non-numeric. Go look at how BattleLore / Memoir '44 / BattleCry / Battlemasters / Super Dungeon Explore / Ninja All Stars / Conan use dice. None of those are traditional numerical dice at all.

Also, dice-based resolution doesn't have to be numbers-heavy. Zombicide is like this, and I shamelessly stole their dice combat mechanic for KOG light.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@OP - I am not sure that you really understand dice can be non-numeric. Go look at how BattleLore / Memoir '44 / BattleCry / Battlemasters / Super Dungeon Explore / Ninja All Stars / Conan use dice. None of those are traditional numerical dice at all.

Also, dice-based resolution doesn't have to be numbers-heavy. Zombicide is like this, and I shamelessly stole their dice combat mechanic for KOG light.

I said "unless weirdly labeled".

Um, OK. I wasn't really clear what you meant by that. Nevermind.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Um, OK. I wasn't really clear what you meant by that. Nevermind.

I think he means that dice themselves are random or "too random". Even if they aren't numerical and looking to reach a certain number, swapping out numbers for symbols is essentially still the same thing. There is still X% chance of probability, thus they are the same thing.

He basically wants to look at a game that is a wargame but plays like chess. If something moves to Y, then it wins either based on turn or when it happens. There might be some other elements like interrupts or some method to respond, but it wouldn't be random.

There are a group of people that believe that wargames or games shouldn't be random. Should have controlled environments that rely on the skill of the player. The main issue though that it tends to make them not as "new player" friendly or they aren't fun, unless you happen to be an Engineer... in my opinion.

I think there's something to be said for making such a game about position, as in make it a straight comparison of numbers, but give modifiers to either via things like cover, formation, terrain, etc.

Nomeny wrote:
I think there's something to be said for making such a game about position, as in make it a straight comparison of numbers, but give modifiers to either via things like cover, formation, terrain, etc.

But that's not what this is. This is basically some variant of RPS, which might as well be a d3 for the nominally random Win-Lose-Draw outcomes.

But what's the point if there is no random element? Some f the best moments in wargaming, IMO at least, are when a beaten and under-strength unit miraculously makes the impossible one in a hundred roll at a crucial moment and beats back their far superior foe. There's always a great cheer and a brilliant look of shock on the face of the other player, followed by a discussion of how (narrative wise) the under-strength unit could have pulled it off. A good example was a couple years ago, I was playing Warhammer Fantasy with some friends using the siege expansion. A unit of maneater ogres reached the walls in a siege tower and charged out against some wood elf archers. We (the defending team) were sure we'd lost the walls. However, the eleven archers managed to rout the ogres over a few turns of combat, saving the game for us.
Is that balanced? No, probably not.
Is that fair to the player who outmaneuvered and outplayed their opponent to become the dominant force? No, not really.
Does it make for great narrative and add flavor to games? If you're asking me, hell yes.

As I always say to people who complain about the randomness of dice, 'If you want a truly balanced game, go play chess.'
But of course, who'd want to play something as stale and boring as chess?

(Sorry if I come over as an arsehole.)

This is not what all wargames are for though and a clean deterministic combat is were maneuvers count, that can be quite intriguing by itself.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
But what's the point if there is no random element? Some f the best moments in wargaming, IMO at least, are when a beaten and under-strength unit miraculously makes the impossible one in a hundred roll at a crucial moment and beats back their far superior foe. There's always a great cheer and a brilliant look of shock on the face of the other player, followed by a discussion of how (narrative wise) the under-strength unit could have pulled it off. A good example was a couple years ago, I was playing Warhammer Fantasy with some friends using the siege expansion. A unit of maneater ogres reached the walls in a siege tower and charged out against some wood elf archers. We (the defending team) were sure we'd lost the walls. However, the eleven archers managed to rout the ogres over a few turns of combat, saving the game for us.
Is that balanced? No, probably not.
Is that fair to the player who outmaneuvered and outplayed their opponent to become the dominant force? No, not really.
Does it make for great narrative and add flavor to games? If you're asking me, hell yes.

As I always say to people who complain about the randomness of dice, 'If you want a truly balanced game, go play chess.'
But of course, who'd want to play something as stale and boring as chess?

(Sorry if I come over as an arsehole.)

Personally I find chess boring but I don't find WarpWar boring.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
A good example was a couple years ago, I was playing Warhammer Fantasy with some friends using the siege expansion. A unit of maneater ogres reached the walls in a siege tower and charged out against some wood elf archers. We (the defending team) were sure we'd lost the walls. However, the eleven archers managed to rout the ogres over a few turns of combat, saving the game for us.

(Sorry if I come over as an arsehole.)

You come off as a GW player, because that particular bit of improbable luck is precisely the sort of "narrative" that GW likes to have "forged" in games like 40k and WFB.

There's nothing particularly "Warhammer" about that example (other than that was the game he happened to be playing at the time, of course!). It could have happened in just about any wagame (well, except Warp War )

Just about every situation where someone's won a Victoria Cross, Congressional Medal of Honour or the like is the same sort of thing.

YMMV, but I like the unexpected in a wargame. The wind changes, leaving my ship of the line becalmed. A freak shot hits a poor weld and penetrates my tank. The Baron's horse steps in a rabbit hole and the fall disrupts the cavalry charge, etc. Take that away, and I can understand the reasoning behind it, and the aim you're trying to achieve, and I wish you luck with it but ... it's not for me.

I see it as extremely Warhammer, because those are the stories that routinely get told. It's not about the strategic positioning and tactical play, because the actual gameplay is pretty shallow. And it's definitely not about the listcrafting to maximize tabletop advantages - nobody wants to talk about that crazy aunt chained to the bed in the basement. No, it's all about the golden BB, the boxcar rout, the snakeeyed hold against all odds. Why, clear as day, I recall the time I one-shotted my opponent's Land Raider on turn 1 and basically won the game right there. That's the essence of Warhammer storytelling.

And the worst part - one-shotting the Land Raider is the *only* thing I remember about that game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I see it as extremely Warhammer, because those are the stories that routinely get told. It's not about the strategic positioning and tactical play, because the actual gameplay is pretty shallow. And it's definitely not about the listcrafting to maximize tabletop advantages - nobody wants to talk about that crazy aunt chained to the bed in the basement. No, it's all about the golden BB, the boxcar rout, the snakeeyed hold against all odds. Why, clear as day, I recall the time I one-shotted my opponent's Land Raider on turn 1 and basically won the game right there. That's the essence of Warhammer storytelling.

And the worst part - one-shotting the Land Raider is the *only* thing I remember about that game.

Yes, yet in the table top wargaming world Warhammer/40k are the closest thing to a big commercial success. GW knows the secret of commercial success: make sure the dumb people will like it. Smart or dumb everyone wants to win, winning feels good, for dumb people though winning a game through strategy and tactics is an impossibility unless they are playing someone just as dumb and even then it is just winning by accident. Dice give them a chance to win, the more dicey the game, the better the dumbies chances. Dumbies outnumber the smartypants by a long way and are less sensible with their money too. Thus appealing to dumbies is the way to commercial success.

Now I am not claiming to be a smartypants but I am capable of a certain devious low cunning. I wouldn't waste a minute of my ever diminishing pile of time on this earth writing up a rule set which only a few smartypants will appreciate. Sorry smarty people there just isn't enough of you; I need the dumbies to throw down their money too. Yet I do want a wargame that is a real game and not just expensive snakes 'n' ladders like Warhammer. I reckon the way out of that bind, to get the great game and yet also score some shekels, is to make a game that has dice but which isn't that dicey, just dicey enough to make the dumbies think they have a chance but yet where in there is plenty of tactical depth that will allow the smartypants to win through manoeuvre.

So I am now aiming for a semi-deterministic game or rather a substantially deterministic game with a dicey camouflage. Eventually the dumbies will realise they have been suckered. After losing every game no matter how hard they threw the dice, no matter how fervently they prayed to the dice god, no matter how many lottery tickets they bought, still they lose over and over.. Then of course they will say it is a "boring" game and go back to snakes 'n' ladders but by then it will be too late they will have bought the book and I will have their money... hee hee!

See, now that's a good plan.

In my case, my game hinges primarily on the good use of cover. Which then makes it a game of positioning and, therefore, maneuver. Infinity has a similar philosophy, just way more complex than it needs to be.