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.

 Meade wrote:
I think as long as the miniatures have at least some good chunk of table time I think.

Yeah, that’d be the balancing act. Because the game would work best when enemy units are unknown, but the miniatures are best shown when they’re on the board. There would need to be a lot of thought put in to balancing those two things.

It certainly beats some games of 40k I've had that just seem like work of putting miniatures on the table, rolling a bucket of dice, then taking them off

I’ve played more than my share of truly one sided 40k games where I spent more time putting my orks on the board and taking them off again than actually doing anything with them.

No need to design a wargame version of stratego, i think, just use it as inspiration. I think a stratego-like wargame would be better suited to a mass battle game at 15mm or smaller scale. Something where you have a lot of units in a fog of war type situation and they are coming in contact with each other. But there's no reason they can't function like a normal wargame, with statlines and everything. The statlines could be modified by position, or other factors like being inside arcs of fire. then when they fight you just compare the stats to see who wins.

Sure, and that’s pretty much what I described

For a skirmish wargame i think rock paper scissors method is better.

Rock Paper Scissors or anything like that is just a randomiser, no different to rolling a dice. I’m not saying that can’t be done, but people should be aware that they’re then not doing anything fundamentally different to a game with dice based resolution. Playing a game of RPS might be more fun than just rolling a dice so it might work on that level, but it’s still a game with a random resolution mechanic.

Have statlines and everything, but when it comes time to fight have some secret cards (or a dial) that represents combinations of 'actions' you can take, like thrust, shield up, parry, or whatnot. and have those actions be modified by the weapon you are using, and statlines of the units. For example if they both thrust the quicker one would win, when they are simultaneously revealed.

That kind of mechanic can get very interesting, potentially. If the interactions between the cards is too simple then you’re just back to RPS (if parry beats thrust, but thrust beats slash, and slash beats parry, for instance). But if you start to apply different special rules to each case, so that each card is better or worse in different situations, then it might work.

Or alternately, you might make some cards better than others, but make players use them sparingly (as they can only use them once each, for instance). The boardgame Game of Thrones gives each player 7 cards with a score of 1 to 3, they each pick a card and add this result to the strength of their troops. Obviously the 3 card is the most effective, but once used you don’t get it again until you’ve used all your cards. So a game of bluff and double bluff as each player attempts to have the other player waste their valuable cards by ‘over winning’ small fights.

Actually, RPS is not random. It is a choice that may ultimately seem random, but the player still chooses. If you build the game so that certain units favor certain choices, etc. and different choices have different effects, then it is a limited information game, not random. Uncertain != random. That is to say, the players have complete control over all decisions, but may not be certain what the outcome will be since they do not know what the opponent's choice is.

Why not have a player have something like a saving throw, electing to preserve material at the expense of time (pinning), or position (falling back).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you're looking for the general class of games like Stratego, look up "block games." So-named, it seems, because they use the difference sides of blocks to conceal and reveal information.

 sebster wrote:

Rock Paper Scissors or anything like that is just a randomiser, no different to rolling a dice. I’m not saying that can’t be done, but people should be aware that they’re then not doing anything fundamentally different to a game with dice based resolution. Playing a game of RPS might be more fun than just rolling a dice so it might work on that level, but it’s still a game with a random resolution mechanic.

That kind of mechanic can get very interesting, potentially. If the interactions between the cards is too simple then you’re just back to RPS (if parry beats thrust, but thrust beats slash, and slash beats parry, for instance). But if you start to apply different special rules to each case, so that each card is better or worse in different situations, then it might work.

Or alternately, you might make some cards better than others, but make players use them sparingly (as they can only use them once each, for instance). The boardgame Game of Thrones gives each player 7 cards with a score of 1 to 3, they each pick a card and add this result to the strength of their troops. Obviously the 3 card is the most effective, but once used you don’t get it again until you’ve used all your cards. So a game of bluff and double bluff as each player attempts to have the other player waste their valuable cards by ‘over winning’ small fights.

As i said before I really like the game of thrones mechanic. Trying to express the mechanic of, 'choose secretly from a number of game states, then simultaneously reveal'.

I think there are tons of ways to make that kind of encounter interesting and not random at all. just to brainstorm a few:

-Game states like weather, positioning of miniatures, factors like speed and charging.
-cards have different physical states, like a square card that has different values based on orientation.
-cards have different states based on play order, for example revealing two cards at once it matters which comes first. So if we are thinking rock paper scissors lizard spock, then you could do combos like rock, spock or spock, rock and they might have different outcomes.
-cards are linked to a resource system (for instance weapons to ammo, magic to mana, melee combat to stamina, or simply discarding your valuable cards)
-The action 'classes' like i mentioned above that might be more like rock paper scissors, in the sense that some classes beat other classes and some might just draw. Of course because other factors are at play it wouldn't be as simplistic as rock beats scissors.
-unit statlines might be more or less resistant to certain classes of attack.

People will say all sorts of things like "Well in real warfare all kinds of unexpected things happen, so it's not realistic!" or "Where is the fun of the game if you know the outcome beforehand?" or "the crazy random moments are what makes a game memorable".

And in the end, you could offer up a very simple, controlled random element, a die roll for like one thing in the game, a wildcard, or something that might realistically actually be up to chance. the point would be that there is a slight taste of chance just to ensure unpredictability of outcomes. But really, if the rock paper scissors thing is complex enough that that pretty much simulates the chance element, all the while allowing for strategies like resource management, bluffing and double bluffing, or purposefully being either unpredictable or predictable in your actions to throw off your enemy.

 jmurph wrote:
Actually, RPS is not random. It is a choice that may ultimately seem random, but the player still chooses. If you build the game so that certain units favor certain choices, etc. and different choices have different effects, then it is a limited information game, not random. Uncertain != random. That is to say, the players have complete control over all decisions, but may not be certain what the outcome will be since they do not know what the opponent's choice is.

Giving the player a choice of rock, paper or scissors, with an entirely unknown outcome may involve a player choice, but the choice is a meaningless bit of guessing. It is random in the same that 'pick a number' or 'what hand is the coin in' are random. Some people may like resolving things that way, and I'm all for people experimenting with resolution methods for how they feel to the players as much as their actual outcomes, but we shouldn't pretend RPS is somehow a break from random resolutions.

I agree that you can potentially add other factors to some kind of RPS system and introduce skill. For instance, by adding a special rule that winning on rock auto-kills the enemy changes how the game would play, and introduce elements of bluff and double bluff that could be really fun to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Meade wrote:
People will say all sorts of things like "Well in real warfare all kinds of unexpected things happen, so it's not realistic!" or "Where is the fun of the game if you know the outcome beforehand?" or "the crazy random moments are what makes a game memorable".

Those are reasonable arguments, but the counter argument is that not every game has to play the same. Some games have exploding dice that allow for massive lucky breaks to break games open, other games have dice but the potential for results that are wildly different from the norm are not that great.

It's interesting to see games on a kind of continuum. Diplomacy has no random elements at all - everything is from deployment to unit creation to is fixed or driven by player choice. Game of Thrones is similarly mechanical (combat is driven by player choice), but each turn cards are drawn dictating special events - a player might invest heavily in winning the Iron Throne, only to lose it the next turn, or if the right card isn't drawn he might keep it until late in the game. Despite those random elements it's still nowhere near as random as, say, Risk, which has a combat mechanic that's designed to be incredibly unpredictable.

The point I'm making, I guess, is that there's room for all types in boardgames, so there should be no reason that wargames couldn't fit all types as well.

I find the idea of a card based system very interesting. Up Front (Avalon Hill, 1983) is controlled by a pack of cards.

The start order of the cards is randomised by shuffling, after which players draw and discard to make a hand that hopefully supplies them with the in game actions required to advance safely and attack the enemy. The resolution of attacks is semi-random. You can choose to play more or less powerful sets of "Fire" card, as loing as you have enough firepower based on weapons and range to satisfy the requirement for each Fire card. The effect on the enemy soldiers is modified by drawing more cards that add random number to the strength of your attack.

A key difference between Up Front and conventional miniature and map based games is that the movement and terrain is semi-abstract. You play on a bare table. If you "Move" into a "Building", then the building is there for you to move into. There isn't a layout that already has buildings and other features at set points.

To adapt this to a tabletop game, you could use Move cards and instead of specific terrain cards, you would have "Occupy" cards with different levels of effectiveness of cover.

Might as well play BattleLore / Memoir '44 / Battle Cry...

Malifaux is also an interesting example of pseudo-randomness using cards.

The thing I am taking away from this interesting thread, is the game play should be solid enough to work fine with absolute results.
And that any method to add variables is just to enhance the 'fun of risk taking'.

However, 40k appears to completely rely on risk taking /random results, to the point where this has become more important than ANY other element, (tactical or strategic,) when compared to other war games available.

And just to address the 'defense of 40k' often trotted out, that is the most popular game ever.
Considering the near monopoly GW and 40k had a 15 years ago, GW and 40k has lost 2/3 of its sales volumes, while focusing on minatures for collectors, while ignoring game play issues.No longer a '500lb Gorilla' dominating the market, but just 'cheeky monkey' everyone knows about.

A friend of Ruckdog took part in a Jutland game that used a deterministic combat system.

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2016/05/14/re-fighting-jutland/

Very interesting read.

Nice link! I think it illustrates how goals should influence design. Clearly, they wanted an illustrative game, not a full blown simulation. They also eschewed randomness to reward/punish tactical decisions. They also wanted to play with pretty pieces, but the play space was appalling- who has ever heard of checkerboard seas

I think it illustrates that scale naval games should be played on a computer. Like EVE Online.

A 'diceless' game which I've had quite a bit of fun with recently is Warhammer Diskwars.

There is a bluffing element to it - both sides pick a strategy, which is essentially scissors/paper/stone to see who gets to move their unit next, but the actual damage units do to each other (at least in melee, not at range) is purely diceless.

It's surprisingly good fun and very tactical.

Yes, but it is also a dexterity game.

It always amuses me when the designer conflates player ability with the ability of the forces under command. Like "Guess" weapons where you actually guess a number. That's some funny stuff for those who've done carpentry.

I hate when games do that. Presumably, I deployed this expert engineer/artillerist because *it* is good at the job, not because I am. Likewise, not allowing measure of weapon range, movement distance, is absurd. If there is uncertainty over a weapon's range, it should probably be reflected in the weapon's rules. But, it does provide something other than constant rolling for 3+/4+, I guess....

For me it is a technical limitation, premeasuring increases AP in a ridiculous level for some people.

To overlap with the thread about C3, part of the design of a game is to consider how much direct control the player has over the action.

In Little Wars, shooting was done using Britains' toy cannons that shot matchsticks (I have one.) If you were a lousy shot you would not do well in the game.

Unlike the current incarnation, courtesy of Tomy Takara?

B-Daman "Be the man!" shooting marbles at your opponent!