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've got a damage/health mechanic sitting in my idea folder that's been waiting for a game idea to come along I could use it in for a while; I was originally going to use it in a naval wargame that never really materialized, but I may have a project I can use it in now. I thought I'd try and explain it and see if it made sense to other people:

Models have hitboxes arranged in a 6x6 grid; the grid doesn't necessarily contain the full 36 boxes but models always have at least one box in each row and one in each column. Damage is dealt starting in the top/side/bottom of the grid depending on which of the model's fire arcs it originated in. Damage is typed either as "explosive" (which fills in boxes counting across the face the attack originated in) or "penetrating" (which fills in boxes counting in along the direction of the attack). Boxes may be armoured and take two damage to remove, or they may be system boxes and if they're damaged the unit's capabilities are reduced. When you hit a model you do damage starting in a random row/column determined by a row/column, but if your to-hit roll was good enough you may be able to modify the random row/column roll up or down by 1, and some defensive abilities may allow the other guy to modify your roll. Explosive damage marked into an empty column/row is lost, penetrating damage marked into an empty column/row does half its damage to an adjacent column/row of the attacking player's choice instead.

Thoughts, questions, does this make sense?

Warmachine does something like that.

Interceptor and Centurion from old FASA had a system like this, which also used uniquely shaped "templates" for different weapon types. Likely inspired Warmachine's use of a similar grid, though the latter was simpler.

so is the grid like a map of the model?

It's made me wonder about 2 dimensional health bars - EG psychological damage on one side, and physical damage on the other. start in one corner (full HP) and die if you reach either of the 2 opposite faces (going insane or being killed). so your HP marker progresses diagonally across the tracker. some units might have higher thresholds for insanity when they are more damaged, so theirs might not be square. it could add an interesting dynamic to losing health - pinch yourself (get hurt) to allow a greater tolerance for psychological damage... but not too much!

I have a fairly similar system in my game, as others pointed out games like Warmachine have done it in the mass market sense, and I'm reasonably sure the concept originated with older games like Renegade Legion (Interceptor/Centurion), etc. from FASA, which I believe were themselves an attempt to simplify the damage system used in games like Battletech or Starfleet Battles that didn't use a grid but rather drew a silhouette of the vehicle in question and filled it with damage boxes.

It's definitely nothing new or innovative, but it's actually so old it would be...newish again? Obviously it'd only be worthwhile in a game where you have limited units, as keeping track of all of them would become a pain in the ass. Rogue Trader for 40K used to have a similar system.

I think there is a lot you could do with it, and with today's tech you could go quite a few different ways. Again, nothing new, but we've gone so far in the "streamlining" direction that some of the old, slightly clunky, but fun game mechanics have been forgotten. There are also a number of ways you could make the mechanic more interesting as well.

Firstly, you could go with the old "each unit has a separate table", and perhaps use an acrylic overlay for the actual damage table as you suggested. Maybe certain units don't fill the whole table, and if you roll an impact that isn't over the target unit, it doesn't take damage - giving a reason for low silhouettes or skinny/agile units which are less prone to being shot, etc.

Another option is that weapon types or certain attacks do different patterns of damage. Each weapon type could be assigned a pattern, and an "impact" point....so you'd roll the impact point and then apply the pattern to the grid...seeing what the result is. Perhaps lasers do straight lines as they cut....rockets or shotgun style weapons do a spread pattern...some weapons do erratic patterns?

Building on that, perhaps the veteran level of the attacker determines how tight or close the pattern is - or maybe ranges impact the pattern, so that a weapon has a close range damage pattern, and a long range damage pattern.

Obviously specific systems and weapons should be highlighted on the grid, allowing attacks to damage or destroy key components. Loads of different directions you could go with the idea.

I have used something similar for RPG games, but found it to e too much tracking for the wargame style I like to play.

Such an approach would work best with a low model count game, IMHO.

I've used something like this in a submarine game I have had in the works for a long time.

Mine was VERY similar to the RL grid in that different weapons inflicted damage in different directions; blue/green lasers 'abrade' a line of 'surface' boxes, penetrating KE weapons punch out a vertical column, exploding torps blow up a 4-square 'chunk'.

Problem was that there were not enough boxes, so almost any hit could be fatal. Still, at least you died knowing exactly what went wrong!

 Macrossmartin wrote:
I've used something like this in a submarine game I have had in the works for a long time.

Mine was VERY similar to the RL grid in that different weapons inflicted damage in different directions; blue/green lasers 'abrade' a line of 'surface' boxes, penetrating KE weapons punch out a vertical column, exploding torps blow up a 4-square 'chunk'.

Problem was that there were not enough boxes, so almost any hit could be fatal. Still, at least you died knowing exactly what went wrong!

Wouldn't that be fairly accurate? Submarine combat is, realistically speaking, a fairly lethal endeavor. A submarine can absorb a few indirect hits from depth charge overpressure, but realistically a direct hit to a submerged submarine is a mission kill (and to a surfaced submarine its a mission kill). Submarine combat is a battle of stealth, rather than a battle of blows.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Wouldn't that be fairly accurate? Submarine combat is, realistically speaking, a fairly lethal endeavor. A submarine can absorb a few indirect hits from depth charge overpressure, but realistically a direct hit to a submerged submarine is a mission kill (and to a surfaced submarine its a mission kill). Submarine combat is a battle of stealth, rather than a battle of blows.

Normally, yes, but the game involved futuristic 'subfighters' with which speed was as significant an advantage as stealth. But the real issue was that there was no point to such a detailed system when most solid hits totalled a unit; detailing the cause of its destruction became moot as soon as it was breached. The mechanic didn't suit the objective, and I was guilty of failing to 'kill my darlings' because I was enamoured with the mechanic.

Now that makes sense - if in most scenarios the unit dies in a single blow then theres no point to a detailed damage mechanic.

Battletech similar but after the armor gets blown away it's all internal systems.

Jon Paulson's abortive MechaFront game used a similar mechanic. My opinion is that it's a great idea for roleplay games, and for games like, say, Adeptus Titanicus, where each player controls only a handful of very large units. But otherwise you're keeping track of complex damage on too many items.

Macrossmartin's example illustrates that, even when the application and result is realistic, it can leave a player thinking "well, what was the point?" If a single hit is going to wipe out multiple boxes and potentially a whole unit, you must wonder whether a complex system is, actually, desirable or if it just gives the illusion of complexity.

I guess the point is that such mechanics can sound very appealing but do need to be tailored to the right game so that managing both the hits and the damage control becomes part of the fun as opposed to making your game into an exercise in bureaucracy.

Thats the biggest issue with damage grid based game design (don't get me wrong, I *love* damage grids), they often confuse/substitute resolution (I.E. the act of resolving damage) for meaningful gameplay... but its not gameplay, its damage resolution. Having an incredibly detailed damage model doesn't really do much in terms of providing players agency or giving you meaningful decisions, etc.

My Titanomachina game uses a grid-based system, with each Titan getting a 3x3 grid which can mount three systems each. The 3x3 corresponds nicely to the squares around the square occupied by the Titan on the board so it makes deciding what you can hit a matter of direction and choice rather than dice-rolling.