Switch Theme:

Catch-up mechanisms in wargames  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




We all know those games... one player had a very good turn, decimating opoonent’s forces. He controls objectives and there’s hardly any option to take them back. The game is over ...with the small exception that it isn’t because we still have 4 rounds/an hour and a half to play.


To avoid the situation when one of the players gets an upper hand and then snowballs until the end of the game, when rich get richer and poor get poorer for several turns we have catch-up mechanisms in games. Just like games benefit from clear victory conditions that make the game end exactly once the outcome is obvious and not a moment later (well, maybe a short moment for the winner to bask in glory and enjoy asserting dominance ) In short games we have good ol’ concession, but it doesn’t make much sense in a game that takes a lot of time to organise and prepare. Also, if a player is in a lead, they should have their difficulty increased not lowered (just like in a bike race – you get ahead, others take advantage of your slipstream).


The Game of Thrones board game, despite being a bit old now has a lot of mechanisms I love, like its wonderfully excellent combat system. There’s this little aspect which is a catch-up rule, but I’m not even sure it has been designed to be one. After a few battles some players (winners) will have pretty big armies while others will be left with leftovers... but when time for Mobilisation comes bigger armies are much more limited by Supply rules and even by the limit of the game’s components (there’s only 5 cavalry meeples for example) and will get only a few new units, sometimes even none. Players with small armies can benefit from the Mobilisation order fully, quickly replacing loses and becoming active participants of the game once more.


My favourite miniatures wargame, Warmachine&Hordes has this assassination victory condition that lets one of the players snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by killing their opponent’s leader – warcaster. It is a common situation when one of the players gets a huge attrition/scenario advantage but it requires him to put his warcaster at risk (a warcaster is the most powerful model in the army and a force multiplier). A desperate attempt at assassination is often the only option for the losing player. While I like that such a catch-up mechanism exists it often feels heavy-handed and „Gotcha!” unfortunately, due to the game’s rules bloat. It feels unfair too – should the win go to the player who has made 30 bad moves and 2 good ones during the game and not his opponent who has made 30 good moves and one small mistake (which results in his leader getting assassinated)?


In PP’s new game, Warcaster, there’s also an interesting approach (the game is brand new, so not many opinions online, let alone first-hand experience). PP is definitely taking into consideration the importance of catch-up mechanics in their games. Basically, models killed still return to the table as reinforcements thorugh portals you deploy during the game. It still costs you resources and they are most likely to be out of position for a turn or two, so there’s an actual cost to that, but a player can’t ride a wave of an early attritional advantage straight to the inevitable win. Overall attrition is not an aim in itself, what matters is localised attrition that lets you take objectives and consolidate position. I am really interested in how it plays out in actual games!


And what is your experience with such catch-up/ anti-snowball mechanisms in wargames? Maybe you have an idea for such a mechanism that you would like to see more in games ?


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/25 06:34:53


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I really like the idea of returning models to the table. It's a bug-bear of mine in Warhammer that, particularly with so-called 'horde armies' you bring lots of miniatures and only really use a fraction of them. Returning models to the board is a much better horde-feel than removing swathes of them.

There's something to be said for detaching the number of actions a player can take from the number of elements they can control, so that as a player loses material their remaining stuff acts more heroically. Example: Tactical Assault's Combat Cards and Arty Conliffe's Crossfire rules. Also Epic Armageddon to a degree.

In Pulp Alley, one of my favourite skirmish designs, the player who has the initiative gets to nominate the model that goes next, regardless of the player. Players can lose the initiative if one of their models loses a fight, or flubs an action (like investigating a plot point, or otherwise not fisticuffs). This is really great for asymmetrical skirmish games where the Bad Guys typically have a horde of goons, and the Good Guys are typically a handful of models.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/25 15:55:09


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Anytime there is a morale roll it is a crude "catch-up mechanism in a wargame. Especially if more than one unit can be impacted by it.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I recall in WHFB 5th edition and earlier you could beat an army if a unit failed a break test, and the units around it then panicked. Tended to favour the winning side though.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Nurglitch wrote:

There's something to be said for detaching the number of actions a player can take from the number of elements they can control, so that as a player loses material their remaining stuff acts more heroically.


I see this easily implemented in games with alternate activation. I guess sometimes it may encourage "farming" understrength units by the opponent (not finishing them), to keep the overall number of units higher, but their activations inconsequential. But the game rules may solve this easily.

 Easy E wrote:
Anytime there is a morale roll it is a crude "catch-up mechanism in a wargame. Especially if more than one unit can be impacted by it.


Can you elaborate how this affects the leading player more than the underdog?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Marvel Crisis Protocol has an interesting catch up mechanic in the way damage taken converts into power you can spend on extra abilities. It works well, particularly with the safety net of characters needing to be killed twice to be removed. Generally characters get a big turn to make up for their losses.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 LunarSol wrote:
Marvel Crisis Protocol has an interesting catch up mechanic in the way damage taken converts into power you can spend on extra abilities. It works well, particularly with the safety net of characters needing to be killed twice to be removed. Generally characters get a big turn to make up for their losses.


Very thematic too.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




There's a similar one in Monsterpocalypse (PP again), where you have to kill the enemy monster... but when it is close to dying it enters its enraged form, which is more dangerous than the regular one.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 Easy E wrote:
Anytime there is a morale roll it is a crude "catch-up mechanism in a wargame. Especially if more than one unit can be impacted by it.


Can you elaborate how this affects the leading player more than the underdog?


Sure, first off Morale is considered separately from "damage" or "destroying" a unit.

If you plan and prioritize your focus you can collapse a single unit's Morale and potentially collapse parts of the opposing army, therefore returning the battle to parity.

This is instead of trying to take-out or cause as much damage as your opponent has inflicted on you.


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






just a random thought I've had, which might make for a good catchup mechanic.

The game is broken into 2 sections - the individual units, and the overall army.

The individual units is used to dictate positioning, attacks, defence, who dies, all the normal stuff of a wargame.

The overall army is morale and leadership. This is tracked off the board.

The idea is, that if you have a large army and the enemy has a small one, it will impact your morale more if they succeed at killing a unit than vice versa - seeing captain america punch out umpteen techno-nazis is much more demoralising for the techno-nazis than it would have been for capt's team if they had shot him - you expect overwhelming numbers to prevail.

So, what you can do is have the army-wide morale be affected by how big your armies are, comparitively - if yu've wiped half the enemy's army out, then spend the next 3 turns losing units to their guerilla tactics, it will knock your morale right down. If you succeed in blowing up an enemy tank, it wil improve army morale. If you have your leader killed, it will lose morale and leadership.

Leadership can be used to perform special orders, like stratagems in 40k - so killing the leader early will help to reduce their effectiveness.

Morale can be used to stop units from fleeing at the end of the turn, or to recover pinned ones. If you haven't got enough morale, you choose the units you can afford to have not run - which will usually be the ones in the best position to fight back, which also matches some semblance of reality.


I think I'll be trying this out in my skirmish game, actually...

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Neat idea! You may want to check similar mechanics in A Song Of Ice And Fire (off-board politics track, not catch up mechanics per se), they may provide further inspiration.

*

Thanks for the clarification, Easy E!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/28 21:09:17


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Easy E wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
Anytime there is a morale roll it is a crude "catch-up mechanism in a wargame. Especially if more than one unit can be impacted by it.


Nurglitch wrote:Can you elaborate how this affects the leading player more than the underdog?


Sure, first off Morale is considered separately from "damage" or "destroying" a unit.

If you plan and prioritize your focus you can collapse a single unit's Morale and potentially collapse parts of the opposing army, therefore returning the battle to parity.

This is instead of trying to take-out or cause as much damage as your opponent has inflicted on you.

Okay. I would have thought of that moreso of a mechanic for dis-incentivizing players from concentrating fire and gaining a material lead, but I suppose doing so also helps maintain a horse-race.
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

In a different thread, Sorry is referenced. As I though about that game more it features several mechanics that keep every game close.

1. Randomized movement
2. Win conditions require multiple actions
3. Equalizer cards (Sorry, Switch places, back 4, etc)
4. Start restrictions
5. Elimination mechanic for pawns

All this factors mean no on is every "out" of the game, or it increases swinginess. There are ways to minimize these factors and strategies; but even these strategies do not eliminate the catch-up mechanics built into the rules.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im4l9M8JUAE - maybe someone will pick-up some ideas for their games from these
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: