"Another one die combat system" Topic

Okay here's another idea from a friend of mine. Attack strength versus defense. You add/subtract to the value for cover, moving etc. Cross index attack strength versus defense and roll a D6 to determine final number of hits, using this chart:

Just kinda brainstorming here….

Thoughts?

How is the Attack Strength initially determined/assigned?

I like that better than your other idea. Much more straight forward.

the numbers in the middle of the chart is damage?
I like it! Clear, easy to use and fast!

Personally I wouldn't want to play this game as I don't like having to look things up in tables. I prefer games where you can memorise all of the regularly used rules mechanisms. Why not just something like – roll number of dice equal to attack strength, with target number being defence value ?

Still uses a chart though, which like them or not doubles the calculation time.

Why not just say 2 D6 per attack strength point, minus 1 per defence strength point.

target in opn 4+
target soft cover/obscured 5+
target hard cover 6's

So attack of 4 means base of 8 D6. Defence is 4, so minus 4 dice. Leaves 4 D6. Target in soft cover, 5+ to hit with 4 dice.

No chart required for the same thing.

It's a much better idea than the previous one, and I know you're specifically trying to get the statistical model of "buckets o' dice" without the actual pile of D6 on the table, but I tend to agree with those who would rather roll a handful of dice than look things up in a table. If, for some reason, I REALLY hated the idea of having all those dice on the table, but still wanted the game mechanisms to utilize all those dice, I suppose I'd attempt to have my cake and eat it too by using a die roller app on my phone instead of physical dice.

Doug

Hey Mark. I don't "get" this one.

From what I can see, the probabilities are always clustered as: 1 / 2-3 / 4-5 / 6. Four outcomes in each case, with the two "middle" outcomes being twice as likely as the "outer" outcomes. OK so far.

But then I don't see a relationship between that and the relative strengths of ATK vs. DEF. Look at some "Like vs. Like" outcomes for example:

A 1 ATK vs. a 1 DEF. The # of hits will be: 2, 3, 4, 4.

But look at a 2 ATK vs. a 2 DEF. Now the # of hits will be: 1,2,3,4.

And a 3 vs. a 3? The hits are: 2,2,3,4.

Three different outcome spreads, in each case for a matchup of identical foes. (Why would a 1-vs-1 combat be more likely to do damage than a 2-vs-2 combat?)

Or check this out: ATK=3, vs. DEF = 2. Here the hits spread is: 2,2,3,4.

Why would that (3 vs. 2) be a weaker set of outcomes than 1-vs-1?

--

This seems a bit over-engineered. Surely there's a way to do this without a table. What about something like just rolling a # of dice equal to your ATK value, and the defender rolls a # equal to his DEF value, and then do a match-up?

For each defender's die that equals or exceeds an attacker's die, a hit is deflected. Any leftover hits by the attacker are "hits."

Way too cumbersome.

Marshall mark's on the right idea. I haven't done a full analysis on it but it seems to me you can get almost the same values by rolling one die for each attack strength, total them, and divide by the 10. That's not the defensive value, it's just a factor of 10. The defensive value comes in my knocking off strength die.

Example.

Attacker has an attack strength of three. Defender a strength of 1. 3-1=2. Attacker rolls 2 die getting an 11, 11/10= 1.1111 ect. One damage or whatever on the enemy.

Attacker can never be reduced to less than 1 die. This way fiddle with the denominator and you can adjust it how you want. Simply set lower level rounding limits on bottom and top end.

You're caught in a trick-bag. You want more results than are capable with one die. No matter how you squirm, you're only going to get 6 possibilities out of a single die. To get more you've got to finagle with modifiers, values etc, to make a big enough basis of cariation.

Actually your chart reminds me nothing so much as the old Avalon Hill Combat Results table. Probably better to simply divide attack factors by defence, and come up with a ratio, set the chart and roll the die. A-elim, Exchange etc. or simply plug in damage for A-elim D back two and all the other results. A lot easier too.

don't re-invent the wheel.

I don't find it any better or worse than the other table approach.

What you're fundamentally dealing with here are personal preferences, not actual human-system performance dynamics. If you're trying to satisfy a customer base, you might want to find (or create) some surveys of those preferences for the subset of gamers that would be attracted to your milieu.

I'm not sure why this is too cumbersome. What is so cumbersome about rolling a single die and looking at the result on the table? The attacker takes care of his attack strength and the defender takes care of his defense strength. So not only is it a single die roll but the tasks are divided between 2 people. I'd venture to guess that this process is going to be way faster to resolve than a lot of systems out there. Of course, if there is a list of modifiers a mile long I might amend my post.

The old SPI game Wellington's Victory had a similar combat chart.

I will agree that the numbers on the chart might need some tweaking but he never said that they were the actual numbers used rather than just some filler data.

I am not sure that tables are much of a 21st century mechanism for combat resolution.

Not saying that they don't work, just that most players nowadays are used to simple dice and success or not.

Would a game with a table put me off? Probably not. Would it generate a mass folowing? I doubt it.

I loathe buckets of dice. Loathe them. But I like some games that use them. So I'm just brainstorming on "concepts" that would replace say, 27D6 to hit, then get 5 saves, then roll 15D6 and count the casualties.

The values in the chart are just dummies, I'm really just working on structure here.

And I have never minded charts, in fact I usually prefer them. So yes, this is me working on games to fit my preferences…

If it was one dice per point of attack strength it would hardly be something you would call buckets of dice.

A typical squad might have 10 dice – 8 rifles + 1 LMG. Get two squads firing and suddenly you're routinely rolling 16-20 dice. Also, I am thinking of adapting this to Flames of War where it is not uncommon to roll 20+ dice at times….

Um. Why do you need defense value from 1-10 if you just roll a D6 against it? 1-10 seems very wide. If you roll a D6, defense value could be 1-6 too.

My own rules system (sorry to advertise it) classifies combat value from 2-5 (and 1 for non-combattants, 6 for some heroes) and you just need to roll a D6 (and add/substract a few modifiers in some situations) and you don't need to look at a chart, just to roll more than the combat value.

Charts are a necessary evil; avoid them as much as possible.

I'm not "rolling a D6 against it." The spread is determined by comparing modified attack vale vs modified defense, so you might have a high defense, +2 for hard cover, +1 for blah blahblah.

As I said this chart is just a "shell" to test the concept. In practice it might only go up to 6 and attack might go out to 15,,,

If you don't like buckets of dice then fair enough but IMO the majority of gamers are not keen on looking at charts.

In all the games I play and have played in the last 10-15 years rulebooks and charts are rarely seen on gaming tables because the mechanisms are simple enough that you don't need them.

Back in the 70s and 80s when I played the then popular games you spent what seemed half your time cross referencing 17 men at factor 4 equals 23 casualties and then your opponent did the same. Heaven forbid a complex fight where you ended up looking up three things and your opponent did the same and then you wrote it all down and added it up then presented it to your maths teacher for marking.

I am not saying it won't work, I am not saying that you won't enjoy it, just that in my experience games where charts and tables are not used are more like fun and less like work.

Sorry Extra Krispy but I rather like buckets of idce. This is not a personal prefence. It is observation of what gamers like. Most of the time when gamers roll lots od dice I can see they have a sensation of power, of actually being able to do something. When they do and get gatz, as they do quite often, it heightens the tensions.

My modern games are ARMY level. Thus a stand of four figues can represent a battalionor a company. It is a hex-based system with large hexes (12" across on the paralell sides, 14" point to point). You can get as many stands in a hex as you wish or can cram in provided you don't let the bases overlap. In any case, I really don't care, the more stands in a hex the better for you in attack, but the better for me in defense.

In my game machine guns, mortars, light, medium, and heavy artillery are AREA fire weapons. You fire on the AREA, and for each stand in the hex you are firing on a machine gun, mortar, light, medium, or heavy artillery gets to roll oen die. So if a machine gun fires on a hex with one stand on it, it rolls one die. If it rolls on a hex with 20 stands in it (about the most you can cram in under the most liberal conditions) i rolls 20 dice. A machine gun hits on a 3,4,5, or 6.

Now, so do mortars light medium and heavy artillery, and at the same rate, and the only difference is the range in hexes they can fire from 1 for MG to 5 for heavy artillery.

Now. If you fire two such weapons in a hex you roll TWO dice for every stand, so if you have say four such weapons firing on a hex you roll 80 dice!

You cannot imagine the excitement and glint in a players eyes when he does this! He's really having fun!.

Anyway, in the game a single hit kills a stand, and in area fire the DEFENDER gets to decide which stands are lost! However, he can "slough off" the hits made on his stand by retreating one hex with that stand. He can retreat further hexes with stands and slough off more hits. He cannot retreat with any stand more then three hexes!.

So let's take an example.

I in preparationf or a close assault have massed 20 stands in a hex. You, on your defender fire phase focus every tube you can bear, so let's say you have the above 4 tubes which is 4x20=80. So you roll 80 dice. Assume the stastitical 2/3 hits (3 to 6 on a six sided die which is 54 hits. I could suffer NO casualties by simply retreating 20 stands two hexes and an additional 14 stands into a third hex. Of course- then I can't close assault-- as I can only do this when I am in an adjacent hex. This would be ENTIRELY REALISTIC and assumes that the vast amount of fire you laid down broke up the attack and drove it to ground before I got close. On the other hand, I could retreat 18 stands three hexes and also lose nothing leaving two stands in a position of close assault. Where they retreat to is my decision. On the OTHER hand I could retreat 14 stands FOUR hexes and lose them, leaving six stands to make the close assault. ALSO entirely realistic in that the troops braved the hail of fire to make the close assault.

As the attacker I have combined a whole range of options into simple actions that are up to the PLAYER to do in a multifarous number of ways that are all COMPLETELY realistic and which require a tiny number of rules .

Now let's consider the defender. The attacker does the same thing, only assume now I have only 5 stands in the hex. As he has four items fireing he rolls 4 x 5- 20 dice. Assume again a statistical average of hits or 14. Obviously I don't want to lose everything so I retreat four of them three hexes and one two hex. However, where they retire to is up to me, and as the defender I can choose how to make up my fall back line of defense. Or, I could give up two stands for 8 and the other two for zix, leaving a single stand in the hex to hold. etc etc etc.

There are terrain advantages which lower the ability to hit etc etc. There is also "point" fire in which a unit can fire at a specific enemy unit (like an AT gun on a tank) and the defender does not get to chose which stand takes the hit.

Then there's my favorite! At the start of the game and depending on the campaign or scenario one side may have "barrages." These are simple tokens, and a player can have up to 20 barrages. A barrage is expended once. The range is the ENTIRE table and you hit on a 2 to a 6. These represents those grand guignol's barrages like the Somme where artillery way behind the lines simply levels their dumps of ammunition by providing a deluge of fire. barrages completely ignore defensive benefits. (After all they simply blast apart woods and light trenches) They only hit with a six on entrenchments (like WWI lines). Players usually use these to completely blast a hole in a defender line, but again, remember, they still only roll one die per stand in the target hex, so firing a barage against a hex with a single stand in it is a real waste of ammo.

I find the "bucket of dice" concept wonderful to simulate the realities of moern combat with huge amounts of fire, and there's an onomapoetic idea of seeing the open board area deluged with dice.

Armor plays a part in this. Assume I have in my 20 stands in the hex 10 tanks. Your weapons all cannot hit tanks, so instead of four dice per stand (for your four tubes, you only get four dice for the non-armoed stands. So that's 40 dice you roll. Now assume that you have a statistical average of hits of 2/3 which is 24 hits. Since it is area fire, I can retreat with any units I wish so I choose to retreat three hexes with 8 of the ten tanks. That means I have two tanks left and all 10 non-armored stands. That means I get to make the close assault with two tanks AND all 10 "Stosstruppen" or "Red Guards" which are almost as good as tanks in a close assault!. Woe to your measly five stands left in the hex!

The bucket full of die thus allows me to make rules which model in a few sentences, vast events and possibilities and provide a methodology that encourages so many of the practices of real war- mass for the attack, disperse for cover in the defense, find a protected means of approaching the enemy, relying on defense in depth, massing your fire, and above all, the primacy of movement.

See, in the game the board is 10 hexes deep. The attacker starts on the hex row on one end. There is a 1 hex wide "no man's land" between them, and then the next hex back is the furtherst forward the defender may deploy. Victory in the game comes if you are able to breach the initial objective line (halfway down the board at hex row 6) for that you get one point. if you beach the intermediate Victory line at hex line 8 you get two points. If you get to push a unit into the 10th row of hexesor beyond you have a strategic breakthrough and get three victory points. Now… the turn last only 10 turns, so you have to keep moving as most of your stuff only moves one hex per turn. Tanks more two hexes per turn, armored cars three. Trucks move four. So you are constantly poking, probing, pushing with your front line troops trying to push the enemy back and make a hole so you can run motorized elements or cavalry down the field to dive off the far hex. But MAKING that hole, and keeping the defender from holding you up (remember you can't enter a hex with an enemy stand in it, even a single truck, so you've got to eject him. Remember at this level a truck doesn't show a single vehicle, but a whole truck company with its squads of security troops and other rear-line- unts.

I tell people in the rules. "Don't envision the game as a stop-action movie of The Longest Day or Saving Private Ryan, as a view of the real battlefield. View the game tabletop AS a tabletop. A tabletop some 30 miles behind the lines in a gorgeous chateau, the army headquarters where the player are all field marshalls and generals and the only colonel in the room is there to take the coffee order, and the units on the table top are exactly as they are, tokens and markers pushed around on the map by nattily dressed WAC's with croupie sticks, and the only element you have of the real battlefield, the muddy, bloody, gassed over hell you have committed your troops to is the slight tinkling of the crystal chandelier as the barrage reaches its crescendo.

After the battle, you will retire with your ravishingly beautiful Secretary (one of the nattily dressed wacs) to your usual world-dominating table at the local cabaret for an evening of shows, chanteuse, and champaigne.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am your host und sagen Wlkommen etrange-- stranger-- hhappy to see you, je suis enchante' bleibe reste stay, …"

Buckets of dice have their uses.

James Hammy Hamilton is right The game is supposed to be fun and excitement. Anything that prevents the "X" (Excitement) factor should be tossed out on its ear.

single hex and 14

The advantage of this system is that it allows a non-linear set of probabilities. This allows unlikely events to happen (from your table, an attack 1 can still hit a defense 10 unit with a 16% probability)

The disadvantage is that looking up a table all the time is going to get old very quickly. Note that the table gives a number of hits so there is still some more dice rolling and calculating to go before we are done.

So different people are going to come down on different sides

Ottoathome has a great point – go for maximum fun factor. This is not quantifiable, but I would consider
- minimal time looking up things
- fast mechanisms (buckets of dice can be fast, but not my favourite mechanism)
- both players get something to do in each combat interaction

Take DBA as an example (lots of people hate it, and I'm OK with that). Most people learn the common rolls and bonuses, simple combat roll for each unit, opposed die roll means both players involved and the beat/double system allows 2 different outcomes from a single roll. It takes genius to think up something that simple and powerful.

I am also kicking around an idea – what about if modifiers could put us into a position where a 7 is required on a d6. You still roll, then if you roll a 6, you get to re-roll with a +3. So total probability is 1/12

John

I am also kicking around an idea – what about if modifiers could put us into a position where a 7 is required on a d6. You still roll, then if you roll a 6, you get to re-roll with a +3. So total probability is 1/12

Some systems have been using that for years, if not decades. If I remember correctly, Warhammer 3rd used something like that for at least one mechanism.

I am also kicking around an idea – what about if modifiers could put us into a position where a 7 is required on a d6. You still roll, then if you roll a 6, you get to re-roll with a +3. So total probability is 1/12

Some systems have been using that for years, if not decades. If I remember correctly, Warhammer 3rd used something like that for at least one mechanism.

So must be a good idea

John

Eighty dice?!

Holy mother of God that must take FOREVER! Just counting the dice…then rolling them (do you use a real bucket?) then counting the successes…the glint in my eye would be "glazing over."

I disagree that gamers like buckets of dice, though I understand why lots of people think this. Rather I think what gamers like is the chance for extreme/unlikely outcomes.

Example: I had a unit holding a key position that should have broken, routed and been ground in to dust. But it held. against all odds it held. The club still talks about that game. Chance of that? Less than 1%

What we want is to feel that the luck/dice matter. If my dice only determine whether I do 7 hits or 8, the "spread" feels so small the dice don't matter much. But if I have a 75% chance of doing 7 hits, 15% to do 8, 9% to do 9 and a 1% chance of getting a critical hit, then that dice roll becomes exciting. I don't think adding 79 more dice adds more excitement (just the reverse in my experience).

And by the way, this game would be for me, so no buckets o dice, thanks.

Dear Extra crispy.

Nay takes only twenty seconds to find, roll and count. Peoaple love it, I never heard anyone complain, and everyone stands there with smiles as they tumble out. The counting is the best part and people go wild when the statistical average is flouted or exceeded.

Granted may not be for you but the recommendation for it is that it WORKS and does everything it's supposed to, modeling combat better than any other system I've found.

"concepts" that would replace say, 27D6 to hit, then get 5 saves, then roll 15D6 and count the casualties

Yes, get rid of all these "saving" throws and "count casualty" rolls.

IMO the cumbersome problem in some games is not the buckets of dice, it is having to roll them two or three times for a single action.

One roll (even with a bucket) is enough. A hit is a kill. You don't even need a chart for this.

Nay takes only twenty seconds to find, roll and count.

OSchimdt – I'm sorry, but I don't believe you can count out 80 dice, roll them and then count successes in twenty seconds.
I don't mind rolling a handful of dice if the mechanics are otherwise streamlined, but not more than twenty, unless it is very rare in the game (e.g. in Saga you occasionally roll more, and I can live with that). However, 80 is ridiculous, and I wouldn't play a game that required you to use this many dice.