"What's it like to play a diceless wargame?" Topic

Some musings on the topic….

I've read, but never played, Swords & Spells, the original mass fantasy battles rules, written for the original D&D RPG. It, too, is diceless for combat resolution.

Combat resolution consisted of comparing forces engaged in battle, to one another on a chart. It was all cerebral, and cold, matter-of-fact resolution. I could never bring myself to even try playing it.

With dice, derring-do is always an option. Nothing is certain, as the dice giveth, and the dice taketh away, sometimes in the extreme. That creates excitement, and gambling against the odds. It creates both heartfelt, exuberant cheers, and jeers. It is very exciting, even though each side's players are always calculating their odds, with every ebb and flow of the combat resolution within every game turn.

To me, that is more realistic than a cold, calculated combat resolution table based solely upon numbers.

With regards to war games needing to become more granular in troop types, I could not disagree more. I am not what my gaming friends call, "A rivet counter," someone who knows every historical detail about the troops involved, their weaponry, which years had tanks with the L75 gun, versus the regular 75 gun, etc. Granular detail appeals to such persons, but it is too much detail, which has too little impact on the combat resolution to bother with, for others (like me).

I play RPG's, and I play war games. The RPG combat is painfully granular, tedious, and ridiculously time-consuming at the tabletop. Mass war games simplify and average combat resolution, speeding it up, tremendously. RPG's are microscopic in combat resolution, where mass battles games are macroscopic, and I very much prefer macroscopic combat for RPG's, when possible. Combat is not the core fun element for me, in RPG's, but it is for others.

In mass battles games, I don't care whether my ship is firing the Mark 42, or the Mark 43 torpedo, because the percentage increase in my Chance to Hit, is a couple of percentage points on 1d100 -- a 7% chance on the Mark 42, and a 12% chance with the Mark 43… The 5% increase is almost meaningless at the tabletop, when rolling 2d10 percentile dice.

Granularity appeals to some, but not to others. Unfortunately, I've only ever found a mix of gaming friends: some like granularity, some do not, so we all end up compromising, playing some games on both sides of the equation, to keep us all happy.

Rules writers are trying to sell copies of their works. They try to write them for the largest portion of their customer base -- some writers aim for the more abstract, some aim for the more granular players. Some try to write for both, offering simpler, less granular rules, as well as more advanced granular sub-rules which may be optional. There are no reliable surveys available to a writer to choose how to write their rules. They choose their target audience, and run with it, hoping for the very best outcome. Cheers!

Not a miniatures game but "Winter Thunder" is a hex and counter Bulge game from a few years back. It is diceless as well. Combat is calculated by orders. Each side picks an order for a combat and a grid gives the result.

Fascinating in that you can opt to trade space for time. But if your opponent expects you to do that he can pick the optimum order to catch you. Or you can hold at all costs. But again, your opponent might expect it and pick the best counter.

@Stg Slag

All I can say Sarge is that I entirely agree with what you say and that that isn't what I'm doing.

Optio – the homegrown system I use for Ancients wargaming – gives games that rarely exceed 2 hours, and that's with 30-odd stands a side. Combat resolution is very fast.

Granular in WW2 can go easily over the top since we have so much data about the weaponry, tactics, formations, etc. of that time. We have much less for armies a thousand, two thousand, years ago. Granular in that context means having several classes of infantry to which can be applied or not applied an extra armour bonus, an impetus bonus, drilled status, elite status and a couple of others, as opposed to a gaming system where all infantry are condensed into HI, MI, Hoplites, Phalangites and Archers, each with a basic combat factor and a distinguishing trait. The most popular Ancients rulesets today are more granular but not wildly so. Players like a certain amount of detail (though some of course like simple. I've always been fond of Phil Sabin's Legion).

And the grand dad of them all Diplomacy has no Dice. Also Fletcher Pratt Naval Rule uses range estimating and no dice.

Like chess I would suppose

Justin (Bolingar), I am intrigued by your description of "Optio", but I would very much like to have more information about what the experience of its diceless combat system is like. Would you consider describing in detail how your rules would adjudicate a clash between, say, a Theban and a Spartan phalanx or a Roman cohort versus a Celtic warband, so that we can see what sort of "granularities" are being tracked and how the system allows enough unpredictability to distinguish it from a full-knowledge, full-control game like chess?

On an entirely different topic, can "Optio" be played with some other manner of tracking crucial information, rather than the "second rank" of colored dice that follow each unit?

Years ago I made one I dubbed "The Kings of War." (Mantic stole my title! Boo! )
The whole thing derived around what was attacking what, what the terrain situation was like, and the point of attack— fore, flank, or rear. Unit types were mostly generic: Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Long-range Missile, Short-range Missile, Artillery (it was a medieval theme, so these were catapults and ballistae types.)
I thought it worked well. Never did much more with it.

Nope, not playing any wargame if it doesn't have dice.
It is how God intended us to play.

Can a wargame – to quote Eumelus – that requires a "second rank of coloured dice that follow a unit" really be described as 'diceless'? Seems to be using rather a lot of them!

'Diceless combat resolution' would be a better description of what the OP is discussing, though that could include drawing and comparing playing cards, which would still introduce a random factor.

IIRC, General James Wolfe remarked that 'something must alays be left to chance' in war, whilst Clauswitz noted the similarities with games of chance such as cards. I think I'm with Sgt Slag on that aspect.

@arthur1815:

You can do it with magnetic counters.

In war chance isn't really chance. It's fog of war: incomplete knowledge of the enemy's and one's own capabilities and dispositions.

For example: one unit encounters another and they begin to fight. The Cube Lord dictates that dice are thrown that modify their basic combat factor. if one unit loses it is assumed it is inferior in quality or is having a bad day. The player didn't know that in advance. Fine.

But then in the subsequent combat it throws a 6 and its opponent throws a 1, so it wins the fight. Where did that come from? It's either inferior/off-colour for the day or it isn't. It can't fight like lambs for the first quarter-hour then suddenly fight like lions for the next. This is where pure randomness fails and every wargamer is obliged to twist his brain into a pretzel trying to justify the completely arbitrary variability of his units' fighting ability.

Same applies to C&C. In DBA you throw a PIP die. You get a 1. So the commanders aren't in the mood to obey your orders (which they were given before the battle – none of this nonsense about messengers losing their way). Then in turn 2 you throw a 6. Suddenly your commanders are eager to do your bidding. Third turn you throw a 2 and the commanders immediately turn lackluster. And so on. Seriously. It's a gamey thing, the unpredictability adding a thrill of the unknown. Just accept the fact.

In Optio fog of war is reproduced by the utter inability to predict who will win an engagement. Too many variables to calculate it from the outset. Of course a radically unequal contest is decided in advance, just like in real life. But balanced contests are unpredictable.

@Eumelus:

I can set up a couple of sample clashes in Optio's Vassal module and see how they play out. Actually quite a good idea. Give me a little time. I'll post them here.

Nope, not playing any wargame if it doesn't have dice.
It is how God intended us to play.

Nah.

I agree with the ideas above, dice do make a degree of uncertainty. A game without dice requires too much to replace it, I feel.

I agree numeric dice are generally a problem… but they aren't the real problem.
You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

This issue is the thinking that leads to numbers and dice being the the way to replicate action and emotion.

First diceless game was AH Kriegspiel. The other simulation system that did not use dice was in 1976. The Army sent copies of various games to play test. Most results were intensity of fire on the target.

J.F. Grossman's "The Complete Brigadier" (1982) was a diceless* miniatures game for blackpowder-era battles. The rules were written-order, simultaneous move and it was the "randomness" of the interaction of the two sides' orders, plus the all-important tracking of each unit's "fatigue" level, which prevented players from easily predicting how given engagements would play out. Based on what Bolingar has posted, "Optio" sounds as if it shares some similar philosophy (though of course varying in detail).
* There was one die roll mechanism in the game, to wit rolling to see if one's commander was struck by fire if he was vulnerable while leading from the front.

Ritter by Chris Engle (Hamster Press) is a diceless ancient/medieval wargame.

Does 'One Hour Skirmish Wargames' come to mind?

I also in the 'if it doesn't have dice it doesn't have me' crowd until I found OHSW. Fantastic ruleset. Diceless! Uses a standard deck of playing cards.

It is my go to for skirmish solo play.

Aurelian by Sam Mustafa does not use dice during the game.

Players use a custom card deck to perform actions with their units, drawing cards into their hands from the shuffled deck. All cards have a value on them from 1 to 6 (there are a few special cards with values of 7 or 8). When performing an action where other rules would use a die roll and apply modifiers (for example, when shooting at an opponent's unit), the player instead places a card face-down from either their hand or drawn blind from the deck. The value on the card replaces the die roll of other games.

Having played a few dozen games of Aurelian, I have accepted the card mechanic. There is still a random element in that you cannot predict the value of the cards neither drawn from the deck nor played from the opponent's hand.

Wings of War/Glory is diceless. Works great, doesn't need ‘em. Of course, randomness is produced by the damage card deck— and of course "pilots" invariably choosing the wrong manuever card direction for their intended result!

I don't really count a game as "diceless" if it simply replaces dice with a deck or cards (To the Strongest does this). If you're generating a random number to give variability to combat you're just doing dice with different toys.

As for the "unit throws a 1 then a 6" I have seen both good and bad versions of it. For example, in a more attritional game getting hits like that works for me. But a DBA style game where crack troops roll a 6 on Turn 2 and destroy the enemy then roll a 1 and die at the lands of peasants, yeah, that doesn;t work for me either.

@Eumelus:

Would you consider describing in detail how your rules would adjudicate a clash between, say, a Theban and a Spartan phalanx or a Roman cohort versus a Celtic warband, so that we can see what sort of "granularities" are being tracked and how the system allows enough unpredictability to distinguish it from a full-knowledge, full-control game like chess?

Actually, I've already done it, here, here and here.

On an entirely different topic, can "Optio" be played with some other manner of tracking crucial information, rather than the "second rank" of colored dice that follow each unit?

Not really. The whole point about Optio is that all unit information is displayed with the unit on the battlefield. I find that after a while one doesn't notice the cubes other than as info suppliers. You can do it more discreetly with counters if you like.

The only alternative to this are the DBx systems, where there's nothing to keep track of since a unit just recoils, flees or is destroyed. No attrition and no steps. That's fine with dice but doesn't work with determinism since you will then be playing a variant of noughts and crosses.

I've played and run quite a range of diceless games. They usually have some other mechanisms to represent the stochastic nature of combat. Fletcher Pratt and Little Wars use range estimation and matchstick cannon respectively.I've played many games of both.

Phil Sabins 'Phalanx' is rather like Optio, diceless Ancient warfare. It relies on long lists of modifiers instead, although there is a 'fortunes of war' option if you insist on using a dice.

One of most interesting was Kartenspiel, also by Sabin, which models Clausewitz's style Napoleonic battles. It relies on hidden force deployment and an entertaining rock, paper, scissors method for cavalry charges. I've run that with groups of ten players.

Bolingar, thank you, those were just the sort of detailed analyses that I was looking for.

Martin, do you know if "Kartenspiel" is available anywhere (online)?

@Extra Crispy:

For example, in a more attritional game getting hits like that works for me. But a DBA style game where crack troops roll a 6 on Turn 2 and destroy the enemy then roll a 1 and die at the lands of peasants, yeah, that doesn;t work for me either.

I like games where the random variability of dice is reduced to a minimum. In Legion a hit is usually scored only on a 5 or 6. A unit has 2 steps and a spent unit (1 step left) can transfer a hit to an adjacent fresh unit (2 steps). It means that in effect the hits are distributed evenly enough that a superior battleline will almost certainly outfight an inferior one and a grouping of lucky hits does not do irreparable damage.

Incidentally if anyone is interested in giving Optio's rules a once-over I can offer a beta version as a pdf. Let me know.

Starlord was one of the first space games, if not the first, that I ever played with friends. We played it many times in the early 70's. The only time you used a D6 was when you were the first to come upon a new star system. The result was the number of planets in the system, and if the roll was a 6 it had an industrial complex which allowed you to build ships there. I have very found memories of that game.

link

Kreigspiel , the old AH game had diceless combat based on the players tactical choices. A very good concept ruined by a limited game system. Pity, I liked it but am probably the only person on the planet that saw its merit.

@Bolingar:

I'll give them a read through over the weekend. I'll email you…

@Extra Crispy:

I'm working on them from the POV of ease of reading but you're welcome to have a look at the beta version now.

Yumpu – Kartenspiel SABIN 2012subheadingBolingar 

@Stoppage:

Ta!

But a DBA style game where crack troops roll a 6 on Turn 2 and destroy the enemy then roll a 1 and die at the lands of peasants, yeah, that doesn;t work for me either.

That type of things is common in history.

I don't really count a game as "diceless" if it simply replaces dice with a deck or cards

Agree, since that's why words like diceless aren't useful. Analytic or stochastic are usefull, but both terms both need modifiers. F'r'ex, dice vs cards are very different types of stochastic generators. Likewise, chess is a perfect knowledge game, whereas players making decisions in the face of unknown oppoent actions are very different.

@mildbill, I remember playing AH's Kriegspiel. A rational player would simply use a D6 roll to determine his choice of combat posture rather than trying to out- guess his opponent.

Am I right in assuming that all the diceless/chanceless games mentioned here are quite simple and abstract?

No, there was a set of diceless rules (covering multiple periods, ancients to WW2) published by Shire publications.
They were anything but abstract; quite complex percentage based combat.
There is a problem with a diceless system; you say the factors can't be worked out in advance, but clearly they can be worked out during the combat, so any reasonable player is going to work them out in advance. No actual general knew the outcome of a combat with certainty. There is a place for random factors; not dominating the game, but affecting it.
I'm guessing you must also track fatigue, since a unit which has been fighting all day is going to be less effective thant a fresh one.

There is a problem with a diceless system; you say the factors can't be worked out in advance, but clearly they can be worked out during the combat, so any reasonable player is going to work them out in advance.

That's a bit like saying that two good chess players can work out all the good moves in advance and hence know who will win the game. There is far more variability in Optio than in chess, so in reality it's impossible to work out any outcome more than a move or two ahead, never mind for the whole game.

A commmon analytic approximation* standard for chess is 35 leagal options per ply (one player taking a term). So for one move (each player taking a term), you only have to work out about 1,200, so it's a scant million options to think through for exhaustive planning two moves ahead.

Any insight on how many options (roughly) a player would have on a turn? For our (stochastic) rules, this varies widely by the size of the forces available. But it has a larger (and more complex) collapse factor than, say, chess.

* – Obviously this is not true for every ply.

I find dice fast and convenient, but not indispensible. I do feel an element of chance is called for, though: too many things happen "below the radar" of any game system, and little if anything is certain in war.

EC, that unit which rolled a 6 lost its commander at the moment of victory. They were still sorting it out when the peasants hit them and they rolled a 2. Or some sort of microterrain--an apiary, maybe? A ditch by the side of the road just where they didn't need it?--caught up with them.

I just had a look at En Avant! following a recommendation at the Lead Adventure Forum. A game after my own heart.

Sometimes we lose sight of what makes a GAME as opposed to some presumed, predictable, historical reenactment?

Sometimes we lose sight of what makes a GAME as opposed to some presumed, predictable, historical reenactment?

Oh, it always has to be a game, first and foremost. But "predictable"?

Chance has to happen. Life and war are unpredictable in many ways.

The question where that unpredictability sits,in what we play. And what ways are suitable to create it.

I personally don't like numeric dice, they lead to us playing dice games.

"Predictable" means knowing what's coming next, all the way through, so knowing the outcome from the start. Its root is praedictio – "foretelling".

Which makes chess the most unpredictable game on the planet.

My understanding is Go has more possibilities… making it more "unpredictable" 🤷

Though they are both games. And while in English what we do has game in it, I prefer the idea of play.

Play war… play with ideas tactics and strategies, motivating and activations people or units.

Rather than play dice or for that matter number games.