I have developed the following system for a turned based combat system. I feel there is something fundamentally flawed with the system and I can't put my finger on it. So I figure I will pose the question to my fellow developers to see if I can improve on the idea. Brief Description on the game: The game is multiplayer with each player going through 3 phases concurrently for a complete turn. Issue orders pick which territory to attack Action Phase - When all actions are carried out for all players. Result Phase - Results are calculated Units have the following stats Unit Stats Attack - This is the amount of base damage the unit will do. Defense - This is the amount of damage a unit can withstand. Defense Bonus - This will add to the defense of a unit. Attack Bonus - This will add to the attack of a unit. Reload - This is the time it takes for a unit to reload in order to attack again. Hit Points - Number of hit points the unit has. Collective Bonus - This multiplier is used to determined the collective defense and attack of stacked of units. Overview Combat is fairly simple and straight forward. Combat works in a rock, paper, scissors format. Each until has a counter unit that will annihilate it. However, each unit will also have a complement that can negate the negative effects of paper vs. scissors. Meaning it is possible for counter units to be defeated by strategic grouping of units. Combat is also round based. After each round parameters will be checked and orders commenced if needed. Sorry the formatting didnt copy over. Round of Combat Units will act in the order of which they reload. Attacking armies start out reloaded. Defensive units must go through reload phase before attacking. Placing units in defense will negate this negative. Units will attack in the order of their reload. Reloading is activated whenever a unit attacks. Units can defend anytime. Clashes of units will occur based on which is the most defensible unit at that time. Stacked units have a collective Attack Damage and Hitpoints Intercept - This is a special circumstance where a unit will defend a weaker unit against its counter. There is no balancing of units involved in this. This just gives an idea on how the system works. Example of Combat between Player A and Player B Player A has 2 Soldiers and 1 Heavy Armor Player B has 4 Soldiers and 2 Light Armor Player A attacks Player B Round 1 Player A’s 2 soldiers attack first. Player B’s Light Armor defends in response. 1 of player A soldiers are killed in the exchange and 1 of Player B’s Soldiers are killed with another damaged. Even though the light armor has a higher defense the 4 defending soldiers have a higher collective defense. Therefore, they defend in response. Player A’s Heavy Armor attacks and the Light Armor defends. The light armor is destroyed and the heavy armor is damaged. Even though the heavy armor attacked first the light armor is quicker. Therefore it is possible for the light armor to destroy the heavy armor before being destroyed. Player B cannot attack because of reload. Round 2. Player B’s 3 soldiers have reloaded and attack first and the heavy armor defends. 2 Soldiers are killed and the Heavy Armor is destroyed. The heavy armor was weakened therefore the 3 soldiers were able to defeat the heavy armor. Player B’s Light Armor still has not reloaded. Player A’s Soldiers have not reloaded. Round 3 Player A’s soldier attacks first. The Light armor defends. Neither die but both are weakened. Player B’s Light Armor has reloaded and attacks. The light armor is killed. Player A’s soldier is further weakened. Player B’s soldiers are reloading and cannot attack. Round 4 Player B’s soldiers reload and attack Player A. Player A’s soldier is defeated and Player B wins the territory. [Edited by - Xevolution on April 9, 2009 12:27:59 PM]

In your simulation, Player A should have no solder left in Round 2. So when the Heavy Armor is destroyed, Player A has lost.

Are you describing a fight between two groups, where all three units of A are on the same "square", and all 6 units of B are on the same "square". Player A and B had previously decided (tactically), that these two squares would fight, and the game plays out the fight automatically? So a "turn" is different from a "round"? In a "turn", a player decides which squares would fight. And a "round" is something the game uses to simulate individual fights?

[Edited by - Wai on April 6, 2009 3:37:48 PM]

Yes, sorry for the confusion.

You discerned it correctly.

Turns are where players issue orders to their armies.

Rounds are system based in order to determine the victor. A good example would be the game of risk. Each roll of the dice represents a round. A turn is represented by the attack itself.

Therefore, their will be multiple rounds in an attack but only 1 turn per attack.

The system seems sound as far as a method of resolving disputes. However, the gameplay seems a bit bland, from what you describe. The only decisions that the player appears capable of making are the order to stack units, and whether to attack a square or not. After that, the battle resolves itself to completion without user intervention. That seems a lot like the "combat" in the civilization games. Civ combat isn't really combat. The winning strategy is to walk around with a stack of units bigger and badder than your enemy.

Will there be a limit to the number of units or unit types allowed per stack?

Another thing that bothered me while reading the system is that the battle resolves itself to conclusion. A player decides to attack the square, and the units slaughter each other until the end. Will you allow your players or units to make a decision to retreat?

In other TBS games, like Front Mission or Advance Wars, each attack decision made the player is a single round of combat. A cool little window pops up with each opposing side, the attack and damage animations are played, and the round ends. The players are then free to make new decisions depending on the outcome of that round. I can envision animations similar to that with your battle system, however, there is no decision making in between rounds. What do you think is the design advantage in disallowing decision-making between rounds?

One thing to keep in mind with turn based games is that they are slow. Great turn-based games take pains to streamline the play. Interactions are simple, and the interface gives quick access to the important information about the state of the battle. Information such as a unit's HP, AP, location and destination need to be quickly available. Your combat system appears to be very reliant on the make-up and strength of each individual unit within a stack - so your interface is going to need to present a very detailed block of information at a glance in order to keep the pace of the game spritely. That may be a difficult task to achieve.

I agree with kru. In your system, you could change it by limited the number of units in a square, and by limiting the number of rounds to perhaps 3. So if one square does not get totally wiped out during those 3 rounds, both sides would still have units left on the battlefield. The players can then choose to absorb wounded units in other squares, or let the wounded walk away from the hot zone.

Quote:

I can envision animations similar to that with your battle system, however, there is no decision making in between rounds. What do you think is the design advantage in disallowing decision-making between rounds?

The game is being developed in HTML backed by ASP.NET and C#. This causes many limitations. I know it would be plausible to allow users to make decisions after every round. I feel that the benefit of a faster pace gameplay outweights the need for constant control over the army. Each player could have 4 different attacks going on across 6 seperate fronts. Having to make decisions for every army after every round would slow down the game more. Especially if you take that and add 4 more players.

The strategy is not derived entirely from the combat but rather how a player places. trains, and moves their troops across the game board. The game board is static as well as the units.

A big part of the strategy is being able to read your opponent and guess what they might do. Such as a player in chess will attempt look ahead at further moves. If he does this. Then he must be trying to do this.

This is how the game flows.

Order Phase

During this phase players are able to issues orders to their troops.

Orders Include:

Defensive Position - When troops are placed into defensive position they gain a defensive bonus when being attacked. Troops place into defensive positions are unable to attack for the duration of that round and the next.
Attacking Position - The player chooses what units will attack and where. The player can also set retreating parameters.
Counter Attack Position - Placing units into counter attack position allows the defending player to give a devastating blow to the attacking player. The defending player’s counter attack army is given a extreme attack bonus. If this order is issued and no attack occurs then the Counter Attack force will attempt to attack with a reduced defense.
Transport - This will allow a player to transport units during the action phase. This is the idea of reinforcing units in the midst of battle. Depending on how far the reinforcing will determine how long it takes.

Action Phase

During this phase all orders will be issued and calculations calculated.

Action phase will commence in the following order:

Transports will occur
Combat will commence
Results Posted


At the end of each round the player set parameters will be checked and resolved.

I have realized that combat will commence completely until one side wins or loses. There are two ways I am thinking about handling this. Players could set a retreat limitations eg Flee when 60% of the troops have been destroyed.

It could even be attached to a army power stat that when the army becomes ineffective it will flee. I also read a post here of using morale to handle this. This could be user set or the combat could handle it.


I appreciate everyone's comment they are very helpful and thought provoking. Thanks

Hi, I think your game is very cute. At least in the way I imagine it. I think table-top units are very cute, and when I read your descriptions it invokes those thoughts. No blood, no graphical violence, just numbers, texts, and choices.

I have been reading up alot on people's opinions on immersiveness in TBS games. I personally think this is a fine line a designer has to walk. I do not want to make my game over complicated and yet simple enough that players will get easily bored.

The focus of my game is not combat but the means of combat or to be more specific the strategy needed for combat.

Currently I have the following themes in my combat system

Attack and Defense Modifiers - This allows a player to upgrade their units in attack or defense.

My question about this is that I could break damage down into types and then require the player to purchase upgrades based upon what damage they wish to protect against. Though this could lead to some downsides of purchasing the wrong type of protection and thus frustrate the player. Does this actually become strategic or just another feature to try to bring immersion through realism.

Unit Limits - Limits the number of units in a given territory and therefore puts a strategic importance on unit make up of a army.

I personally like this idea alot as it prevents spamming units. I figure a good way to handle this is by giving each unit a counter and a compliment. When compliment units are grouped together they give a boost of defense against counter units to one another. While this boost does not totally negate the attack bonuses of counter units it helps.

Cards - The card system allow players to play cards on territories that prevent certain attacks or give bonuses during special occasions.

The idea behind this is that it brings a seperate dynamic to the game as player's have to guess and decide what cards are played and act accordingly. The draw back to this is I feel that the cards is a total guessing game. The strategy gained from this is very small in my opinion.

Squad Leaders/Generals - Squade leaders randomly develop through battle. As they survive encounters they go up in rank and give bonuses within the armies they lead.

What do you think about a logistics-based strategy system:


In each territory that has raw material production, a package of material is formed on the board in each turn. A player would move these packages of material across the board, just like how the player would move units, to factory areas where those materials can be turned into units.

The identity of the units are hidden from the other player until the two forces fight. The players could see each other setting things up. They could guess what the plan of the other player is based on what is already revealed.

That is actually a interesting concept Wai although I dont think it would work out in the current system. Your forces can only move within the confines of the territories you control. Therefore capturing a resource and having to move it would only be a nuisance. Since there is no major threat of it being captured by the enemy.

I have however found a design flaw. In the game design in general.
Currently the game progresses through phases.

Strategy Phase

During the strategy phase players can purchase upgrades reinforce units and determine where and how they will attack.

1. Purchase upgrades - Players can use resources to obtain upgrades.
2. Purchase Troops - Players can purchase and place troops.
3. Reinforce Units - Players can choose to move troops to other territories they own. There is travel lag involved.
4. Set Troop Orders
5. Play Cards

Action Phase

1. Combat Rounds Commence

Results Phase

1. Results posted.
2. Cards awarded.
3. Resources calculated.

However the bonus cards are only awarded if a enemy territory is captured. Therefore the game system forces the player to make decisions they other wise would not for fear of not receiving a bonus card. eg attacking more territories as a back up plan. Personally I think this is abusing the player.

Now there are a couple of ways I think I can handle this:


1. Instead of the bonus cards being awarded on capturing a territory each turn, I can make is based on territories owned. Eg if you own 10 territories you get a bonus card. Although at the moment I have territories owned determining max army size. I think by using territories owned would give too much of an advantage to players with alot of territories. Whats the point of playing a game when half way through you only own 9 territories and your opponent owns 30.

2. I can add another "round" of the strategy phase until all players have hit end turn. The problem I see with this is that players will be afraid to end their turn. Players fearing that another player will wait just so they can take a territory without fear of retribution. I can make this information hidden but you still have the same problem, mitigated possibly.

3. I could also award cards based on successfully defending a territory. This will then close doors on hit an run tactics for attackers. They wouldn't want to give a player a bonus card just so they could try to weaken or even trick their opponent.


These are the ideas I have come up with. I am looking for any input on the subject. Thanks :)