[Spearhead] Choosing tactics in combat

[Valamir]

I say random chance because that's basically what R/P/S is...that's why people use it.

I'm not sure thats entirely true - that is if the RPS elements are "physically" embodied, and thus limited in frequency of use, strategy and tactics re-emerge.

Medieval: Total war works this way: spears kill cavalry; cavalry kills blades; blades kill spears.  But of course in any given force you only have so many of each type, sometimes disastrously so.  In practice this means that you have to manoeuvre, or even sacrafice, to get the optimum match of RPS as the two lines zip up.

Your points are quite correct.  But that doesn't really apply to this situation.  What makes RPS random is that your opponent can pick any of the three at any time and you don't know which at the time you have to make your choice.  Other than psychological factors, your opponent is equally likely to pick any of the 3 choices...so there is no strategy involved in choosing what to oppose with.

In Medieval Total War (one of the greatest PC games of all time), your opponent can't choose any of the 3 at any time.  He can only choose from those he has available based on the ratio of the unit mix, and he has to maneuver them into position before he can "choose" them.  There's all kinds of strategy in that situation.  

But in Klapton's second rules version...not so much.


I think the first version was completely salvageable without needing to reinvent it to this extent.  The problem with the first version was that the benefit and the penalty were based on the same thing...character skill.

The benefit allowed winning of ties from a skill based roll (increasing your odds of success), while the penalty was to reduce the odds of the same skill based roll.

Conceptually I liked the first version quite a bit.  You just need to split the benefit / penalty so they effect different things.  For instance winning ties (increasing your odds of success) as the benefit with the penalty being decreased damage is one possibility (there may be other reasons while that's not the preferred solution, so take that as an example not a recommendation).

[klapton]

Thinking about this problem, I came with a few conclusions, which may seem obvious, but sometimes one needs to write down these things in order to become fully aware of them.

-. The choice should have a meaningful object, a reason to be there, a function in the game.

-. There should be neither an obvious choice, nor a range of choices that are equally good. Otherwise choosing becomes irrelevant. A way to do this is, as Valamir suggests, having penalties and benefits for each choice that affect different things.

-.  Choosing the proper tactic shouldn't be a matter of calculating, but rather of guessing.

-. The choice should be based more on external circumstances than on the mechanics of the system.

-. Each tactic should be appropiate for a purpose and under certain circumstances. The player has to decide what he wants to do, guess if the circumstances apply and choose the most appropiate tactic.

For this game, I want risk in combat to be the object of the tactical choice. That is, a player should be able to choose how much physical risk she wants to assume in order to defeat an opponent. The tactics should imply varying chances of defeating an opponent and of being injured in the process.

Based on this, the consequences of choosing a particular tactic could be: increased or reduced chance of hitting, more or less damage inflicted, opening or restricting options in future rounds.

Am I taking here the correct path?

[Valamir]

I think that's a smashing set of parameters.  I'd modify your "...but one of guessing" to be "...but one of making informed estimates based on experience but not being certain of the outcome".  But I suspect that's actually what you meant.

I'm going to add the game Swashbuckler to the above two recommendations for you to check out.  Its available at http://jollyrogergames.com/swash.html direct for $18.00

It is the single best execution of

opening or restricting options in future rounds.

ever done in a sword fighting game.  To the point where I'd say that it really mandatory reading for anyone even thinking of writing a game where using different combat maneuvers this round effects your options for next round.

[klapton]

Burning Wheel, Riddle of Steel, Swashbuckler... definitely, I should look for inspiration in other people's work. Any other game that can help me?

[Hereward The Wake]

My own system makes use of maneuvers, but they come from a deck of cards and as such this restricts the possible options. I also make use of knock on effects, so that manuevers do not operate in isolation.

JW

[Hereward The Wake]

Your basic approach  to get something that would work on several levels is similar t things that I have looked for games. The concept is not new, Musashi talks about using the same approaches whether it is one on  one, skirmishes of pitched battles. Have you read the book?

JW

[Simon Kamber]

Just to toss something into the debate on the R/P/S structure:

In an essay on his site David Sirlin writes about the randomness of RPS, and how it can be turned into strategy with a minor tweak. The essay focuses on video games, but it still applies here I think.

Basically, use a classic RPS game, feint beats counterstrike, counterstrike beats strike, strike beats feint. But have different damage values. I.e. strike deals by far the most damage, counterstrike deals only minor damage and feint deals moderate damage.

That way, your most obvious choice would be going for a strike, except if your opponent does that too, you'll be better off with a counterstrike despite it's apparent weakness. But if you can predict that your opponent thinks you'll be going for a strike...

It's quite simple, and yet it can still become very strategic, especially once you get a feel for the other player. It fits with your parameters, and I personally think it sounds more desirable than a web of moves, countermoves, advantages and disadvantages. You could even say that if both participants make the same move, it's a tie and there's no damage whatsoever (RPS style). With a bit of tweaking, I think it could become both very quick, and very interesting.

[Hereward The Wake]

The link to the RPS society site was taking it to its extreme, but gave some nice thoughts and ideas!

jw

[Hereward The Wake]

The David Sirlin article has added some interesting options to my own idea. I liked the idea of adding a certain number of extra options beyond the basic three.
In this case I would have,
Attack
Defend
Counter Attack
Throw
I am playing around with several options for different tactics and then adding in actual techniques to the equation.

JW

[klapton]

Musashi talks about using the same approaches whether it is one on  one, skirmishes of pitched battles. Have you read the book?

JW

No, what book is it?

My own system makes use of maneuvers,

Is it in development or already finished?

[Hereward The Wake]

It is called The Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi. There are many t5ranslation out there but a good one is the annotated version by Hidy Ochiai. It is a work along the lines of Sun Tzu or Machiavelli he also talks about how the same tactics stratagies can be applied to single combat, larger actions and other aspects of life. Hence it being big in business stratergy circles.

My own game has gone through many variations. As well as being a long time wargamer and RPGer, a grew up with WMA and archery, and have long wanted to get a more convincing approach to combat in my games. The probelem is making a reasonable simulation of real combat, without getting bogged down in the multitude of miner factors that all go toward actuall fighting.
My ideal would be to have a system that could work as a stand alone duelling game, but would work as well in skirmish games and as part of larger scale war games where, major personailites clash.

The major problem is giving enough tactical decisions with our bogging the actual mechanics of the game.


JW

[Hereward The Wake]

On a semi side not does anyone know of the plain label games? and the expansion compact combat, that can be found and the  URL below
http://www.microtactix.com/newsite/ccmain.shtml

It sounds interesting but would like to know more detail?

JW

[klapton]

My ideal would be to have a system that could work as a stand alone duelling game, but would work as well in skirmish games and as part of larger scale war games where, major personailites clash.

That's my goal as well, but I'm not sure if the same mechanics and tactics are meaningful at all scales. For example, in a mass battle you can decide to sacrifice a unit to gain an advantage, or keep it in reserve for later use, but these tactics hardly apply in a personal combat.

It sounds interesting but would like to know more detail?

The roleplaying game, "Simply Roleplaying" is available for free.

[Hereward The Wake]

True enough, but using a feint in one on one, would be the same as making a decpetion attack by a small unit of your force! or you might use an attack specifically to make the opponent react, while you hit them hard somewhere elese with another weapon.

I was more interested specifically in compact combat, as they say it all that good, but I have learn't to believe only 1st hand accounts 8')

JW