Remove randomness of combat

[317070]

There can be some randomness if one of the players chose to add randomness. Otherwise, don't do it. It's not fun. We can assume players of Allicances (sic) understand game probability https://youtu.be/UPU_yi9Nv3M?t=18m59s

I would use imperfect information (or bidding?) instead. I need to work out a fun mechanic though.

[317070]

Copy-paste: Ik ben geen fan van het dobbelen, en meer fan van de GoT approach. Je moet de kaarten niet allemaal individuele abilities geven (das inderdaad flauw en tijdrekkend). Misschien een systeem met 7 kaarten van wisselende kwaliteit, en je verliest enkel je kaart als je het gevecht wint? Snel, eenvoudig, en met wat tactische diepgang. En als de kaarten uitwisselbaar zijn tussen spelers, weet je nooit zeker of je wint, zonder willekeur toe te voegen.

[nymanjens]

I think the gambling reasoning from the "Mastering game mechanics" video doesn't apply to this situation because understanding probability doesn't remove the need for a (long term) strategy.

Ideas:

• Perfect information without randomness/bidding (you know who's going to win before the battle is initiated)
• Bidding with money

[317070]

I like the secret bidding with money (for now?), as it does not introduce an extra game-play element. I think you do need the uncertainty of a battle to stay in theme. Otherwise, battles are not as stressful as they are in a real war.

We need some kind of easy formula to find the winner, and how many deaths each side has. Some principles:

• A side with no units left, cannot win the battle
• If there is a trench by the defender, it should be more difficult for the attacker to win combat
• There are 2 types of units, a more defensive unit, and a more offensive unit
• The more units you have, the higher your chances of winning the battle
• the more coins you bid, the higher your chance of winning the battle

Some other maybe principles?

• Preferably, one side should have at least one unit left (although it could be funny, yet confusing, if both armies could die completely)
• Every battle has deaths?
• the number of deaths should not be too high or too low.

Do we want a repeated process, where after every bid some units die, and players can decide to withdraw from combat or continue battling to the last man? Or one-shot battles like GoT, where someone is forced to retreat immediately, which can be faster.

Do we allow the defender to immediately withdraw from battle, maybe at the cost of something small (units or coins)? Or something negotiated? I like the idea of having negotiations prior to battles such that both sides can avoid deaths. It seems like a fun setting for a negotiation.

[nymanjens]

I think I agree to most principles, although I'm worried about the time it'll take.

Maybe we should discuss this one in person.

[317070]

Closed as per #52