Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Design Theory

Subject: Speed up! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm wondering if anyone can help me speed a mechanism up. It's a system for land battles between amounts of fungible units.
The current version:
The attacker rolls a d6. If they roll equal to or less than their number of units in the battle, they destroy a number of their opponent's units equal to their roll. If they roll higher, they do nothing.
If the defender has any units left, then they do the same.
Repeat until someone runs out of units.

This often takes a lot of rolling, especially with smaller numbers of units, and gets very tedious.

I'm wondering if anyone can think of a good way to derive the same results (or close enough), but with only a single roll (which could involve multiple dice) each?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Graham Muller
South Africa
Cape Town
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First thing that comes to mind is the dice tower from Shogun.

In essence would need a tower which has 2 exits, say front and back.
If armies are all cubes then drop them in the tower.
Those that are returned out the front are the survivors, if there are armies of 2 colours still available, then pick them up and drop them in again.
It wouldn't be one dice roll but should be much faster

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brendan Riley
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Nos operamur, te ludere
badge
"Life is more fun if you play games." - Roald Dahl
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Which aspect are you trying to keep when you say "same result, or close enough"? Are you looking at odds here? It would be helpful to know a bit more of the odds spread you're looking for.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh you seekers of the new who run terrified from history into the clutches of an eternal life where no electric shaver can be built to last.
United States
Riva
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb

    You need a Pop-O-Matic. That should fix the problem.

    How many units are typically in a battle? That would seem to be an important question, as the way you describe it the game seems fine to me. Putting everything into a single roll is going to piss off people around here.

    I've read two threads this morning, one had the word "traipsing" the other "fungible". It's fun-with-language day on BGG.

             S.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ryan
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1. Roll attack and defense once. Leave the rest of the battle for the next round. (see Nexus Ops)

2. Roll dice X # of units. Both sides roll at the same time and then simultaneously resolve one die at a time from high to low.

Example: Player A has 3 units and Player B has 4 units in a battle.
Player A rolls 2, 1, 1. Player B rolls 5, 3, 3, 2.
Resolving the first dice, A scores a hit but B does not (2 < 3, but 5 > 4), so Player B removes 2 units. Now both players have 3 units.
Resolving the second dice, Player A scores a hit and so does player B. (1 < to 3 and 3 = 3). So Player A loses all remaining units and Player B loses 1 unit. Battle is over. Player A has 0 units and Player B has 2.

NOTE: This method will sometimes result in inconclusive battles and require re-rolling or leaving the conclusion for next round.

GENERAL NOTE: In your question, you mentioned that attacker resolves her roll first. That HIGHLY incentivizes attacking and makes defending weak. Simultaneous battle resolution (again, see Nexus Ops) results in more balance between attacking and defending. Depending on what you are going for, maybe you want to make aggression the dominant strategy. I only made resolution simultaneous in my suggestion b/c I think it works better for most games.

GENERAL NOTE 2: With method #2, armies larger than 6 with CRUSH EVERYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD FOREVER. You might need to balance by making it expensive to upkeep large forces. (Or maybe resolve die rolls from low to high instead. That way large forces will be forced to take larger losses and cause less damage initially, but in the long run will still win in most cases? I don't know if that would actually work.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wombat929 wrote:
Which aspect are you trying to keep when you say "same result, or close enough"? Are you looking at odds here? It would be helpful to know a bit more of the odds spread you're looking for.


Yes, odds is what I'm thinking of. I'd like a new method that will still wipe one army while calculating attrition for the other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sagrilarus wrote:

    You need a Pop-O-Matic. That should fix the problem.

    How many units are typically in a battle?


There are pretty frequently 10-15 on a side. Which is a number I'd cheerfully bring down, but that may not be feasible.

Quote:
That would seem to be an important question, as the way you describe it the game seems fine to me. Putting everything into a single roll is going to piss off people around here.


As there are no decisions to be made from roll to roll, I don't see a reason why sequential rolls would be preferable to a single one.

 
Quote:
I've read two threads this morning, one had the word "traipsing" the other "fungible". It's fun-with-language day on BGG.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I'm generally in favour of having non-decisive battles just roll onto the next turn, the turns here are years long, so it doesn't make sense thematically.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sight Reader
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
gmuller wrote:
First thing that comes to mind is the dice tower from Shogun.

Along those lines, might it be possible to somehow roll the pieces themselves? You could roll them onto some sort of display and read the results, or scramble them secretly then play cards that try to predict their distribution.

Hopefully that would be faster than trying to represent armies with dice and having to translate back and forth.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Lennert
United States
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jlerpy wrote:
The attacker rolls a d6. If they roll equal to or less than their number of units in the battle, they destroy a number of their opponent's units equal to their roll. If they roll higher, they do nothing.
...
There are pretty frequently 10-15 on a side.

It sounds like if both sides have significantly more than 6 units, then for the first several rounds, they are (statistically) making even trades. For example, a 20 vs 10 battle and a 50 vs 40 battle should, statistically, have about the same outcome.

Is that intentional? If so, maybe you should try saying that if both sides have (say) more than 8 units, they trade off one-for-one until one side gets down to 8 or less.

As a more general solution (or maybe just for your small battles), I believe the classical wargame approach is to have a combat resolution table where you look up the army ratio or composition on one axis (like "attacker outnumbers 3:1, 2:1, 1:1..." or "attacker outnumbers you by +3, +2, +1,..."), then roll on the other axis, and based on the combination the table tells you the entire result (like "attacker wins with 50% survivors" or "defender wins with 2 survivors").

You could even combine those with no die rolls at all. Something like "trade 1-for-1 until one side gets down to 6 or less units. Then, calculate the ratio between the remaining units on each side, round down to an integer, and trade at that ratio until one side is eliminated."

Example: in a 15-vs-8 battle, you make even trades down to 13-vs-6, then you start trading (13/6 = 2.17 rounds down to 2) 2:1 in the attacker's favor (12-vs-4, 11-vs-2, 10-vs-0) and end with the attacker having 10 units left.

(And maybe do one die roll somewhere in there that takes away up to 3 units from one side or the other to have a little uncertainty).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh you seekers of the new who run terrified from history into the clutches of an eternal life where no electric shaver can be built to last.
United States
Riva
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Multiple rolls gives you the opprotunity t retreat after losing 3, 5, or 8 units, one roll may mean you can lose ten in a shot. Could be ugly.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Helman
msg tools
So if you have 6 units as an attacker you're super crazy strong?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
s4ellman wrote:
So if you have 6 units as an attacker you're super crazy strong?


Yep, 'fraid so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.