I hate dice. There, said it.
I've had a hate-love-hate relationship with dice for as long as I can remember - well, that's an exaggeration, more like for a decade or so. In that time I've played DBA, DBM, Field of Glory, Legion, Mortem et Gloriam and many other games not in the Ancients category (playing quite a bit of Memoir '44 lately).
These games - like virtually every wargame - are dice driven which In My Hardened Opinion gives them a big strength and a bigger weakness.
Big strength: throwing dice is engaging: you rub the little devils in your hands, breathe hot air on them, shake them as hard as you can, trust your soul to the goddess Fortuna Virilis or Mad Ron or whoever it is you worship, and cast them on the table. Your existence is bound up with them; you rejoice if they give you a 5 or 6 and curse if they give you a 1 or 2. Fun. Right, fun.
Bigger weakness: dice scatter tactical subtlety to the winds. Why do you think the most enduring and popular games like chess don't have dice? Because they are exquisite displays of human cunning, brilliance and ingenuity. You can't compare the role that tactics plays in DBA with the tactical brilliance of a Mikhail Tal. In most wargames you make a simple plan and cross your fingers. Ingenuity can't do much after that other than grab opportunities opened up by dice throws. You can make a clever plan: positioning your units just so to maximise their ZOC coverage, getting local numerical superiority, stacking up units against suitable opponents in the best scissors-paper-stone style - and then watch a couple of 1s blow your ingenuity to pieces.
Why do we need dice anyway?
Dice are almost exclusively used for two things in wargaming: combat and command-and-control.
Combat: Its variability in combat is affirmed to replicate the unknown real effectiveness of one's own and enemy troops, plus the factors that alter that effectiveness in the course of a battle. But a unit's effectiveness is unknown only until it engages in combat, when it immediately becomes obvious how good or bad the unit is. So if my warband attack your hoplites and score a 1 vs a 6, that means my warband are useless. If they are useless they should be useless for the entire battle. They can't miraculously turn into ninjas in turn 2 and score a 6 to the hoplites' 1. A unit's combat ability remains fixed for the duration of the battle; anything that can vary that ability is represented by combat modifiers: terrain, presence of commander, being flanked, etc. And those combat factors are also fixed for the duration of the battle. Dice are just no good for this.
Command and control: dice are supposed to represent the (unknown) willingness of commanders to carry out their orders, or the (un)reliability in getting those orders to the commanders. But a commander was either willing or he was not: he wouldn't refuse to move on turn 1, then move for high heaven on turn 2, then refuse to move on turn 3, and so on. Before the Napoleonic era orders were given to commanders before the battle took place, and the general could do little more than time the execution of those orders by banners, trumpets, etc. A commander knew what he had to do from the outset of the battle and he did or didn't do it. Usually he did do it in order not to get his head cut off.
And the big question: is it possible to do wargaming without dice?
Of course it is.
But that's for another post.
I think the thing with dice and wargaming is a love of unpredictability and not necessarily a reflection of 'real life'. Diceless games can work but wont appeal to all. Similarly games that are primarily driven by dice can be off putting and not appeal to others. Somewhere in the middle (or at least along the axis of those opposing points) lies a compromise. I prefer the 'probability' school of wargaming where dice can help shape a game but not overpower it and where sound tactics and skill are the key to success
ReplyDeleteI fall into VS’s camp in this discussion. Wargamers often find themselves situated at some point along the Chaos-to-Deterministic continuum with respect to chance and it’s role in a game. Introducing randomness into the game is useful and exciting but the tail should not wag the dog. Still, wargamers are free to choose.
DeleteWelcome chaps! And thanks for visiting my new blog so quickly.
ReplyDeleteI agree many people love unpredictability (that's the Big Strength point in the post). But some, in fact many, people like games where the player in entirely in control and must win by his wits. If you like unpredictability, virtually every wargame out there is for you. But there is almost nothing in wargaming that allows you to play a game of calculation in which finesse and subtlety win out. Optio caters for that kind of game.
While I recognise why one might go to extremes to make an argument, VS' comments about probabilities are worthier of consideration than the 1-6/6-1 issue. It's actually a very rare combination of results. Warfare is essentially managed chaos. Representing that satisfactorily is a challenge. Straight determinism dodges the challenge.
ReplyDeleteSure, the 1 vs 6 and 6 vs 1 was an exaggeration for effect. But even with less extreme dice throws the point stands: if dice are expected to represent the unknown fighting capacity of a unit then they do it very badly since that fighting capacity should remain pretty much constant once it's revealed.
DeleteI don't think warfare is managed chaos, it's more like working with unknowables. A general doesn't have a perfect knowledge of his army, his opponent's army or the terrain the two armies fight on. Everything he doesn't know is however not random or chaotic. Its manifestation may be a surprise to him but it works in a rational and consistent way. the problem is modelling that in wargaming (at least in tabletop wargaming; no problem on a PC).
I think your argument is much, much too broad. I agree many wargames use dice badly, but that is just a case of poor design. The extremes of the Pip system in DBA can lead to victories/losses that are "unearned" because I rolled 6s and you rolled 1s. For a lot of players that feel like being cheated - I lost to the system, not my opponent.
DeleteJust to look at combat however - it is not merely chaos that dice reflect but simple variability. My tanks fire at yours. Are the results deterministic? Will 10 shots *always* result in 5 kills? If it is a good game, it will reward my skill. If I got my best tankers hull down on your flank in ambush my guys should beat your guys. So I might have better chances to hit (better tankers), get a free 1st shot (ambush), and have cover (hull down). All of which are reflected with modifiers to dice. In chess all attacks are 100% successful.
Another area dice are used is morale. When do units break? Even if you know troops are green, average or good, there can be huge variability there. If I know at *exactly* how many losses a unit will break that's a huge information advantage. Dice can be used poorly - like having an army break point such that a die roll means you quit the game. That should be up to the player.
Dice also act as a social convention. "To hit you roll 2d6 and need a 7 or more." That shorthand makes teaching and learning games fast and easy. Ditto for "roll one d10 for every cannon/factor/figure" and score hits on 3 or less. Many gamers understand these odds and it allows them to make important judgments in game. This unit throws 2 dice, and this unit throws 5. Where more dice are better I understand the relative power of these 2 units. Compare that to Unit A is rated Raw and unit B is rated Elite. I get one is better but what does better in this game even mean?
If you hate dice, cool. I generally hate cards - Memoir 44 and the like being particularly annoying. But for me dice are an important part of what wargaming is.
One thing I like about wargaming is you can do everything right, and be let down by the dice. But our club *remembers* those games. They make great stories we created together, we abuse our friends and remind them of their epic "anything but a 1" moments. I like dice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say I prefer outcomes that give +1/0/-1 on the dice as this reflects a closer result not too unbalancing and right in the middle of the distribution curve!
DeleteThe point is surely not that a unit's combat capabilities stay the same, but there are many small factors which we do not know about which influence the results of combat. Maybe a unit or century commander was killed or rallied his men, or ran away unexpectedly. These are all things which can and do influence combat. A diceless system doesn't model them. Also, fatigue will be a factor in longer battles; a unit will not fight as well after hours of combat as it did at the start; so you certainly need to track that.
ReplyDeleteAll catered for. If a unit is large enough which most wargaming ones are (a stand represents several hundred or more men) then one centurion dying isn't going to make much of a difference to the overall performance of the unit. A unit commander dying however will have an effect, but commanders are represented as separate figures in Optio and their death (determined by dice rolls BTW) has an adverse effect on their army.
DeleteFatigue is represented by a morale counter that starts with fresh intervals that gradually drop to shaken intervals with a corresponding minus modifier. In a drawn melee fight both opposing units lose one morale interval so a decision is reached sooner or later, actually sooner - about 4 turns should be enough.
I've got to disagree on this. One centurion could make a difference to an entire legion. It's the snowball effect of morale or butterfly wing flapping if you like. Getting two lots of men to stand in pointy stick range of each other is really hard. A very small proportion of most armies are the ones that lead the average joes. If one of them goes down that group he is leading may well falter. A group faltering can snowball into surrounding men creating a cascading collapse of morale. Once that starts it is very hard to stop, the trickle becomes a stream becomes a flood and the entire unit is breaking and running away.
DeleteCenturions fought in the front rank of a legion battleline and were expected to die, and about half of them did in a typical battle, leaving the optio - second in command - to become centurion in his turn. What would break a battleline wasn't the death of several centurions, but the overall comprehensive defeat of the line, which consisted of the front rank fighters getting killed or driven back, and the second rankers behind them being unable to hold the enemy, with the entire line recoiling back in consequence and eventually breaking.
DeleteThe legion was designed precisely to counteract this process, by stacking three lines, one behind the other, with each successive line composed of better quality troops. If one line was outfought, it simply retired through the line behind it which then took up the fight. If necessary the second line handed over to the third line.
There wasn't any other kind of infantry formation that could deal with this swapping of fresh reserves into the fight. Only the pike phalanx could drive an entire legion back, and it could do it only in ideal conditions.
I agree with your arguments up to a point, except that your combat and C2 examples are extreme (but fairly common) cases of how dice are used in wargames. In combat a properly researched set of rules should understand the historical spread of results and how frequent they were - thus the dice should just determine where on that probability frequency distribution the current match up lands. Likewise in good C2 rules once a command starts moving it should keep moving until it reaches its objective (they don't move for no reason). So dice (or similar random elements) have a role in wargames but not to the extent seen in the 'buckets of dice' approach so popular these days. Part of the current 'do it all with dice' approach is founded on the dislike of many players for having to look up tables and apply factors to identify what the likely outcome is before rolling some dice to represent the 'unknowns', 'friction', 'random factor' whatever else you want to call it.
ReplyDeleteIf you reduce the variability of dice rolls then it's a short step to eliminating it altogether, and replacing the unknowable of a die throw with the impossibility of calculating all outcomes even one turn ahead. In Optio there are so many variables that affect the progress of combat that you can't calculate like you do in chess: you have to fall back on general tactical principles and grab opportunities as they arise.
DeleteI'm not sure I get what you're driving at? Just because less is 'good' it doesn't follow that 'none' is better, and as you say calculating everything is impossible so that's where dice are tend to come in. Also, if you can't calculate in Optio how do you determine a result? Obviously you don't use dice, cards, whatever... Have you posted your Optio rules somewhere? I'd love to take a look to see how you've solved this one as I'm intrigued.
DeleteI posted an overview of Optio on TMP. Link below. I'll update it and repost it here soon.
Deletehttp://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=569441
Had a look, seems like a good system but the certainty of what will happen in any combat seems more than any general ever had, but how the pieces are employed by their respective commander is endlessly variable so not unreasonable. What I am keen to find out more about is your C2 system as how well you can control units to do what you want and when will be key. I am especially interested in how you stop armies instantly reacting to an unexpected move by the enemy as there's nothing more frustrating than your flank march arriving and enemy units swinging to face without a moment's hesitation. The key here is what the commander (not the player) can see and how long it takes for his orders to arrive (no doubt supplemented by some local initiatives aimed at self-preservation).
DeleteCommand and Control has proved in interesting conundrum for me. Initially I had an orders system which worked like this: a commander was given a stack of orders counters. These consisted of numbers from 1 - 16 with arrows. The topmost counter represented his first order and would direct him to move, say, 5 squares straight ahead. The second counter would be his next order, obliging him to move, say, 3 squares to his right, and so on. Once his orders were completed (or cancelled) he could range only a limited number of squares from where his last order took him.
DeleteThis was realistic enough I suppose but fussy. I replaced it with something simpler: a single counter is placed behind a commander. The counter has numbered sides and the number that corresponds to the commander's command rating is positioned facing the commander. The commander may move forwards or diagonally as many squares as the player chooses, but each time the commander turns right, left or about with his unit, the counter is rotated one number down. Once the last number is used up the commander falls out of command as described above.
This probably gives the player more control than happened in real life but it seems to work well enough on the gaming table. We'll see where it goes.
I like the pre-programmed approach and accept that it may prove too complex in practice. The later system still allows commanders to react immediately, albeit they can only do so a limited number of times. The real key to a realistic C2 system is to somehow prevent the players from acting on the basis of anything the commander on the field would be unaware of, and ensuring his orders when issued were subject to an appropriate delay before reaching those who had to enact them. Coping with uncertainty over what is actually happening on the other side of the hill (and sometimes on your own side) is a critical command skill.
DeleteInteresting article. I do think you have sort of set up two straw men for the roll of dice. Dice represent randomness in the game design. Ultimately at a high level there are two main reasons for that:
ReplyDelete1. The game/simulation can't model every aspect of a battle accurately and have rules to govern all eventualities so randomness is introduced to cover these variables
2. It is difficult to produce a wargame (which doesn't have an umpire with lots of hidden info) that doesn't have entirely predictable combat if a random element is not introduced. The poster child for a game that manages this is Bonaparte at Morengo. That is built around a very simple combat mechanic and clever use of hidden information to make both players uncertain of the outcome of any particular combat.
If combat is purely deterministic then it falls down on two levels, a decision point is removed (do I launch this attack, what happens if I don't win?) and it doesn't mirror real life decisions. Few commanders could predict exactly what would happen in an attack.
Having said all that I'm very interested to see how you handle these two issues in your design because we know it can be done.
I've solved this problem in Optio. Combat is purely deterministic but since it consists of a whittling down of a unit's morale and there are a number of factors that affect that whittling down from turn to turn, it is in effect impossible to determine the eventual outcome of combat, at least for the army as a whole.
DeleteFor example, one unit is ahead of the other in morale attrition, but then a nearby unit of the winning unit routs, giving an unexpected morale boost to the losing unit, and the whole equation changes. Optio is full of unexpected developments like this and it can be impossible - and I've seen this time and time - to predict the outcome of a game until near the end.
Re variables represented by the randomness of dice throws, I argue that the variables that matter, i.e. are sufficiently important to substantially influence the outcome of combat, can be represented as distinct combat modifiers, like second rank support, terrain, flanking, etc. Variables that don't have a decisive effect do not need to be represented, which means you don't need dice for them.
DeleteLet me make a few general points to clarify my position:
ReplyDelete1. I dislike dice, cards or any random generator in a wargame because I prefer that skill play a 100% role in the game. Many – if not most – wargamers prefer to have only partial control and let dice confirm or ruin their plans. That's fine – virtually every wargame out there caters for them. Wargames are NOT simulations: they are exercises in imagination and skill where only enough realism is required to make the storyline plausible for the player (and the historian be damned).
2. On the realism front I dislike dice because they introduce a variability in a unit's performance that it wouldn't have in real life: on a given day a unit is good or bad. It can't be good for 15 minutes, then be awful for the next 15 minutes, then be so-so for the following 15 minutes, and so on. Not initially knowing an enemy unit's capability is fog of war (this is what is meant by unpredictability). But once the unit is engaged its capability becomes clear and doesn't change for the duration of the fight. Dice are no use for simulating this. You either represent fog of war by concealing information about the unit from the owning player and/or opponent or you don't represent it at all. I don't represent it in Optio, letting the impossibility of determining the outcome of a battle stand in for it. This is a playability choice – in a tussle between playability and historical accuracy playability always wins out. But for sure concealing information – implementing genuine fog of war – is ideal for PC games.
3. There is a difference between squad level combat and combat at a bigger scale. In a squad level game, where a tank represents a tank and an infantryman represents an infantryman or a section of infantry, there are so many factors influencing combat that it is impossible to represent them by a list of modifiers and one has no choice but to fall back on dice. In a game at a bigger scale however, the individual variabilities even out and it becomes possible to assign a fixed combat factor to the unit.
For example, all sorts of things determine whether one infantryman hits or misses his target: his shooting proficiency, the sun in his eyes, his target moves at the precise moment he shoots, etc. But if 200 infantry men shoot at 200 targets, it is possible to determine how many targets will be hit with enough accuracy to assign a fixed number to it. This is what Optio does. but I DO use chance to determine the fate of individual commanders: a die is thrown each time they engage in combat (unless they have a good combat rating and are with a good unit): a 6 wounds them and another 6 kills them.
I see no reason why a unit that is performing well might not after 15 minutes of combat fall into confusion and perform less well. Winning a real battle is not all about the commander's skill but as with all wargames if that's what you want yours to focus on and explore then it's a valid premise for that purpose. In reality, good commanders should've have won the battle before it started by ensuring that everything was in their favour, time, place, numbers, supplies, etc. Relying on skill on the field alone to deliver victory is a risky venture.
DeleteTo be fair, the best dice driven wargame I've played is Legion. Each unit has 2 steps and it usually takes a 5 or 6 to score a hit. Spent units can transfer hits to adjacent fresh units, which means the line holds together for quite some time and collapses suddenly as an entity. If you have a better quality line you win out. All good and historical.
ReplyDeleteUnits are very mobile in Legion so grand tactical manoeuvres are quite possible, unlike for a game like DBM. But you have to throw a LOT of dice before getting a result, which I suspect is why it never really caught on (besides its hex grid battlefield).
Golden rule of wargame design: when one unit attacks another, SOMETHING must happen.
To the Strongest uses your approach too, though it uses cards, not dice. A unit has an attack value. Pull a card that high or higher to hit an enemy. Modifiers are very scarce.
ReplyDeleteI often find that sport is a representation of (ritualistic) warfare on a very small scale. It may or may not appeal as an analogy but here goes.
ReplyDelete2 football teams play a game for 90 minutes
the 'red' team has not been beaten for 20 games and their morale is very high
the 'blue' team is bottom of the league and are in danger of being relegated. Their morale is low
in the first 45 minutes the 'red' team is very much better tactically keeps on attacking the blue 'team' but cannot score even though they have many shots on goal
in the 2nd 45 minutes, the 'red' team keep attacking but still cant score even though they have a vast superiority in territory and shots on target
in the last few minutes, the blue team manage to break clear when one of the red players slips on the grass and gives away the ball. the blue team go up the other end of the field and score thus winning the game
how do you model this?
quic answer is via probability..
the red team should win 95% of the time but the blue team can win on occaision
if we use dice carefully and correctly, we can introduce probability into a wargame and not just 'blind luck'
thats why i favour 'average' dice (1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6 on a D12 for instance) or a reduced range of positive/negative outcome scores (+1/0/-1)
it still allows good skill and accumulative tactical advantages used through maneuvering etc but adds an element of uncertainty
Hang on, I've seen this example before on TMP. To answer, this is squad level gaming - 11 players per side - which I admitted above involves so many modifiers that you have to use dice to rather inadequately represent it. For larger scale wargaming, where a stand represents 100, 500 or 1000 men, variations even out and it becomes possible to assign a fixed number to the unit's combat performance. Let me copy here a post I put on TMP:
DeleteReading over the last few posts it seems to me the same argument is being repeated:
There is a substantial variability in a unit's performance on the battlefield from one moment to the next, and this can be represented only by dice.
My reply is that at an INDIVIDUAL level there is a variability that cannot be reproduced by combat modifiers as there would have to be far too many of these. But if 500 or 1000 individuals are doing the same thing then the variability averages out and it becomes quite possible to quantify the group's performance. If one musketeer shoots at an enemy soldier 50 yards away, he will probably miss but there's a chance he will hit him. But if a line of 1000 musketeers shoot at another line of 1000 musketeers a certain percentage of musketeers will be shot, and that percentage will approach a fixed number (with a slight variation) the more often the musketeers shoot. It becomes possible to assign a combat factor to the musketeers that doesn't vary and which is accurate enough to sufficiently replicate the musketeers' historical performance. Anything that substantially affects that performance can be represented as a handful of separate modifiers: musketeers are raw, it's raining, the weapons are substandard, there's mist, etc. The effect on the target will also vary depending on whether the targeted musketeers are green recruits or hardened veterans – another modifier.
At the end of the day I am convinced that wargamers like dice because a) they grew up with them, and b) they add an irreplaceable thrill to the game. Watch a room full of chess players and a room full of wargamers and you'll see what I mean. Attempts to affirm that dice replicate historical conditions are really just moonshine – ;-) – since no wargamer will admit that a wargame is about gameplay first and historical accuracy a distant second. I mean, if you want to BEGIN introducing serious historical accuracy into a wargame then you have to take wargamers away from the gaming table into an adjacent room and let them know through messengers (who are encouraged to be unreliable) what is going on. Fun? Sure…
there is a middle ground. I propose fun with a modicum of variability. I agree 1-6, 6-1 manifestations are the devil's danglies but we can get something that gives players a thrill or a small chance of upsetting the odds without unbalancing the whole thing. Its also relatively easy
DeleteTo be honest, I don't think we have to do anything. I'm not on a crusade to eliminate dice from wargaming (might as well try to fly by flapping my arms). There are players who LOVE extreme dice throws - DBA/Triumph as exhibit A and Memoir as exhibit B. Other players prefer toning down the effect of dice. I'm trying to cater for players who might want to try out a wargame that isn't abstract like chess and from which chance is absent or nearly so. As far as I know there isn't anything in that category out there.
DeleteActually there is something:
Deletehttps://rpggeek.com/thread/298897/user-review-complete-brigadier
The only other mass battle rules I know of that do not rely on randomness are Phil Sabin's Phalanx (although a "luck of the gods" d6 rule was added later), and Ritter and derivatives (https://www.wargamevault.com/product/230670/Ritter-Diceless-Miniatures-Rules). There is a review of Ritter and its derivatives here: https://daleswargames.blogspot.com/2016/09/rules-review-jabberwocky-ritter.html
DeleteHate dice as well. I come from a generic fantasy D&D background, and *the* reason I hate dice is that practically every dungeoncrawl or Ameritrash game uses dice! I believe cards have much to offer (eg. Gloomhaven, even if part of the game randomizes with cards instead of dice) but is much more difficult to design. Seems you dislike dice for different reasons, but variety is a good thing. Best wishes on your game!
ReplyDeleteTa for the thumbs up!
Delete