|
Well as I mentioned previously, I've created a minigame "combat system" roughly based on the poker rules, and it has resulted in some very skillful and tactical play. People will occasionally draw bad hands, but probably no more often than rolling a fumble in your standard tabletop roleplaying game (and even if you do draw a bad hand, there are ways to get around it).
However if you've played chess, you'll know that there are often a number of different strategies at each decision point. Do you take a pawn, knowing there's nothing they can do about it? Do you sacrifice your own pawn, strengthening your position on the board? Do you take a risk which, if they don't notice what you're doing, will give you a quick checkmate? None of these moves are innately 'better' than the others.
I disagree, although obviously it's a matter of personal preference. Most wargames are little more than an advanced version of "chess with dice", after all, and yet they can allow for a great deal of strategic thinking.
Indeed, if you wish to better simulate a combat situation, the element of chance is pretty much the only way to take into consideration the countless tiny factors which your game can't realistically simulate. The wind blows a fly into your eye at a critical moment, the blood and sweat weakens your grip on your sword, your opponent slips on a patch of mud, and so on.
And I'm saying that there isn't necessarily going to be a 'best' target.
Unless combat is designed to only support one-on-one fights, there will always be an element of choice involved. Even if there's an obvious target for you to focus your attacks on (which is by no means guaranteed), you'll still have to handle your defences against the multiple attackers.
|