War Simulation - RNG/Percentage Win/Loss - Good or Bad?

[VAPMichaelaLaws]

Okay so this concept has been on my mind for a while, as I've wanted to make a continuation of Seduce Me with talking about the Ten-Year Demon War that occurs between the two games in the series.

However, I'm mildly torn on a mechanic I feel would be best suited for a WAR simulation: RNG/Percentage Wins and Losses.

Concept goes as such: Each Season/Turn gives you the chance to check your defenses, upgrade army equipment, train soldiers, progress personal story, etc etc. At the end of such, we go into battle phase, where you have to go against the opposing team's army on a tactical battlefield.



Based on how much you've prepared, your units have a certain strength/defense. When two opposing teams land on the same space, a battle occurs. Whoever has the highest chance of winning obviously wins the fight, but if the units are close to tying/balance, it would rely on an RNG. There are so many factors to winning and losing in real battle that I figured this would really hit the nail on the head that this conflict was a WAR and not something you can walk away unscathed from.

However, I'm worried that people will be too turned off by this to go through with the game or at least retry it after a complete run.

This is a bare basic idea of the battle mechanic but I figured this would be the best way to tell such in a VN form.

Thoughts?

[Zelan]

Personally, I think it's a cool mechanic, but I can definitely see where people might get upset about RNG deciding their fate in a game. I'm sure you've thought of this already, but if it's something you implement, I feel like you should be upfront about the game's darker themes, and the difficulty that goes along with them, so that no one expects to breeze through an easy story.

Of course, if people are that upset about losing, they could always just spam the reload function. That's what people do in Fire Emblem games, right? c:

[Milkymalk]

When using RNG in a single player game, the trick to keeping it fair is to implement enough possibilities for the player to compensate for bad rolls.

This means that either he has the possibility to counteract them (for example, spend ressources to at least make it a draw), or that he can outweigh the loss of this roll by great success elsewhere. Because he obviously spent his preparation on another battle.

The point is: You as the developer WANT the player to advance so he keeps playing. So give him an edge over his opponents. If the general balance is in his favor, occasional random losses aren't as frustrating as if every roll counts.

[Kinjo]

Whoever has the highest chance of winning obviously wins the fight, but if the units are close to tying/balance, it would rely on an RNG.

This is a little confusing to me. So let's say I have a 73% chance of winning, and my opponent thus has a 27% chance of winning. You're saying I would automatically win just because my chances are higher? Or would you actually generate a random number between 0-100, and I'd only win if that number is less than 73? Because those are two very different things. What if I only have a 10% chance of winning a fight -- does that mean I automatically lose? Wouldn't it be more fun if I could take a big risk and still win?

The player knows they are playing a strategy/tactics game. Some might decide to play it for that reason. So if the player has failed to prepare their team to win with certainty, then that's their fault. They should've planned things ahead better in order to make sure they had a higher chance of winning. Their loss will only motivate them to try harder to actually plan out their strategies and become better at playing the game. A smart player would try to keep their chances of winning above the 90% mark whenever possible, and they'd need to learn the mechanics of the game to understand how to do that.