Combat Mechanics - my thoughts

[pauld]

I'm playing about with home brew rules for small skirmishes where tactical choices have a reasonable impact on how things go.  Combats may become slow and protracted but with a limited number of figures and a small environment this is (to me at any rate) desirable.

Caveat:  I own and have read hundreds of rules and like music where there are only so many notes then there are only so many mechanics that can be used, the trick seems to be getting them all in the right order. TBH the ranged combat section is bog standard stuff ... AND this is currently seat of the pants stuff and the numbers and maths nay be complete rubbish.  They certainly lack comprehensive play testing.

GENERAL PREFACE (much to be filled out here)

Each model will have a set of abilities/characteristics – something like Action Points, Move, Combat Skill, Ranged Skill, Strength, Agility, Armour, Toughness, Wounds, Resolve, Willpower, Luck, Intelligence, etc – the normal RPG/Skirmish mix.



Here are my initial thoughts on the combat section – I like the 2d6 bell curve. 

I'd be interested in what people think.


Melee Combat

The idea of this is that both (all – see adjustments later) combatants fight simultaneously so there is danger for all parties within combat.

The basic throw is two distinct colour sets of 2d6 (offence and defence) per model

Each model has a COMBAT SKILL level between 1 (totally untrained) and 6 (masterly)

In each round of combat the models decide how their COMBAT SKILL is allocated that turn – this number will be added to the relative 2d6 for resolution (again the 2 distinct colours of dice can be used to set values behind a hand to be revealed simultaneously).

Models can freely choose how they split the bonus (eg:  a Seasoned Warrior with a COMBAT SKILL of 4 could add 2 pips to his Attack Roll and 2 pips to his Defence Roll for that round)

If combat lasts more than one round tally successes as they will impact later rounds

ADJUSTMENTS

Charged      add +1 to COMBAT SKILL for initial combat round
Wounded      deduct -1 to COMBAT SKILL for each wound
Cowed      can only add COMBAT SKILL to Defence
Confident      add +1 to Attack for each success in previous rounds
Outnumbered   deduct -1 to Defence for each additional enemy
Staggered      deduct 3 from COMBAT SKILL (remove balance from 2d6 throw if
         necessary)
Feint         test vs AGILTY if success -2 to opponents COMBAT SKILL if fail
         -2 to your COMBAT SKILL
Shield      permanent +1 to Defence

Compare attack totals versus defence totals

>        a hit! roll for physical outcome
> +3   a solid blow.  Add +1 to STRENGTH for physical outcome
> +6   a critical blow.  Bypasses ARMOUR and adds +2 to STRENGTH for physical outcome

EXAMPLE

Bill the Bold, a seasoned dungeoneer (COMBAT SKILL 4) charges a sturdy Orc (COMBAT SKILL 2).

Bill is young and, of course bold, so decides to split his skill

3 to offence
1 to defence

and the Orc is an Orc so of course adds

2 to offence
0 to defence as defence is for gurlz

Bill throws  a 3 and a 1 for attack - plus his skill split of 3  and a charge bonus of 1 giving an attack total of 8
and a 3 and a 2 for defence - plus his skill split of 1 for a defence of 6

The Orc throws a 4 and a 3 for attack - plus the 2 skill points he allocated for a attack of 9
and a 4 and a 3 for defence - plus 0 for a defence of 7

The results are are as follows

Bill's attack hits as his attack total of 8 is greater than the Orc's defence roll of 7
The Orc bellows triumph as his attack value of 9 smashes through Bill's  defence of 6 and being 3 greater will add +1 to STRENGTH

When assessing the physical outcome both models will roll against armour and toughness


STRENGTH, ARMOUR and TOUGHNESS characteristics are used to see if the beaten model is staggered/wounded/killed WIP

 Combatants stay locked in combat but either party may disengage by taking and AGILITY test (this part being worked on as running away has to be a pretty desperate act almost doomed to failure – calling for assistance and maybe making the other guy back off under increasing threat may be the more realistic thing, providing of course assistance is there, in range and free).  As I say – very much Work in Progress -

Note:  I'm always none too sure about someone charging having a melee bonus (but bear in mind I've never been in a fight of any sort so YMMV).  To me there may be a chance that the person being charged feels intimidated so a failed willpower/resolve test may inflict a penalty modifier – then the charging bonus translates into power bonus on the strength physical outcome.  But this combination seems quite powerful?  Perhaps that's what a charge is.




Ranged Combat

The idea of this is that a hit relies in the main on the skill of the firing model.

Based on a 2d6 throw plus RANGED SKILL for the firer.

RANGED SKILL levels are between -3 (what's this string bit for again?) and 4 (masterly) - may not shoot into melee

Result needed to score a hit are

Effective Range      7
Long Range         10

ADJUSTMENTS

per piece of intervening terrain      -1
per wound               -1
Target has moved in round      -1
per action to aim            +1  (unused actions can be banked)
other enemies within 3” of shooter   -1 per model (if they are unengaged)
Target has Shield            -1

If the Target number is reached or exceeded, assess the outcome as follows

>        a hit! roll for physical outcome
> +3   a solid blow.  Add +1 to STRENGTH for physical outcome
> +6   a critical blow.  Bypasses ARMOUR and adds +2 to STRENGTH for physical outcome

IMPACT STRENGTH, ARMOUR and TOUGHNESS characteristics are used to see if the beaten model is staggered/wounded/killed.



All a very early working draft and I'm never going to get round to actually doing anything with this so feel free to add, dismember or re-order any or all of these ideas.  In fact it might be nice to have a little game set devised and written communally by and for LAF members.  You may say I'm a dreamer as someone once said.

[fred]

How much do you want chance to play a part? It feels the modifiers (including skill) are fairly small compared to the 2d6 roll. I’d try doubling the modifiers.

There is quite a lot of maths going on - I know it’s simple maths but this can still get fiddly by the end of a game.

Are you OK that both attacks are resolved simultaneously? At this low level you are playing at, I’d think order of attacks is important. If the Orc kills Bill, does Bill’s attack still get resolved?

In 1:1 skirmish I think disengaging should be easy (as long as there is space) fighters are always moving (watch fencing or boxing). Lots of rules makes disengaging really hard / dangerous. In 1:1 encounters I don’t think it should be. Combats should be much more fluid than most rulesets make it.

[Hobgoblin]

 Combatants stay locked in combat but either party may disengage by taking and AGILITY test (this part being worked on as running away has to be a pretty desperate act almost doomed to failure – calling for assistance and maybe making the other guy back off under increasing threat may be the more realistic thing, providing of course assistance is there, in range and free).  As I say – very much Work in Progress -

I think this is one thing that most skirmish games get wrong (as fred said, I've just noticed!). In a fight, it's easy to retreat with your defence up (a 'fighting withdrawal'), though of course your antagonist can follow up. Most skirmish games make backing off much more difficult than it is in a real fight (or martial art or combat sport).

I suspect the 'locked in' aspect is something that comes from mass-battle games and has been ported over into skirmish games without much though (aided and abetted, perhaps, by the way the likes of Warhammer disguised the fact that they were really using something like a 1:20 figure scale). In a massed battle, it's not so easy - because unit cohesion depends on everyone doing the same thing. But in a brawl? Nothing easier!

Note:  I'm always none too sure about someone charging having a melee bonus (but bear in mind I've never been in a fight of any sort so YMMV).  To me there may be a chance that the person being charged feels intimidated so a failed willpower/resolve test may inflict a penalty modifier – then the charging bonus translates into power bonus on the strength physical outcome.  But this combination seems quite powerful?  Perhaps that's what a charge is.

I think you're right to be sceptical of this. The attacker will tend to expose themselves in the process of attacking - especially against a skilled and experienced defender, who can parry and riposte or otherwise counter. That's why fighters tend to circle each other warily.

But a nerve test - rather than a charge bonus - makes much more sense. The fear mechanics that a lot of games have are quite good - but would probably need to be 'diluted' for most situations: being charged by an angry man is, presumably, somewhat less terrifying than being charged by an animated corpse.

I think you could have some sort of 'fearsomeness vs quality' scale, whereby an experienced fighter wouldn't need to test against the average fighter but a reluctant peasant levy might. The experienced fighter might flee from a troll or ghoul, though, and the peasant levy would need to roll high to stand and fight.

[Moriarty]

For me the less arithmetic the better. Rather than add/subtract factors, you might consider comparing combatants’ physique, equipment and situation; for each ‘superiority’ they get 1d6 for effect.
Bob the barbarian vs Mick the mercenary. Bob charges (+ situation) with big muscles (+ physique) but has no armour (- equipment) for two dice.

[Elbows]

I like the concept, in fact I have a notebook with a similar one scribbled down, though it uses different dice instead of a 2D6 system.  So I like the overall idea.

I think the adjustments are a bit too cumbersome.  Also the levels of success is also a bit cumbersome.  Now, that doesn't mean they don't work...but it's very 1980's Battletech levels of calculation, which is fine if you're maybe fielding one or two models per side, but would get old real fast.

I'd chop the adjustments by half and re-work those ideas into other simpler, easier-to-flow rules.  I'd lose Cowed, Confident, Staggered, Feint, etc.  Take those ideas and find a simpler way to apply them to the system instead of just endless math.  When it comes to modifiers, I think they should be very easy to identify, even spot on the table when you're doing your math.

"I charged (+1), and you have a shield (+1)...".  It should be that quick and simple.  I don't think remembering how many turns you've been winning combat is relevant in a small skirmish game between fantasy creatures/heroes, etc.

I'd take your wounds and consider something simpler: wounded, grievously wounded, dead.  This could be tied to your attack difference if you want.  It would then simplify both your adjustments and your wound allocation.  Maybe a Model exists in four stages: healthy, wounded, grievously wounded, dead.

Wounded might be -1 to your rolls, and grievously wounded might half your combat value.  This would be easy to note with two-sided tokens.  You could elaborate this into your combat output.  If you successfully "score" against your opponent, he becomes wounded (if already wounded he becomes grievously wounded...already grievously wounded he's dead).  If you score a certain value...you inflict a griveous wound, etc.  If you roll super high - you kill them outright and they're removed.

With this mechanic it means that a creature with a high combat value is likely to not be killed outright by normal dudes...but if it suffers three normal wounds, it would succumb, etc.  Whereas a hero or monster with high combat would be one-shotting simple peasants and goblins, etc. 

TL;DR : I think simpler is better.  I think fewer adjustments is better.  I'd take those ideas and keep them in the game, but don't just let the game became a WALL of modifiers.  Think up some clever and simple ways to include those ideas without just making everything a +/-.