Melee Question

[Phil Robinson]

In  T&T could you tell me your thinking in resolving melee to a conclusion in one turn, in most sets (excluding Trench Wars and Price of Glory which I have) melee continues to the next turn if there is no conclusion in the current one.

[Driscoles]

Hi Phil,

Iam not sure if I get your question right.

Do you mean why we wanted to resolve close combat immediately when it happens ?

If that is the question the answer is  :

A : I dont like to wait 3 or 4 game turns for a result.
B : We wanted to catch the athmosphere of a quick and dirty melee.
I just dont believe that real close combat happens in rounds. The question is can you and your force capture the enemies position now, or are you destroyed / captured  or forced to retreat.
C : Iam not sure if closecombat in rounds works with our activation system.
D : I must admit...I like Epic Armageddon  

If I didnt get your question right thats because Iam a Kraut and my knowledge of your language is limited.  

Happy Eastern to you and your family.
Björn

[Plynkes]

I like it that way. It is the same in Price of Glory. Melee in both games is very bloody, an all-or-nothing option not to be taken lightly, but it also can be a battle-winner. You have to weigh up the risks with the benefits.

Once you get away from the way the ancients fought, hand to hand for hours on end they would have us believe, close-quarter fighting tends to be a short-lived affair anyway. A bayonet charge and a quick and bloody melee resulting in one side left standing. I can't think of too many modern examples of melees going on and on. So I think it feels right, too.

[Phil Robinson]

Thanks guys,  short and bloody I thought that would be the answer. In modern warfare I suppose it is, we have to remember too that not all the figures are wiped out, some are wounded, some are prisoner and some have run away.

 Just nice to know why these rules stray from convention, I have asked the same question on the II group.

[Phil Robinson]

Just thought I would post the replies from Keith and Chal.

 Must compliment you and these guys for the prompt replies.

Re: [ironivan] Melee Question


I would say the same thing.  That close combat between small units is over very quickly, and is usually quite decisive (one side eliminated).  The only reason to make it last several turns is to represent large numbers of troops being hurled in to support the initial attack.... so, in a case of a battalion hitting a trench line en masse, several turns might make more sense.  In our level of gaming, though, you could continue to throw units into the same area, continuing the melee, throughout the same turn (or following turns), with units in range, showing a longer struggle for the same piece of property.  And we have had this happen in our games, where a single piece of terrain changes hands several times in the game... though each individual close combat is resolved on the activation it happens.

Generally though, for PoG (or DH/C7B), its going to be 5-10 models engaging 5-10 models at a time, and at that level of involvement, it should be over very quickly.

Also, reinforces that the final assault on a position is tricky.  The decisiveness of it, all happening in one activation, means you better only do it when you think you have a good chance of winning (with models left over).

Chalfant


----- Original Message ----
From: Keith Stine <keith_stine@...>
To: ironivan@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:59:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ironivan] Melee Question


Simply, why drag it out? I have never seen a reason to drag combats out over multiple turns. I never saw it as realistic, nor improving a game. Mostly, my rationale was that real melees are literally over in seconds in most cases. Once you engage in close combat, it is very decisive. One side usually gives up or is killed or captured almost immediately because in close contact there is no choice but to fight or die.

Is there some particular reason why doing multiple turn combats would be better? I have always thought the main reason was that most players are just used to that, rather than there being a compelling reason that serves realism.

Keith

[Overlord]

My experience with my first two games last weekend bears out the bloodiness of melee.  In two combats (Buro Falls scenario) where a Hero was part of a small unit of trained troops Vs a much larger unit of raw troops, the troops became casualties to a man whilst the Hero survived.  Despite causing an equal number of casualties on each occasion I lost the overall combats because I was numerically inferior.  This makes large raw units a bit nasty for better trained smaller groups.

Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead: Sixty! We dropped at least 60, wouldn't you say?
Adendorff: That leaves only 3,940.

[Driscoles]

The best  thing for small trained units against large numbers of savages is keeping them under fire over a long distance in the open.  I know that is difficult with the Buro Falls scenario. But we wanted it that way. Makes it a bit more exciting...

[Doomhippie]

My experience with my first two games last weekend bears out the bloodiness of melee.  In two combats (Buro Falls scenario) where a Hero was part of a small unit of trained troops Vs a much larger unit of raw troops, the troops became casualties to a man whilst the Hero survived.  Despite causing an equal number of casualties on each occasion I lost the overall combats because I was numerically inferior.  This makes large raw units a bit nasty for better trained smaller groups.

Well, that doesn't sound too unrealistic to me. In German we have a saying that translated would go something like this: "Many hunters are the death of the hare." There's probably an equivalent in English. If your enemy outnumbers you, close combat is bound to be very dangerous. Even if you are much better individually, a second attacker always has the chance to flank you or even get behind you. At some point the pure physical mass of the higher number is bound to overwhelm you.

And isn't that the tactic of warfare as well? Once you have decided to attack, make sure you do so with superior numbers in one point rather than attack all along the line without superiority.

"March devided - strike united" as Clausewitz once put it (though I don't know the exact quote in the English translation).

[Overlord]

My experience with my first two games last weekend bears out the bloodiness of melee.  In two combats (Buro Falls scenario) where a Hero was part of a small unit of trained troops Vs a much larger unit of raw troops, the troops became casualties to a man whilst the Hero survived.  Despite causing an equal number of casualties on each occasion I lost the overall combats because I was numerically inferior.  This makes large raw units a bit nasty for better trained smaller groups.

Well, that doesn't sound too unrealistic to me. In German we have a saying that translated would go something like this: "Many hunters are the death of the hare." There's probably an equivalent in English. If your enemy outnumbers you, close combat is bound to be very dangerous. Even if you are much better individually, a second attacker always has the chance to flank you or even get behind you. At some point the pure physical mass of the higher number is bound to overwhelm you.

And isn't that the tactic of warfare as well? Once you have decided to attack, make sure you do so with superior numbers in one point rather than attack all along the line without superiority.

"March devided - strike united" as Clausewitz once put it (though I don't know the exact quote in the English translation).

I agree that it is a realistic outcome as, despite defending an improvised barricade, I was outnumbered on both occasions by more than 2:1.

As Björn said "We wanted to catch the atmosphere of a quick and dirty melee. I just dont believe that real close combat happens in rounds. The question is can you and your force capture the enemies position now, or are you destroyed / captured or forced to retreat"

The quick melee resolution means a faster paced game, rather than several (sometimes tedious) turns of melee.

[Gluteus Maximus]

In German we have a saying that translated would go something like this: "Many hunters are the death of the hare." There's probably an equivalent in English.

I think our equivalent would be "Many hands make light work", alhough we also say "too many cooks spoil the broth",  just to make things confusing  ::

[Westfalia Chris]

In German we have a saying that translated would go something like this: "Many hunters are the death of the hare." There's probably an equivalent in English.

I think our equivalent would be "Many hands make light work", alhough we also say "too many cooks spoil the broth",  just to make things confusing  ::

I think the first is spot on. THe latter one, in German, is "Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei"...

::

[Driscoles]

Hi Overlord,

if you want your Elite or Veteran troops to be better in close combat you can give them a +1 melee modifier for being highly trained.

We wrote the rules from our point of view but its ok if you change things you dont like.

Cheers
Björn