Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello everyone, I'm new here, first post, although I've been lurking for a while.

The idea of this thread is to discuss different melee combat methods implemented in tabletop wargames. I tend to focus on skirmish games, in fact these examples are based in skirmish combat, since most massed battles tend to work in different ways, but of course we can also discuss mass battle games mechanics.

I'd say there are two major variations of combat; the one in which one of the units attacks and the other either defends or idly awaits their fate, you resolve the attack, and then, if the unit is still alive or able to respond, they hit back, and you resolve their attack. This can be done simultaneously also, for example, a soldier rolls to hit and then damages the target in a way that would kill them or take them out of action, but instead, the enemy gets to attack first, giving the chance that both fighters take out each other in the same turn. Within this combat variation there are lots of others, but both involve the idea of hitting the enemy and then letting the enemy hit you back (or not)

The other variation would be the one used in LOTR SBG for example, both roll for combat and after that someone is declared the winner, then that unit gets to damage their opponent in some way. Therefore, there can only be one unit that gets damaged.

Of course, both of these mechanics are mostly tied to the initiative and turn sequence, but I belive both can be used (and are used) in various games with completely different turn sequences.

What do you think are the merits of each one?

Do you think one is more 'realistic' or conveys results better than the other one?

Which mechanic would you use?

LotR's system favours heroes, since they can more easily win combat and avoid getting hit entirely even by large amounts of enemies.

Compare to 40k where your basic troops will still hit just about anything at no worse than 4+, and you use saves, FNP and so on to tank the attrition.

I'd argue that a middle road is best, where you can make both sides take damage but where melee skill stays very important

 Ashiraya wrote:
LotR's system favours heroes, since they can more easily win combat and avoid getting hit entirely even by large amounts of enemies.

Compare to 40k where your basic troops will still hit just about anything at no worse than 4+, and you use saves, FNP and so on to tank the attrition.

I'd argue that a middle road is best, where you can make both sides take damage but where melee skill stays very important

True, using Might points (specially for heroes like Aragorn, who got 1 extra free Might per turn) to win fights was incredibly useful, since the most important attribute for melee combat was Attacks, and not Fight value. The issue I see specifically with LOTR is the fact that a goblin has the same chance to win against Aragorn in close combat than a black numenorean, or an uruk.

There was a version in which a D12 was used, and you added your fight value to the roll.

The problem I see with 40K-like systems (for example Mordheim) is that it's usually REALLY important to be the one who attacks first. Unless damage is allocated AFTER the combat is resolved.

At least it's not Warmahordes/Kings of War, where the enemy doesn't even respond to the attacks.

EDIT:

By the way, how would you create a middle road system between the two?

I much prefer an opposed dice roll for weapon skill, with the winner landing one or more hits. This gets unwieldy in a larger game, but it works well at smaller scales - it is dramatic and gives a feeling of opposed attacks and parries.

That said, any implementation has to be wary of the issue of WS becoming the only important stat in melee. If you can only damage the enemy after winning a WS roll off, then any big creature given low WS and high strength/toughness ends up extremely underwhelming in combat, as it never gets to land a hit to show off its high strength. I don’t know if anyone remembers but back when Carnifexes were introduced in 2nd ed 40K, but that’s exactly what happened. A lot of players saw their stats on the page and started complaining about how overpowered they were, with crazy strength, toughness and wounds. But when people actually fought one in melee, because back then 40K had each model roll one die per attack, pick the highest and add their WS. The Carnifex low WS meant they hardly ever won against anything better than a Guardsman, and certainly not against characters, so their massive strength was for nothing.

It doesn’t make a system unworkable, but it is an issue that’s very easy to fall in to. Probably the most important thing, and one 2nd ed 40K certainly failed to do, was to keep some discipline in their stat ranges. They should have known that a difference in WS of more than 3 made the win almost certain, so differences of 3 or more should have been very rare (instead it was very common when characters were involved). But that discipline is hard to maintain – how do you show a special character being a lot more skilful than a guardsman, but have a big beast with no more skill than a guardsman take on that same special character?

I know it’s the kind of suggestion that lots of game designers hate, but I’d fix it with special rules. Give the monsters special attacks before or after the melee roll off. Think of the fighting the cave troll in LotR – first they had to get past whirling chain, before getting in close and striking a lethal attack or two. Something like that, where some creatures had special attacks that enemy soldiers had to dodge before melee, or possibly afterwards if they failed to take down the big creature.

It really depends on what effect you want to achieve.

As said above LOTR for example is skewed over heroes, but that is the feel the game wants to give.

The roll to hit, roll to damage model is an old one and stems from roots in D&D. It is not a particularly accurate model of anything, but does allow some granularity for "speed" and "strength" as a concept. I think it is ultimately a rather poor model of melee because it doesn't reflect the risks of melee particularly well and seems rather passive.

Consider that, historically, you have a few different kinds of fights:
Brawls where everyone is pretty much unarmed or armed with poor/impromptu weapons. The goal here is rarely to kill the opponent, just hurt them, but serious injury or death can still occur.
Armed conflict where one or both sides are intentionally trying to harm or kill one another. If one side has a deadly weapon and the other does not, this is likely to end very poorly for the unarmed combatant absent unusual skill. As a general rule, better arms and armor are a tremendous advantage and armored fighters tend to slaughter unarmored ones absent unusual circumstances. Professional soldiers also have an advantage, though it is generally psychological. Untrained men tend to flee when confronted with imminent death. Skilled veterans are extremely dangerous as they tend to know the best ways to kill a man and preserve themselves and do not hesitate to do so. Still, they also tend to know how dangerous and uncertain armed conflict can be (even a lucky blow can be fatal), and so can be resistant to engaging in unnecessary conflict and require more pay, planning, self leadership, etc. Such forces tend to be as brutally effective as possible, using intimidation as a weapon to discourage resistance.

Real hand to hand conflict is usually dirty, exhausting, and brutal. Ambushes, overwhelming forces and the like are generally preferred. However, combatants also realize that while it is desirable to maim or kill someone before they do the same to you, not all fights are equal. Sometimes, putting on a show fight so that one side can surrender is just as good. likewise, it doesn't do much good to kill a someone of great station as after the battle, you might be executed anyway. Plus, ransoms are a good thing.

So, what do you want to reflect? Movie fights where heroes wade through waves of mooks and duel with enemy leaders? Grim, gritty conflict where combat is a brutal, often unfair, thing and men die weeping and soiling themselves? Something else?

I'm of the opinion that wargames tend to gloss over the psychological aspects of human warfare way too much and assume conflict is much neater than it is. In an ancients/medieval setting, an accomplished warrior who has slain many is someone who is extremely dangerous. It also means that even "heroic" warlords are vicious and murderous- other wise they wouldn't last! Likewise, squaring off against men in metal armor wielding swords, spears and shields would be a terrifying prospect for most (who have to labor constantly to simply survive) and is why "warrior cultures" were so fearsome. They were trained from childhood to kill you.

The better Historical rules often have psychological factors -- that is to say, morale) --and give bonuses or penalties if your side is advancing, seen to be losing troops, and so on. In some cases, morale effects can be used to lure an enemy unit out of position to create a weakness in the line, as seen at Hastings for one example.

Going back to the original topic, in mass battles it doesn't seem to make sense to allow one side to do all its damage before taking and hits back. It just won't happen like that if there are hundreds of troops involved.

It makes a lot more sense in a skirmish game, which often will be one-to-one fighting. In a very detailed game, attack, parry and riposte could be part of the rules.

As noted, I think "both sides roll attacks" is good for abstracting massed blocks of troops. No matter how good you are, in a formed-blocks-of-troops game its unlikely the enemy wouldn't at least get to swing....

In a one-on-one, identifying a 'winner' each round who gets to land one or more blows makes more sense.

A balance between the two that I quite like was a mechanic used in the Lone Wolf gamebooks and further 'tweaked' for the RPG - you had a random roll (a D10) and the 'combat ratio' (your respective skills with a blade) cross-referenced on a table.

This broadly decided if A or B hit, and how much damage they did. But, the damage stat was 'endurance' and whilst you lost a big whack of it for being hit in the ribs with a sword (for obvious reasons) you also lost a bit each round of combat due to exhaustion even when 'winning' or 'drawing', and a lower-skill combatant winning a round by the same amount, and doing the same damage to his opponent, was often worse off compared to the better swordsman as he's lose a point or two more endurance from exhaustion.

That is an interesting mechanic. I think it illustrates how you have to decide what you, as a designer, want the systems to reflect and then design accordingly.

I am currently fond of a general resolution system whereby actors are rated on a scale of 1-6 (1 being worst, 6 being best). For any challenge, roll 2d6. Each dice is compared to the rating with a result equal to or less being a "pass" and greater than the rating a "fail". Normally, a single pass is sufficient to minimally accomplish a task with 2 passed indicating total or great success. Tougher situations would require 2 successes for any success, with a single success allowing the option of trying again (counting anything less than 2 success as a failure) or stop there.

Contests can be ties, or won by the person with more successes.

For melee combat, then, each actor rolls 2 dice and compares successes. A tie indicates a draw. If one side scores more successes, the loser is driven back or otherwise at a disadvantage (cumulative 1 penalty to subsequent roles), but the fight continues. If the winner scored 2 successes, instead the loser tests 2d6 to see if it is a casualty. 2 successes indicates it has been knocked down (mooks will normally surrender or give up at this point), 1 indicates it is disabled and effectively out of the fight, 0 indicating it has been slain on the spot.

Seeing an ally go down in melee (especially if slain) will result in a psychological crisis (IE morale test) when next active. Mooks tend to immediately flee or surrender if their leader is slain, unless rallied by another.

Morale is a tricky thing, as realistic morale means that players will likely have a significant reduction in forces control, and players really do not like that at all.

In general, for a skirmish game, it is almost always better to simply assume unbreakable will all the time, because that is what players will enjoy.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Morale is a tricky thing, as realistic morale means that players will likely have a significant reduction in forces control, and players really do not like that at all.

In general, for a skirmish game, it is almost always better to simply assume unbreakable will all the time, because that is what players will enjoy.

It depends on the player and the game.

A lot of people, including me, feel that morale and C3 issues can be an important part of a war game, since they reflect realities of war. Part of the skill of playing the game is to cope with these obstacles that are thrown in your path.

In a skirmish, seeing a companion cut down might as easily inspire the next chap with killing rage, boosting his morale to a high peak.

That's true about morale. Games like Warmachine don't really care for morale at all. And Mordheim itself for example, doesn't take morale into account in a lot of situations.

I think it would be great if some troops (probably the less experienced ones) had to check for morale or something if a warrior of equal or higher standing is killed in front of them. Of course, as JohnHwangDD said, players won't enjoy a game in which every troop must have automatic reactions to every possible situation, specially if those automatic reactions make the unit unable to be commanded. So situations in which soldiers check for morale should be limited.

I too think that combat in a skirmish game is much better handled by a dice off between the two and establishing a clear winner, but I wanted to hear arguments and opinions both for and against it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
It really depends on what effect you want to achieve.

As said above LOTR for example is skewed over heroes, but that is the feel the game wants to give.

Just like it was in the movies. The game does a very good representation on how the movie was.

@OP, getting back to this, I'm thinking to allow each the attacked player a choice of counterattack (taking all hits) or parry/dodge/defend (cancelling hits).

I think this allows the player to make a meaningful decision of risk/reward, where counterattack might result in simul-kill, or defend just draws.