Switch Theme:

Game combat style/type theory.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I'm trying to (roughly) classify combat types. Would love some feedback from the community.

What I have so far:
Attack types:
Careful Aim – Sighting down the barrel, scope, etc to achieve a precise hit.
“Spray & Pray” – Filling the air with hot lead/lasers/debris to hit … anything.
Rapid or Burst Fire – “Remember. Short, controlled bursts.”

Defense Types:
Armor – Vests, shields or full body plates. Bruises are better than bleeding.
Dodge/Quickness – Avoidance of firing lines whether by statistic based moves or supernatural quickness.
Bulk/Toughness – Having more hit points than bullets, or just not being harmed by small arms fire

Thanks!

My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






To give much useful feedback you need to provide some more context. Is this supposed to be some kind of rock/paper/scissors balance between the three types? Are they each specific attacks? Why three of each, or separate categories at all? Are you trying to accurately model the "real" events, or are you trying to create fluff descriptions for the game mechanics you have in mind? Etc. It's very difficult to get any useful insight into mechanics by taking them completely out of context, as what makes a good mechanic depends heavily on everything else about your game. I will say this though:

1) Rapid fire doesn't make sense as a separate attack. If you're taking aimed shots with an automatic weapon and firing short bursts then it's the same as "careful aim", just with bursts instead of single shots. There's no real reason to make this a separate type unless you need it for a rock/paper/scissors scheme.

2) Spray and pray doesn't work in the real world. The closest thing to it is suppressing fire, where precision accuracy is less important than keeping up a steady rain of bullets to force your target to stay behind cover while someone else gets into position to kill them. You aren't spraying and praying, it's just that you're not willing to expose yourself for a carefully aimed shot. You're still delivering your shots within a pretty narrow area around the target.

3) Bulk and armor are the same thing. Hit points are an abstraction and shouldn't be considered fluff-wise in most cases, so the end result is that you have a tough thing that can absorb a lot of hits before dying. Whether those hits bounce off armor or are absorbed harmlessly by sheer bulk doesn't make much strategic difference.

4) Dodge is highly genre-dependent. It makes sense in a fantasy setting with slow projectiles and supernatural abilities, it doesn't make sense in a world of real humans and very fast bullets. If you're a normal human out in the open against modern weapons you die, end of story. So whatever "dodge" ability exists would be part of the cover mechanic, allowing you to move between pieces of cover more effectively. It also makes a lot more sense in a melee context, where even normal humans have a relevant chance of dodging a blow.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/03 09:53:28


#FreezePeach

My DKoK painting blog.

My X-Wing painting blog.

SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD SUPERHEAVIES

Armored Company
W/L/D: 2130235/0/1 (I played myself once and had a draw) 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





Houston, TX

Also, what is the scale? Massed rifle fire works differently than small squads trying to get in on a target (think police or insurgent raid), for example. Distance also makes a pretty huge difference- sharpshooters do not operate the same way as assault troops or shock troops, for example.

As to dodge, you mention "superhuman", so I assume there is at least some fantasy element. In that case, not getting killed comes in 2 flavors- either not getting hit or not caring if you do get hit. Bulk/armor/y\toughness, etc. are just the gloss. It's the classic speedster v. brick tropes.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




WA, USA

Agreed with Peregrine. You've given us some titles and extremely vague descriptions and asked us to make a judgment that is impossible without more information.

 Ouze wrote:

Afterward, Curran killed a guy in the parking lot with a trident.
 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

I apologize, there were more details in the link that I neglected to bring over.

I was just theorizing small scale skirmish combat rules on a very generic level.

A rock/paper/scissors theme is somewhat where I was going with this.

Thanks for the input guys.

My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




WA, USA

Again...this is not a lot of information to go off of. You're giving us just names and on your link a few stills from movies. There's nothing there to have a meaningful opinion about.

How many models?

How big of a table?

How much terrain?

What is the scale of the models?

 Ouze wrote:

Afterward, Curran killed a guy in the parking lot with a trident.
 
   
Made in us
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Dublin

I believe it's important to differentiate between Armour and Toughness (as you've outlined them) . It allows for greater diversity in weapons beyond just strength range and rate of fire. Specifically a weapon with high armour piercing should provide no benefit against an unarmoured target.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/05 16:27:26


I let the dogs out 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 thegreatchimp wrote:
Specifically a weapon with high armour piercing should provide no benefit against an unarmoured target.


That doesn't really make much sense fluff-wise. A weapon that is good at penetrating armor is usually good at it because it delivers a lot of energy to the target with each shot, which means it should be even more effective against unarmored targets. Maybe you can come up with some kind of weird niche-role weapon that does it, but that's something that's better represented by a special rule (+X strength vs. armored targets, etc) for that specific weapon than by a needlessly complicated resolution system for everything else.

#FreezePeach

My DKoK painting blog.

My X-Wing painting blog.

SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD SUPERHEAVIES

Armored Company
W/L/D: 2130235/0/1 (I played myself once and had a draw) 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





Houston, TX

Armor generally just provides additional deflective or absorbing surfaces. Mass is, in real life, largely ineffective at reducing anything except minor damage, except in extreme cases. Consider that an elephant, for example, is much more massive than a human. This allows it some increased resistance to manual weaponry, especially natural weapons, but limited increased survivability to firearms other than small caliber handguns. A rifle readily inflicts fatal injury.

Vehicles are a bit different. Generally armor is designed to increase deflection or to absorb a specialized weapon, destroying itself in the process (ablative armor). The goal is to prevent injury to occupants (dead crew = disabled vehicle) and essential systems. Normal armor is generally effective up to a certain class of weapon at a given range, at which point penetration is to be expected. It's effectiveness is generally based on material quality, thickness and angle of impact. Ablative armor is generally segments that detach or are destroyed, but can stop weapons designed to pierce standard armor (HEAT rounds, etc.). A second hit in the same area is possible, but such weapons tend to be one shot, slow to reload, or not generally capable of such accuracy before the vehicle can escape or bring weapons to bear.

Of course, this goes out the window if you are going for a fantasy game. A giant bipedal lizard would actually be very vulnerable to modern weaponry, but Godzilla shrugs them off without effect. Carpet bombs that level concrete and steel buildings didn't phase the Cloverfield monster. It's pretty much the modern equivalent of myths where the beast could only be slain by a virtuous knight, blessed item, etc. rather than a bunch of guys with bladed polearms, dozens of arrows, etc. So they can be as weak or strong as you want.

-James
 
   
Made in ie
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Dublin

 Peregrine wrote:
.

That doesn't really make much sense fluff-wise. A weapon that is good at penetrating armor is usually good at it because it delivers a lot of energy to the target with each shot, which means it should be even more effective against unarmored targets. Maybe you can come up with some kind of weird niche-role weapon that does it, but that's something that's better represented by a special rule (+X strength vs. armored targets, etc) for that specific weapon than by a needlessly complicated resolution system for everything else.


I dunno about that man. Modern projectile weapons AP ammo doesn't neccessarily deliver more force than the standard round in question. It's just better shaped to do the job of piercing, or has more advanced elements, like SABOT rounds. Furthermore if the standard round were high explosive and you're replacing that with a solid kinetic weight, then it would probably do less damage to organic matter than the HE version. I admittedly only have an intermediate level of knowledge about projectile technology, but it's my understanding that AP rounds for a 5.56 rilfe aren't deadlier to an unarmoured target than standard rounds.

In terms of actual games rules, I'm trying to incorporate wounding and piercing into a single D10 roll for my own system while still allowing for armour piercing ability. Having a tough time of making it balance though -I may end up going back to a 3 phase Hit-Pierce-Wound system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/07 17:04:59


I let the dogs out 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

It isn't that armor piercing bullets do more damage or mean they are more effective, they just wouldn't necessarily get a damage reduction that normal bullets would. It isn't like armor piercing rounds are hollow tip which would do more damage against unarmored targets... but if they were hollow tip, then they usually aren't armor piercing.

In game terms and theory...

A regular round would be effective against targets with no armor. However when against a target with armor, it might reduce the damage done or may do no damage at all (depending on the armor). It would effectively do 1 damage for example purposes.
Hollow Tip would be more effective against targets with no armor. It would not normally penetrate armor, so it wouldn't do any damage against armored targets. However against an unarmored target it could do 2 damage.
Armor piercing rounds are more effective against targets with armor. It is equally as damaging to unarmored. It would do 1 point of damage.

Now that really is dependent on how you factor in armor. Do multiple successes just equal X damage, and armor just subtracts from successes? Does armor instead provide an armor save roll? Or does armor simply just reduce the amount of damage by one? Or does armor require a weapon strength of Y to deal X damage? There are various different ways to do it.

You also have to ask... does it matter? The only real reason to have different types of ammo is if they play a roll in types of units picked or if there is some cost associated with having different weapons or is it for fluff? For example something like that for fluff, lower poorer troops would have regular ammo and armor piercing would just be amongst officers or specialists. That changes how combat is done but is there something else they get to balance it out (like more units since they are cheaper)? For all extent and purposes future combat is deadly... there is no reason not to have armor piercing rounds always. It would essentially always deal damage to armored targets, while dealing damaged to unarmored.

Some examples of real world body armor based on one type of manufacturer. Soft Body Armor levels 1-3 are usually for protection against handguns. Level 2 protects again 9mm and .40 S&W,. Level 3 has protection against .44 magnum jacketed hollow point. Soft body armor can be worn underneath clothes. Hard body armor utilizes steel, titanium or ceramic plates, however level 3 can protect against 7.62 full metal jacket bullets or M80 bullets. Level 4 can protect against .30 caliber but not against armor piercing. So in a real world situation... one would normally arm themselves with the highest level of weapons/ammo that would penetrate most armors. There would be no reason not too (when cost, availability isn't a factor).

 
   
Made in ie
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Dublin

 Dark Severance wrote:
A regular round would be effective against targets with no armor. However when against a target with armor, it might reduce the damage done or may do no damage at all (depending on the armor). It would effectively do 1 damage for example purposes.
Hollow Tip would be more effective against targets with no armor. It would not normally penetrate armor, so it wouldn't do any damage against armored targets. However against an unarmored target it could do 2 damage.
Armor piercing rounds are more effective against targets with armor. It is equally as damaging to unarmored. It would do 1 point of damage.


Very well put, spot on about the armour ratings too.

I certainly wouldn't be advocating having all those common ammo types to factor into a battle rule set. Skirmish, yes, infinity does it fine. Perhaps as you've said, limiting special ammo to elites and characters. It would just bog the game down too much if every squad had multiple ammo types.

What I do think is important is giving guns piercing and damage values that correspond to units armour and toughness respectively. It allows for a interesting and fun diversity in weapons and units while also appeasing those who want some semblence of authenticity.

I let the dogs out 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

It may very well be appropriate to have fine-grained ammunition in the game, distinguishing Ball from JHP, and further distinguishing +P and +P+ loads. The game might also distinguish a 4" barrel from a 5" barrel, and capture the a variable misfire rate based on the ammunition, base firearm, and gunsmithing associated. Further, those misfires should be properly categorized to track stovepipe vs misfeed vs squib. The OP just needs enough granularity in the to-hit, to-wound system; sequential d1000 rolls and tables might be appropriate for such granularity.

OTOH, if the game is a simple d6 vs target system, then such detail might be ignored entirely.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It may very well be appropriate to have fine-grained ammunition in the game, distinguishing Ball from JHP, and further distinguishing +P and +P+ loads. The game might also distinguish a 4" barrel from a 5" barrel, and capture the a variable misfire rate based on the ammunition, base firearm, and gunsmithing associated. Further, those misfires should be properly categorized to track stovepipe vs misfeed vs squib. The OP just needs enough granularity in the to-hit, to-wound system; sequential d1000 rolls and tables might be appropriate for such granularity.

OTOH, if the game is a simple d6 vs target system, then such detail might be ignored entirely.


This is well beyond the level of detail I'm ready for at this point. I'm looking to establish a broad brush skirmish system that can handle spears and bows as well as lasers and energy shields, sometimes against one another.

The earlier comments were fair, I did need to ponder a bit more about what the attack and defense types were. Thank you for that feedback, it has helped.

My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 HurricaneGirl wrote:
I'm looking to establish a broad brush skirmish system that can handle spears and bows as well as lasers and energy shields, sometimes against one another.


This is an impossible goal. Those things are just way too different for any single set of rules to handle them appropriately, and it makes no sense fluff-wise for spears and bows to be anything but a one-sided slaughter (where you don't even need to bother rolling dice) against the lasers and energy shields. At this point you're no longer talking about combat mechanics, you're talking about making an abstract rock/paper/scissors style game and then adding some pretty pictures of swords and lasers to the rulebook.

#FreezePeach

My DKoK painting blog.

My X-Wing painting blog.

SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD SUPERHEAVIES

Armored Company
W/L/D: 2130235/0/1 (I played myself once and had a draw) 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

And cards, don't forget cards.

I appreciate your opinion, but "never tell me the odds".

As a woman, I've heard "impossible" far too often, but I'll accept this as further encouragement. Thank you again.


My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 HurricaneGirl wrote:
As a woman, I've heard "impossible" far too often, but I'll accept this as further encouragement. Thank you again.
It isn't that it is impossible, it isn't that hard to do. The issue is when you have bows/spears vs laser guns, why would anyone ever pick bows/spears?

As a quick example. Let's say bows/spears are cheap 1pt and laser guns are 100pts. Sure someone can field 100 vs 1 unit. But is it feasible to say that everyone 100 people armed with bows/spears could damage the armor plates on M1-Tank?

It could be feasible that bows/spears could damage a human in light armor, even kevlar medium armor because often not every part of their body is covered so it isn't going through their armor. However in a world of laser guns, we enter full bodysuits or powerarmor. For every unit with bows they would fail to wound 9 out of 10 times, but the laser units technically would kill 10 out of 10 because there is no protection against the lasers. There is no way you going to convince someone that bows are more accurate than a laser either.

It could be said bows/spears have a special arrow tip that penetrates armor, making them effective against armored units. But they still suffer being venerable to laser fire. That is why most fantasy style games bring in magic. Magic tends to be the way to make less advanced civilizations effective against advanced civilizations. Sure most of the army is bows/spears but with a few magic casters they are as devastating as tanks. But they still suffer venerable.

The end result is a meta of "which is the best" rock to take, that tends to be what people pick. That is a rough example there are different ways to do it but ultimately that is what becomes the obstacle. Why take swords, bows, spears against someone armed with modern or future tech weapons?

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




CL VI Store in Braggistan

 Dark Severance wrote:
 HurricaneGirl wrote:
As a woman, I've heard "impossible" far too often, but I'll accept this as further encouragement. Thank you again.
It isn't that it is impossible, it isn't that hard to do. The issue is when you have bows/spears vs laser guns, why would anyone ever pick bows/spears?

As a quick example. Let's say bows/spears are cheap 1pt and laser guns are 100pts. Sure someone can field 100 vs 1 unit. But is it feasible to say that everyone 100 people armed with bows/spears could damage the armor plates on M1-Tank?

It could be feasible that bows/spears could damage a human in light armor, even kevlar medium armor because often not every part of their body is covered so it isn't going through their armor. However in a world of laser guns, we enter full bodysuits or powerarmor. For every unit with bows they would fail to wound 9 out of 10 times, but the laser units technically would kill 10 out of 10 because there is no protection against the lasers. There is no way you going to convince someone that bows are more accurate than a laser either.

It could be said bows/spears have a special arrow tip that penetrates armor, making them effective against armored units. But they still suffer being venerable to laser fire. That is why most fantasy style games bring in magic. Magic tends to be the way to make less advanced civilizations effective against advanced civilizations. Sure most of the army is bows/spears but with a few magic casters they are as devastating as tanks. But they still suffer venerable.

The end result is a meta of "which is the best" rock to take, that tends to be what people pick. That is a rough example there are different ways to do it but ultimately that is what becomes the obstacle. Why take swords, bows, spears against someone armed with modern or future tech weapons?


I think Rorke's Drift is a good example of why bringing spears to a gun fight is a bad idea. Even at Isandlwana the Zulus lost about as many as the British did, after vastly outnumbering them and the Brits making many errors.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

I never suggested that it was a good idea, but the fact that you guys make an argument about it is proof that there's an opening for a system that could allow for that possibility, as extreme as it is.

As to who would take spears? How about those Zulus? Were their laser rifles low on charge or something? Did the polish ride horses against tanks because they thought it would a funny tale later? Was Chief Gall afraid to take bows, rifles and tomahawks against Gatling guns?

Sometimes that's all you got. Sometimes it works out.

My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




CL VI Store in Braggistan

 HurricaneGirl wrote:
I never suggested that it was a good idea, but the fact that you guys make an argument about it is proof that there's an opening for a system that could allow for that possibility, as extreme as it is.

As to who would take spears? How about those Zulus? Were their laser rifles low on charge or something? Did the polish ride horses against tanks because they thought it would a funny tale later? Was Chief Gall afraid to take bows, rifles and tomahawks against Gatling guns?

Sometimes that's all you got. Sometimes it works out.


I can't think of any examples where it works out.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





Houston, TX

Yeah, there is a reason why humans continue to develop technology. Otherwise, bone tools would suffice. In a game where it is spear v. laser, you basically have 2 ways to handle it:

1) Realistically- one sided slaughter. Not very fun from a gaming view

2) Gamey- Use an arbitrary balance mechanism (points, weapon allowance, etc.) or just go with the rule of cool and use more abstract or pulpy ratings. So ripped, tattooed spearman can potentially dodge those pesky lasers, stealth around, etc. until he skewers those spacey weaklings!

-James
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

Guys, I think it is the OP's prerogative to make a game of spears and knives against lasguns and tanks, if that's what she wants to do. If you can't help her, then bagging on her idea is exceedingly uncool.

Fact is, we have games with infantry armed with sticks against power armored knights armed with ridiculous overkilly guns. Giving that guy a knife or spear doesn't change things that much.

And quite frankly, if I'm Moro in the midst of barenecked Marines armed with peashooters, my machete wins 9 times out of 10. That is, the correct result should be 9 dead Marines for every hopped up Muslim with a machete. Now, if you advance the clock to leather collars and .45s, that's a very different result.

Same thing with resistance fighters with a single-shot stamped steel pistol against a Nazi with a SMG. 50-50 odds to put a bullet in the brainpan at point blank range before taking the MP.

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

I wasn't bagging on her idea. Anyone is welcome to make any game or idea they want but there are going to be obstacles, some are greater than others. I was trying to explain where the difficulty of the abstractness that comes with wargames comes into play. For an RPG it is less an issue because when does someone with a knife kill a tank? When they are outside the tank and not piloting it, but for a wargame it is a bit different. Maybe that is one option, there are "strategy cards" that are used to eliminate units, basically allows them to make an attack roll but technically it is to resolve what happened the night before. They snuck into camp, killed the pilot before, there is a chance for failure and there are limited card sets but it takes the RPG path for overcompensating for extreme differences.

Again it isn't a matter of if it can happen. It can be done. The main issue though is why play one unit when another is clearly above leaps and bounds. I realize the target is actually someone like me. I don't pick units because of min/max, but I tend to pick them because I like the look of a unit. However what determines if I play a game or I simply collect/paint the miniature, tends to be if that unit is a viable unit.

Another way to explain it in TCG terms. My wife loves Blood Elfs, so when we played the WoW TCG she wanted a deck themed with Blood Elfs. The problem was although it could be done, it just wasn't effective to play. They lost to other more powerful cards very easily. The end result was she'd collect some cards but never play the game because there wasn't a viable path, despite having the option to do it.

 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

But would those ragtag infantry only have pocket knives? Or would they also have IEDs from unexploded ordnance? Would they have a benefactor providing them with MANPADs and "observers"?

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





Houston, TX

If you don't like critiques and comments, a public forum is probably not the place to go. White knighting isn't necessary as no one is shutting down the conversation, just pointing to considerations the design brings. Even Peregrines' comment pointed out why he thought conceptually the suggestion didn't work. As I pointed out, a pulpy game wouldn't suffer from a design where knife can match death ray. But, if sides are clearly mismatched, there has to be something to bring parity or it becomes a rather unfun curb stomp.

One of the examples you give are much closer in tech levels than laser v. spear- pistol vs. smg, for example, both involve firearms. As to the Moro Rebellion, perhaps review the Battle of Bayang where fortified Moros lost 300-400 to the Americans 10 despite artillery being largely ineffective and the battle descending to hand to hand combat. So the ratio was closer to 30-40 dead Moros per Marine killed. Even their early ambushes on unprepared soldiers only inflicted 2 deaths.

There is a reason superior military forces are deemed superior.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/20 22:37:40


-James
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But would those ragtag infantry only have pocket knives? Or would they also have IEDs from unexploded ordnance? Would they have a benefactor providing them with MANPADs and "observers"?
I perceived the statement of "broad brush skirmish system that can handle spears and bows as well as lasers and energy shield" as meaning different era's of tech levels between forces. So if someone wants to play High Elves mounted on horses, armed with spears and bows they could play against another player who is Future World Humans with power armor and lasers. So the medieval knights wouldn't have IEDs or have knowledge of how to use a modern rocket launcher.

Now maybe I misunderstood and that is completely possible. So maybe it could be a world like the anime/manga Drifters were there are people from different time periods. Maybe the medieval forces have knowledge of modern weapons or were taught and could purchase them as upgraded equipment. In which case access to manufacturing is limited, which means weapon recharge or ammo is limited thus giving medieval weapons a bit more advantage in terms of more shots, while future world weapons were used sparingly. That is also another way to balance the system.

Again the obstacle is that it develops a certain meta into the army building from the start. Not that there is anything wrong with making a game that appeals to casual gamers who love to do thematic type forces and armies. Competitive gamers though will quickly figure out the min/max which tends to break these type of systems because again, why bring a gun to a knife battle.

Another way to combat the balance would be to eliminate range. Instead of a game taking place in a 4'x4' or 4'x6' game table, it takes place over a smaller section like a 2'x2'. It eliminates the main advantage of future weapons over medieval weapons, which is range. Then it is about cover, line of sight, maneuvering to get into effective range into a brawl manner. So ranged weapons are deadly but less accurate, while medieval weapons are still deadly and more precise.

 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

OP should clarify her vision for the game, rather than everybody jumping in with unfounded assumptions.

If her game is a 1:1:1 game for 28mm figures, then the standard 2 foot separation on the tabletop is only 15 meters IRL. Given Infinity-levels of cover coupled with Deep Strike / Outflank / Infiltrate / Scout movement, and an initiative-driven activation system, a juramentado is a very serious threat on the tabletop. Even to an present-day US Marine, as we've stopped issuing the leather collar.

Or, rehome it to the favelas overlooking Rio. Sure, you can drive an armored car into the street, sort of. But you won't take any objectives, unless you get out. And you won't get very far, unless you go directly under open windows.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/20 23:21:01


-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Devastating Dark Reaper





Biloxi, MS

OP wasn't interested in sharing her vision at first, and at this point have my reservations. I was just looking for feedback on breaking down skirmish combat to some basics in order to build back up from there. I got feedback more or less (most of which didn't read the OP, fewer still that followed the link), from the community here and have taken it to consideration. The system has already evolved from what has been discussed above, so most of these arguments are frivolous.

For those who are willing to follow along;

I'm planning on keeping it to a 3x3' or 4x4' table. Terrain will be average - plentiful. I've not addressed terrain placement rules yet.

Army building is in a state currently that may eliminate the Min/Maxers, but it needs testing for competitive play.

I seriously doubt that there will be games that will be so outbalanced as to see spears v lasers, but I didn't want to rule it out. Most factions will be Tech Level 4-6 I believe.

My Dolls:
Current: Iybraesil: 9200
Current/Ongoing: : 2500
Current/Ongoing: 4000
Uprising:
Founder http://www.theWarDolls.com
 
   
Made in us
Slicing Orb of Xandros






SoCal, USA!

OK, though I find that sharing the vision helps people place things into context. It's also helpful to declare what sort of problem you're trying to solve. Your initial post and link appear to be the same thing, and I'm not entirely sure what you expected in terms of feedback. If you have a newer edition, it would be nice if you share it as a single collected document or statement, so that people could see the cohesive total, and work from that.

Size-wise, there's a very big difference:
* 3x3' easily plays on common kitchen table (3'x5'),
* 4x4' requires a dedicated gaming table (4'x6').

-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Knights Sovereign SM
-- 2k Pale Templars CSM
-- 2k Ordo Lucifer =I=
-- 1k Sisters SoB
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 HurricaneGirl wrote:
As to who would take spears? How about those Zulus? Were their laser rifles low on charge or something?


They took spears because they had no choice, they didn't have anything better. And they were slaughtered in mass numbers despite having outnumbering their enemies by a huge margin. Unlike a real-world army a player has free choice of what force to pick, and isn't forced to pick the "commit suicide with spears against laser rifles" faction.

Did the polish ride horses against tanks because they thought it would a funny tale later?


They didn't ride horses against tanks, that's a myth. The actual battle involved a cavalry charge against infantry (which the Polish cavalry won, before being driven off by reinforcements), the tanks only arrived later to pose for propaganda photographs. Against tanks their strategy was to use the horses for mobility to get into position to deploy conventional anti-tank weapons just like any other infantry unit attacking tanks. At no point did anyone actually charge a tank with a sword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 HurricaneGirl wrote:
Army building is in a state currently that may eliminate the Min/Maxers


Nope. It is impossible to eliminate min/maxers in any system that allows players to choose their forces. People will always do the math and pick the optimal choices. The goal you should have is to minimize their potential to ruin the game for their opponents through careful fine-tuning of balance (something that you can't possibly be doing this early in development), not by thinking that you can design a system that eliminates them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 HurricaneGirl wrote:
I seriously doubt that there will be games that will be so outbalanced as to see spears v lasers, but I didn't want to rule it out.


This is bad design. If you do not expect games to include spears vs. lasers then including rules for it is pointless complexity bloat. Rule it out and simplify the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/22 10:14:26


#FreezePeach

My DKoK painting blog.

My X-Wing painting blog.

SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD SUPERHEAVIES

Armored Company
W/L/D: 2130235/0/1 (I played myself once and had a draw) 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: