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.

I'm opening this topic to discuss how people like to see close combat and shooting separated, if at all. To me, I find that when a game puts CC in the same boat as shooting, it can make the game stagnate a little.

For example: In warhammer 40k, the older editions had AP on weapons (EG AP3 would ignore a 3+ save, AP4 would ignore a 4+ save) and close combat was binary - it either allowed a save or it didn't - "power Weapons" ignored saves, period.
This led to close combat being something of a separate entity from shooting - whilst your shooting attacks might bounce endlessly off a 2+ saved terminator, if you can get one guy with a power sword in to swing, you could kill 2-3 in one turn.

For me, I feel like melee combat should be higher risk, but with a higher payoff. It's a fair statement that, with the same level of technology behind them, you can inflict much more decisive injuries with a melee weapon than with a ranged one - for example, a chainsaw is probably on par with a bolt-action rifle for technology, and I would rather be shot than swung at with a chainsaw - I know which one is more likely to be survivable! Now ramp that up to a laser rifle and a sword which agitates the molecules allowing it to cut through anything, and I'd take the laser rifle.


For my skirmish game, I have decided to allow melee to feel more decisive than shooting. In my mind, shooting has an element of delay which would cause uncertainty of its outcome - even if you fire a missile at a group of people, you'll have to wait for the smoke to clear and dust to settle to see if anyone stands back up. Whereas, if a giant mech punches someone flat, then it's fair to say you know the result!

In my skirmish game, the damage mechanics are delayed, and are built around cards. The cards are typically dealt face down, to keep it a mystery as to whether the attack was effective or not - preventing people using perfectly efficient killing techniques - it's overkill or risk failure. I'm planning on having melee deal cards face-up, indicating guaranteed damage to the individuals.

This difference between melee and shooting is the trade off you can choose between - staying a safe distance for unknown results, or running up and hitting them for a more precise approach, but putting yourself in a potentially riskier position.

Mechanically, the attacks will be resolved in the same way - which keeps the game simple and easy to learn - but with cards dealt the other way up at the end.


How have you seen melee differentiated from shooting? Do you prefer that the two remain the same (IE close combat weapons are guns with 0" range) or do you like to see them separated completely? How have you designed your game for this, if you have?

It depends on the feel you want for your game.

In Men of Bronze, I also purposely made Melee more impactful than shooting. Why? Because most Greek sources emphasize the Heavy Infantry and downplay the archers/slingers. Therefore, it makes sense for the game to do likewise.

In a sci-fantasy game like 40K, it also makes sense that Close Combat is more decisive, since that is the "Heroic" nature of the game.

In a game like Force-on-Force that is trying to mimic modern warfare, it would be ridiculous to make melee better than firepower. That is not how modern combat works..... at all.

Therefore, what are you trying to recreate, and what feel is the game trying to evoke? Answer that and it will be obvious what to do next.

I think melee should be more decisive morale-wise. Shooting can get the other guys lose some men, go to ground and seek cover, but if you want to really clear them out and send them running, a determined assault is necessary.

Not sure it applies to skirmish, where morale aspect is close to non-existant.

In the melee/shooting divide, the main area where games tend to deviate in design is whether or not melee is a 'contested' roll (ala Lord of the Rings) versus a flat 'hit' roll (ala 40k/Saga/etc). Because melee is usually defined as within a much shorter 'range', one won't see the 'opposed' resolution mechanism for ranged combat as often.

Now, the other exception can be if 'assault' is not necessarily synonymous with 'melee' but also abstracts short-range firefighting, ala Epic. This scenario would allow units in a limited range-band to add resolution modifiers to the fight, representing secondary suppression/etc.

The other area where melee has a distinct difference over shooting? "Movement." Since most games assume that only one model can occupy a point in space, melee means the potential to displace a defender from their location. Whether this is due to giving ground due to shock, or more literal 'movement' abilities like throwing, tackling, ramming, etc...that really depends on the scale of the game.

 some bloke wrote:
I'm opening this topic to discuss how people like to see close combat and shooting separated, if at all. To me, I find that when a game puts CC in the same boat as shooting, it can make the game stagnate a little.

For example: In warhammer 40k, the older editions had AP on weapons (EG AP3 would ignore a 3+ save, AP4 would ignore a 4+ save) and close combat was binary - it either allowed a save or it didn't - "power Weapons" ignored saves, period.
This led to close combat being something of a separate entity from shooting - whilst your shooting attacks might bounce endlessly off a 2+ saved terminator, if you can get one guy with a power sword in to swing, you could kill 2-3 in one turn.

For me, I feel like melee combat should be higher risk, but with a higher payoff. It's a fair statement that, with the same level of technology behind them, you can inflict much more decisive injuries with a melee weapon than with a ranged one - for example, a chainsaw is probably on par with a bolt-action rifle for technology, and I would rather be shot than swung at with a chainsaw - I know which one is more likely to be survivable!

Hrm, to be realistic about it, the rifle is probably going to inflict a much more decisive injury, the chainsaw isn't going to like bone, getting cloth stuck in its teeth, etc and it's not going to to just cleanly saw through a limb it takes some time in contact to cut through something, and the edge alignment has to be good as well. A chainsaw is going to take more time and effort, and be much messier, in putting someone down than a bullet will be. A bullet out of an old school bolt action rifle like an SMLE/K98/'03/Lebel/Mosin/etc can penetrate a chest cavity, perforate multiple organs, break a couple ribs, and shatter a vertebrate, all in the blink of an eye and without caring about clothing, a chainsaw is going to require being constantly applied for a period for many seconds to accomplish the same thing, and may have issues with some material. The chainsaw is obviously more horrific, but I think the gunshot wound from a proper sized rifle round is actually going to be much more the decisive injury inflictor.

I can't really think of an existing melee weapon using modern technology that would inflict a more decisive injury than a rifle round off the top of my head. In general, even at very close ranges, combatants armed with firearms will utilize them over other options if they are able. Melee combat is only resorted to when a firearm cannot be brought to bear in extremely close quarters self defense, or when attempting to take a resisting combatant (not armed with a firearm) into custody alive. From a modern combatives perspective at least, that's where you see melee weapons and hand to hand combat engaged in, and that's how games should treat it if they're going for realism.

If they're not going for realism, then the equation changes. In 40k, melee is a form of control, in locking the movement and actions of enemy units, as much as it is combat, and that factors heavily into how it is expressed.