Switch Theme:

Thinking Aloud - Explosions!  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

I hope folks are enjoying my discussion topics. I make no secret of the fact that they emerge from my own game development work, so it shouldn't be all that surprising to see the question of smoke turn into parabolic fire and then to be followed by explosions: they're all closely related topics in that they are often proximate events in the course of the typical game.

Explosions, of course, can come from lots of sources: direct weapons, indirect weapons, booby traps, mines, falling comets...

Like smoke, the traditional - and perhaps simplest (although you be the judge) - solution has been to use a template or templates. Those wholly or partially covered by the template are wholly or partially affected by the explosion. Sometimes an extra layer of nastiness is reserved for a target that falls directly under the impact (centre) point of the template.

Unlike smoke, explosions aren't persistent and are, at least on open ground, much more truly circular. So a template solution seems far more logical. But what other options might exist?

First off, unlike most direct-fire weapons, an explosion can potentially target empty space whilst being more effective than were it to target a specific enemy. Should this have any impact (no pun intended) on the difficulty of the shot?

Second, real explosions are scary things that cause damage through a range of effects: shrapnel, heat, blast and shock are all outcomes of a munitions explosion, with slightly different effects on those affected by them, not to mention the psychological effects of proximity to a large explosion. It'll come as no surprise that I like a more graduated approach to explosive damage from total annihilation at an explosion's centre, through major damage to those close to it, minor damage to those further away, and stunning damage to those in the blast radius who aren't otherwise affected.

Third, real munitions explosions affect their environment as much as their flesh targets, but this is rarely reflected in game play. What examples are there of dynamic explosive effects on terrain and are these adequate? Is it reasonable (or sensible) to try for dynamic terrain or is this just making the game too complicated?

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 precinctomega wrote:
First off, unlike most direct-fire weapons, an explosion can potentially target empty space whilst being more effective than were it to target a specific enemy. Should this have any impact (no pun intended) on the difficulty of the shot?
It would naturally be harder, although the other side of that is that many games don't make it easier to hit a single target with AOE weapons. (Despite the fact that if you have a grenade with an X metre kill radius, you only need to be accurate to within X metres, not a direct hit).

Second, real explosions are scary things that cause damage through a range of effects: shrapnel, heat, blast and shock are all outcomes of a munitions explosion, with slightly different effects on those affected by them, not to mention the psychological effects of proximity to a large explosion.
An injury system that could track all those things differently would be abnormally detailed, and you'd probably find yourself implementing things like overpressure damage solely for the purposes of explosion effects. (Possibly also shrapnel damage, as shrapnel is also otherwise uncommon and not really the same as bullets in terms of physiological effect).

I'm certainly behind scaling damage the further from the point of impact, but as far as different types of damage exactly how would you differentiate between them?

Third, real munitions explosions affect their environment as much as their flesh targets, but this is rarely reflected in game play. What examples are there of dynamic explosive effects on terrain and are these adequate? Is it reasonable (or sensible) to try for dynamic terrain or is this just making the game too complicated?
My inclination would be that it is often too complicated - when rulesets have it, I often see it as optional rules that generally get ignored.

That said, if players specifically want to target terrain, it is interesting when it allows them to take indirect approaches to problems (collapsing buildings on top of enemies, taking shortcuts through walls, etc) but I wouldn't have dynamic terrain unless the players are deliberately trying to do it; it could be quite time consuming to have to work out how much of the front of a building has collapsed, despite the fact that no-one is going to be in that building again all game.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Not really thinking of tracking vastly different types of damage. Perhaps an RPG could do that, but I'm not designing one of those (yet!). But you could still have scaling damage, so those closer to the detonation point suffer more damage than those further away. And if you have morale rules or psych damage - like being stunned, for example - then you could add that to your explosive effects.

Thinking about property damage for a second, though, you sparked an idea. You're right that the soldiers themselves probably don't care too much about property damage. But an embedded journalist or local CIVPOP might!

Using explosive weapons that damage civil infrastructure could have a campaign effect that impedes reputation or advancement...

Hm...

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 precinctomega wrote:
Thinking about property damage for a second, though, you sparked an idea. You're right that the soldiers themselves probably don't care too much about property damage. But an embedded journalist or local CIVPOP might!
A "Hearts and Minds" mechanic could be an interesting one. I have occasionally explored it in roleplay stories, where players can militarily defeat the enemy relatively easily, but in doing so risk harming their overall objective.

I do know there are some wargames that do that (where military victories and political victories are not the same), but I can't immediately remember which games they are.

Infinity does list a load of weapons as "breaching the Concilium Convention", but doesn't really do anything with that. (Or at least it didn't when I last played. I lost my motivation for Infinity after several profile changes either invalidated or completely changed the rules and background for some miniatures I'd put huge effort into converting, which is about the fastest way to get me to lose interest in a game. I may go back, but frankly I'm almost growing to consider a game going out of support as a good thing).

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Well, you know you can use those miniatures in Zero Dark, right?



And it's Ambush Alley's Force on Force that has asymmetric objectives between Allied and militia forces, with their own rather cool rules for embedded journalists.

R.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

Hitting an enemy or empty space is irrelevant for artillery. The guns fire at map co-ordinates sent in via an observer and therefore one is the same as the other. I don't think that needs any specific game mechanic, other than usually one or two rounds would be fired to get the exact fall of shot right followed by enough rounds to destroy the target (s). The speed at which the process happens is usually determined by the skill of the observer, not the guns.

Environmental factors you could consider are on soft muddy ground shells go deeper into the ground if fuzed for ground impact , therefore the blast radius is less than normal. On hard concrete or baked desert the shell will not penetrate the ground hardly at all , and the blast radius will be slightly larger than normal.
The amount of dust thrown up on dry desert or an urban environment would be similar to if smoke was used as well.
Of course , if the shells were fuzed to airburst, such as when used against infantry , then that wouldn't be a consideration !

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 precinctomega wrote:
Well, you know you can use those miniatures in Zero Dark, right?
I may well do so, particularly if I can talk anyone else at my club into ZD. I do generally go mostly for flexible and miniatures-agnostic rulesets these days (I also took a shine to the Open Combat rules that Gav was demoing at Salute).

Ambush Alley's Force on Force
Yeah, that sounds about right. I've not played it myself, but it is an interesting idea.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Yeah, sorry I missed you at Salute. I must have sat down for a game with Gav just after you. I like Open Combat, but still recoil a bit from £30 for the book. I might have to see if I can find it second hand at the bring and buy at UKGE.

I've not played Force on Force, but have played Tomorrow's War, based on the same rules. It's a very under-rated system, although it's initial release suffered badly from the lack of an adequate balancing (points) system.

Ooh, we could definitely do with a discussion on points values and balancing systems on this sub-forum...

Environmental factors you could consider are on soft muddy ground shells go deeper into the ground if fuzed for ground impact , therefore the blast radius is less than normal. On hard concrete or baked desert the shell will not penetrate the ground hardly at all , and the blast radius will be slightly larger than normal.


That's the sort of thing I'm talking about! I figured that, rather than have to categorize every inch of the table, you'd do that on a randomized basis to establish the exact blast radius on impact. Currently, ZD has a default blast radius that can get larger for a particularly good shot although, being a skirmish game, artillery doesn't really come into it.

The amount of dust thrown up on dry desert or an urban environment would be similar to if smoke was used as well.


Ooh, good point!

Of course , if the shells were fuzed to airburst, such as when used against infantry , then that wouldn't be a consideration !


Even better point!

Thanks, guys. I love this sub-forum: so much good thinking and imagination.

   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 precinctomega wrote:
Yeah, sorry I missed you at Salute. I must have sat down for a game with Gav just after you. I like Open Combat, but still recoil a bit from £30 for the book.
I can understand it when it's a game that gets no subsidy from miniatures sales and it's a small company that doesn't get bulk discount deals on printing. That said, as it was the end of the day by the time I found the time to come back for a proper demo and my wallet was already fairly empty by the time I decided I liked it, I opted for the (rather cheaper) digital edition.

Ooh, we could definitely do with a discussion on points values and balancing systems on this sub-forum...
That could be a very tough one. It heavily depends on the actual mechanics of the game and how different models scale against each other.

Of course , if the shells were fuzed to airburst, such as when used against infantry , then that wouldn't be a consideration !
For sci-fi settings, you can theoretically have some pretty smart munitions. Something like the modern day Bofors 3P round for example...


... shows quite some variety in the threats that can be combated and the counter measures that can be negated with smart fusing. (I'm not sure the 3P is actually in deployment, but even if not it's an interesting proof of concept).

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

Sweet, I'm not sure of the nature of game the OP is going for but how about Dual purpose shells ( High Explosive with a small anti armour effect) and with a "hive" of deployable drones that heat seek personnel or Electro magnetic pulse technology ???

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 precinctomega wrote:
First off, unlike most direct-fire weapons, an explosion can potentially target empty space whilst being more effective than were it to target a specific enemy. Should this have any impact (no pun intended) on the difficulty of the shot?


This "even a shot that hits empty ground can still kill" factor is well represented by the template mechanic, where even a "miss" can still hit something. I don't think you really need more than just a rule permitting you to center the template over empty space (instead of 40k's requirement to center over a model) to represent this kind of shot.

Second, real explosions are scary things that cause damage through a range of effects: shrapnel, heat, blast and shock are all outcomes of a munitions explosion, with slightly different effects on those affected by them, not to mention the psychological effects of proximity to a large explosion. It'll come as no surprise that I like a more graduated approach to explosive damage from total annihilation at an explosion's centre, through major damage to those close to it, minor damage to those further away, and stunning damage to those in the blast radius who aren't otherwise affected.


This is probably way too much detail for a game. Yeah, in theory there could be differences in damage types, but do you really gain much from representing them individually instead of making the approximation that a model within the shrapnel radius is also within the heat and blast radius, and any kills are produced by the appropriate component? Remember, a target that is too durable to be damaged by a particular component (for example, a tank against the shrapnel from a frag grenade) can already be represented by strength values for the weapon as a whole. For example, older editions of 40k had blast weapons roll at half strength against vehicles that weren't under the center hole, representing a direct hit being a threat while the wider shrapnel range being too weak to penetrate armor.

Third, real munitions explosions affect their environment as much as their flesh targets, but this is rarely reflected in game play. What examples are there of dynamic explosive effects on terrain and are these adequate? Is it reasonable (or sensible) to try for dynamic terrain or is this just making the game too complicated?


The problem with dynamic terrain is that it doesn't interact well with the terrain models on the table. Few people model terrain that can be broken down into components to represent damage appropriately, so even if the terrain isn't permanently installed on the table you're limited to a binary intact/destroyed mechanic that doesn't allow for turning buildings into ruins (or ruins into smaller ruins). To allow partial destruction you'd have to completely abandon any mechanic (such as TLOS) that depends on the model being an accurate representation, and you'd introduce a huge problem with remembering damage. Things like "the south wall is now 50% of its height, and the east wall now has a vehicle-sized hole in it but is still standing" are difficult to keep track of when you're looking at a model of a completely intact building on the table. And the reward seems to be limited, compared to the much simpler approximation of just assuming that any damage to terrain from explosions is limited enough that it doesn't require changes from a rules point of view. IOW, sure, your explosion ruined that building pretty thoroughly, but the burned-out shell still blocks LOS through it. Any edge cases where you really need to destroy or damage terrain through game mechanics are probably best represented by scenario-specific rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/26 21:29:52


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: