Close Combat mechanics

This is for topics that are out of date.

should models attack simultaneously or only during their own activation?

simultaneously
8
53%
only during own activation
7
47%
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by slaughtergames » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:33 am

so what would be the advantage of NOT countering? I don't understand....

otherwise i like the idea

and i DO think that there should be a separate mechanic for melee. we have to ATLEAST take into account the defenders CC skill. that would only be logical and fair. and earlier you said CC skill would make it easier to balance.

AND...
IMO shooting is done more like: *guys hugs cover* *guy jumps up and shoots a burst of fire* *guy darts back in cover* which explains why shooting happens in separate phases.

and to the contrary melee is more like: *run in & hit somebody* *he tries to fend it of and also attacks you* *you hit him again* *but you miss since he already punches you in the face at that very moment* and so on... do you feel the way i see it? combat is more fast and deadly and FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE

(i used the word you, but i mean no offence)
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

DacoTrilar
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by DacoTrilar » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:19 am

slaughtergames wrote:so what would be the advantage of NOT countering? I don't understand....
Just to quickly answer this, if the defending unit doesn't counter then it could move away and shoot during its activation. This would make sense if the unit charging had really no chance of hurting the defending unit and there were better targets for the defending you to focus on.

How about instead of going through all of these loops we simply go with this rule:

***IMPORTANT PART***

If unit A charges unit B and unit B has not activated yet; then after unit A has finished its activation, unit B must activate. If unit B has already activated, then it does not get a chance to fight back this round. For the sake of argument, I'll use the following combat system for an attack where unit X attacks unit Y:
1) # of Hits = # of models in unit X + 2d6 + unit X Combat Skill - unit Y Defense - unit Y Combat Skill
2) roll dice equal to # of Hits * unit X Combat Skill: number needed to kill a model is equal to unit Y armor - unit X strength.

***END OF IMPORTANT PART***

This system is pretty much identical to shooting (where Shooting Skill & Rate of Fire = Combat Skill, however I also added a "-unit Y Combat Skill" to take into account the defender's skill).

Here's a little example:

Example 1)

Player 1 has unit A and Player 2 has unit B. Neither has activated this turn.

Player 1 activates unit A: unit A charges unit B and deals combat damage

Now it is Player 2's turn, since unit B was charged and hadn't activated this turn, Player 2 activates unit B: unit B runs a short distance away from unit A and shoots unit C which is on an objective.
(Note 1: if unit B had already activated this turn, it would be stuck in combat and be unable to fight back until the next turn. This represents a unit which is not ready for a charge.)
(Note 2: I think we should allow units to voluntarily escape from combat and I don't think you should be able to shoot while in Base-to-Base with an enemy model)

Now it is Player 1's turn to activate a unit...continue the turn...

End of Example...

Final Note:
I don't think that we need to force simultaneous combat during the turns after a charge, nor handle initiatives between the units. This is already handled by the alternating activations between the players. If Player 1 spends an activation to "win initiative" then his unit deserves to attack before Player 2's unit. Otherwise, there would be no benefit to activating a unit in close combat over another unit.

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by slaughtergames » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:24 am

you know what, that makes sense! it's perfectly logical and i agree with you. one should not be stuck in combat and fight on it's own activation.
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by Wiouds » Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:26 pm

So we replace cover in the range with the squad cc skill?

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:36 pm

@wiouds - I wrote a couple of sentences and you read a novel, please don't put words in my mouth. And there is a lot of difference between CC and Ranged combat. The simplest being "weapon type". I was just saying that there are significant differences so why say that a different mechanic is absurd? Again, not saying there has to be a different mechanic, only that it is an option that should be explored.

To the general topic that is leaning away from both sides fighting in one CC activation. I don't agree. But the arguments have been laid and I'm not gonna push it.

DacoTrilar
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by DacoTrilar » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:44 pm

CptYellow wrote:To the general topic that is leaning away from both sides fighting in one CC activation. I don't agree. But the arguments have been laid and I'm not gonna push it.
Could you outline exactly how simultaneous combat differs from having the defending unit activate immediately in response to the charge? I think you have some useful insight and a clear list of complaints would help clarify things for me. At the very least, it should organize all of your arguments in one place.

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by slaughtergames » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:33 pm

the thing is, that if a unit didn't activate yet that turn, they can either choose to immediately activate, and has fight, but does so simultaneously. alternatively it can choose to wait for it's regular activation, and have the option to disengage. if it already activated, it does nothing for the rest of the turn as normal.

this leaves both options free. we already kinda decided on this right?

and i think that there should be a way to resolve CC... but it shouldn't purely be about the kills, like in 40k, but i'm not sure what else we DO have to take into account...
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:13 pm

wow, just typed up a large in depth response to Dracotrilar and then hit post and had my login timeout... grrrrr. I'll type it up in word and repost later tonight.

If one charges into close combat with an enemy, then they open themselves up to an IMMEDIATE and simultaneous response from those they attack. This is NOT avoidable, so why are we saying it is? For ease of play? No, it's not any easier than just fighting it straight away. For speed of play? No, it's not quicker, in fact it's slower. For excitement value? No, it's not more exciting, it's actually kinda boring since it's the exact same as everything else in the game. So, tell me why. I'm not being rude, I'm not mocking, I asked myself these questions for real and came up with these answers. Please either give another reason, or refute my answers to these questions with logic.

Like I said, I'll type up a comprehensive explanation of my stance on this subject later tonight.

DacoTrilar
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by DacoTrilar » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:09 pm

CptYellow wrote:If one charges into close combat with an enemy, then they open themselves up to an IMMEDIATE and simultaneous response from those they attack.
So, you want units to fight at the exact same time (i.e. like two units with the same initiative in 40k)? I'll wait for the whole post, but some other questions: Do you ever want to see one unit hit before another? if so, when? Should charging give a bonus to initiative?

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by slaughtergames » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:16 am

i think that we should incorporate a form of the warhammer initiative system, but i wouldn't create a separate stat. maybe use the CC skill for that? most basic units will have that same CC skill anyway..

i think that charging should definetly give a bonus as to when models attack.
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by Wiouds » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:28 am

The problem with initiative is that the players are swapping activating their squads and that takes the place of initiative.

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by slaughtergames » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:36 am

slaughtergames wrote:the thing is, that if a unit didn't activate yet that turn, they can either choose to immediately activate, and has fight, but does so simultaneously. alternatively it can choose to wait for it's regular activation, and have the option to disengage. if it already activated, it does nothing for the rest of the turn as normal.

this leaves both options free. we already kinda decided on this right?

and i think that there should be a way to resolve CC... but it shouldn't purely be about the kills, like in 40k, but i'm not sure what else we DO have to take into account...

read this through please... the controlling player can choose to counterattack, creating the need for "initiative"
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

Wiouds
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by Wiouds » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:55 am

The charging player goes first. Then that squad phase is over then it the counterattack squad phase.

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:50 pm

Ok, didn't get a chance to type it up, but I'm working on it right now at work... I'm alone in the office, it's friday, and I'm bored = DP mechanics time :mrgreen:
DacoTrilar wrote:So, you want units to fight at the exact same time (i.e. like two units with the same initiative in 40k)? I'll wait for the whole post, but some other questions: Do you ever want to see one unit hit before another? if so, when? Should charging give a bonus to initiative?
Sorry, wording confusion here. When I say simultaneous in this thread I am most likely referring to when, in player turn/activation sense, the players each participate in the combat. I am not referring to order of attack of the units in said combat. The reason is that in the one method order of attack is irrelevent because the defender doesn't do anything, and in the other method order of attack is relevant because the defender also gets to fight. For the ease of arguing the base mechanic I will not be discussing how/what/why/where/when in regards to order of attack.

CptYellow
MiniWarGaming Regular
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:39 pm

Ok, so here is my argument/case for “Both sides get to fight in each Close Combat Round”.

First thing is to clearly define how I think the mechanic should work.
As Far as the dice mechanic goes I have no problem with using a similar mechanic to shooting. This has been discussed already in the thread and I won’t delve into it here. Where I differ from others is in the “physical “ mechanic of CC. I would very much like to see both sides fight each time CC dice are rolled. So…

Player A charges his unit X into Player B’s unit Y. (X and Y each have 5 models)

Order of attack is determined (this is not part of the discussion for the moment so I will assume X goes first because they charged and it is their turn).

X attacks Y, gets say 3 kills. Unit Y now gets to attack back and gets say 1 Kill. Score = 3 – 1 in favour of X and combat rez is determined (again not part of this discussion)

Now it is Player B’s activation and they may activate any unit available to them. When Player B chooses to activate Unit Y, which is locked in CC, the CC will be fought once more as per the steps above. The possible change would be the order of attack MAY be different depending on how that mechanic would work.

The Key here is speed, DP uses a 2D6 dice mechanic and this mechanic is inherently quick when it comes to rolling for wounds. It’s one roll of 2D6 for hits, a bit of quick math, and one roll of a mitt full of D6 for wounds and done. No defending rolls, no repeated rolling of 15 dice because you have 110 attacks. It is an extremely quick and efficient dice mechanic, so we don’t need to worry about length of time to resolve both players’ CC rolls, it is simply insubstantial. With this mechanic, CC would be fought twice per round if both units were fresh (unactivated) when the close combat was initiated. Thus in the above example, regardless of who goes first, the CC would be over and done with by the end of the round.

This is vital in my opinion. Matt has from day one set out to make DP a fast, fun, and tactical game. Having CC function as a tar pit ala WHFB 8th Edition goes against virtually everything that DP is supposed to be. I believe the focus should be to make CC fast and deadly, and fun. The above mechanic satisfies these criteria with ease.

1. FAST – both sides fighting per round of CC means more deaths per round and therefore faster resolution of CC. It also means that in most cases CC will be fought twice per Game Round as opposed to once. That = 2x speed.

2. Deadly – Using the same 2D6 mechanic as shooting will ensure it’s deadly, having both sides fight in one CC round will ensure it’s good and deadly.

3. FUN – Two words… Player Interaction. Right now DP doesn’t have much in the way of this, and every game needs it. Both sides fighting in one round of CC will ensure player interaction because the combat isn’t just watching your opponent roll and removing your casualties, it’s both players directly participating in the outcome of the battle at the same time.

I have further arguments, but this is long enough. Please respond with constructive criticism only, don’t just say you hate it because you don’t agree. Tell me why you hate it. Ask yourself if this meets the criteria that you have envisioned CC needs to meet and tell me the result. Heck, tell me the individual criteria and your view of how this meets or fails to meet them. I strongly feel that DP and its core mechanics are moving past the spitballing stage; we need to start logically developing ideas and solutions that meet the needs and feel of DP. We need to prove to Matt why a mechanic should or shouldn’t be in the game. In short we need to analyze, critique, alter, tweak, and summarize our ideas as a group, formulate them into proper proposals with backup and explanations (including the fluff behind the mechanic). We should also attempt to develop two separate ideas for each mechanic, and present Matt with a choice between them as opposed to trying to get everyone on board with one idea.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest