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This is for topics that are out of date.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

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

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by DacoTrilar » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:38 pm

@Wiouds & slaughtergames
Reading your posts, I'm pretty sure you guys are somewhat in agreement, however there are details to be worked out. It's Cpt. Yellow who has the different idea...

@CptYellow
Thank you for putting together the combat post, it's very helpful. Here are my comments on a few of your problems:
CptYellow wrote:Problem: Activation sequence is likely going to be determined by a dice roll or such at the start of each round. If Player A charges Player B and player B has already activated that round, then Player A gets to attack and Player B doesn't. Next round comes and Player A wins the activation roll off. Player A then gets to attack a second time, meanwhile Player B has yet to have a single attack and is likely wiped out.
On the one hand, Player B's unit got completely wiped out without a chance to fight back, so this must be a flaw in the game. However, I see this as Player A took advantage of an opportunity to charge a unit which was preoccupied with shooting. It seems like your biggest issue is with units who have activated already, might not have a chance to fight back before being destroyed. Here are my arguments for this kind of system:

Tactical Argument (or Gameplay Argument):
Player B activated his unit and finished its activation within melee distance of Player A's unit. Player A took advantage of an opportunity and charged Player B's unit, dealing a lot of damage a potentially killing the unit. This success could be further reinforced if Player A wins initiative next round and uses this initiative to finish off the unit.
First, look at Player B's decisions (or mistakes) in this example. Player B had his unit end its activation within charge range of Player A's unit. Assuming Player B knows how the system works, he should have realized that this might result in his unit taking up to two rounds of melee attacks before another activation. In short, it was bad positioning of the unit and Matt has already said that he wants positioning to play a large part in DP.
Second, lets look to see what Player A sacrificed to get this kill. First, his unit is now roughly in the same location as Player B's unit. If Player B was smart, this leaves Player A's unit in the fire arc of some powerful unit with the ability to destroy Player A's unit. Second, if he wants the second melee attack, he basically needs to sacrifice his initiative. When that second attack resolves, Player B will have the opportunity to counter-attack.

There is the whole fluff argument, which I think has been done to death at this point. This argument is simply showing you the interesting gameplay situation that this mechanic would create. There is also a counter point I thought of for the same time close combat, but I've got to run. The problem I have with your system right now, is that it seems completely out of place in an alternating activation game, that's just my opinion though.

That's an abridged version of my argument, let me know what you think Cpt Yellow.

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 6:50 pm

So what if during a counter attack the defender can keep "killed" squad members their attack is done? They could be wounded for the fight as well.

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

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:01 pm

@DacoTrilar - Thank you for formulating a well thought out and inteligent response to my concerns... you didn't really comment on my suggested CC mechanic though, so I will wait for that before discussing my idea more.

I both agree and disagree with your assessment of the activation problem. I do admit that your interpretation is valid, player skill and choices come into play when determining if the mechanic is flawed or not. However, there is another side to the coin, another edge to the sword, if you will. And that is that having that drastic and statisticaly probable outcome tied to CC would simply encourage players to never enter CC range of an enemy unit. The game could, and will often, degenerate into I forgo shooting in order to move out of charge range. You move up, in order to get back in charge range, but you don't want to end movement in my charge range so you hold just outside of either of our charge ranges. Next round the exact same thing happens and before we know it neither of us has done anything to actually hurt the other's forces, game ends on turns with little or no models killed.

My main concern is that we shouldn't create a core mechanic that has at its core a statistically probable outcome of being entirely unfair to one player but not the other.

I just realized while typing this that what will also occur is that sometimes it is wholly inadvisable to move because of another core mechanic, the current cover rules. So one core mechanic encourages you to hug cover, and the other takes a turn away if you stay in that cover. Individually they may seem like small problems, but together it gets exponentially bad.

There are other, better, ways IMO to give a bonus to the tactically superior player. Things like charge bonus'/modifiers based on where you charged from, what you charged through, what you charged with, who charged, etc.

The other thing is that my number 1 complaint was that activation by activation CC is 2x slower and less deadly than simultaneous CC... and this is supposed to be a fast paced and deadly game.

I believe that the slow plodding and undeadly nature of activation by activation CC is less a fit into DP than the fact that simultaneous combat isn't considered activation by activation. (although I argue that it is, but with an added twist)

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

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:33 pm

Here is a tactical situation I came up with...

All Units in the examply are equal to each other.

Unit A is in Heavy cover. There is one enemy Unit in range (Unit Z) and it's in light cover, it is in charge range.

It is Unit A's turn and Unit Z has not activated.

The tactical decision is this:

1. Charge and engage in CC knowing that if Unit Z isn't wiped out they will just break combat on their turn and let Unit A get shot to pieces by other units because they gave up their heavy cover. Unit Z will take casualties yes, but Unit A will likely get wiped out.

2. Stay in heavy cover and fire. Unit A will kill a few models of Unit Z. and maintain heavy cover. However, on Unit Z's turn a smart player would do this:

Take their damaged squad and charge Unit A. They will get to hit without being struck back, so unit sizes will come closer to even after the first round. Then hope that they win initiative next round and attack again for free, possibly ending the CC right there, most likely widdling it down to an innefective number at least. By the time Unit A gets to fight back or leave it will have been crippled.

3. Leave heavy cover and get out of charge range. This is the most likely choice, it's the safest, and the only one in which the squad that had the tactically superior positioning doesn't lose on. It also makes the game boring, as no one will ever engage, or shoot. I guess that's my main problem with a mechanic that inspires this tactic, shooting will become too dangerous to execute because you don't wanna get charged if you've shot.

Tic Tac Toe comes to mind... the player who goes first will always win unless they screw up UNLESS the player who goes second knows that age old and frustrating tactic of intentionally stalemating the game just so they don't lose. We shouldn't build a mechanic that functions this way, and i'm concerned that alternating activation CC is dangerously close to this. I will change my tune if you can come up with a way to prove otherwise.

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 9:05 pm

CptYellow wrote: Tic Tac Toe comes to mind... the player who goes first will always win...
This is why I do not like the ideal of a squad that have been activated that turn to be allowed to have a melee attack.

Let say there are two squads.
Player 1 has Squad 1A
Player 2 has Squad 2A

Let say Squad 1A has already was activated, when Squad 2A cc attack Squad 1A.

If only unactivated squads can counter attack then Squad 2A does not get counter attack by squad 1A. I can explain how this would happen fluff or in the real world.

If all squads get auto attack then Squad 2A will get attack by Squad 1A while attacking. This gives Squad 1A two attacks this turn on their own.

Now lets say that Squad 1A lives through the attack of Squad 2A what if a second squad attack Squad 1A? Should Squad 1A get a third attack that turn?

Why should CC attack have a double rate when range attack only get a single? If person is shoot at then it is natural that they would shoot back.

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 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:26 am

@cpt. yellow: counter-attack means that the two sides attack simultaneously. in EXACTLY the same manner as 40k initiative 4 vs initiative 4. any models that get killed during a counter-attack (both defenders and attackers) will still get to attack. sorry if i failed to explain this clearly earlier on.

@cpt. yellow: tic tac toe? i don't think so. in the second round of combat, if the defending unit hadn't yet activated, the defenders can counter-attack AGAIN. this means that the defenders will always ALWAYS ALWAYS get to attack in a second round of combat. and let's say the unit, that was called the "defenders" last round, activates first (because of the turn initiative roll-off) the "attackers" now have to choose whether they counter-attack or not.



and, notice how we are using words as "charge range". we don't even know how far that is yet. and, you forget that units can shoot TWICE every turn, IF they use command points!! maybe charging is not a standard action, and therefor requires a command point to be spent. you could also shoot, and then move away. or shoot, and charge after that. or shoot, throw 'nades. or run away, run again.

please don't forget command points.

and we have to create some form of combat res.. or should i start a new topic about that? combats wouldn't always go on until everybody's dead.

go here and have look (and thought) at melee res.
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 22&t=66780

and, now having mentioned command points, we could have counter-attack cost a CP for a unit that has already activated.
"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 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:43 am

@CptYellow: Alright, here's my thoughts on your combat system, after thinking about what you said about stalemating.
CptYellow wrote:Ok, so here is my argument/case for “Both sides get to fight in each Close Combat Round”.

Edited out CptYellow's combat, refer to above post

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.

So, I have a minor complaint with how you are calculating this. If you have combat happen twice per turn, wouldn't that also extend the length of the turn by one round of combat? You're essentially having close combat resolve twice as fast as shooting would, from what I can tell anyway. So, isn't this speed just relative to shooting? Think about it and get back to me

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.

See what I wrote above, you're causing more deaths per round by extending the length of the round. You could argue that close combat attacks are faster to resolve then shooting, since you only have one potential target. Let me know what you think of this counter argument.

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.

I agree that the 2d6 mechanic from shooting is extremely deadly and should be used. I figure a charging unit will usually wipe out most of the defenders if the units are equal. I believe we agree here, let me know if I'm mistaken.

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 think your thinking of Warhammer when you posted this and I'll explain why. Dark Potential doesn't have any interaction during activations, right now anyway, however I see the alternating activation system include a ton of interaction. During your activations, you're the only one moving and attacking, but that's only one unit. Once that unit finishes, your opponent immediately gets to do something, since it's their turn to activate a unit.
My comments are in blue

A couple of comments and complaints:

1) The reason I didn't had a gut reaction to dislike this simultaneous combat was that it seemed to throw off the alternating activations.
[Player A activates a unit, charges and does some damage. Now Player B responds with a counter attack. Now Player B activates another unit.]
Normally the activations go (A,B,A,B,...), however combat adds another B into the activation order. I'm a bit worried that it'll cause people who are rushing a bit to skip over one of Player B's activations. This is a pretty minor issue, but it has been bugging me.

2) So, you didn't go into how initiative is determined, but lets assume its a system similar to 40k, where one unit always goes before the other no matter which one activated. So, lets look at this situation:
[Player A's unit charges Player B's unit and does very little damage. Player B's unit also does very little damage on the counterattack, so the two are stuck in combat. Lets say that Player B's unit had already activated, so the new round starts with the two units in combat.]
Now, where is the incentive for either Player A or Player B to start combat? Lets say Player A's unit has higher initiative, so if Player A were to activate the unit then he could very well finish off Player B's unit. However, then he's just used up his combat action and can only move a little bit. On the other hand, if Player B activates combat, then there is a good chance he just wasted an activation to kill off his unit. Worse than that, now Player A's unit has his full turn to charge another unit. I think the result would be that under most circumstances, close combat activations would always happen last. It's not a tactical choice on the part of the Players, it's just what is hands down the best choice based on the rules. Let me know what you think about this issue.

3) I'm very glad that you brought up the idea of activation based combat leading to potential stalemates. It's an issue I didn't really think of, so it's good to think of. Here are some comments I have on your problem: First, if the game has some objectives to complete, then if one player retreats away from combat then the other player takes the objective. Second, the only situation I could see this happening is when a really good close-combat unit started the turn within charge range of a ranged unit and the ranged unit activated first. In that case, the ranged unit would sacrifice its shooting to get as far away from the close-combat unit as it can...
In order to talk intelligently about this, we need to have some idea of how far units can charge compared to their regular movement. This is how I see it:

units get two action points per turn which can be used to (you can only do an action once per activation unless you use command points):
Move (1 action pt): move up to X"
Attack (1 action pt): shoot or melee attack
Charge (1 action pt): Pick an enemy unit within an X" move. Move your unit into combat with that unit.

I think this is basically what you had in mind, if it is let me know and I'll finish my point. Otherwise, let me know what you were thinking.

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

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by CptYellow » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:32 pm

ok, why are you guys changing the existing rules to suite your arguments... really 2 activations per turn... since when? Command points allowing repeated actions... pure speculation.

I have no problem saying that using a CP will allow a counter-attack response once you've already activated, if activation by activation CC was the chosen mechanic. But that could be tossed out the window as Command Point function is not well defined at the moment.
DacoTrilar wrote: So, I have a minor complaint with how you are calculating this. If you have combat happen twice per turn, wouldn't that also extend the length of the turn by one round of combat? You're essentially having close combat resolve twice as fast as shooting would, from what I can tell anyway. So, isn't this speed just relative to shooting? Think about it and get back to me
Sorry, guess I should have defined speed. I define speed of play in a tabletop game as how quickly something is resolved inside the turn limits. For instance in a game with 6 turns per side my CC mechanic would resolve itself in half as many turns as your guys' CC mechanic. Think about, why go into CC if it is going to tie up my unit for 4 rounds (just giving worst case scenario here), in a fast paced deadly game that's a long time to go without one of your units. If it takes too many turns to resolve a CC then it becomes out of place, clunky and tactically unsound and players will avoid it.
DacoTrilar wrote:See what I wrote above, you're causing more deaths per round by extending the length of the round. You could argue that close combat attacks are faster to resolve then shooting, since you only have one potential target. Let me know what you think of this counter argument.
More deaths per round is exactly the intent, the extension on the round length is not significant as the CC would be small and the dice mechanic allows for quick combat resolution. CC should be faster in my mind, it's hand to hand and simultaneous, it's faster.
DacoTrilar wrote:I think your thinking of Warhammer when you posted this and I'll explain why. Dark Potential doesn't have any interaction during activations, right now anyway, however I see the alternating activation system include a ton of interaction. During your activations, you're the only one moving and attacking, but that's only one unit. Once that unit finishes, your opponent immediately gets to do something, since it's their turn to activate a unit.
I was actually thinking of Firestorm Armada when I wrote this. The main reason that I have heard from people as to why they stop playing FA is that it gets boring... fast. We are seriously taking about a mechanic that will not vary the game enough and create enough player interaction to keep people playing past say 2 - 6 months. Think about it. Warhammer is an example of a game that had no player interaction so created variances in how it operated CC and magic in order to build it in... and it is the most successful wargame in the world. Think about it.
DacoTrilar wrote:1) The reason I didn't had a gut reaction to dislike this simultaneous combat was that it seemed to throw off the alternating activations.
[Player A activates a unit, charges and does some damage. Now Player B responds with a counter attack. Now Player B activates another unit.]
Normally the activations go (A,B,A,B,...), however combat adds another B into the activation order. I'm a bit worried that it'll cause people who are rushing a bit to skip over one of Player B's activations. This is a pretty minor issue, but it has been bugging me.
Don't look at as altering the activation sequence, consider the return attack of player B's squad as PART of player A's CC that he initiated... the game still goes A,B,A,B it's just that B gets a dice roll inside of one of A's activations, and then A gets a dice roll inside of one of B's activations. Of course we would need to discuss what happens upon combat conclusion in terms of the winner and loser and what they can then do, but that is the same for the other method as well.

I also argue that there is an equal chance of player B forgetting about the fact that he can activate in CC when using alternating activation CC.
DacoTrilar wrote:Now, where is the incentive for either Player A or Player B to start combat? Lets say Player A's unit has higher initiative, so if Player A were to activate the unit then he could very well finish off Player B's unit. However, then he's just used up his combat action and can only move a little bit. On the other hand, if Player B activates combat, then there is a good chance he just wasted an activation to kill off his unit. Worse than that, now Player A's unit has his full turn to charge another unit. I think the result would be that under most circumstances, close combat activations would always happen last. It's not a tactical choice on the part of the Players, it's just what is hands down the best choice based on the rules. Let me know what you think about this issue.
This is purely situational and there of course will be times when you want to leave the CC alone for a bit in order to achieve some tactical goal. However I don't agree at all with your assessment that all players will leave CC till the end because the rules dictate it. I can think of a half dozen different situations where I would activate CC at different times in my turn... I believe it gives the players an amazing flexibility in tactical planning, not a forced choice as you say.
DacoTrilar wrote:Here are some comments I have on your problem: First, if the game has some objectives to complete, then if one player retreats away from combat then the other player takes the objective. Second, the only situation I could see this happening is when a really good close-combat unit started the turn within charge range of a ranged unit and the ranged unit activated first. In that case, the ranged unit would sacrifice its shooting to get as far away from the close-combat unit as it can...
To the first part I say that we can't tailor the core mechanics to one type of scenario, they should function smoothly for all possible scenarios. To the second part I say that it could happen all the time, because if not in range, then you won't move any units into range unless your a gambler.
DacoTrilar wrote:units get two action points per turn which can be used to (you can only do an action once per activation unless you use command points):
Move (1 action pt): move up to X"
Attack (1 action pt): shoot or melee attack
Charge (1 action pt): Pick an enemy unit within an X" move. Move your unit into combat with that unit.
Wow, not what I meant at all. My idea goes like this.

Units get to do a normal activation if not engaged in CC.

So if they shoot, they can't also charge unless that's a special ability or something Matt wants.

So to charge or initiate CC a unit has to be unactivated. The only exception is that once CC is initiated by an unactivated squad, the activated/unactivated condition on the defending squad is irrelevent as CC begins, which is a two sided affair.

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 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:55 pm

ok, why are you guys changing the existing rules to suite your arguments... really 2 activations per turn... since when? Command points allowing repeated actions... pure speculation.
sorry, I thought command points were already sorted out and i simply missed the topic somewhere. this quote made me realize that CP weren't fixed yet. so i started a new topic on CC resolution here:
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 22&t=66780

i want to argue whether melee is fought twice per round.
you propose that both units in CC will fight every time one of them activates. but imagine a multiple combat?! there could be four or even five rounds of CC every turn!

therefor i proposed (but didn't state it clearly apparently) that close combat would be fought as follows:

-one of either units would activate first.
-now the other unit automatically activates and chooses to counter-attack or WfiRA. (Wait for its Regular Activation) two things can happen:

-if that second unit counter-Attacks, it counts as having activated that turn. of course the other one already activated and also counts as such.
-both units then fight
-combat resolution happens (which is another topic, and if we even decide to use that)

-alternatively, it can WfiRA.
-the attackers still attack (how ironic lol)
-since the defenders are intent on leaving the combat, CC resolution is not determined (and CC res. would be very unfair in this situation)
-defenders leave combat and finish their activation with whatever else they do.

and i want to note that we are over-estimating the deadliness of CC... let me show an example:

roll to hit: 7 + 5 + 2 - 10 - 2 = 2 Hits. which results in 2 kills.

both sides take 2 casualties, (assuming the defenders counter)
but in the second round both take 0,5 casualties, and in later rounds that number only decreases.
Don't look at as altering the activation sequence, consider the return attack of player B's squad as PART of player A's CC that he initiated... the game still goes A,B,A,B it's just that B gets a dice roll inside of one of A's activations, and then A gets a dice roll inside of one of B's activations. Of course we would need to discuss what happens upon combat conclusion in terms of the winner and loser and what they can then do, but that is the same for the other method as well.
here i completely agree with you.

and the cat-and-mouse effect is indeed purely situational. pretty much every action in the game is determined by the game objective, which we haven't come up with yet.

the activation-by-activation mechanic is indeed making the game very flexible rather than forcing somebody to play a certain way IMO.


DacoTrilar wrote:
units get two action points per turn which can be used to (you can only do an action once per activation unless you use command points):
Move (1 action pt): move up to X"
Attack (1 action pt): shoot or melee attack
Charge (1 action pt): Pick an enemy unit within an X" move. Move your unit into combat with that unit.
Wow, not what I meant at all. My idea goes like this.

Units get to do a normal activation if not engaged in CC.

So if they shoot, they can't also charge unless that's a special ability or something Matt wants.
i disagree: something will probably NEVER have the option to move, shoot AND charge after that. (unless we make the rules so, but i wouldn't like that at all)
"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 » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:30 pm

slaughtergames wrote:i want to argue whether melee is fought twice per round.
you propose that both units in CC will fight every time one of them activates. but imagine a multiple combat?! there could be four or even five rounds of CC every turn!

therefor i proposed (but didn't state it clearly apparently) that close combat would be fought as follows:

-one of either units would activate first.
-now the other unit automatically activates and chooses to counter-attack or WfiRA. (Wait for its Regular Activation) two things can happen:

-if that second unit counter-Attacks, it counts as having activated that turn. of course the other one already activated and also counts as such.
-both units then fight
-combat resolution happens (which is another topic, and if we even decide to use that)

-alternatively, it can WfiRA.
-the attackers still attack (how ironic lol)
-since the defenders are intent on leaving the combat, CC resolution is not determined (and CC res. would be very unfair in this situation)
-defenders leave combat and finish their activation with whatever else they do.
This is extremely close to my suggestion, just mine doesn't offer the defender any choice but fight back, then later they get to choose what to do... so I think we are coming closer together on this. As far as multiple close combats go, both systems currently suffer from the exact same problem with a very similar result. To address my system I would simply state something like

"when there are multiple attacking or defending squads in a CC then the attacker activates all squads in the combat in any order they choose, the defender participates in the combat with all squads affected but may not make more than 1 attack per model (meaning getting attacked by two squads does not confer two attacks back). The attacker then rolls the CC dice for each squad in CC one by one. If the defender is defeated before an attacking squad would have rolled then that squad is considered unactivated and may not activate until the attackers next activation."

Same rule applies for the other players turn as they would then be the attacker. This is just one example I thought of off the top of my head, there are certainly others.
slaughtergames wrote:and i want to note that we are over-estimating the deadliness of CC... let me show an example:

roll to hit: 7 + 5 + 2 - 10 - 2 = 2 Hits. which results in 2 kills.

both sides take 2 casualties, (assuming the defenders counter)
but in the second round both take 0,5 casualties, and in later rounds that number only decreases.
Wow, I actually hadn't done the math on that... that isn't nearly deadly enough regardless of how you flow the combat... we need to make that work better, maybe an adjustment for squad size or something. But you can now see how many Full Game Turns it would take to conclude a CC, especially if it was an alternating activation CC as Combat Rez would be next to impossible to do in that situation.

So I see a problem with both systems here, with simultaneous, the combat may never end. With alternating, the combat will always be "run in whack 'em, get whacked back, run out". Neither achieves anything really.
slaughtergames wrote:i disagree: something will probably NEVER have the option to move, shoot AND charge after that. (unless we make the rules so, but i wouldn't like that at all)
That was my stance as well, my comment was refuting this fact.

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

Re: Close Combat mechanics

Post by DacoTrilar » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:38 pm

CptYellow wrote:ok, why are you guys changing the existing rules to suite your arguments... really 2 activations per turn... since when? Command points allowing repeated actions... pure speculation.

I was under the same impression that slaughtergames is, that command points were decided on. Also, it's not 2 activations, it's two action points. So, you can move-shoot or move-move or move-charge. I was under the impression that's essentially how activations worked, I can try to dig up the thread on it if you really what.

I have no problem saying that using a CP will allow a counter-attack response once you've already activated, if activation by activation CC was the chosen mechanic. But that could be tossed out the window as Command Point function is not well defined at the moment.

Sorry, guess I should have defined speed. I define speed of play in a tabletop game as how quickly something is resolved inside the turn limits. For instance in a game with 6 turns per side my CC mechanic would resolve itself in half as many turns as your guys' CC mechanic.

Alright, now I get what you're saying. In my mind, that's speed relative to shooting, since it isn't making the game faster to play overall. I agree with you on that, it would be a good idea to resolve combat in as few full turns as possible.
DacoTrilar wrote:Now, where is the incentive for either Player A or Player B to start combat? Lets say Player A's unit has higher initiative, so if Player A were to activate the unit then he could very well finish off Player B's unit. However, then he's just used up his combat action and can only move a little bit. On the other hand, if Player B activates combat, then there is a good chance he just wasted an activation to kill off his unit. Worse than that, now Player A's unit has his full turn to charge another unit. I think the result would be that under most circumstances, close combat activations would always happen last. It's not a tactical choice on the part of the Players, it's just what is hands down the best choice based on the rules. Let me know what you think about this issue.
This is purely situational and there of course will be times when you want to leave the CC alone for a bit in order to achieve some tactical goal. However I don't agree at all with your assessment that all players will leave CC till the end because the rules dictate it. I can think of a half dozen different situations where I would activate CC at different times in my turn... I believe it gives the players an amazing flexibility in tactical planning, not a forced choice as you say.

Could you give an example?
DacoTrilar wrote:units get two action points per turn which can be used to (you can only do an action once per activation unless you use command points):
Move (1 action pt): move up to X"
Attack (1 action pt): shoot or melee attack
Charge (1 action pt): Pick an enemy unit within an X" move. Move your unit into combat with that unit.

Wow, not what I meant at all. My idea goes like this.

Units get to do a normal activation if not engaged in CC.

What is a normal activation? That's what I'm defining above, but I guess you have a different idea.

So if they shoot, they can't also charge unless that's a special ability or something Matt wants.

If you want to include a rule that you can't charge & shoot in the same activation, that's fine. I've been thinking of DP activations being very similar to D&D turns, where you have a certain number of action points to do a number of actions, and that's partially how I got the above system. Honestly, I just wanted to know how you were calculating charge distances and the ability to sacrifice shooting to move farther. If you could fully explain how you are viewing the rules, that'd be helpful.
So, I think I'd like your system if we make it so that the activated unit has a substantial bonus over the defender such as all defending models killed only count for half a model on the counter attack. Also, I think it would be a good idea to drop the defender's skill from the combat equation, so it'd be:

# of models in attacker unit + Attacker Skill + 2d6 - Defender Armor = # of hits, that should help. Also, if the defender is getting a free strike back, then the defender's combat skill is still involved.

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 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:39 pm

1) ALERT! i posted a wrong number crunch! i counted in RoF (2) in that. so even there combat was twice as effective as in reality. here's the updated numbers without attack multipliers and whatnot:
FIRST ROUND: 7 + 5 + 2 - 10 - 2 = 2 Hits = 1 kill
SECOND ROUND: 7 + 4 + 2 - 10 -2 = 1 Hit = 0,5 kill
third round: 0 kills on average.

2) I am confused! now i discover that there already was a thread about action/command points. but i'll still keep going on my other thread, since it didn't really produce anything.
please read my command points thread. let's use that to base our discussion on here. if you guys don't agree, we first have to develop CP first, and stall this topic for some time. b/c the way CP work will be kinda important.

3)
So, I think I'd like your system if we make it so that the activated unit has a substantial bonus over the defender such as all defending models killed only count for half a model on the counter attack. Also, I think it would be a good idea to drop the defender's skill from the combat equation, so it'd be:

# of models in attacker unit + Attacker Skill + 2d6 - Defender Armor = # of hits, that should help. Also, if the defender is getting a free strike back, then the defender's combat skill is still involved.
that's actually pretty smart!

4) i propose we discard the WfiRA option, and always have the defenders attack back? fight melee twice a turn. here's the numbercrunch on melee fought this way twice per turn:
ROUND 1: 7+5+2-10=4 Hits.=2kills
ROUND 2: 7+3+2-10=2Hits.=1kill

which means 3 kills on both sides in the first turn of combat.

5)
I was under the same impression that slaughtergames is, that command points were decided on. Also, it's not 2 activations, it's two action points. So, you can move-shoot or move-move or move-charge. i somewhat agree. though i would restrict combo's like shoot-shoot. I was under the impression that's essentially how activations worked, I can try to dig up the thread on it if you really what.
@ everybody: i want ro remind you guys that you can revote.
"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 » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:18 pm

Where are you getting your numbers from?

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 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:54 am

@wiouds: i got my number like this:
7 : average 2d6
5 : amount of men in unit
2 : CC skill
-10 : defenders DEF
i didn't post that explicitly because i thought everybody would know those numbers by now.

@everybody: to make close combat more deadly we can do a couple of things:
1.) increase CC skill
2.) put in an "attacks" multiplier, just like RoF.
3.) the strength of melee attacks could be 2, rather than the assumed 1.

i'm leaning more and more towards cpt.yellow's CC. as i understand it would look as follows:

-one of either units activates.
-they both attack.
-then they can choose whether or not to leave the combat.

one thing i don't like is that the option to leave CC is always there. i feel like the unit trying to do so should forfeit something in order to leave the combat.
i think so, because it would take either:
-a great deal of discipline(to stop your men from fighting for their lives)
-or have them prepared to leave the combat.(and then i don't think they would attack back.)

which is what brings us back to the combat mechanic that i've been proposing for the last two pages. (with the WfiRA)

@cpt. yellow: i don't agree that people would be backing off all the time. i can't imagine that backing off would be safer that staying in your cover. if a shooty unit was coming around your flank, but didn't quite make it yet, you be putting yourself out in the open by backing off from the charger. (which otherwise would be a smart tactic, now that i see it)

and there won't always even BE the option to back off, if (for example) your unit is stuck in a corner.
"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 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:42 am

That just one set of numbers. You need to look over a large group of stats.

I do not like the forcing a defending player to attack. First it does not speed up the game any way. It does not make CC more deadly. It only remove control from the squad owner.

What if a defensive squad gets a current offense of 5 and the attacking squad has a current defense has a current Defense of 18.
Or what If a squad have a CC might of 1 and get attack any a squad whose armor is 8. That mean they must roll a 7 on a d6.

On both cases the defender squad has not chance of killing an enemy on the over side.

I do not see a reason for penalizes the squad that leave combat. They lost units is that a big enough penalty? Do we need to had penalty to range unit that leave combat?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests