Topic: Combat Flavor (Hits vs Crits)

[Warl]

This does remind me of One problem RMs combat/crit system has a hard time justifying/simulating correctly.

Mounted Combat. Being mounted is supposed to give you an advantage over your opponent. I will have to do some looking again to see if you actually gain any OB bonuses for being mounted against an Unmounted opponent, but the Crits don't change. A guy on a mount just should NOT be able to Hit a Guy very often or easily in the Lower legs to feet areas, but should More often hit the Upper body area/Shoulders and head region. But this is not reflected/modified/adjusted by the skill or the rules for mounted combat at all.

[Dax]

Yes, but the flavor text should be adjusted by the GM.
For Hit Location RQ show how to handle it: Add a value (or subtract it) to reflect the higher change to hit high or low.

As for a bonus:
Is it true that a rider get a bonus like more damage, easier to hit ?
The same is with the rules for someone on higher ground. I like the RM approach to it: It doesn't state anything, only "to be determined by the GM".
In RQ2 the attacker (on higher ground) got a plain bonus; and they gave IMO a ridiculous example of some persons fleeing from town guards climbing on a wagon (to get that bonus). 

Would a person get in reality a bonus to OB on a horse or on a table
or
do we all believe it, because we seen it on TV ("Zorro", "Dshingis Kahn" etc)  ? ? ?
__

BTW RM2 gives rider a bonus for their speed ...

[Arioch]

I understand where you are coming from with the location armored or unarmored being necessary. But I long for more detail in my flavor charts.

Yes, I understand, that's why we like RM critical charts, after all: flavor text. 

[Dark Schneider]

Remember that now RM (revised in RMSS/RMFRP) is not only OB vs OB in combat, you can develop combat styles that allow you to increase the shield bonus and cover against attacks no-front (I allow it with the 'reverse strike' skill too), so a high level character needs to develop more than a simple OB skill if it wants to be really a good fighter.

But with the appropiate skills, there is big difference between low-lvl and high-lvl characters.

RM crits. are the best combat rule I have ever seen in a RPG, it is realistic that a high level character can be dead by an unfortunate hit. Is in real life a character immune to dead only by its high experience?.

In HP only based combats (as D&D) it is absolutely impossible that a character dies until certain number of attacks, and this is equal to dead immunity.

[Warl]

Would a person get in reality a bonus to OB on a horse or on a table
or
do we all believe it, because we seen it on TV

No it isn't "just from TV", it is a Tactical fact, which is Why Mounted cavalry were so popular in certain cultures. A Mounted combatant had an advantage over an unmounted Opponent. It's Show in TV (even if it might be more exaggerated) becuase it is a reality. This is also Why Generals would seek to have there troops positioned on Higher ground. It always sucked to be the Guys who "Didn't" get to pick the terrain. it had more effect on the Missile than the melee, but even in melee it was of importance for several factors.

#1 the enemy had to Come up hill at you thus tiring them out more.
#2 Less likely to hit you in a vital area becuase they are lower,
#3 if using shields, especially Body/Tower/Full shields (what ever you want to call them) it became easier to keep the opponent away from you when they are lower down.
#4 you ability to hit them in the head or chest became easier as they can't jump over or dodge as easily.
#5 even if they are using a shield, they are more exposed. keeping the shield at normal level, their heads are more easily exposed. raising the shield to protect the head Tired the opponent out more (try holding a bicycle Tire, spokes and rim, over your head and Swing a broom at the same time) Plus By moving it higher you exposed yourself in the lower regions.
#6 It's much easier to dodge a blow aimed at your legs (legs being one of the most nimble parts of the body) by side stepping or jumping, than it is to your mid section.
#7 Much easier to knock a guy down if your up higher than he is. On a hill, pushing you opponent back with your shield often results in them tumbling downwards, In the other Direction, it is harder to keep you balance on while trying to attack a guy higher up the hill than you.

I could go on. But I think that should be enough to explain WHY being on higher ground is an advantage.

[Dax]

I don't doubt an advantages for higher ground in a skirmish (or more).
Running up a hill causes exhaution, thrown weapons downhill will have more momentum.
There is also an advantage for cavalery.

But for a fight one-on-one ?
I believe there are also advantages for fighter on lower ground.
I don't have that fighting experience (unfortunately ? ), but I would prefer the stance on the floor above the stance on the table ...
___

BTW shield fighting means to move it around ...

[Warl]

oh I do understand shield fighting involves moving it around, But the size determines how much it is moved around and how much more that exhausts you. Your going to move a full shield alot less than a normal or small shield, but the trade off is area covered and protected.

[Marc R]

I beleive, in the overall, that horses in combat represented a major benefit. . .the typical movie or book response to a charging person on horseback is to jump to the side and strike in passing. . .which doesn't actually work in real life unless facing a dufus. It's expected, intended for you to try and break, and all mounted style combats vs loose formations were built around beating that move. . .which is the #2 reason why cavelry dominated in it's time. . .The way to beat cavelry is to stand your ground and stick it to the horse, which also happens to be suicide if you don't have a well seated long spear. (Almost no horse will actually charge onto spears, they did it only when the press behind shoved them on, they are smarter than us that way.). . .the only really effective 1 on 1 tactic on foot on open ground vs a mounted opponant is to shoot them off their horse. Terror of something big with a nasty person on it running you down made cavelry a tactical weapon.

As to the #1 reason. . .mobility of encumberence. . .highly trained and hardened infantry can march horses into the ground over the long haul, but in the pre-industrial world, generally the lowest level feudal rular ruled "Everything within a day of his house" . . .and a horse makes for a rather larger manor property than foot based land grabbage. It's the ability to control large areas, or to move troops to where you need them that made cavelry a strategic weapon.

In RM game terms, let the horse spend activity moving, while the rider spends activity attacking, and don't skimp on the large bash/trample attack, which is a tactical nasty. . . .while moving your arse, your armor and all your loot from place to place make them a strategic boon beaten only by mass Teleportation.

As to the on topic, I've never had much problem with just moving that mounted sabre cut from foot to hand, or from leg to arm. (Or from head to abdomen on the rider being attacked by the footman.)