Author Topic: Implementing solid tactical combat  (Read 2021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline licoricemetal

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Implementing solid tactical combat
« on: October 16, 2012, 04:54:53 PM »
I love board games. I love tactical combat. I love hexagones.

I think the combat in an RPG is much more exhilirating when believable and intuitive tactical combat system is used. Spaceship battles with Star Strike are just beautiful. I want to apply this tactical refinement to personal scale combat. I use the 2nd edition rules, and I have no idea what Privateers brings to the table, I am willing to incorporate ideas it it means improvements.

I use hexagones. Following the HERO system standards, each hex is 2m in diameter. This is a list of what works and what doesn't work for me based on the 2nd edition ruleset, and what I think should be an important aspect of tactical combat.

The purpose of this post is to collect your experience and wisdom to complete and improve upon this model I am trying to build. All suggestions welcome.

Here we go:
1. Round length: 10 seconds is long for many RPG standards, but I can leave with that. A lot of things can happen in 10 sec.
2. Movement:
  2.1 Movement allowance: The rules to determine a character's allowed movement give me headaches!!! Knowing exactly how many hexes a character can move in a round is crucial in a tactical game, I feel like doing advanced calculus whenever trying to figure out the movement speed table. Really not user friendly. How do you guys deal with this? Maybe I should make an excel spreadsheet.
  2.2 Implementation: Walking at normal rate is ok. Running up to 2x movement rate ok in clear terrain, otherwise a movement maneuver is required. 1hex=2m, so typically a human can walk 9 hexes or run up to 18 hexes in a round.
3. Ranged combat:
  3.1 Sequence: The fire-move-fire sequence is great. I love that the action is resolved simultaneously. Keep as is.
  3.2 Opportunity fire: In any tactical firefight game, moving out in the open is a risk, ans seeking cover is key. Moving out in the open should be punishable. If a character moves in the open, and there are opponents who have chosen not to move, and still possess 50% of their action, they are given an opportunity to fire during movement. They decide when during the opponent's movement (on what hex) they fire, so the opponent has no cover, and risks being pinned down in the open (MM roll required I guess, or SD roll?). The only way to prevent this is through suppressive fire.
  3.3 Suppressive fire: If you want to move in the open without being shot like a duck, a buddy has to cover your movement by applying suppressive fire. Basically the suppressor must have a fully automatic weapon (preferably one that makes noise or fires visible projectile/energy, the point is to scare the ennemy. Lasers and Stunners not effective) and expend his action points during movement phase for suppressive fire. It does not hit any target, but denies the enemy its opportunity fire. Of course it means the character has spent action and ammo (or energy) against no specific target.
4. Melee: I find melee at the end of the round sad. I would place melee phase after movement, but before the 2nd firing phase. If you have a ranged weapon and a melee guy gets close, you have a disadvantage.

Anything else I should consider for sound tactical combat?

N

Offline Turbs

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2013, 08:41:22 PM »
play the new xcom game ..
This is exactly what you will be looking for in terms of ideas of all the things you can do.
Also.. it is a very enjoyable game
The universe is hostile. So impersonal. Devour to survive; So it is; So it's always been.  ~Tool; Vicarious~

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,618
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2013, 10:54:48 PM »
I was just looking at that game on the shelf the other day and wondering how good it was...
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline NanoEther

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2013, 11:13:03 PM »
2) figure out the base move conversion to tactical (ignore pace for now), then adapt the tactical numbers for pace & place them on a table. Using a static table would help considerably no matter how you come up with the numbers.
3.2) MM roll to avoid fire. This can be simplified by just using the targets declared DB for the round.
3.3) A stunner may not do physical damage, but they can reduce the number of allies. So it would be insane, tactically, not to take cover from them. Any individual that does not take full cover risks being hit, I believe the rules for suppression address this.

It's an update of the original X-com from the 1980's, which I still play. Going to have to get the new one. If you liked X-com try these: Aftershock, Aftermath, Afterlight (it's a series, Afterlight is the best imho), then there's UFO Extraterrestrials.

You might want to look at War Law for RM2 or Bladestorm, both were tactical. (unfortunately they are presently owned by metal express, but are available for licensing and GCP may republish them)

Offline JimiSue

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2013, 06:06:16 PM »
I agree with Nano. Stunners are the great leveller in SM2 - the combat system is so dangerous that a general rule is that the side that achieves a stun first, is the winner. Stunners crit early, almost always take the enemy out of the fight if they crit, and are more legal than any other weapon. Any seasoned combateer in SM will very quickly learn to be more terrified of stunners than pretty much anything else.

In terms of other things - grenades, both the explosive and aerosol types, need consideration. And psions as well :) and sniper fire - the tactic of having a 'god' character with a high powered weapon and an overview of the whole battle situation, is a very useful trick. And when you have weapons whose range is measured in kilometres (e.g. MLA rifles), this is not unreasonable. The skills of targeting and sniping come into their own there.

I have been considering toying with the rules on fully automatic firing options. I've noticed that players who do them tend to always go with the same choice - i.e. the one where you can spray several opponents. What this tells me is that this is either too powerful (likely) or the other options (burst for improved chance to hit or concentrated burst for improved damage) are too weak.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2013, 12:24:41 AM »
 In SM:P you can wear implants that render stunners ineffective.


MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline NanoEther

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2013, 03:59:54 AM »
Hadn't considered that, but that implies an opponent that considers stunners a viable threat and has prepared for them.
Then consider if the counter is easily obtainable, why us the device? Which turns into a circular argument. Nobody uses stunners so why waste the money on the counter?
This would be trumped by government: the counter would be illegal to use except for police and military while they were performing their duties.

And there's always a counter to a counter, and failures can happen, as can criticals, and you never know what's really waiting for you.

It can also depend on how you implement stunners. Technically, tasers are our version of stunners. Yes, if you can prevent skin contact and provide enough insulation you can counter a taser. Same protection would be ineffective against a sonic based stunner, whose counter would be ineffective against tasers and whatever comes next. but taking cover from them will always be effective. At least until that psionic targets you.

Just more things to consider. My point is that any weapon capable of automatic (or even semi-automatic) fire can be used as a suppression weapon. And that should be the only limiting factor for suppression. Therefore, even though tasers are stunners, since they have at most 2 shots, they are ineffective as suppression weapons.

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2013, 10:14:59 AM »
 IIRC, in SM:P the Tec level of the stunner is very important to the ability to counter the stunners effects. Or maybe that was just how I ran my game. Also, yes stunner counters are for military and police units and stunning a person over 45 could possibly cause a heart attack.


 So using the tec rule above I let players who had advanced versions (higher tec) stunners over power the lower tec stunner counters. The rule provided for a lot of fun and reason to try and find the highest tec stunners and weapons they could find, as they had a big difference in the game world.
MDC


Modify:
 As you said above stun weapons, grenades and munitions were great for crowed control and let my PC's escape from some situations without causing too much damage. This was good as I had some Psy people controlling lots of others trough the use of special Psy stones and Psy "magic" items. Note, some of the innocent people still died but it was a lot less than if they had to fire on them with deadly ammunition.
MDC   
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline JimiSue

  • Seeker of Wisdom
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2013, 04:32:35 PM »
Mark 5 stunners, with their ability to affect a cone shaped area as a mark 3 stunner, are *incredibly* effective suppression weapons :) See my scenario "Going Yomping" in the download section in which there is a tank which has the ability to hover, and unleash the stunning effect in an area underneath it. "Infantry? Sorry, you must mean all those sleeping guys back there..."

There is a suppression fire rule in the Dragonstar game (effectively D&D in space) - instead of a relatively controlled short burst of 5 shots, it is essentially finger on the button and spray randomly. Takes 20 slugs to do. There are rules on hitting people in the area, but it can be pretty effective against crowds or a single large critter (as a T-Rex once found out to his unfortunate cost). I have the book just out of arm's reach - if anyone is interested, I'll pull it out and see what the rules actually are :)

Offline NanoEther

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Implementing solid tactical combat
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2013, 10:38:23 AM »
Dragonstar is an interesting setting, Fantasy Flight did a great job on it.