Eastern Fringe Forums
http://easternfringe.com/

Some thoughts on combat systems
http://easternfringe.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3859
Page 1 of 1

Author:  AwesomeX [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:46 am ]
Post subject:  Some thoughts on combat systems

Funny, I never noticed this section before now, and over the weekend I spent a couple of hours idly thinking about how I'd set up a combat system. Coincidence, or is someone upstairs telling me to share my thoughts?



First off, I think I'd use a decimal system (i.e. stats 1-10, with a 10-sided die). I like that better than a system based on a d6, it has a finer range of probability.

I think I'd have some sort of combined point system for maneuver/shooting. Most units would probably have 10 points. Say an infantry squad with rifles could use one point to move 1", or two or three points to move 1" while using covering fire. It might take 4-5 points to shoot accurately, and the same to use concentrated suprression fire. Maybe another 5ish points to set up or take down a heavy weapon.

Each man in the unit would have a die to roll for shooting. For a standard rifleman (for instance) shooting accurately, say a 1-5 does nothing, a 6-8 removes one maneuver point from the target squad, and a 9-10 causes a casualty. For supression fire, maybe a 1-3 does nothing, a 4-9 removes a maneuver point, and a 10 causes a casualty. Moving while using covering fire might do nothing on a 1-7, remove a maneuver point on 8-9, and cause a casualty on a 10.

A unit might have a defence rating, too, which cover would add to. I haven't quite worked out how I'd resolve this. It'd probably be fairly difficult to resist a casualty, and I don't think you'd be able to resist being suppresed. Probably resisting an attack would make you suppressed instead.

Obviously with this system you couldn't use the "I go you go" format. Probably alternate unit activation would be best, but I haven't played enough games using this system to really have a firm grasp on how to make that work.

Another thing that's bugged me about many games is how good anti-tank weapons are against infantry. In real combat, an anti-tank missile just isn't going to be very effective against a squad of riflemen. I'd have seperate stats for infantry and vehicles, and stuff that damaged one wouldn't do anything to the other (possibly with a few exceptions).



Anyways, that's just what I came up with. What do you pro game designers think?

Author:  MetalEd [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:58 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, as a highly experienced and untrained non-professional,

How about using an adaption of the D20 system? The shooters have an accuracy modifier, added to the dice, the defenders have an evasion modifier, armour modifier, and toughness modifier, subtracted from the dice?
You could break it into several rolls, with a to-hit roll (accuracy vs. evasion), then a to-injure roll (weapon power vs. armour + toughness). Additional suppression might come from attacks blocked by armour. That's assuming you're doing something sci-fi or where armour is somehow actually effective. Otherwise the one roll might suffice.

I really like your suppressing fire system - removing potential movement from the target. This is how real combat works.. and it isn't seen all that often even in the WWII games I've played!

Author:  wfwhite59 [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:32 am ]
Post subject: 

We have been playing a system that we came up with that covers alot of you guys are talking about.

Would you like me to link you to our game rules???

Author:  greatimp [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Some thoughts on combat systems

AwesomeX wrote:
Another thing that's bugged me about many games is how good anti-tank weapons are against infantry. In real combat, an anti-tank missile just isn't going to be very effective against a squad of riflemen. I'd have seperate stats for infantry and vehicles, and stuff that damaged one wouldn't do anything to the other (possibly with a few exceptions).


Well AwesomeX I would like to give you a little fill in on anti-tank weapons. I have this knowledge becasue I serverd for almost 5 years on the Active Duty component of the US Army.

Antitank weaponst

1. High veloicty, All AT weapons have high velocity rounds. This is because of the armour plating.

2. Stoping power, that is how effective is one round aginst a main battle tank or equivilant vehicle.

3. Ease of use, These weapons cannot be too complicated. That is because Infitry are stupid ( not the individual but the unit).

I will clarify a little more by some additional information. The US uses a weapon called an AT-4 (AT=Antitank weapon). An AT-4 fires a super heated "bolt" of "Plasma" for lack of better words. This weapon will take out any main battle tank in use around the world right now.

Its effectiveness aginst infantry is their. However at $100,000.00 a shot and no reaload it is pretty useless. Even a 50 Ca machine gun is pretty useless aginst Infantry simply becasue too much collartial damage. It is not like in the movies. People hit by a 50 Ca are torn in half. Now on the one hand that seems effective. However comparie price


50 Ca machine gun $180,000.00 M16A4 Assualt Rifle $5,000.00
50 Ca round per round $2.50 M16 Round per round $.75

Effective range

50 CA 1.3 miles M16 515 meters.

Author:  wfwhite59 [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Another thing that's bugged me about many games is how good anti-tank weapons are against infantry. In real combat, an anti-tank missile just isn't going to be very effective against a squad of riflemen. I'd have seperate stats for infantry and vehicles, and stuff that damaged one wouldn't do anything to the other (possibly with a few exceptions).


Greatimp pretty much covered this but the only reason I would use an AT weapon against infantry would be to take out a harden position.
Lets face it if you have the choice of rushing an entrenched HMG or MMG or taking it out from a defensive position. IMO it would make more sense to hit it with an AT weapon then lose the men in a frontal assault.

Author:  RobbieBuckshotLaFunk [ Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:26 am ]
Post subject: 

Not all anti-tank or anti-armour weapons are expensive.

Anti-tank weapons with exploding warheads should not be nerfed against infantry, because they're extremely effective. Not only will an RPG punch through 350mm+ of RHAe, it will also scatter deadly fragments like a giant hand grenade.
If you want to balance them, you should use weight, ammunition expenditure and/or reloading rules. Man-portable anti-tank weapons are typically quite heavy, individual rounds also being quite heavy and bulky, and they usually require reloading after each shot.

Greatimp and wfwhite59 bring up some good points, but they're not really bourn out by a reality in which armed forces will call in air support to drop laser guided bombs on a suspected sniper position, provided they have the resources at their disposal to do so.

It seems you've decided upon a game that primarily uses indirect representation. This should be okay as long as the scope of the game remains focussed on squad vs squad combat. It might prove problematic if the game tries to incorporate a wider range of elements, such as armoured vehicles or monsters or heavily armoured infantry.
My experience is that more indirect representation results in a 'game', while less indirect representation results in more of a 'simulation'.

You should probably lay down some ideas on scale, scope and objectives. So, what the rules allow you to play out, level of realism, and some default calibrations, like, in X situation, Y would be the outcome, or likely outcome. For example, in one of my games, one of the default calibrations I used, was that an average soldier being hit by an average attack from an average assault rifle, should have equal chances of surviving with no damage and dieing outright, but a good chance of significantly injuring him/temporarily disabling him. Comparable to 40K's calibration, where an attack with a strength value equal to the target's toughness has a 50/50 chance of wounding.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/