T5 Personal Combat System Review, Opinion, and Problems

[Reban]

Even with my archaic flintlock musket I can fire three rounds a minute an archer could fire many more arrows.

Remember that the mechanic is actually to play through the rounds and count them up at the end of combat and then to equate them to minutes at a rate of 1 minute = 1 round.

Imagine the rounds to be more elastic, say you fight five rounds of combat. That equates to 5 minute of time that have past. All the "action" could have been packed into the first 60 seconds and the last 60 seconds but its been handled in the artificial system of combat rounds.

I think while S4's mechanics are good and useful its made us hung up on the round being exactly equal to a minute, but the round is abstract, a minute is applied to each round to calculate how much total time has passed while the characters have been in combat

My 2Cr.

 

[BytePro]

Choreographed and planed?

Nope.

I thought of it in a few seconds (if you call that planning) - and then just tried it. [On three layers of carpet foam - vaulting over a recliner back - though I had to pull up a bit against a door. The 'gun' was a banana and the 'grenade' just a stress ball - both immediately at hand.]

From this, and earlier, you should be a stunt double.

You mean like a stand in so the real actor doesn't get hurt? We call that a PC in my games.

Seriously, I've had a little training and experience, so its not something I recommend just anyone trying. But this ain't anything an average 20 year old couldn't try, especially with the proper motivation (or beverage). I also didn't say they would succeed every time - just pointing out the time and actions.

 

[BytePro]

I think while S4's mechanics are good and useful its made us hung up on the round being exactly equal to a minute, but the round is abstract, a minute is applied to each round to calculate how much total time has passed while the characters have been in combat

My 2Cr.

Yeah, the elephant might be just be a furry little rodent.

My question is, do any of the mechanics derive from minute rounds? Or is that just fluff to give an crude idea of total length of combat?

Notably - other task restrictions during a round, such as movement (changing ranges)...

[CT is pretty easy for me to ignore the round time - MgT was a bit harder due to its more defined nature.]

 

[Supplement Four]

Even with my archaic flintlock musket I can fire three rounds a minute an archer could fire many more arrows.

T5 assumes that several rounds are fired each round--or that just one round is fired. It's abstract, so it covers all possibilities.

Your three rounds in that minute would be covered by a single attack throw. If you fired only one round during the combat round, or fired two rounds with your musket, you still get the same single attack throw.

It's the same concept as AD&D combat rounds. Those are one minute rounds, too, in which a 1st level Fighter got one attack per round. Did that mean that the Fighter just swung his sword one time? Maybe. But, it could also reprsent the Fighter swinging, feinting, blocking several times during the entire minute.

It's an abstract combat round. The T5 attack throw doesn't represent a single pull of the trigger. I can represents multiple pulls of the trigger. Even going through an entire magazine or two, reloading, and firing some more.

Just like the AD&D combat round.

I think while S4's mechanics are good and useful its made us hung up on the round being exactly equal to a minute, but the round is abstract, a minute is applied to each round to calculate how much total time has passed while the characters have been in combat

Yes, T5 says that rounds are about a minute long. Some are shorter. Some are longer. For counting purposes, we use the one minute standard.

If a character fires off a clip or two using burst fire, then moves to a rock for cover--then steps out from the cover to fire some more at the enemy--then runs and enters the back of his unit's ATV, we guestimate that all of that took about two minutes of time.

What we're not saying is that, in exactly 60 seconds, the character fired off a couple of magazine's worth of ammo at the enemy using burst fire, then move for cover behind a large rock. Then, picking up at exactly 61 seconds, the character fired a few times from out behind the cover of the rock and ran to the ATV--a process that also took exactly 60 seconds as well, from second 61 to second 120.

We're not saying that at all.

 

[Reban]

A Character (minimum Speed=1) can move one Band per Round between Bands 0 - 1 - 2.

A Character (minimum Speed=2) can spend Rounds equal to the destination Band and then move one Band between Bands 3 - 4 - 5 in the Movement Phase of that final counted Round.

So no, movement in combat doesn't take place in normal time but in rounds. And rounds can be equated to minutes.

 

[Reban]

Yes, T5 says that rounds are about a minute long. Some are shorter. Some are longer. For counting purposes, we use the one minute standard.

Actually it doesn't say that. It says:

Time Scale
Combat takes place in Rounds. Some seem like seconds; some seem like hours. Some pass without anything happening; others are flurries of activity. Various activities are specified in terms of rounds: movement, reloading, weapons use.
At the end of combat, count the number of Rounds that have passed and equate them generally to minutes (thus, a fight taking ten Rounds probably took about ten minutes).

Its not saying that a round is about a minute. Combat takes place in the framework of rounds. At the end of combat the number of rounds equates to a number of minutes.

Its hard to explain but the rounds make the action seem uniform, but if you viewed it against a stopwatch the action would consist of frantic moments and lulls all of varying length.

I'm not saying its wrong to use 60 seconds in a combat round to decide what actions are reasonable to accomplish, just that there is a subtle difference in starting with 60 seconds and calling it a round, and having a round where you've accomplished certain actions and saying that took about 60 seconds to do.

 

[Supplement Four]

CT uses the exact same Speed codes, except CT applies them to a 15 second abstract combat round.

What I don't see in T5 yet, that is in CT, are what the Speed ratings equate to if the Ref wants to map movement.

In CT...

Speed 1 = 25 m per CT combat round (which is 100 m per minute)

Speed 2 = 50 m per CT combat round (which is 200 m per minute)




For T5, page 295 defines Speed ratings.

Speed 1 = 5 kph (which is 83.33 m per minute)

Speed 2 = 10 kph (which is 166.67 m per minute)



So, the two speed ratings are close.

What's different about T5 is that it looks like Marc glosses over hard detail in an effort for smooth gameplay (at least when it comes to Speed).

Page 219 tells us that it takes one minute for a character to (Speed-1) walk 5 m, and another minute to walk out to 50 m. This is about 25 m per minute, if you average the two, but if any combat happens on the first movement, it is conducted at 5m or less (not 25 m or less).

And, T5 gives us an interesting method for how many rounds it takes to move further than 50 m (I like what it says, but I don't know how "realistic" it is).


EDIT - See my post directly below for a better explanation of rounds and Speed codes. I think what I wrote below is more clear, and I what I say here is a bit confusing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Actually it doesn't say that. It says:

I think we're talking past each other here because...

At the end of combat the number of rounds equates to a number of minutes.

Therefore, each round is about a minute, as I said. Some are longer. Some are shorter, but if you count them as a minute long, you're not far off.



The Speed example in my last post above is a good example.

At Speed 1, a character can walk from right beside you out to about 5 meters.

Then, in the next round, the character can walk out 50 meters.


It took about two minutes for both rounds to take place, so we say that each round is about a minute.

If you look at what happened closely, though, round 1 took something far less than a minute (walking out to 5 meters), and round 2 (walking the remainder to 50 meters) took something more than a minute. On average, each round took about a minute.



I think we both understand the concept, and we're both saying the same thing. But, I also think you had a good point to bring it up. I'm not sure the idea has been expressed that clearly.

Hopefully the examples above will help.

 

[Reban]

Yep I think we are agreed. It just for anyone reading the important thing is the combat round is abstract but we can say ten combat rounds represents a period of about ten minutes.

Its chicken and egg stuff but it contributes to the overall concept and style of T5 combat.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yep I think we are agreed. It just for anyone reading the important thing is the combat round is abstract but we can say ten combat rounds represents a period of about ten minutes.

Its chicken and egg stuff but it contributes to the overall concept and style of T5 combat.

I definitely think you were correct to bring it up. It's not clear in all these posts we've been writing. And, to say, "Ten combat rounds represents a period of about ten minutes, where any one round is of variable length," is probably the best way to express it (as you said).

 

[Supplement Four]

What Apparation is suggesting--and I think it's the perfect idea--is to add to the difficulty +1D per extra target during the combat round. Thus, if the above character wanted to attack two other targets, it would happen like this:

The character would take 3 attack throws, one at each target. Let's say that one target is at Very Short Range, while the other two are at Short Range.

Firing at Target A, at Very Short Range: Roll 3D for 10 or less.

Firing at Target B, at Short Range: Roll 4D for 10 or less.

Firing at Target C, at Short Range: Roll 4D for 10 or less.

I'm starting to read the chapter on Tasks now, and I've discovered that our little multi-target House Rule here is really just an implementation of the Hasty Task rule (page 212).

 

[Supplement Four]

First Attacker Penalty: There's also a penalty to going first, exposing oneself. Every round, the character who attacks first gives his enemies who attack him a +1 modifier on thier attack against him.

Thus, if you attack first, then everybody that attacks you in that round gets a +1 modifier to hit you.

In other words, you may take out an enemy quickly, but every other enemy will get a bonus to hit you that round.

The First Attacker can change each round.

Besides attacking first in a combat round, the First Attacker also gets a pretty strong bonus. The rule says that if the attack made by the First Attacker is successful, then his target cannot also attack during that round.

I feel a bit better about the First Attacker rule as I see it's aking to the Hasty Attack, noted on page 212.

When I said in the original review--

The First Attacker in any round, if successful with his attack, penalizes his target by not allwing the target to attack that round. The target is basically suppressed by the First Attacker's attack.

Why is that, when every other character attacked during the round can fight back?

Well, I've just found an example of another character being attacked and not allowed to fight back. The Hasty Attack (see page 212) will basically suppress the target if the attack is successful.

 

[BytePro]

Ah - the actual description sounds more like what I use - i.e., a round could be just a few seconds, or several minutes. Basically it just doesn't cover any significant portion of an hour. Whereas 'about a minute' conveys to me something more restrictive (~45s to 1min 15s).

I casually walk 5m in 4~5 seconds (just checked, though I'm normally considered a bit of a fast walker). A minute+ for 50m sounds reasonable.

 

[BytePro]

... The Hasty Attack (see page 212) will basically suppress the target if the attack is successful.

Hmmm... a kind of interruption mechanic?

 

[Supplement Four]

Ah - the actual description sounds more like what I use - i.e., a round could be just a few seconds, or several minutes.

The movement rule for the larger Range Bands is actually pretty cool.

Range Band 3 = Medium Range. 150 m.

Range Band 4 = Long Range. 500 m.

Range Band 5 = Very Long Range. 1000 m.




Movement among these bands requires* Speed-2 (running) and a number or rounds equal to the Range Band number.

Thus, if at Medium Range, moving to Long Range, the character would have to run for 4 minutes, or there abouts.

A character at Very Long Range, moving to Medium Range (a move from Range Band 5 to Range Band 3) would take about 7 minutes at Speed-2. First, it would take 4 minutes to reach Long Range, then it would take another 3 minutes to reach Medium Range.



*The rule seems to require Speed-2, but I don't see any reason why a character moving at Speed-1 couldn't move the same distance in twice the time. Just double the number or rounds needed.

 

[Supplement Four]

Hmmm... a kind of interruption mechanic?

Yes. If a Hasty Attack is declared in the Target stage of STAMP, then the Hasty Attack is performed before the target's attack in the Attack phase, regardless of initiative.

It is a way of preventing an opponent of not only acting before you but also attacking at all that round.

Thus, the suppression happens when the First Attacker of a round successfully hits his target and when a character successfully uses a Hasty Attack.

Note that, as I read it, the suppression by the First Attacker and by a Hasty Attack only prevents the target from Attacking that round. The target can still make his movement (like run away!).

 

[BytePro]

7 minutes running to cover 850m (~4.3 mph*)?

Is that with or without the walker. :rofl:

Seriously, the rules are talking rounds, not minutes. The use of abstractions like Range bands and Speed-2 intentionally avoids stating things like meters per minute. A round is not 'about a minute', except in terms of coming up with a SWAG for overall combat time - so it is generally incorrect to refer to minutes between range bands. Such extrapolation conflicts with the abstraction.

As an abstraction, I think Speed-2 simply implies faster motion under circumstances - i.e. in combat this could cover everything from weaving, zig-zagging about and crouched running to a straight out sprint. Likewise, Range bands are simply indicators of relative distances, not exact meters. Speed-2 doesn't mean running - it means a speed somewhere between faster than walking and slower than motorized. Just like a round covers some time from seconds (or even fractions of) upto several minutes, averaging** 1 minute; and, Range 1 is somewhere greater than 5m and less than 500m, averaging 150m.

Time, distance, speed and size all sound like they are relative abstractions and any hard numbers applied are merely by way of examples and not definitive. Individually, there are quantitative references so people can relate to them, but they are only meant as ballpark figures - using them in combination is not correct without allowing for multidimensional ranges.

Question - any terrain handling?


[* 350m in 4 minutes is about 3.1 mph - i.e. the average walking pace across age groups according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking.]
[** rounds could be much faster, faster, about, slower, much slower - the average would be 'about', but 4 out of 5 most would not be in this example. So saying rounds are 'about a minute' and using such for extrapolations would be inappropriate.]

 

[Reban]

I don't think there's any terrain handling in Personnal Combat beyond cover and concealment.

T5 uses 1Km Individual Hexes, 10Km Local Hexes and 100Km Terrain Hexes for mapping. To each of these you can apply one of 36 "terrain types". These mainly interact with vehicle movement.

So if you're standing in the center of an Individual Hex, the edge is at Range Band 4 and the center of any adjoining hex is at range band 5.

Being abstract, terrain at this level doesn't have to impose any restrictions to movement.

Annoyingly I just found a reference to the Terrain Chapter in World Mapping but I think that chapter got cut somewhere in the Beta. In fairness the terrain types are self explanatory and do get several tables in vehicle movement.


I've come up with the following to explain T5 Combat to myself: Its just like Jack Baur in 24. You know everything he does in an episode takes an hour but he kills so many without much thought of ammo expenditure and moves indeterminate distances without ever getting stuck in traffic that Jack must be working in Combat Rounds and not according to the digital clock on screen. :rofl:

 

[Supplement Four]

7 minutes running to cover 850m (~4.3 mph*)?

Is that with or without the walker. :rofl:

Just a guess, but maybe it considers movement through the view of a combat situation? Where the character is moving slower than he could if he were just strolling out on the sidewalk.

Seriously, the rules are talking rounds, not minutes.

We're talking round AND minutes.

If the character moves from Range Band 5 to Range Band 3, it takes 4 rounds to move to Range Band 4 and another 3 rounds to get to Range Band 3.

If that's where the combat ends, then total time is still around 7 minutes.

Individually, there are quantitative references so people can relate to them, but they are only meant as ballpark figures - using them in combination is not correct without allowing for multidimensional ranges.

Range Bands are also used for altitude and depth.

Question - any terrain handling?

Not much, from what I've seen.

I don't think there's any terrain handling in Personnal Combat beyond cover and concealment.

T5 uses 1Km Individual Hexes, 10Km Local Hexes and 100Km Terrain Hexes for mapping. To each of these you can apply one of 36 "terrain types". These mainly interact with vehicle movement.

The Speed system can be used with any locomotion. You just change the Speed rating. A Vehicle may use Speed-3 where as a human would be at Speed-1.




RE: Combat Rounds about One Minute

The abstract rounds don't really bother me at all. How often does exact time of combat really matter in a combat encounter anyway.

If a character wants to run across the street, it's up to the Ref if he gets there instead of a count of squares. The Ref may say, "Bullets zip by your head, and you can hear the crack of automatic fire in the distance. But you make it. You can feel your heart in your temples, and you touch the cover of the other side of the street."

Or, the Ref may say, "It's a wide, multi-lane street. You can run to the cover of the median, halfway, then run the rest of the way next round. Are you going to attempt it?"

Or...the Ref may say, "You dash off across the street, and just as you make it about half way, there's a loud, echoing crack. You look up, and you see wood from a covered window on the second floor fall to the street. In the window, you see the snout of a large caliber machine gun and a couple of shadowing figures moving to operate it. It opens up on you...."



In a game where plotting is used, the situation is decided by the character's movement rate the number of squares across the street.

In games like T5, the situation is governed by the Ref's sense of drama.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm starting to read the chapter on Tasks now, and I've discovered that our little multi-target House Rule here is really just an implementation of the Hasty Task rule (page 212).

Reading further, I do think we can stretch the rules to cover multiple targets and not necessarily have to call the multi-target tweak a House Rule.

See the task chart on page 130? During the Decision Step, the attacker in a combat round makes the decision to attack more than one target.

This leads to Secondary tasks--the primary task to attack that round is sub-divided into Secondary tasks, one attack task per target.

Necessarily, these Secondary tasks become Hasty Tasks, and thus each requires a +1D to difficulty per Secondary attack task (per target).



It's not an exact fit of the rules--rather, more of a shoe horn fit--but I think it works close enough.