Thinking about Personal Combat for T5

[robject]

I found the P1-P2-P3 modes in GunMaker... and I like them.

But I've edited them into my current edit as multiplying damage by 2 or 3 before applying, instead of rolling Hit Dice multiple times -- a pain.

 

[JFGarber]

I thought the multipliers were 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0?

But I agree with your interpretation of when to apply them.

 

[robject]

I thought the multipliers were 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0?

But I agree with your interpretation of when to apply them.

Wow, you're right. Fills me with dread to think that I'm actually thinking I can lay this all out when I can't even get a reference right.

What happened was this. I read them completely separate from the combat chapter (because they're not in the combat chapter) and thought "Yeah, that makes sense. Totally."

So then I flip over to the combat chapter and read the rules for burst and auto mode there, and think "yeah okay, so separate attacks just means rolling more dice, so okay, that's an improvement." And then I go one further and think, "so why bother rolling the damage dice multiple times then? Just to court carpal-tunnel syndrome? Or just to flatten out that curve just a little bit more?" And so I end up where I end up.

 

[robject]

How about just using skill alone with Unarmed combat.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
Unarmed Attack, Ram, or Block: 2D < Unarmed
* Lowest success wins.
* Attack/Ram or Block each round.
* Minimum task 1D.
* Damage is per weapon, or half STR with improvised or no weapon.
Multiple attacks on a single combatant roll individually against the target, who gets to choose who they hit as long as their combat total is higher.

[/FONT]

 

[robject]

Special Consideration: "Book 1" Style Cover and Armor.

(alternate rule for those who like Book 1)

If preferred, select cover as a value from 1 to 6. This acts as a dice roll modifier on attacks against the character, but also (at half value) for attacks made by that character. If this rule is used, then attacks on this character also handle armor penetration. In this case, armor value, divided by 10 (round up), is also treated as a dice roll modifier on attacks against this character. If the attack succeeds, armor is also penetrated; roll damage and apply each die (at half value, rounding down) against a random characteristic.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[robject]

Combat Example

Jorn Krin ik-Idiniii L87A56 Fighter-2(Unarmed-2) Ar 10
Laser Carbine (Pen-2 Burn-4)

Jorn's Fighting Number is 8 + 2 = 10.


Khaalo Hariisi 6879A5 Fighter-2(Guns-1, Beams-1) Ar 20
Machine Pistol (Bullet-4)

Khaalo's Fighting Number is 8 + 3 = 11.


Situation. Jorn has boarded Khaalo's ship with the intent to capture it.

Round One. Range = 2. Jorn elects to take cover: Jorn takes cover behind a bulkhead (TL 12, so Ar 10+12 = Ar 22) and clicks off a snapfire; Khaalo doesn't, but rather opens up on full auto with her Machine Pistol ("Die, cursed Amindii pirate!!").

Looks like a grave error on Khaalo's part. She should've taken cover AND gone full auto. And maybe that's a hole in the rules... (no full auto when taking cover?)


Jorn's task roll: 2D < 10. He rolls a 6, and hits Khaalo.

Damage. Jorn rolls 2 dice for pen and multiplies by 2 since it's attacking her armor. The result is 7 x 2 = 14. Next, it rolls 4D burn damage: high to low, they are 6, 5, 3, and 3. The first die is absorbed by armor (14+6=20). The next three hit physical characteristics randomly: 5 points to Dex, 3 more points to Dex, and 3 points to Str. Her Dex is now zero, and she falls unconscious after her attack is recorded.

Khaalo's task roll: 2D < 11. She rolls an 8, and hits Jorn.

Damage. Khaalo rolls 4D penetration (bullet) damage; because she is firing on full auto, she multiplies each die roll by 3. High to low, she rolls 6, 5, 1, and 1, for a result of 18, 15, 3, and 3 points respectively. The first value is pen against armor, so it's doubled: 36 points penetrates, even past cover. The remaining three die rolls hit physical characteristics randomly: 15 points to End, 3 points to Str, and 3 more points to Str. Jorn's End is now zero, and it falls unconscious.


The first person up wins the combat.

 

[pendragonman]

Is that right? Jorn has a strength of L? Why is he bothering with a gun at all and just going with boarding axe?

 

[David Johansen]

Actually, that reminds me. I strongly suggest that the animal damage values be equal to the dice they roll for the attribute rather than the attribute score. An elephant is not a better weapon than a fusion cannon. I'd also like to suggest a cap of 1d of Pen for any melee attack and that be reserved to space axes and similar super weapons.

 

[robject]

Is that right? Jorn has a strength of L? Why is he bothering with a gun at all and just going with boarding axe?

Yep, Amindii are strong.

I imagine he's got a boarding axe or some molecular blade. The problem was the encounter range. If he charged Khaalo in a bum rush with no cover, she'd cut him down before he got within striking range.

 

[robject]

Actually, that reminds me. I strongly suggest that the animal damage values be equal to the dice they roll for the attribute

That's quite reasonable.

I'd also like to suggest a cap of 1d of Pen for any melee attack and that be reserved to space axes and similar super weapons.

Just playing devil's advocate here to get more info: so a molecular-edge space axe won't cut an opponent in two?

 

[pendragonman]

Ok, next question

If Jorn did a snap fire, why was his task 2d? Isn't snap fire at least +1d? (p176)

I would think that since he had to move to cover, his speed was at least one so show be +2d, but maybe cover was close enough to not require actual movement.

 

[robject]

Ah, this is because I'm using my "Edit #3" rules. Movement allows snapfire without penalty (move and fire). Attacking someone who is moving adds 1D to the task.

We'll see if that makes attacks too cheap. I tried some combat yesterday evening with Range 3, two taking cover and two moving, and none could hit the first two rounds. Needs tuning.


EDIT. No, it should have been a 3D task, just as you say, because I do bump up difficulty when the target is moving.

 

[robject]

On reflection, I think I prefer adding to difficulty based on the attack task, and make the assumption that typically the character is moving if he's not taking cover. In the less often cases where the character is immobile but not under cover, then we can reduce the attack difficulty.

Something to think about. These sorts of decisions could be used to "balance" the task system for combat.

Another item I haven't thought about is melee weapon range, but I think that's taken care of already by the contact range bands.

 

[pendragonman]

On reflection, I think I prefer adding to difficulty based on the attack task, and make the assumption that typically the character is moving if he's not taking cover. In the less often cases where the character is immobile but not under cover, then we can reduce the attack difficulty.

Something to think about. These sorts of decisions could be used to "balance" the task system for combat.

Another item I haven't thought about is melee weapon range, but I think that's taken care of already by the contact range bands.

There is moving and moving. There is a distinct difference than the shuffling around and body contortions necessary to engage with a weapon and running/sprinting/tactical assault.

I agree that the shuffling around that includes short steps in some direction that is actually less than half of the movement base should not affect the difficulty.

OTOH, the active action of moving aggressively towards/lateral/away from a target, movement that is very clearly more than half their move base should have an increase in the difficulty modifier. Even for the trained, there is a distinct increase in difficulty engaging a target from a mostly non-moving position and engaging at even a walking pace.

 

[robject]

I think "Cover as Armor" is potentially a problem: it means you'd need a chart handy to see what level of protection cover gives. The solution is to provide a fixed range of cover, like T5.09 does, except it's treated like armor, so it's not nearly as powerful. On the other hand, it doesn't prevent you from attacking, which would seem to make cover more powerful. And I doubt the two balance each other out.

Even for the trained, there is a distinct increase in difficulty engaging a target from a mostly non-moving position and engaging at even a walking pace.

Yeah, I think you're right - and I updated the combat example to account for moving.

 

[robject]

T5.00 and T5.09 use Cover as a kind of Anti-Characteristic, if you think about it in a certain way. It penalizes the C+S of both attacker and defender.

So, one alternate way to partly handle Cover is to halve the defender's Characteristic when attacking.

In other words, Attacking From Cover as a special rule, rather than a mod on the normal Attack Task.

I dislike special rules. It's probably just as good to add to the defender's attack difficulty. But I want to think about it.

 

[pendragonman]

T5.00 and T5.09 use Cover as a kind of Anti-Characteristic, if you think about it in a certain way. It penalizes the C+S of both attacker and defender.

So, one alternate way to partly handle Cover is to halve the defender's Characteristic when attacking.

In other words, Attacking From Cover as a special rule, rather than a mod on the normal Attack Task.

I dislike special rules. It's probably just as good to add to the defender's attack difficulty. But I want to think about it.

Is the various amounts of cover addressed? Like is there a difference between 20% or less cover from 75% or more cover? That will make a difference.

 

[robject]

Doesn't it make sense that in typical combat situations, the "terrain" will have sufficient opportunities for cover, and characters will therefore be taking cover?

Shouldn't then the combat system be tuned on the assumption that characters are already in cover? And modifications therefore go in the other direction -- in the less frequent cases where a character is sprinting across the open in order to reach another bit of cover?

Typical - Regrouping Mode

Combatants are behind cover.

- "no" movement
- special actions are possible - reloading, first aid, etc
- aimed shots are very difficult
- suppressing fire is difficult
- snapshots are difficult
- heavy weapons fire is effective

Occasional - Assault Mode

Someone wants to close distance in an assault, or open distance in a tactical retreat.

- movement (people or vehicle)
- "no" special actions - reloading, first aid, etc
- aimed shots are extremely difficult and not advised (snipers may elect to open distance)
- suppressing fire (and anti-vehicle fire) is effective
- snapshots are difficult
- heavy weapons fire is difficult



Dynamics

Just check out the tactical dynamics here. If your opponents are just sitting tight, then you pepper them with heavy weapons (indirect fire gets past cover) and let your sniper do his thing (aimed fire seeks non-"moving" targets). You provoke them to move.

If they retreat, you follow.

If they advance, then you switch modes: your man-portable weapons carrier opens up some suppressing fire (suppressing fire seeks "moving" targets -- simplify to "attacking" targets), your sniper moves to a different location, and the rest of the group fire off snapshots because the other guys are not in cover -- it may not be easier to hit them (cover and movement = same difficulty modifier), but they're less protected (cover is armor) so if you hit you're more likely to do damage.

Yeah, that's how I like it.


Problems / Questions

Snap Fire versus Aimed Fire: aimed fire is much harder but results in "critical" hits?
But what about Burst and full auto?

 

[pendragonman]

I would agree that the intuitive response is to find cover, although the trained will not necessarily try for cover at first but to break the will of the targets by tactical assault.

So maybe not 80% for trained. Maybe an aggression choice?

Assault-aggressive-normal-defensive-hiding?

Just spit-balling here.

 

[robject]

And I'm not hung-up on the percentages. Just looking at the problem from a different angle. Check out my "dynamics" analysis I just edited into the previous post.