Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[dragoner]

Nobody wants realistic healing though, damage can take forever to heal, or never.

 

[mmadsen]

As I’ve said before, some odd decisions went into D&D's design: hit points go up dramatically with level (and without magic), to-hit goes up, damage doesn't really, AC doesn't really, etc.

I would expect Sir Lancelot to last 20 times as long in combat as his squire — it's not a problem that he's that good a fighter — but I wouldn't implement such fighting prowess by giving Lancelot 20 hit dice (or nine) but no extra AC or damage.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As I’ve said before, some odd decisions went into D&D's design: hit points go up dramatically with level (and without magic), to-hit goes up, damage doesn't really, AC doesn't really, etc.

I would expect Sir Lancelot to last 20 times as long in combat as his squire — it's not a problem that he's that good a fighter — but I wouldn't implement such fighting prowess by giving Lancelot 20 hit dice (or nine) but no extra AC or damage.

While Chainmail was the inspiration for D&D, D&D combat was heavily influenced by a naval game. The bigger the ship, the more hit points and armor it had.

 

[aramis erak]

Its why I say trying to be too realistic with rates of fire is almost pointless; most of that metal ends up not going in your target anyway, even with people who are skilled shooters. Shooting at the range and in a firefighter are just different beasts.



Interesting. I wonder if that's because the .32 did deeper body penetration? Because its not normally considered a particularly punchy round.

The commentary implied that it was a weapon of last resort, and the Deutches Polezei (sp?) typically shot in the face, rather than center of mass. A one shot kill is often a one-shot stop. And the thinnest parts of the skull are the eye sockets...

 

[FrogReaver]

Eliminating stop motion combat would be my focus for realism.

For human fighter vs human fighter conflicts I think ac is simple and realistic, it’s just not granular. It’s when you start adding giants into the mix that it just doesn’t make much realistic sense.

 

[mmadsen]

For human fighter vs human fighter conflicts I think ac is simple and realistic, it’s just not granular.

I think it would be even more simple and realistic if a “hit that overcame armor” meant the target went down. (PCs and other important characters would heal and recover, of course.)

It’s when you start adding giants into the mix that it just doesn’t make much realistic sense.

This is a solid reason to have a model that separates out some of these factors, because the game routinely violates expectations of similar combatants.

If we say a magic sword can cut through stone, it should ignore mundane armor, but it shouldn’t hit a pixie any more often. If we say a magic arrow or mundane bullet can punch right through armor, flesh, and bone, it should drop a giant or a dragon with one well-placed shot, just as it would drop an elephant or a bison, but a typical shot should just enrage the target.

 

[Argyle King]

Average, not typical.

But that's according to an FBI survey, and while I will skip the Famous But Incompetent's tendency to turn everything into politics, given that police agencies in the USA are autonomous, and have no obligation to report, or even report accurately, and there is no standard level of police training among roughly 5600 police agencies, it is hard to make a definitive claim.

But yeah, marksmanship under combat conditions is poor. Up through Korea and into Vietnam, the military standard for most nations was that it took a man's weight in small arm ammo to kill one enemy. Conscripts with iron sights make for low accuracy.

The reality that gets ignored, including by the Forever Bothering Italians, is the Human factor; out of ten average combatants, you have a couple who are never going to aim, because consciously or unconsciously, they don't want to shoot someone, around six who never honed their skills and are just trying to survive, and around two who are trained, knowledgeable, and trying hard to put metal on target. The US Army confirmed this in numerous studies during and after WW2 and every other conflict.

This is why you see such terrible accuracy levels in real life: shooter motivation.

Statistically, most police shootings occur at night, very fast, and against a mobile target. Yet the vast majority of police agencies still train in daylight, on known-distance shooting ranges, against static targets, using the audio-controlled group fire that was first designed by the PA state police in the 1920s. Most officers who do train at night, against mobile targets and chaotic conditions, do so on their own time and dime.

There is fierce debate over whether the rise of US Army accuracy in the conflicts of the 21st century is due to the optics issued, the fact that it is Regulars doing the fighting, or the influence of combat-oriented video games changing the bottom tier of shooter's perceptions.

Years ago, I read a book that talked about how increased accuracy (post Vietnam) was due to psychological factors in training.

The hypothesis is that changing from the abstract square and circle targets to the head and shoulders silhouette of a person helped to make soldiers more comfortable with firing at other human beings.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The commentary implied that it was a weapon of last resort, and the Deutches Polezei (sp?) typically shot in the face, rather than center of mass. A one shot kill is often a one-shot stop. And the thinnest parts of the skull are the eye sockets...

Ah, so it was probably a question of usage than of the weapon, per se.

 

[mmadsen]

Years ago, I read a book that talked about how increased accuracy (post Vietnam) was due to psychological factors in training.

The hypothesis is that changing from the abstract square and circle targets to the head and shoulders silhouette of a person helped to make soldiers more comfortable with firing at other human beings.

That’s Grossman’s On Killing. He used to have essays up on his site explaining most of his main points, but those have disappeared. His claim was that soldiers were extremely reticent to shoot to kill but could be conditioned to:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.​

 

[Mannahnin]

That’s Grossman’s On Killing. He used to have essays up on his site explaining most of his main points, but those have disappeared. His claim was that soldiers were extremely reticent to shoot to kill but could be conditioned to:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.​

Marshall's data has been called into question, and Grossman has some serious detractors. I don't think his assertions are very well supported.