Combat Space

[GMMichael]

I finally got at the Warhammer fantasy positioning - it has four positions: close, medium, long, and...extreme? No grid involved. I didn't finish the chapter, but I think melee weapons are only useful at close range, magic and missiles work at medium and long? And extreme was pretty much, "I can see you, but that's about it." One action or "maneuver" would move between close and medium, and more moves are required at long and extreme.

Similar to the One Ring, Nytmare? Warhammer has some sort of Stance thing too, but I haven't figure it out, yet.

I think I actually want to go simpler with mine - and still include options (but not mechanics) for intimidate, rally, and protect. I like the requirement for a rearward stance, but I think the simplest requirement is simply "to be in rearward stance, you must have at least one companion in a more forward stance."

Then the question comes up, "why can't I get behind the enemies?" Does the One Ring cover that issue? Warhammer does by using the distance rating between individual parties, instead of using only two parties. Final Fantasy covers the issue with the "pincer attack" formation.

 

[Nytmare]

I think I actually want to go simpler with mine - and still include options (but not mechanics) for intimidate, rally, and protect. I like the requirement for a rearward stance, but I think the simplest requirement is simply "to be in rearward stance, you must have at least one companion in a more forward stance."

Then the question comes up, "why can't I get behind the enemies?" Does the One Ring cover that issue? Warhammer does by using the distance rating between individual parties, instead of using only two parties. Final Fantasy covers the issue with the "pincer attack" formation.

Why would you get rid of that? The two to one, with at least two people up front thing is trying to illustrate "getting behind the enemy"?

 

[GMMichael]

So the idea is that you don't have a "rearward" stance, if you're outnumbered (by 2x) or have only one person in your front line?

Interesting. My first impression of the One Ring rule is that it requires too much math. Having two people forward is easy enough to count. But then combatants on each side are saying, "really? We have five on our side, and they have three. You're telling me that One Guy can still hide from us?"

Now let's be generous, and assume that combatants on both sides are always maneuvering for best position. Which means the front rows are always maneuvering to be in direct attack position, and the rear rows are always maneuvering to stay out of direct contact. Can one guy in front protect three guys in the rear? Heck no. So I'm seeing a sort of Disengage action, heedless of numbers of combatants, which says, "go ahead and flank any party you want. When you're in the back row, a successful Movement or Sneak skill allows you to leave the combat. You can then re-engage in the next round on the far side of the enemy party (or right next to their back row)."

Obviously, the enemies should have some options here, to protect their wizards/archers in the back. First, the disengaging party has fewer members while they're maneuvering. So the enemies have a chance to win during the attempted flank. Second, flanking takes time (actions). The enemies have the advantage of more combat actions (that don't involve disengaging). Third, while the flankers are away flanking, the enemies can choose to flee, which is easier while they have fewer attackers to worry about.

But they had better do something useful, because their back row is about to face direct attack.

 

[Razjah]

This isn't a bad start. The rows give tactical options to those who want them, while still maintaining simplicity. If you want to add weapon abilities, such as a long spear being able to attack a second row character, you can.

You asked about dealing with range and cover, if you have Burning Wheel, it has Range and Cover mechanics. Those involved are trying to maneuver to take a shot without exposing themselves to a shot. Aiming takes time, and you can try to close to melee. It seems like this could work until combat reaches a melee point. Also for R&C, cover is a lot of things- trees, hills, crowds, walls, hedges, anything that can break line of sight or just make aiming hard.

 

[Nytmare]

So the idea is that you don't have a "rearward" stance, if you're outnumbered (by 2x) or have only one person in your front line?

It's a combination of both. When dealing with "adventuring party sized" fights, to fight from the rear, you need to have at least two people in melee, and you can't be fighting against more than double your numbers..

Interesting. My first impression of the One Ring rule is that it requires too much math. Having two people forward is easy enough to count. But then combatants on each side are saying, "really? We have five on our side, and they have three. You're telling me that One Guy can still hide from us?"

Now let's be generous, and assume that combatants on both sides are always maneuvering for best position. Which means the front rows are always maneuvering to be in direct attack position, and the rear rows are always maneuvering to stay out of direct contact. Can one guy in front protect three guys in the rear? Heck no. So I'm seeing a sort of Disengage action, heedless of numbers of combatants, which says, "go ahead and flank any party you want. When you're in the back row, a successful Movement or Sneak skill allows you to leave the combat. You can then re-engage in the next round on the far side of the enemy party (or right next to their back row)."

I don't think that's being generous, I think that both sides constantly maneuvering for the best position is how every fight outside of the 18th century is fought. Also it's two up front, X back behind. Beyond that, there's nothing saying that the terrain can't work for or against a group. I don't think that sneaking through the woods to get an attack against a bunch of archers, or boxing them into a cul de sac is against the rules, but they should be the exceptions to and not the rules themselves.

In your example of a five on three fight, those five guys would pound on one of the two "up front" guys and then the next round the archer would either have to retreat or draw a sword. If nothing else, it takes a rounds worth of running and fighting to catch up to the guys. Even n a crazy scenario where you've got two guys up front and twenty guys behind them fighting with range, it's still going to take a round's worth of fighting (and decimating one or both of the guys up front) before they can close with/flank/make the archers retreat.

I honestly think a tweak like that would be adding way more complexity than "4 x 2 = 8" These were meant to be an abstraction that mimicked how fights took place in a book, not a translation of a tactical miniatures game with no map.

 

[GMMichael]

Razjah, I don't have Burning Wheel. But I'd like to leave range and cover up to the GM's difficulty table, if at all possible.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/rolls
At normal combat range (within the two ranks per side), there are no range penalties. If you're shooting at something outside of combat, you'll have to decide if the shot is Challenging, Difficult, Unlikely, etc. You're welcome to take cover if the GM allows you to use something nearby, and it would probably add +4 to your Parry contest. (Unless you have really good cover...)

Nytmare, I was thinking of using a full turn (3 movement actions) to change rows. Now, using a single move action when you're on the front line wouldn't change a whole lot, since anyone up there could use a single movement to chase you down (or just reposition). But that would make moving up a row hazardous for low-level characters, since it wouldn't leave any actions for defense once you've arrived at the front row.

Here's the flanking issue, and you're right, it should be as simple as "4 x 2 = 8." Escaping combat will probably be an individual issue. So characters will need a good movement contest or sneak contest to escape. If they do escape, and can still be seen, the enemies could move their formation to avoid a flank. If they can't be seen, that would make it much easier to flank/ambush.

Does that mean only Thieves (sneaky guys) can flank?