Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Campbell]

Warhammer - The Old World Roleplaying Game should fit the bill. The game uses an opposed roll (Attack or Shoot versus either Defense or Athletics). If the attacker wins compare damage (which is a static value modified successes) to Resilience (Toughness + Armor).

If damage beats Resilience, you take a Wound from the Wound table. Having open wounds means you take increasingly worse wounds. Taking a wound clears the Staggered condition if you have it.

If damage does not beat Resilience, you are Staggered. Any time you would become Staggered by a successful attack again you must take a wound, fall prone or give ground (move to an adjacent zone). Obviously, you cannot make a decision that is impossible here. If you are cornered or surrounded by difficult terrain you cannot give ground. If you are prone you cannot drop to prone.

It should create some actual tactical decisions without a whole bunch of crunch or math. Have not seen it in use yet but really looking forward to giving it a go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Curious: for those of you who want more realism (of the 'verisimilitude' sort) do you also want realism in movie combat?

I treat stories and games as different animals. For stories, the point is that in context the events could happen, not that they're likely to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

I want more realistic healing (and damage) than I usually get.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

D20 test is a 5.5 term yes?

Yes

 

[Thomas Shey]

I want more realistic healing (and damage) than I usually get.

"Normal" (as in contrast to paranormal or high-tech healing) is rarely a big factor in most games anyway. There's no harm in making it realistic if one wants, because its probably not going to be in play often at the PC end at least.

 

[Mannahnin]

And other data showing that the biggest source of casualties is dysentery and malaria.....

Historically diseases kill a lot more people in war than enemy soldiers, sure, but I think that's orthogonal to the point under discussion.

Grossman makes some extremely strong assertions (“everything you think you know about war is based on 5,000 years of lies”) about the vast majority of trained soldiers being UNABLE/unwilling to kill, at least prior to what he describes as major changes in training starting during the Korean War. He asserts that prior to Korea only 15-25% of soldiers would even fire their weapons at an enemy. He claims that during Korea that figure got up to 55%, and by Vietnam over 90%, and that modern changes in training to overcome men's "inherent unwillingness to kill" have achieved a sixfold increase in combat effectiveness.

These are extraordinary claims.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Think a lot of gamers would not play a "realistic' system or replay it, there seems to be attachment issues to characters. You want quick and easy that favors the characters over the bad guys.

 

[dragoner]

I want more realistic healing (and damage) than I usually get.

How much though? We are kind of weirdly glass hammer, we hit and we break; one thing is that in a lot of war, esp ww1 and 2 the average frontline soldier lasted only a year or two. "Old hands" were in their early twenties. Kind of belies a crucial point one often overlooks in history, all those wars and revolutions are done by teenagers.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I treat stories and games as different animals. For stories, the point is that in context the events could happen, not that they're likely to.

Interesting. How does that translate over to games? That you want "likely" things to happen?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Historically diseases kill a lot more people in war than enemy soldiers, sure, but I think that's orthogonal to the point under discussion.

Not if your goal is realism!

"Yes, you defeated the dragon, but you also picked up dragonplague, and anyway that 1 point of damage got infected and antibiotics haven't been invented yet. Also you have trenchfoot and lice."

"...you also got a letter from your girl back home. You notice that she keeps mentioning her 'friend' the recruiting seargent..."