Why do Combatants Circle Each Other?

[ender_wiggin]

Everybody does it when they have open space. Even ice bears.

Now, d20 doesn't really incorporate this into its mechanics -- in most melee battles, the angle of approach doesn't matter. But I've been screwing around with alternative combat systems lately because I'd really like to explore capturing the constant motion in combat that d20 seems to miss.

So. Why they people circle each other?

My first thought was that since most sword fighters were right handed, circling counter-clockwise will generate momentum in your favor and take away momentum from the adversary. So whoever doesn't circle loses out, so they both have to circle counterclockwise.

But animals seem to do it too. And kung-fu artists. etc.

Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

 

[Nifft]

It's good to be a moving target (so your opponent can't strike you precisely). By moving even a little, you become harder to hit. If you can vary your movement speed, you become much harder to hit.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Will]

It's easier to change movements than to move from a standing start.

Easier to dodge when someone attacks, easier to lunge when you're already sidling.

No idea how I'd incorporate this into D&D, but one could argue the Scout already does.

 

[Henry]

Also, if you can get behind someone, you can kill them off quicker. Therefore, you see the person trying to get behind them, you move, too. Hence the "circle".

 

[Glyfair]

Also, when you move your opponent will usually adjust to your position. He doesn't want you to gain a positional advantage. When they move that increases the chance that they will make an error and leave an opening.

Those that use this tactic often count on there superior skill. They expect that the chances of their opponent leaving an opening are better than their chance of leaving an opening for their opponent. That or their opponent not adjusting and giving them the positional advantage.

When I used to study T'ai Chi, I was taught about the other two internal chinese martial arts. One of them, Bagua, focuses on circling your opponent. The one exercise I was taught was entirely circling your opponent in various positions (as a beginner they want you to train this so you don't get dizzy while doing it, as I recall). T'ai Chi and Hsing I don't tend to circle*, though, so it's not universal.

* I was taught one of the differences is that in Ba Gua your opponent is the center and you circle him. In Hsing I the center is between your opponent and yourself and you attack through the center. In T'ai Chi you are the center.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There probably is not a definitive answer on this, but it's worth noting a few things:

1. combatants often circle each other at the start of a fight. Once the battle has joined, it is no longer even particularly common.

2. Combatants only circle each other in the manner you are describing in single combat. Packs of lions don't hunt that way. (The textbook method for a pack of lions to hunt is for the males to stampede a herd of herbivores to where the females lie in wait, let the lionesses jump out and kill some of the weak or slow animals and then eat). Nor did armies fight that way when it actually came to fighting. Their manuevers were (especially in the ancient world) generally a lot more linear. Yes there were flanking and encircling manuevers, but those were more generally one flank of the an army marching around or smashing through a flank of the opposing army to strike the main force in the rear or in the sides than the kind of mutual circling you suggest.

All that said, I suspect that the reason combatants might circle each other is that it is much harder to defend against an attack from the rear, and it is also more difficult to attack from the side. If two people are in a fight and one begins circling, the other needs to turn to face the opponent or he will be attacked from behind. Since both opponents would like to attack from an advantage like that, both simultaneously circle and turn to avoid being circled.

Once the opponents are in weapon reach, however things are different. Depending upon what, if any, rules govern the fight, one opponent might try to close and get inside his opponent's reach rather than circle. Another might try to move in closer yet and grapple. If one opponent backpedals, the other opponent may follow in order to retain the advantage and initiative.

Now, how about in D&D? D&D has trouble modelling this because it does not have facing. In fact, D&D's combat model is much better suited to skirmishes with a few combatants on each side than to single combats. (Though I recently did play out a D&D single unarmed combat that followed a remarkably similar trajectory to a couple UFC fights I once watched). Adding facing would make D&D more interesting as a single combat game, but more cumbersome as a skirmish style game. Pick your poison.

 

[DragonLancer]

Pretty much what everyone else has said. Its a lot easier to hit a staionary target, so you try to keep moving.

 

[Gez]

Everybody does it when they have open space. Even ice bears.

And dogs.

 

[Mark Chance]

1. combatants often circle each other at the start of a fight. Once the battle has joined, it is no longer even particularly common.

Yes, it is common. It's only that the plane on which the circling takes place changes. Consider wrestlers. Once on the mat, their positions aren't static. Each wrestler is continually trying to place himself in the advantageous position and place his foe in the disadvantageous positions (or, at least, maintain one or the other).

2. Combatants only circle each other in the manner you are describing in single combat. Packs of lions don't hunt that way. .... Nor did armies fight that way when it actually came to fighting. Their manuevers were (especially in the ancient world) generally a lot more linear. Yes there were flanking and encircling manuevers.

Same principle on a different scale. Advantageous position helps secure victory.

Of course, I don't see anyway the enormous number of variables related to real combat can be simulated in a game without the game becoming really, really dull.

 

[Flynn]

My fun answer: Better and more interesting camera angles.

My experienced answer: The combatants are looking for openings, trying to slip past their opponent's guard for a strike at an unprotected area. Most combatants keep their best defense towards their foe, to stop direct attacks, so an attacker either has to overpower the defense (such as a shield) or go around it by striking from above, below or most often to the side. This often requires the attacker to shift positions to better reach a striking position. As the attacker slides to the side, the defender compensates by shifting position as well to keep his defenses towards the opponent, and hopes that he, too, can find that elusive opening for a quick strike. That's why I've seen it happen in soft weapon combat, anyway.

Hope This Helps,
Flynn