"Close combat visceral low-tech results: your suggestions?" Topic

Folks! What results would you like to see generated in a more detailed close combat fight? I am thinking along the lines of mostly single combat and perhaps 2 or 3 combatants. So far:
Push back,
Stun,
Disarm,
Knock down,
Re-position,
Break away,
Wounded,
Killed,
Horrifically killed.
Anything else colorful to add?

The target idea is to generate a difference in success between the fighters and allow the more successful fighter to choose from a variety of options, sorted by points cost. The points could come from opposing dice rolls, simply subtracting low result from high.
TIA!

I'd look at picking up a copy of the old Rolemaster "10 million ways to die" or Arms Law.

The critical hit tables had a huge range of possible outcomes.

From your list, I might add something like:

*Bleeding and losing health.
*Follow-up attack bypassing blocks/parries.
*Forced on the defensive.
*Bonus to subsequent attack.

Kick
Bash as with a shield, etc.
Evade
Feint
Parry/Block
Fatigue rules
Different weapons

I'd love to see something like this for medieval tournament, or battlefield combat, along with various strategies for offense, defense, reacting to opponents' moves, etc., etc..

Not really sure how that would work though, and of course, quick-playing, with interesting tactical options would be nice too.

Nearest I can recall was the old combat system from Chivalry and Sorcery, for man to man combat. It was very detailed, and a bit slow. They came up with a card system to try to help speed up play, instead of writing down your next move(s).

Lots of options, including size and strength of opponents, various armor classes, etc., etc..

Wish I knew where that was, now.

I watched my daughter and her friends take martial arts classes, and made a brief foray into it myself. What I came to understand is that close combat is exhausting. Unless you are trained and in top condition, you just can't keep it up for very long. Consequently, two average fighters of equal talent would go at it really hard, slow, and then reach the point where they could hardly throw a punch or kick. Therefore, I think that after a few rounds (I don't know your time scale), stamina needs to become an important attribute. Stamina will not only affect abilities, but also the willingness of a combatant to keep fighting. You might also consider stamina hits, hits that do no real damage, but wear you down (make something go numb, make your eyes water, knock some of your wind out).

I also noted that fights among unequal opponents were over in seconds. There just were never any exceptions to that statement.

mwindsorfw makes some very good points. I'd add: almost all hand-to-hand winds up on the ground as a wrestling match eventually.

Agreed with Windsor. If it was me, I would simply pull out Holy Grail and farm the Black Knight encounter--certainly not scientific, but should give you a comprehensive set of outcomes. Plus, you'd get some additional flavor variations such as, "Defender laughs derisively as you slice off his left arm." Just a thought.

As mwindsorfw notes stamina is huge. I would add some kind of required drain on stamina score to perform any task. What I have seen is once a guy has lost his stamina he switches over to defense and the "flurry of blows" or "crushing blow" is no longer a possibility.

Part of the annual training I have to do for my job is fight for three minutes and not get beaten or pinned. I don't even have to win I just have to survive. About a minute into the match I am exhausted. I would add I am also 50 years old…

I would add grapple to your list. Even for armed combat sometimes the weapon or an arm is grabbed.

I would also add step in close or "hug' the opponent. This limits the types of attacks they can launch.

"In the beginning" (of my wargaming "career"), I tried for detail. A lot of detail. Your list is not comprehensive, as you admitted. And also, it is, in the end, unnecessarily ponderous. That means slooooow. A slow game is boring. It seemed that the more detail I tried for, the slower the game got, and the boredom factor went up. I gave it up, in the end. Of course, that took several/many tries and failures to get detail and speed to cooperate. Finally, I resolved on 2D6 combat, in discrete rounds, with results being reduced to "stunned", "wounded", "unconscious", "mortally injured/dead".

Fatigue is equally distributed. It only becomes a factor when fresh fighters are added into the scenario. Even then, don't overdo it. "All day" battles involved the same fighters standing their ground or attacking repeatedly, "all day" (e.g. Hastings, oh, btw, "Happy Battle of Hastings Day", yesterday – I forgot).

You can simply reflect fatigue by reducing "combat value" for it. A little reduction goes a long way!……….

"All day" battles involved the same fighters standing their ground or attacking repeatedly, "all day"'

I am not an expert on the battle of Hastings or the period but my experience when historians describe an "all day" battle is they fail to take into account breaks in action. Five or ten minutes to rest can recover stamina between bouts of fighting.

I also agree with what Great War Ace said about over doing the detail. If the game does not move along at a good speed the players will be bored and lose interest. Phoenix Command springs to mind…

I like the idea of reducing combat value to represent fatigue.

A game is a game, if the detail gets to the point where you aren't having fun, lower the detail. I would gloss over the details of hand to hand in a WW2 game, or if I want a fast moving fantasy game. But in a game with a smaller number of figures, where hand to hand combat is the primary method of combat, I'd decide how much I wanted to showcase that combat. I might be willing to put up with a lot more detail in order to see the difference between different fighters.

I can understand what you are trying to achieve mwindsorfw. A skirmish game featuring small numbers of miniatures where hand to hand combat is the main focus. I always wondered what a Three Musketeers fencing game would be like where someone could use the "Gamboli Defense" (I made that up) where your moves and strategy are important.

Another word about stamina. I have seen some guys preserve their stamina by opting for pure defense, parrying seems to use less energy than attacking. Once their opponent is exhausted they still have reserves of stamina and launch a counter attack. A lot of fights I have seen both guys try to win it in the first 30 seconds and expend their stamina.

i dont know the limitatons of the system you are making, but things like "throwing dirt to eyes" "spit in the face" or some kind of random neutral result (taht can affect any of both sides) like slip, sliding off the weapon ( and its effects on the warrior) would make the game "meta game" funny.

Imagine that a sword, spear, axe can slide from your hands due the sweat, or the low stamina would make the fighter slower, and weaker hits etce tc

Thanks very much everyone for your thoughtful answers. Lots to think about- and playtest. Striking a balance between detail and speed is essential!

Footing. For example, I would imagine that trying to use a katana while standing on snow could be a bit tricky and really worrying. Unless of course one has trained in advance for such an eventuality!

In other words, at this level the immediate context of the fight should be taken into account?