Critical Hits/Coup De Grace/Melee Damage Modifiers

[Surrealistik]

I am in the process of coding three additional features.

The first is critical hits. This initially permits a base 5% chance of dealing double damage after armour and resistances/vulnerabilities are applied. This chance is modified by accuracy and skill with a given weapon. The modifier is equivalent to (accuracy + relevant weapon skill) / 100, doubling the chance at maximum, and is further modified by weapon and firemode types. Aimed shots are much more likely to land criticals for example, than bullets from autofire/snap shots, similarily, sniper rifles are much more likely (per bullet) to land criticals than say miniguns, while rocket launchers obviously won't land critical hits at all.


The second is the coup de grace. This results in an automatic critical hit with any weapon if the following conditions are met:

A: You're adjacent to (right beside) your victim.
B: No one on that victim's team can see you.


The third is the melee damage modifier. Melee damage is increased for most melee weapons by a modifier equivalent to the (close combat skill + strength) / 100. At maximum (100 close combat skill, 100 strength, best of luck achieving either) this will effectively double the damage ((100 + 100) / 100 = 2x).

Questions, comments, opinions?

[Punkiee]

The first is critical hits.

Many games have critical hits/strikes but have always a ways to influence the chance of occurrence and/or damage associated with it. This is a necessity else there is no point to it. Else will be just the same as changing the damage and introducing luck. Luck is to be evaded at all cost imho in strategy games.
How exactly can the player directly control the critcal hits? Using it only as a second order derived effect would be a shame. Eg for aimed vs auto fire, the decision on the mode to use depend on the conditions and the available and needed TU's, not on the critical strike conditions. Instead of critical damage, one could just introduce a wider variance in the weapons damage to have the same effect.
If you cant influence it directly its probably not on the players mind and thus the player wont mind it happening or not. Unlike rpgs we dont dress up soldiers by calculating the average damage and all other stats to the point exactly.

Quick idea: critical hits could be used to augment second order effect of damage. For example a critical strike will damage the morale by x3 and boost the attackers morale. The victim could be knocked out temporarily or dazed, reducing his TU's.

The second is the coup de grace. This results in an automatic critical hit with any weapon if the following conditions are met:

A: You're adjacent to (right beside) your victim.
B: No one on that victim's team can see you.

I like this though. Its extra damage for sneaking up behind enemies. It might introduce the option of playing stealthy. We should also want extra features for it like encumbrance from wearing amour and heavy equipment. A stealth meter to aid the reaction fire. and so on..

[Surrealistik]

Many games have critical hits/strikes but have always a ways to influence the chance of occurrence and/or damage associated with it. This is a necessity else there is no point to it. Else will be just the same as changing the damage and introducing luck. Luck is to be evaded at all cost imho in strategy games.
How exactly can the player directly control the critcal hits? Using it only as a second order derived effect would be a shame. Eg for aimed vs auto fire, the decision on the mode to use depend on the conditions and the available and needed TU's, not on the critical strike conditions. Instead of critical damage, one could just introduce a wider variance in the weapons damage to have the same effect.
If you cant influence it directly its probably not on the players mind and thus the player wont mind it happening or not. Unlike rpgs we dont dress up soldiers by calculating the average damage and all other stats to the point exactly.

Quick idea: critical hits could be used to augment second order effect of damage. For example a critical strike will damage the morale by x3 and boost the attackers morale. The victim could be knocked out temporarily or dazed, reducing his TU's.

Control over critical hits is exercised in multiple ways. First of all, the stats your characters which you do have some degree of control over in singleplayer. The extent of this control increases over time as new recruits and stat increasing implants become availible. In multiplayer this control is far greater. Secondly, the weapon used. You have complete control over this. Thirdly, the fire mode, again, you have complete control over this, and consequently are afforded an additional degree of control over crit frequency. Some firemodes, such as the sniper headshot have an almost 100% chance of landing a critical on a successful hit, thus the control afforded by this venue is near absolute in some cases. While there are certainly considerations other than a firemode's critical chance modifier to take into account which will influence one's decisions, it is readily conceivable that the appeal of increased critical rates may tip the scales in decisions between any given number of firemodes. It is a factor like any other to take into account.

Further, merely wider variances would not have the same effect. Higher average damage equal to a percentage increase that is the sum of all crit contributing factors, would, over time, have the same effect approximately.

In any case, the overall impact of criticals on gameplay is minor, unless of course you deliberately maximize your odds of realizing one, in which case, you deserve to benefit from their inclusion. While I agree that in most instances, chance should be avoided and minimized in strategy games, this feature adds an interesting new mechanic to the game that can be strategically utilized and exploited. This specific addition of chance also adds a level of excitement and entertainment that can only be supplied with a randomly determined outcome.

Finally the additional critical hit effects you've proposed are interesting, but I don't find that critical hits should be limited to them, if this is what you're suggesting. If you get hit in a critical area, you're going to suffer for it in terms of health, in addition to whatever other side-effects result.

[BTAxis]

I've already asserted on IRC that I don't care for the idea of the coup de grace attack. As for criticals, I'm starting to think we should just leave them out, too. The damage variation is already in place, which means you can already get lucky and score a more damaging hit, especially against heavier armours. The effect isn't as pronounced, but the idea is the same, and as Punkiee said, we can tweak it easily enough. I believe adding more random modifiers is going to make the game worse. The more randomness there is, the less influence the player has over the flow of the game.

[Ildamos]

I like Surrealistik's ideas but BTAxis has a very solid point; I hate strat games with randomness thrown in.

[Surrealistik]

I've already asserted on IRC that I don't care for the idea of the coup de grace attack. As for criticals, I'm starting to think we should just leave them out, too. The damage variation is already in place, which means you can already get lucky and score a more damaging hit, especially against heavier armours. The effect isn't as pronounced, but the idea is the same, and as Punkiee said, we can tweak it easily enough. I believe adding more random modifiers is going to make the game worse. The more randomness there is, the less influence the player has over the flow of the game.

Actually the idea differs dramatically. The reason why is that the odds of realizing a critical are dynamic, and subject to a considerable degree of player control. Additional positive variance that has the sum effect of increasing average damage is not, and the influence a player wields over it is inferior. Further, although criticals do admittedly increase randomness, the dynamic has often proven entertaining and popular, even in games that are mostly skill based (e.g. TF2, countless RPGs, etc...). It also adds an additional degree of realism, introducing the dynamic in such a way that it faithfully mimics and abstracts (within reason) the concept of damage to especially vital areas. Current variance does not do this appropriately. It does not take certain important factors into consideration such as firing modes, accuracy, weapon skills, and the target's physiology (something I plan to enhance my system with), which should have a profound influence on one's ability to deliver an especially damaging shot. Further, existing variance also is applied pre-armour, as opposed to post armour. This is not particularily desirable. If a shot hits areas of greater importance, the damage it deals would first be subject to the dampening effects of any worn protection, and THEN would be modified. This is especially important given that armour now applies a flat reduction to all incoming damage. It makes no sense that a shot which would deal especial damage assuming the absence, or penetration of armour, but would in actuality do nothing in its presence is able to overwhelm such protection due to this variance ostensibly meant to simulate a range of impact outcomes that do more or less damage based upon where they strike the target. If this variance is meant to also simulate one striking weak/strong points in the armour, and thus superior/inferior penetration of a particular shot, then this should be illustrated with an additional set of variance applied to protection values.

That said, a critical hit system would overall constitute an improvement to the game. It's inclusion would render UFO:AI more realistic, and if past precedent is any indicator, more entertaining.

[Winter]

For my 2 cents, I dislike the idea of critical hits intensely. They have no place anywhere outside pure fantasy -- they're certainly not remotely realistic -- and this is not D&D.

I think Surrealistik's coup-de-grace outline makes very little sense, as well. Blasting something with a rocket launcher from one square away should not give any special modifiers just because no one can see the shooter. Really, no firearm in the real world is going to do extra damage depending on outside circumstances.

Even more importantly, we don't need it. The entire X-COM series did just fine without these things. So did the Jagged Alliance series. I believe that fiddly combat mechanics would in fact have hampered them, made them feel more cartoony, which is what would happen to UFO:AI. There's no point to adding these things to our game except as a mod for people to whom it appeals.

Regards,
Winter

[Surrealistik]

For my 2 cents, I dislike the idea of critical hits intensely. They have no place anywhere outside pure fantasy -- they're certainly not remotely realistic -- and this is not D&D.

I think Surrealistik's coup-de-grace outline makes very little sense, as well. Blasting something with a rocket launcher from one square away should not give any special modifiers just because no one can see the shooter. Really, no firearm in the real world is going to do extra damage depending on outside circumstances.

Yes, because I fully intend to have rocket launchers inflict critical damage. As stated previously, differing weapons will have differing critical rates. Obviously weapons that have a 0% chance of a critical i.e. the rocket launcher as I've mentioned, will not be eligible for coup-de-grace benefits. Coup-de-grace benefits apply not 'just because no one can see the shooter'. They are an obvious abstraction (my apologies if this wasn't apparent) of the idea of an opportunistic attack on an oblivious target who is unable to properly defend himself. A turned back is the difference between a slit throat for example, and a struggle, or a bullet to the head versus a panicked firefight.

On that note, critical hits mimic the concept of impacts on vital areas that will prove especially injurous or debilitating than normal. Getting a bullet through the brain as an example is much more likely to result in serious, if not terminal injuries than one through the gut. The abstraction is obviously imperfect, but it is functional, especially give the number of factors I mean to include in the calculation of critical hit probability.

Even more importantly, we don't need it. The entire X-COM series did just fine without these things. So did the Jagged Alliance series. I believe that fiddly combat mechanics would in fact have hampered them, made them feel more cartoony, which is what would happen to UFO:AI. There's no point to adding these things to our game except as a mod for people to whom it appeals.

X-Com also had damage variance that ranged from 1 to twice a weapon's listed damage value. That's infinitely worse than what I'm proposing. What's your point? Further, how precisely would a dynamic critical hit mechanic that took into account a number of logical factors make UFO:AI feel 'more cartoony'?

[DoomWarrior]

So did the Jagged Alliance series.

uh you obviously never played ja2 in deep. Ja2 HAD something like Coup de Grace. Take Dimitri (for example) and use his throuhing knife + attack an enemy from behind without his notice of ANY enemy with the knife. The Enemy will die, with a chance +75% or at least do some heavy damage. Do the same thing, but attack the guy frontal or on an alerted enemy, you will just do 1-5 damage points. If you keep in mind that a person has a typical health from 35-75 this is just a scratch.
The same is also true for "normal" knifes (but the base damage is higher ~15 points) and maybe for the "dart-gun".

[Winter]

uh you obviously never played ja2 in deep. Ja2 HAD something like Coup de Grace. Take Dimitri (for example) and use his throuhing knife + attack an enemy from behind without his notice of ANY enemy with the knife. The Enemy will die, with a chance +75% or at least do some heavy damage. Do the same thing, but attack the guy frontal or on an alerted enemy, you will just do 1-5 damage points. If you keep in mind that a person has a typical health from 35-75 this is just a scratch.
The same is also true for "normal" knifes (but the base damage is higher ~15 points) and maybe for the "dart-gun".

Not really applicable, because that feature (more sensibly) only works with knives, and its only purpose in JA2 is to make knives less totally useless compared to firearms.

Really, though, my comment about JA2 was about critical hits more than coup-de-grace.

Regards,
Winter

[DoomWarrior]

Really, though, my comment about JA2 was about critical hits more than coup-de-grace.

hm ja2 has also "cirical hits", where you can lose wisdom if you hit the targets head, Dexterity or Strength if you hit the body or Agility if you hit the legs.

[Winter]

hm ja2 has also "cirical hits", where you can lose wisdom if you hit the targets head, Dexterity or Strength if you hit the body or Agility if you hit the legs.

That doesn't do any extra damage, though, it just reduces stats in addition to damage. Which is something I wouldn't mind seeing in UFO:AI.

Regards,
Winter

[Surrealistik]

That doesn't do any extra damage, though, it just reduces stats in addition to damage. Which is something I wouldn't mind seeing in UFO:AI.

Okay. So you wouldn't mind seeing stat damage being randomly dealt on a successful impact (which in reality would apply all of the time as long as non-trivial damage were dealt), but you DO mind extra health damage? That's silly. So much for realism, and one of your chief arguments (which was notably lacking in the first place).

Not really applicable, because that feature (more sensibly) only works with knives, and its only purpose in JA2 is to make knives less totally useless compared to firearms.

More sensibly? So tell me, what is more sensible about a knife dealing extra damage at point blank range against an oblivious target and not a pistol or heavier weapon discharged into the back of someone's head? Is it because the knife is otherwise useless, and thus there is a basis in gameplay as opposed to realism (because there is certainly no justification on behalf of the latter)? That said, I find it rather ironic that someone like you would ever find something even remotely inconsistant with 'realism' (nevermind something as vastly divorced as this) that has a gameplay related justification to be 'more sensible'. Hypocrisy always reigns where expedient.

By contrast, the coup-de-grace as I have proposed it is a feature primarily meant to reward stealth, and flanking tactics (all of which are highly desirable behaviours) in a realistic fashion, not the use of melee weapons (which would be silly). This implimentation of the coup-de-grace has a two fold basis therefore; one in gameplay, and one in reality.

[DoomWarrior]

That's silly. So much for realism, and one of your chief arguments (which was notably lacking in the first place).

could you please strip down your anger...
There is no need to be affronted.

[OrderlyChaos]

I really like these ideas. Though I do recognize that critical hits do add additional randomness, it is subject to a signifigant degree of player control as Sur says and the mechanism can definitely be exploited by a crafty player. I don't understand why the concept of the critical hit is thought to be unrealistic (sorry Winter); you get hit in the head with a bullet and you're going to suffer all the more for it, right? The double damage (after armour applies) represents that. The factoring of soldier skills and the various fire modes, and weapon/ammo types into the critical probability also fairly represent realistic modifiers that might affect your chance of landing that headshot for better or worse. It just makes sense, and adds interesting new tactical depth to the game. Not only do you have to factor in accuracy, damage output and TU cost, but critical probability modifiers as well.

As for the coup-de-grace that's brilliant. Does it encourage stealth? Yes. You can't exploit the feature if you get detected before you manage to utilize it. Does it encourage flanking? Yes, as flanking arises from stealth. Is this a good thing gameplay wise? Unless stealth and flanking, two tactically desirable behaviours are considered bad things, then most certainly. Is it realistic? Definitely. If someone shoots you in the back of the head, execution style, because you hadn't the knowledge of his presence to pose resistance, you are going down. Alternatively if someone decapitates you with a Kerrblade while you're similarily oblivious, it's good game.

The melee damage modifiers are a no brainer. No need to elaborate on it.