General > Discussion
Melee attacks -- roadmap?
Doctor J:
I served in the infantry twenty years ago, and bayonets were still being issued. Besides the frequent shooting practice, there also was occasional hand-to-hand practice. The idea is not that soldiers would charge into action intending to stab the other guy, but that the bayonet and rifle butt would be available as a last line of defense when things go bad. There are clearly some tradeoffs going on here: the bayonet is not as effective as the Claymore, but it doesn't weigh so much nor take up as much space. The main focus is clearly on the guns, the melee stuff is there as a backup.
Besides running out of ammunition, the other frequent uses of hand-to-hand are: 1) the firearm is jammed or otherwise out of commission; or 2) somebody suddenly jumps around the corner [or otherwise surprises you] at point blank range. It is MUCH quicker to slash or smash than to aim a longarm. #1 isn't an issue in this game, because of abstraction - there aren't critical hits or critical misses like in other games. #2 doesn't really happen in this game, again due to abstraction - the turn based system does away with issues of 'who goes first'.
If you're going to go ahead and implement unarmed combat, let me suggest another way of looking at damage: other than a rare case [critical hit] punching and kicking shouldn't kill the opponent. Other than knocking someone out [stun] the effect might be to "take his breath away". In game terms, this could be done similar to flashbang [take away his TUs]. If it could be done, i would also suggest that longarms [rifles, heavy weapons, etc.] not be allowed to fire [or have a steep penalty] at point blank range - pistols and other short weapons should be immune to this. I think this last suggestion would be hard to code.
I really like the idea of wrestling aliens to the ground. As long as the target is not significantly bigger/heavier than the wrestler, pinning somebody to the ground is a realistic way of capturing them. Well, maybe not a Bloodspider. I don't think it's a deal breaker to allow this to happen before the invention of the Stun Rod - it's not going to be successful very often and is likely to be more dangerous than using the Stun Rod. It would require the wrestler to have both hands free, and possibly another skill/proficiency. It might take more than one turn to complete. Needless to say, the target shouldn't be allowed to use ANY firearms while being grappled.
Panthera Leo:
--- Quote from: nemchenk on March 01, 2008, 09:52:39 pm ---Panthera Leo, so your approach would be to increase the damage done from hand-to-hand attacks, but increase their TU usage as well? ...
--- End quote ---
No, My approach to give existing weapons a very harmful to deadly point plant attack, or make extremely deadly modern melee weapons(kerrblade?). Granted their are weapons that can hit you with such sheer force that even a hit in the foot can transfer a large enough shock-wave to kill you outright just from that.
The large showy two-handed weapons would be out of the question, but look at what the Romans did. From behind their shields they'd advance in a phalanx and an execute a quick attack with their short sword, the Gladius (A tactic they used to great effect in their campaigns, once they got that close.) , and be ready to stab the next person before you hit the ground. All from the "safety" of behind their shield, no fancy sword fights. You where not getting up after they stabed you, it was game over after one hit...
Even S.W.A.T shields today as mobile full body cover, or the police in crowd control. Sense you asked, no, I'd make some massively damaging roman style weapons. They'd be quick, lethal, and some even being able to be thrown, just to bulky to be used with standard modern weapons.
Maybe reinvent a plasma weapon to be able to fire off rounds, then turn around a make a mono-filament plasma blade using something like technology that plasma windows do.
Edit: though in general practice I'd rather shoot my enemy from long range, preferable before they knew I was there.
Edit2: Better, yet, modify the plasma grenades into a shape charge to make a blast-wave type attack, or a arc that could (burn/cut) though almost anything. Having massive stopping power and either being too big or too fast to dodge effectively.
nemchenk:
Panthera, there is a level of abstraction here that I think you are missing -- someone being stabbed by a gladius is not going to just stand there and take it. They will be parrying and dodging, moving out of the way.
Someone being shot with a 9mm bullet will be going down to the floor. No dodge, no parry.
This is why I mentioned the larger TU costs -- to reflect the fact that hand-to-hand is not stabbing a straw sack. What you are proposing would turn this game into a hack-n-slash game. Another question -- if Roman short swords were so effective, how come special forces units the world over are using automatic weapons instead?
I prefer the "no shooting at point-blank range with longarms" solution, myself.
Panthera Leo:
--- Quote from: Panthera Leo on March 01, 2008, 08:52:06 pm ---
...They where abandoned because it was easier to "shoot someone dead" someone before they could make use [them]...
...The modern age has the stopping power, but your not going to beat the sheer collateral damage of the dark ages....
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: memchenk ---...They will be parrying and dodging, moving out of the way...
--- End quote ---
I have no desire to see UFO:AI turned into a Might-and-Magic game (they almost always had some kind of super tech hiding somewhere.)
We'll both romanticizing it, but I think you more so, the Gladius wasn't designed for a sword fight, parrying or anything else. It was a glorified precursor to the bayonet? It wasn't a sword in the classical sense of the word. You stab with it, that was about it. If you got in a RPG style sword fight with a Gladius, outside another short sword, you're dead or very good.
Outside spear's it's most famous use, that I know of, was a phalanx. A line of shielded soldier would make "lighting fast" thrust from behind the shield at the enemy*. The target didn't have much of a recourse to party or dodge, in a pure infantry battle your options where:
1.Out flank the phalanx.
2.Get out of the way, run.
3.Die(Stand your ground in any way shape or form. A second phalanx just means they die as well).
I'm no expert on Roman history, but it the day's equivalent of the SMG. We use SMG instead of short swords today because the SMG can do more total damage at a longer range, not because the chucks of iron or steel was not more deadly.
Just in case you are squeamish, again, something you may not want to read, sorry.
*The Gladius was tailor made to be used almost exclusively as a tool to make upward thrusts from the belly into the chest cavity. That's it. Thinking about it, it was nothing more then a glorified bayonet.
Edit, visual picture:
Did you ever see Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers? At one point during the siege of helm's deep the Uruk-hai(the big orcs) where marching up the ramp to batter the front gate in? Remember how they had their shields positioned? Not a perfect example, but there is a visual example of how a phalanx works. (I know they got flanked by the archers on the wall.)
Why am I in awe of melee weapons? You unload a few clips of a automatic rifle into someone, even if you can't aim that well, it's a safe bet their going to be dead. Given the choice of that or a sword, I'd pick the rifle; However, we turn a corner at the same, and one of us has a short sword, the other will be dead.
nemchenk:
Well, I can't agree with you there. Neither the Roman Legion, nor the Phalanx, were the unstoppable war machines that you describe. Sure, if you stab a sack of straw with a spear or a short sword, you will "kill" it instantly. If you stab a man with a shield and a sword, it all depends on how good you are vs how good he is.
A bullet travels at hypersonic speeds. A stabbing sword or spear is much slower. Ipso Facto: you can do something about an incoming melee attack (dodge, parry), you really can't against a bullet. Unless you are Agent Smith.
.
.
.
Now, back to the discussion on melee damage and TUs. We have several choices here:
- Make melee attacks fast or slow
- Make melee attack damage high or low
- Make melee attack damage spread tight or loose
At the momnet, I favour fast attacks with either low damage or a large spread. Fast attacks with a low damage means that while you can kill your target with melee, you will give him multiple opportunity for Reaction Fire. Seems like a nice balance of game mechanics to me, preventing this turning into.
Another mechanic which would be nice is giving Primary weapons (longarms and heavy weapons) a minimum range of 1 square, so that it is impossible to shoot at targets right up against you with those weapons.
What do you think? Lets try and stay on-course :)
nemchenk
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version