project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Melee attacks -- roadmap?  (Read 22473 times)

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2008, 01:06:07 am »
I dont think that these firemodes were too deadly, actually most of them have a quite awful dam/TU if i did my maths right...and you have to think about the fact, that you have to go face to face, additionally losing  TUs. The main point why i would not included blunt attacks is, that they would make other melee weapons worthless...why bother changing weapons for close combat...

Yep, I think knife should be rather 6TU/40 dmg or even slower:) There is a reason, why it`s not used very often in  RL....

And why should it be included into the game, if it is useless?

The way i...ERROR OCCURRED!

EDIT: ARRGH!! I really have to find out, what error is messing up my posts!

The way I see it, melee weapons definitely need some punch, so it is usefull to have them...perhaps even 60dam/4 TUs....
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 11:14:17 am by tobbe »

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2008, 01:50:54 am »
...Didn't finish your sentence...

Woreczko

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2008, 09:10:53 am »
I dont think that these firemodes were too deadly, actually most of them have a quite awful dam/TU if i did my maths right...and you have to think about the fact, that you have to go face to face, additionally losing  TUs. The main point why i would not included blunt attacks is, that they would make other melee weapons worthless...why bother changing weapons for close combat...

And why should it be included into the game, if it is useless?
As the ufopedia says - when you run out of ammo, a knife is a better option than going vs aliens barehanded... :D I simply prefer realistic approach, knife shouldn`t be a weapon of same value as a gun. One can use it beacuse of necessity or for coolness factor but IMHO it takes away the game "climate" if gutting the aliens becomes viable tactics.

Offline tobbe

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2008, 11:23:08 am »
As the ufopedia says - when you run out of ammo, a knife is a better option than going vs aliens barehanded... :D I simply prefer realistic approach, knife shouldn`t be a weapon of same value as a gun. One can use it beacuse of necessity or for coolness factor but IMHO it takes away the game "climate" if gutting the aliens becomes viable tactics.

Seriously, how often have you run out of ammo? Most of the time, my whole backpack is empty, cause there is no need for additional ammo. The starting clip and one additional clip is absolutely sufficient (exception Rocket Launcher). If you really wanted to come to the point where ammo is scarce, there would have to be much more aliens on the map.

And even if I ran out of ammo: The first priority is to stay alive. So if I have lets say 10 TUs left and I stand 2 hexes away from an alien, I always run for cover atm, cause there is no chance of killing that alien with my knife right now.

I agree to the fact, that melee weapons should not be as effective as guns, but the need some edge, so they actually might be used.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2008, 11:24:56 am by tobbe »

nemchenk

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2008, 12:24:42 pm »
I think 3 things may be screwing up Melee weapons in 2.2.x:

1) I have never got RF from an Alien. Ever. I've played maybe 30 missions now. I think maybe the AI is not reserving TUs for RF.
2) Phalanx agents seem to be *very* accurate. I rarely miss, but then I tend to get my guys within 2-3 squares by using cover, and then Burst fire from point-blank range... Maybe the maps offer a bit too much cover, or it could be that without RF, it is easy to get from one bit of cover to the next.
3) Armour is not implemented, AFAIK, so most starting weapons can take down an alien in one or two shots/bursts/etc. If you had to empty entire clips to take an armoured alien down, you would be running out of ammo.

Woreczko

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2008, 08:56:10 am »
Armour works very well but for some reason someone decided it to be very weak against firearms that can burst. For the first alien armour I have set a protection value of 30 against all firearms save for bolter and sniper rifle. That means. taht the only human sidearms able to penetrate it are P-12 pistol (35 +/-17 dmg) and combat knife (40 +/-20 dmg). Makes the game much more challenging. I also made it so that medium alien armour is almost completely bulletproof with protection value of 80. It gives you the nice "oh shit!" feeling, when a point blank cannonade from bolter rifle doesn`t seem to scratch it :D

Check this out:
Code: [Select]
// =======================
// ALIEN ARMOURS
// =======================

//weights 100
item light_alien
{
name "_Alien Body Armour"
image armour/taman_light
model aliens/tamanlight/body01
type armour
shape "0 0 3 4"
center "0 0 -5"
scale 0.7
price 1400
size 50
buytype armour
useable 1
//TODO: TU penalty value. No support for this yet.

protection {
normal_light 30
normal_medium 30
normal_heavy 20
normal_spray        9

steelblade 10

monomolecularblade 5

blast 35

fire_medium 10
fire_heavy 10
fire_flamer         1

shock 0

plasma_light 20
plasma_medium 50
plasma_heavy 80

laser_light 20
laser_medium 10
laser_heavy 5

particlebeam_light 5
particlebeam_medium 1
particlebeam_heavy 1

stun 0
}

rating {
normal 30
steelblade 10
monomolecularblade 5
blast 35
fire 10
shock 0
plasma 50
laser 15
particlebeam 1
stun 10
}
}

//weights 120
item medium_alien
{
name "_Medium Alien Armour"
image armour/taman_medium
model aliens/tamanmedium/body01
type armour
shape "0 0 3 4"
center "0 0 -5"
scale 0.7
price 7500
size 75
buytype armour
useable 1
//TODO: TU penalty value. No support for this yet.

protection {
normal_light 100
normal_medium 100
normal_heavy 80
normal_spray        12

steelblade 60

monomolecularblade 10

blast 40

fire_medium 40
fire_heavy 40
fire_flamer         4

shock 10

plasma_light 10
plasma_medium 30
plasma_heavy 50

laser_light 30
laser_medium 20
laser_heavy 10

particlebeam_light 40
particlebeam_medium 30
particlebeam_heavy 20

stun 10
}

rating {
normal 90
steelblade 60
monomolecularblade 10
blast 40
fire 20
shock 10
plasma 30
laser 20
particlebeam 30
stun 10
}
}
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 08:58:18 am by Woreczko »

Woreczko

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2008, 09:04:44 am »
I agree to the fact, that melee weapons should not be as effective as guns, but the need some edge, so they actually might be used.
How about disabling ranged attacks if the enemy stands next to you? The one thing, I really liked about tabletop games, like WH40K and etc. is how you can tie your opponent in hand-to-hand combat, so that he won`t be able to fire his omgpwnzor heavy bolter in your face.

wotwot

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2008, 02:22:51 pm »
Wohoo! You could do Bruce Lee-kick in Duke Nukem 3D in addition of the other kick = kicking with two feet at the same time!  ;D

Umm, did I go offtopic?

Panthera Leo

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2008, 08:52:06 pm »
I don't think you should skimp on the melee damage. A good crack to the ribs is going to put you in more hurt then anything short of a hallow point or cannon round. I like the stun damage part though.

Why should the guns make with the blunt force trauma? Hint: Swords, flails, and maces where not abandoned because they weren't gruesomely effective at killing.They where abandoned because it was easier to "shoot someone dead" someone before they could make use of the implements of pain.

Edit: Odd the bolt rifles wouldn't do massive damage. The description says they do, and they should have a higher muzzle velocity then the assault rifle.






***The squeamish need not read further***






I'm sorry, but your not going to beat the sheer damage of someone's head being forceably crushed by a flail, being cleaved in two by claymore(The two-handed one, before someone get else else goes nerd  on me and ask which claymore.), or your gut being put though the blender with a short sword. The modern age has the stopping power, but your not going to beat the sheer collateral damage of the dark ages. There are sets of circumstances stances you can survive a gun shot to the head; The bullet following the outside of the skull, instead of going into it. You're not going to survive your rib cage or head suddenly being collapses to the width of a pancake. Neither the sudden destruction of you gut, with acid oozing everywhere.

Edit 2: Think of how a good sharp knife will slice though a tomato and you'll feel almost no resistance. How apply that to the human body. Hollywood doesn't show you anything, a battle field in the dark ages would have limbs everywhere and the ground red with small streams of blood flowing down hill.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2008, 08:59:21 pm by Panthera Leo »

nemchenk

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #24 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? I mean, landing a blow with said claymore is going to take considerably longer than lining up a shot and squeezing the trigger.

Also, in your comparison of swords v guns, you neglect to consider the effect of shockwaves and tumble. Even without hollow-point ammo, modern firearms do some very nasty things to the human body.

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2008, 04:16:49 am »
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

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2008, 12:44:39 am »
Panthera Leo, so your approach would be to increase the damage done from hand-to-hand attacks, but increase their TU usage as well? ...

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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 12:59:47 am by Panthera Leo »

nemchenk

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2008, 01:01:24 am »
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

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2008, 08:05:15 am »

...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....


Quote from: memchenk
...They will be parrying and dodging, moving out of the way...

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.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2008, 08:41:01 am by Panthera Leo »

nemchenk

  • Guest
Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2008, 02:58:18 pm »
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