...You are my only hope! Well, and any one else interested in jumping in..

So, the Combat Section. I feel I am forgetting something but I am not sure what.

Thanks,
Bill

QuoteCombat
Below are the steps for resolving combat.
1. Determine initiative. If not modified then all characters act at the same time. Order at the table is determined by the GM.

2. Roll 3d6 and add the character's combat skill and Body Stat;ex. 3d6 + Ranged Combat + Body. Defender rolls 3d6 + Body + Dodge. This is their Defense roll. If the attacker's result is higher or equal then he hits the defender, if the defender's roll is higher they successfully dodge the attack. Remember to add modifiers for defender actions and combat conditions. NPCs may use static Defense where there Defense is equal to their Body + Dodge Skill rank + 9. This can be done to speed the session. If rolled, the NPC's Defense can be rolled in groups;i.e. all currently attacking.

3. If the attacker hits then they roll damage as indicated by the weapon. This is done by rolling a number of d6 equal to the damage rating of the weapon. For every 5 or 6 result on the d6 rolled, a damage level is inflicted. If a 6 is rolled, then an additional d6 is rolled for another chance to add a wound level.
Damage is applied when it happens. This means on the attackers initiative. If it kills the target, they are unable to return the attack.

Armor will absorb damage equal to its damage rating but then the remaining damage levels will bleed over to the character's Body.

Example: Dirk elects to go at 0 since the Infected is beyond mele range this round. Dirk fires his shotgun on an infected who has broken through the blockade. He rolls 3d6 and gets a 3+4+5 for a total of 12. He then adds his Body(5) and Ranged Combat(5) skill rank for a total of 10+12 = 22. The Infected has a 10 Body, 3 Dodge and his default 9 for a total difficulty of 22. Dirk hits. The Infected is too far away to bite and charges to close.
Dirk deals his damage of 6 dice. He picks up 6d6 and rolls. He gets a 1, 2, 5, 6, 3, 5. Because he rolled a 6, he gets to roll that one again. He rolls a 5 adding another level to the 3 levels he originally dealt for a total of 4. The Infected, a previous swat member has a padded Kevlar uniform on and it absorbs 1 level allowing 3 to penetrate.

Next round, Dirk decides to get the jump on the infected and takes a penalty of -1 to  drop his init to -1. The GM rolls the Infected and he gets a -2 init, -2 to skill. Dirk decides it is that important and raises his penalty to -3 and -3 init, ensuring he goes first. He rolls his 3d6 and gets 4, 5, 6. Because he rolled a 6, he gets to roll the die again and add to his total. He rolls a 5. This means he has a total of 4 + 5+ 6 + 5 = 20. At a -3 he only adds 7 for his Body and Ranged Combat skill for a total of 27. More than enough to hit. He then rolls his 6d6 in damage and rolls a 3, 3, 5, 6, 5, 6. Again, he is able to roll the 6s. He rolls a 3 and a 5 adding one level. He deals 5 levels minus 1 for the Infected's uniform. This kills it.

Surprise Attacks
If a target is not aware of the attacker, for instance a sniper firing on an unaware Infected, then the defender does not receive a Defense roll. The Difficulty becomes the target's Body Stat plus any modifiers the GM assigns.

Covering Fire
A group can lay down covering fire for a person. The group declares the person who will receive the cover then fire normally. They may target enemies normally and deal damage normally but they receive an additional 3 to the Difficulty of hitting anyone. However, they add 1 to the Defense roll of the person they are covering for each person providing covering fire. This works whether they hit anyone or not. For example, if a marine is running a message to the HQ and his squad(12 soldiers) lays down covering fire, the character receives a +12 bonus to their Defense roll.

Panic Fire
This is an attack mode that a person can assume where they fire wildly with an automatic weapon. This will give them double their attacks but add 3 to the Difficulty. In doing so twice the ammo is consumed.

Quote from: HinterWelt;272360...You are my only hope! Well, and any one else interested in jumping in..

So, the Combat Section. I feel I am forgetting something but I am not sure what.

Thanks,
Bill

Hi Bill:

The only bit that I have a problem with is "Covering Fire." Here's the problem as I see it - One person covering another is not really worth doing.  

Here's what I think will fix that:

QuoteCovering Fire:
A character or group can lay down covering fire for another character. The covering characters declare the person who will receive the cover, then fire normally. They may target enemies normally and deal damage normally, but for each -1 they take on their chance to hit, they add +1 to the Defense roll of the person they are covering, cumulative for each person providing covering fire. This works whether they hit anyone or not. For example, if a marine is running a message to the HQ and his squad (12 soldiers) lays down covering fire, each one taking a -1 to hit, the character receives a +12 bonus to their Defense roll. Another example would be if one character is covering another character sprinting to a flanking fire position, and the covering character takes a -3 to hit, the sprinting character gains a +3 on his Defense roll.

Does that work?

-clash

Here's a question, Bill:

"Armor will absorb damage equal to its damage rating but then the remaining damage levels will bleed over to the character's Body."

Does armor take damage? If so, how much? There are 4 possibilities:

A: Armor does not take damage. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 damage forever.

B: Armor takes damage equal to the damage absorbed. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 damage total, then be worth nothing.

C: Armor takes a portion of the damage absorbed. This portion is variable in design, but an example would be 1 in 5, or 20%. Armor rated at 5 will take one point of damage per 5 points absorbed, and next hit, the armor will be rated at 4.

D: Armor must be repaired between engagements. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 points of damage until the engagement is over, then will absorb 5 - (damage taken by armor, however that is applied) points of damage unless the armor is repaired before the next encounter.

How does armor work in the new Irridium?

-clash

I wonder at the entire covering fire debate here.  Lemmee see if I can sum up:

Essentially the act of firing a gun at another human being will, in most cases, make the recipient immedeatly seek to put a hard object between the oncoming bullets and his own fragile person.  Those who fail to do so have a special name. Corpses.  

In a way the term cover fire essentially means: Make those motherfuckers over there seek cover while I run like an idiot across this here open ground.  

In and of itself, cover fire is no different than regular combat fire.  Why should it be any more or less accurate than regular fire?  There is one way to look at it, certainly: volume of fire is important, particularly when multiple targets are being engaged.  A person can, with a semi-automatic weapon, realistically keep one, maybe two people 'supressed', if they are close together, but that guy behind that tree over there? He's not taking fire, he could give a shit about the cover fire.

Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) have the advantage that its easy to walk fire across a wide swath of territory AND being seriously intimidating to boot! There was serious doubts about the M249 light machinegun from old soldiers when it was first feilded because the larger, heavier M60 was KNOWN to be useful for its intimidation value on the battlefield.  It can be debated if the distinctive thump was innately scary or the simple fact that when you heard it you knew it was, in fact, a machine gun rather than an assault rifle made it so.

As a proponent of realistic mechanics over abstract metamechanics I can suggest an alternate solution or two.

One: provide a morale penalty to combatants actively taking fire. If they have taken fire that round, perhaps preventing them from taking an aim action would be sufficent (you DO require aim actions for true accuracy, don't you? You don't?! For shame....)

Second: allow, or instituite a sort of 'opportunity fire' against a designated target, which if you like can be called 'cover fire'. Thus a 'covered' target knows that if he breaks cover to take a shot he will get shot at before he rolls his dice.  This can even work against player characters without having to force morale mechanics on their inevitably 'fearless' characters.

Assuming this will be using some version of Iridium I will endeavor to locate my Nebuleon book (I moved recently, half my stuff is still in the garage...) so I can comment more directly about the mechanics of combat.

Quote from: flyingmice;272382Hi Bill:

The only bit that I have a problem with is "Covering Fire." Here's the problem as I see it - One person covering another is not really worth doing.  

Here's what I think will fix that:

Covering Fire:
A character or group can lay down covering fire for another character. The covering characters declare the person who will receive the cover, then fire normally. They may target enemies normally and deal damage normally, but for each -1 they take on their chance to hit, they add +1 to the Defense roll of the person they are covering, cumulative for each person providing covering fire. This works whether they hit anyone or not. For example, if a marine is running a message to the HQ and his squad (12 soldiers) lays down covering fire, each one taking a -1 to hit, the character receives a +12 bonus to their Defense roll. Another example would be if one character is covering another character sprinting to a flanking fire position, and the covering character takes a -3 to hit, the sprinting character gains a +3 on his Defense roll.

Does that work?

-clash

Hmm, I like that. I can see Spike's point though as well. My concern there would be that "realism" is not my goal.  This allows an advantage to characters while not bogging down too much in crunch. That said, I do have concerns that covering fire will not work against the walking dead. I mean, essential to the idea of covering fire is that a person does not want to get hurt.

Setting Info Pertinent to this point:
There are two broad types of "Zombie". The first are the Infected. These have many types and sub-types including mutations and mindless berserkers. They are still alive though and can be affected by many things. They are nominally sentient, require nourishment and can suffer from diseases but nothing short of trauma to a vital organ will kill them. They inevitably become carriers of all manner of disease and many end up starving to death. They tend to wander in packs based on those infected and the spread of the Virus.

The second type of "Zombie" is a traditional animated dead body. The parts must still work but it is primarily reliant on musculature and skeletal structure with a nominal nervous system. Here, stopping them is a function of doing enough damage to either the muscles and skeleton to cease their proper function or destroying the command system that controls the muscles, the brain. They do not feel pain. They do not feel hunger. They do not move quickly unless the body is infected at or before death. Some Infected will come back as living dead when they die but this is uncommon due to the bad shape the infected are in when they die.

Quote from: Spike;272457I wonder at the entire covering fire debate here.  Lemmee see if I can sum up:

Essentially the act of firing a gun at another human being will, in most cases, make the recipient immedeatly seek to put a hard object between the oncoming bullets and his own fragile person.  Those who fail to do so have a special name. Corpses.  

In a way the term cover fire essentially means: Make those motherfuckers over there seek cover while I run like an idiot across this here open ground.  

In and of itself, cover fire is no different than regular combat fire.  Why should it be any more or less accurate than regular fire?  There is one way to look at it, certainly: volume of fire is important, particularly when multiple targets are being engaged.  A person can, with a semi-automatic weapon, realistically keep one, maybe two people 'supressed', if they are close together, but that guy behind that tree over there? He's not taking fire, he could give a shit about the cover fire.

Fully automatic weapons (machine guns) have the advantage that its easy to walk fire across a wide swath of territory AND being seriously intimidating to boot! There was serious doubts about the M249 light machinegun from old soldiers when it was first feilded because the larger, heavier M60 was KNOWN to be useful for its intimidation value on the battlefield.  It can be debated if the distinctive thump was innately scary or the simple fact that when you heard it you knew it was, in fact, a machine gun rather than an assault rifle made it so.

I agree but there are a lot of factors here. We need to ask ourselves if we are adding to the experience of a Zombipocalypse game or just adding rules. I mean, optimally, we would have a "Coolness Under Fire" stat or Morale as you put it and cover fire would play against that. You would need a number of mechanics to handle the different angles the fire is coming from, what counter measures you are taking and who precisely is being covered. I do not know if that serves the zombie genre well.

Quote from: Spike;272457As a proponent of realistic mechanics over abstract metamechanics I can suggest an alternate solution or two.

One: provide a morale penalty to combatants actively taking fire. If they have taken fire that round, perhaps preventing them from taking an aim action would be sufficent (you DO require aim actions for true accuracy, don't you? You don't?! For shame....)

In a way. You can delay your action and gain bonuses to your attack die. This solution seems complex to me when I start modeling it. It could just be me though. Let's see. What you would need to have is some form of targeting people on the field, the enemy and mapping it to those effected and those not. Then you would need to have a morale system that can be beat down or made to fail via cover fire  or what would be the point of cover fire. I mean, if we provide cover then the guy just pops up anyway...meh.  Not to say it should be automatic nor that it should freeze them in place but then we would need a way to recover it quickly. So, the scenario I would see happening a be :

Bob has 10 Morale
Cover Fire gets laid down
Bob now has 8 Morale
Bob need 5 to fire so he fires
Jim takes it in the chest. Next Runner.
More Cover Fire.
Bob was shot at when he popped a cap in Jim's chest. His Morale drops by 5 because he took fire last round.
Bob has a Morale of 3. He cannot fire this round.
Bob cowers and strokes his rifle making himself feel brave. He recovers 3 Morale to push it to 6. He can fire next round but Jim Jr. is past by then.

See, I think that would make a good war game but I am nto sure a zombie game would do that well. I could be wrong though.

Quote from: Spike;272457Second: allow, or instituite a sort of 'opportunity fire' against a designated target, which if you like can be called 'cover fire'. Thus a 'covered' target knows that if he breaks cover to take a shot he will get shot at before he rolls his dice.  This can even work against player characters without having to force morale mechanics on their inevitably 'fearless' characters.

This strike me as better. Essentially, if you have the people, say a 1-1 kind of thing or 1-3 with automatic weapons, you can get auto init and deal your damage before the enemy can fire. I like this better.

Quote from: Spike;272457Assuming this will be using some version of Iridium I will endeavor to locate my Nebuleon book (I moved recently, half my stuff is still in the garage...) so I can comment more directly about the mechanics of combat.

Not to worry, it is not. I may use your ideas in Iridium V2 though if that is alright? This is just "The System" right now. Think of it as me spreading my designer wings...not too much but it is rare I get the chance.

Quote from: flyingmice;272390Here's a question, Bill:

"Armor will absorb damage equal to its damage rating but then the remaining damage levels will bleed over to the character's Body."

Does armor take damage? If so, how much? There are 4 possibilities:

My rough working idea right now is that armor does not take damage but does reduce damage. To give an idea, here is the current list of armor.
Armor      
Item        Absorption   Availability
Leather Jacket   1   9
Bi-weave Kevlar 3       3
Kevlar with B-Plate 5 1
Kevlar Uniform   2      6

Absorption is the amount of damage that the armor reduces.

Quote from: flyingmice;272390A: Armor does not take damage. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 damage forever.

B: Armor takes damage equal to the damage absorbed. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 damage total, then be worth nothing.

This is Iridium. "The System" that I am using for Zombipocalypse is different. Currently it is like 1.

Quote from: flyingmice;272390C: Armor takes a portion of the damage absorbed. This portion is variable in design, but an example would be 1 in 5, or 20%. Armor rated at 5 will take one point of damage per 5 points absorbed, and next hit, the armor will be rated at 4.

I am not sure I even understand that one. :confused:

Quote from: flyingmice;272390D: Armor must be repaired between engagements. Armor rated at 5 will absorb 5 points of damage until the engagement is over, then will absorb 5 - (damage taken by armor, however that is applied) points of damage unless the armor is repaired before the next encounter.

I am toying with this one. To be honest, I am thinking of having it reduce by one with every hit and be able to be repaired between engagements. So, you start with 5, it absorbs 5, then next hit, it absorbs 4, next hit 3, next 2, next 1, then 0. I would also consider having it halt at 1 and always absorb one which would then get you having visuals of Army in tattered body armor.

Quote from: flyingmice;272390How does armor work in the new Irridium?

-clash

Iridium V2 is the same as V1, it is ablative or like B. Essentially, covers so much damage per area then is done for that area. This create holes. :The System" will not track damage on a per area nor really have any formal hit location table other than a possible random 10 area table. Damage is tracked on a damage track going from 1 to Body of the character.

Thanks guys. Lots to consider.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;272486Hmm, I like that. I can see Spike's point though as well. My concern there would be that "realism" is not my goal.  This allows an advantage to characters while not bogging down too much in crunch. That said, I do have concerns that covering fire will not work against the walking dead. I mean, essential to the idea of covering fire is that a person does not want to get hurt.

If the Infected retain their minds to an extent, then they will probably have the same reaction to shots as a normal human. Even if I swear up and down you won't be hurt by a shot, it would be imossible not to flinch when a shot is fired, even if you believe me. The regular zombie is another story.

QuoteI am not sure I even understand that one. :confused:

To explain it better, let's use the 1 in 5 example. The armor takes 1 point of damage for every 5 points it absorbs. So if the armor absorbs 10 points of damage, it reduces its damage absorbing rating by 2. Let's say that Bob's armor is rated at 3 when new. He is shot, and the damage is 6. His armor absorbs 3 points, and 2 points go to Bob's HPs. Now his armor rating is reduced to 2 because it absorbed 5 points. He gets hit once more for 3 points. The armor absorbs 2 and one goes to Bob's HPs. His armor stays at a rating of 2, because it only absorbed 2 points, not 5.  

QuoteI am toying with this one. To be honest, I am thinking of having it reduce by one with every hit and be able to be repaired between engagements. So, you start with 5, it absorbs 5, then next hit, it absorbs 4, next hit 3, next 2, next 1, then 0. I would also consider having it halt at 1 and always absorb one which would then get you having visuals of Army in tattered body armor.

That would be cool, and easy to keep track of.

QuoteIridium V2 is the same as V1, it is ablative or like B. Essentially, covers so much damage per area then is done for that area. This create holes. :The System" will not track damage on a per area nor really have any formal hit location table other than a possible random 10 area table. Damage is tracked on a damage track going from 1 to Body of the character.

Thanks guys. Lots to consider.

Bill

OK! I have v1 - I wasn't sure about v2.

-clash

O.k. So something Linda just pointed out and I had no answer. What about multiple opponents? What about multiple attacks for weapons?

So, multiple opponents first. Do we need special rules? Man, I am torn on this one. On one side I am a big fan of just saying "hey, use common sense" for the number of people who can attack at one time. The defender has his back to a wall? Then maybe 3-4 at most. In the middle of an open space? As many as can pile on. On the other hand though, we are talking zombie hordes. Should we have swarming rules? Off the top of my head I would say each additional opponent in mele with a defender decreases his Defense roll by 1. Have 5 guys on you? That's a minus 5 to your defense roll. I just am not sure on this one.

Multiple shots. So, one of the things I like in my games is the idea that different weapons get different attacks. I was thinking:
1. Each weapon would have a number of attacks associated with it.
2. The Default would be 1 attack.
3. A person could split their Body + Ranged Attack bonus up as many times as the weapon has attacks.

So, Example:
Dirk has an M-16 and it gets 2 Attacks. His Body (5) + Ranged Attack (5) = 10. His target, a bunch of Infected, have a default Defense of 19. Dirk splits his bonus into 5 and 5. He then rolls 3d6 to attack twice, once for each attack, and rolls a 9 and 14 which become a 14 and 19 when the 5 is added. He hit once.

Thoughts?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;272565O.k. So something Linda just pointed out and I had no answer. What about multiple opponents? What about multiple attacks for weapons?

So, multiple opponents first. Do we need special rules? Man, I am torn on this one. On one side I am a big fan of just saying "hey, use common sense" for the number of people who can attack at one time. The defender has his back to a wall? Then maybe 3-4 at most. In the middle of an open space? As many as can pile on. On the other hand though, we are talking zombie hordes. Should we have swarming rules? Off the top of my head I would say each additional opponent in mele with a defender decreases his Defense roll by 1. Have 5 guys on you? That's a minus 5 to your defense roll. I just am not sure on this one.

Multiple shots. So, one of the things I like in my games is the idea that different weapons get different attacks. I was thinking:
1. Each weapon would have a number of attacks associated with it.
2. The Default would be 1 attack.
3. A person could split their Body + Ranged Attack bonus up as many times as the weapon has attacks.

So, Example:
Dirk has an M-16 and it gets 2 Attacks. His Body (5) + Ranged Attack (5) = 10. His target, a bunch of Infected, have a default Defense of 19. Dirk splits his bonus into 5 and 5. He then rolls 3d6 to attack twice, once for each attack, and rolls a 9 and 14 which become a 14 and 19 when the 5 is added. He hit once.

Thoughts?

Bill

As for the multiple opponents, that's what GMs are for. Let them play it by ear according to the situation. There might be thirty or forty zombies out there against one guy, but if he's defending a narrow alley or a catwalk, they can't gang up on him. The 'man on the spot' has the best idea of the situation. At most, give a couple of examples of how to handle different situations.

I like the number of attacks idea, though!

-clash

The question I should have addressed in more detail is accuracy of fire.  One statistical 'fact' of combat is that if you are exposed for more than three to five seconds you are dead.  Soldiers are trained, to some minor degree, to mutter "I'm Up, he sees me, I'm down" as they combat move to time their movement between cover.

Assuming an abstract ammo rule (not suitable for zombie games, I'm sure) then this is fine: Its assumed that in a 3 second combat turn the average combatant can fire with a degree of accuracy familiar to players of RPGs... just assume that they fired more than one shot and missed a bunch.  

GURPS, working with a 1 second combat turn forces you to take two or three rounds to shoot people, which is realistic (somewhat: I have serious issues with their accuracy penalties as they apply to rifles. I, and most shooters I know can snap fire 'fast freddy', the 50meter target just fine without aiming, while in GURPS you are taking -8 penalities for less than half that distance (in a 3d6 game....ouch!), but awkward to play out at the table.

Insamuch as we were talking covering fire, aiming isn't really much of an option but you wouldn't be taking 'snap shots' precisely either, as you would, in theory, be pointing right about where you expect the bad guy to pop up.

So, back to my point: What is the role of aiming in terms of accuracy of fire in your system and how long are your combat rounds/actions broken down?

Quote from: flyingmice;272612As for the multiple opponents, that's what GMs are for. Let them play it by ear according to the situation. There might be thirty or forty zombies out there against one guy, but if he's defending a narrow alley or a catwalk, they can't gang up on him. The 'man on the spot' has the best idea of the situation. At most, give a couple of examples of how to handle different situations.

I like the number of attacks idea, though!

-clash

I am actually thinking of dropping the cover fire rules as well. I think that may be something best handled by the GM as it may or may not come into play a lot depending on the type of campaign.

Quote from: Spike;272710The question I should have addressed in more detail is accuracy of fire.  One statistical 'fact' of combat is that if you are exposed for more than three to five seconds you are dead.  Soldiers are trained, to some minor degree, to mutter "I'm Up, he sees me, I'm down" as they combat move to time their movement between cover.

Assuming an abstract ammo rule (not suitable for zombie games, I'm sure) then this is fine: Its assumed that in a 3 second combat turn the average combatant can fire with a degree of accuracy familiar to players of RPGs... just assume that they fired more than one shot and missed a bunch.  

Oh...I don't know if you will like where I am going then...

Quote from: Spike;272710GURPS, working with a 1 second combat turn forces you to take two or three rounds to shoot people, which is realistic (somewhat: I have serious issues with their accuracy penalties as they apply to rifles. I, and most shooters I know can snap fire 'fast freddy', the 50meter target just fine without aiming, while in GURPS you are taking -8 penalities for less than half that distance (in a 3d6 game....ouch!), but awkward to play out at the table.

Insamuch as we were talking covering fire, aiming isn't really much of an option but you wouldn't be taking 'snap shots' precisely either, as you would, in theory, be pointing right about where you expect the bad guy to pop up.

And I like your solution on the cover fire front with granting first fire to those covering another target. Hmm, I think we would need an order on the cover fire though. That is to say, what happens when you are covering someone who covers you? I would think it would be a draw so if you both pop up you both shoot at each other, normal init. However, if one of you pops up and shoots at someone else or moves then the one still covering gets the shot. Sound good?

Quote from: Spike;272710So, back to my point: What is the role of aiming in terms of accuracy of fire in your system and how long are your combat rounds/actions broken down?

Aiming is a trade off of initiative for bonus to hit. You go later in the round due to taking time to aim or you go sooner in the round and take minuses to hit. A max of your Ranged Combat skill in terms of bonus or minus;i.e. if RC rank is 4 you cannot "aim" for more than a +4 bonus.
Example:
Everyone starts with a 0 init. You want to aim your rifle at an Infected for a bonus of 3. Your init is now 3 and you go after everyone else. Another person pops off some quick shots and takes a -2 to make sure they can go first. If the Difficulty to hit the Infected is set at 15, then the first person would need an 11 while the later would need a 17 or higher.

Now, if by aiming you mean hitting a spot like a called shot, I have not addressed that yet. Probably should. Any thoughts?

As to combat rounds, man, you ain't gonna like this. I was thinking of handling it like Iridium, that is make time slide. If a GM and group want a round to be 1 second or up to a minute does not matter, it just needs to be determined ahead of time. Essentially, it is meant to be a "short time" as opposed to a Turn which is a "scene time" or the time of one group of actions in the game.

That said, this is not Iridium. Do you have a suggestion?

Thanks for the input guys. This is very helpful.

Bill

Luckily I started gaming long before I learned how combat actually tended to work, so while I can say I've never really been happy with combat rules accuracy, I can also say that i don't particularly care... much.  

Aside from that, I personally don't feel having an actual second count (or what have you) for 'rounds' ever adds much to a game (unless, you crazy fool, you are modeling it off of Pheonix Command!), aside from letting the GM know how much 'real time' has passed during combat.   I do think longer rounds work better for game play and to draw combat out to more reasonable lengths... seriously a Shadowrun firefight involving twenty people can be over in less than ten seconds, and is on a shockingly regular basis. Compare to real world engagements where people have time to go shopping for better weapons during the fight!

The problem I regularly see with longer rounds is that they don't really account for the fact that people can do a lot of things quickly. If you are firing off one shot a minute it breaks immersion just as readily as if you are able to run fifty feet, aim for and hit the head of a guy 300m away from you, and do the same to his three buddies, in one second...

Quote from: Spike;272948Luckily I started gaming long before I learned how combat actually tended to work, so while I can say I've never really been happy with combat rules accuracy, I can also say that i don't particularly care... much.  

Aside from that, I personally don't feel having an actual second count (or what have you) for 'rounds' ever adds much to a game (unless, you crazy fool, you are modeling it off of Pheonix Command!), aside from letting the GM know how much 'real time' has passed during combat.   I do think longer rounds work better for game play and to draw combat out to more reasonable lengths... seriously a Shadowrun firefight involving twenty people can be over in less than ten seconds, and is on a shockingly regular basis. Compare to real world engagements where people have time to go shopping for better weapons during the fight!

The problem I regularly see with longer rounds is that they don't really account for the fact that people can do a lot of things quickly. If you are firing off one shot a minute it breaks immersion just as readily as if you are able to run fifty feet, aim for and hit the head of a guy 300m away from you, and do the same to his three buddies, in one second...

This is one of the primary reasons I made the time framework I did for Iridium and will most likely apply here. The way I have it set up you can have a round that is a few seconds where fire is blasted back and forth. Then, have one that runs one minute as people switch position or do longer actions. This allows for the group that wants tighter tracking of time in the game. For me, when I run (really just about any system) I just keep it to discrete actions. The part that gets subjective is when you have a scenario like a guy picking a lock and two others covering him. They may get 20 or more rounds while he does his one action. Generally, I leave this to the judgment of the GM. When I am running I warn them up front and they usually decide against that path unless they can do it under cover.

Now, as to this game, do you think that would work? Do you think we need a "skill timer" if you will? Basically, say these actions are combat round actions while these take longer. I am not a fan of this solution since most of it will be common sense kind of things. In other words, picking a lock takes time. Picking a vault door, a really long time. Picking a padlock on a kids jewelry case, not so long.

Does that make sense?

From a combat POV, I base attacks more on recoil and aiming capability. Generally, and VERY abstractly, I have caliber be the big influence here. Firing a bunch of .22 cal pistol rounds will be easier to control recoil and maintain target. A .50 cal Glock is more difficult. Can you pull the trigger that fast? Sure but accuracy is also built into attacks. Does that answer some of your question on accuracy?

Now, Spike and Clash, I am open to trying something new. Like I said, this is a spread your wings sort of thing for me. However, I will admit, my play style preferences will most likely be an influence here.

Thanks guys,
Bill

I find handling recoil best when done on an individual weapon basis, either increased recoil penalties per shot done by weapon (this one is a -1 rcl, that one is a -5... whatever) or by controlling ROF... or both.  So that .50 cal Glock would have a slower rate of fire because, no matter how bad ass you are, you just can't shoot it too fast.  

I'd really have to look at how you interface actions with a sliding time scale to weigh in with any detail.

As for beating locks: any safe, vault or serious lock will be rated by three timetables (which are averages, mind you...) how long it takes to beat it loudly, surruptiously, or sneakily.

That is, a vault I work in is rated for 10 minutes if they want to blow the door with explosives (letting everyone in the area know they're busting down the door), 3 hours if they bring a torch and drill (ruining the door but not alerting anyone) or 30 hours if they just want to crack the code/pick the lock (making it only obvious they broke in if you notice stuff is missing afterwards...).

It is relevant if you want to have beating locks and doors a major part of combat, I suppose.  Obviously, anything resembling a serious lock isn't feasably 'picked' in combat time.

Given the abstracted time (sliding scale) it might be simplest to declare a 'skill attempt' to take one 'long round' where combat actions (supressive fire, taking incomeing fire) is similarly abstracted.   Say you go for a somewhat cinematic '1 minute to pick a lock', as a standard (all skill checks take one minute in combat... whatever...). Thus the party is holding a perimeter around their lockpicker while he tries to get the door open so they can escape the Nugget Army that is attacking them.

Thus each player in combat rolls one check for their primary combat skill ( shooting) and one defense (you have them roll defense? No? Doesn't matter so much...). You can decide that X number of successes (or an ammount of damage) means they've held off the assault until the round is done, while failing to meet that means that the Nugget Army assaults at the end of hte round (regardless if the lockpicking succeeded or failed).  Now, damage inflicted is also abstracted out to a percentage of available targets being injured/incapacatated, while obviously if they fail their defense they took incoming fire, meaning they get hurt... and the lock pick guy may also get hurt, though he isn't shooting back.

Not sure how you'd write that into rules terms exactly...

Quote from: Spike;273249I find handling recoil best when done on an individual weapon basis, either increased recoil penalties per shot done by weapon (this one is a -1 rcl, that one is a -5... whatever) or by controlling ROF... or both.  So that .50 cal Glock would have a slower rate of fire because, no matter how bad ass you are, you just can't shoot it too fast.  

That is how I handle it and why a heavy caliber or autofire weapon has fewer attacks than lighter cal semi auto weapons. It is abstracted into the number of attacks for a weapon. I could have a series of minuses that result in no shot at some point, and I think that would most likely be very realistic, but I also think it would be cumbersome combined with the over all mechanic. Just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Quote from: Spike;273249I'd really have to look at how you interface actions with a sliding time scale to weigh in with any detail.

As for beating locks: any safe, vault or serious lock will be rated by three timetables (which are averages, mind you...) how long it takes to beat it loudly, surruptiously, or sneakily.

That is, a vault I work in is rated for 10 minutes if they want to blow the door with explosives (letting everyone in the area know they're busting down the door), 3 hours if they bring a torch and drill (ruining the door but not alerting anyone) or 30 hours if they just want to crack the code/pick the lock (making it only obvious they broke in if you notice stuff is missing afterwards...).

It is relevant if you want to have beating locks and doors a major part of combat, I suppose.  Obviously, anything resembling a serious lock isn't feasably 'picked' in combat time.

And that is why I am thinking just having a simple two state descriptor. It either is possible in combat or takes too long. The thing that makes me hesitate is whether it would add to the game or not. I could see it being rather unnecessary in most cases. People aren't going to think you can weld armor on a vehicle in combat. So, I am thinking of leaving it uncoded and letting the group decide. If they want to let a guy pick a vault door in under a minute, meh, their call.

Quote from: Spike;273249Given the abstracted time (sliding scale) it might be simplest to declare a 'skill attempt' to take one 'long round' where combat actions (supressive fire, taking incomeing fire) is similarly abstracted.   Say you go for a somewhat cinematic '1 minute to pick a lock', as a standard (all skill checks take one minute in combat... whatever...). Thus the party is holding a perimeter around their lockpicker while he tries to get the door open so they can escape the Nugget Army that is attacking them.

Thus each player in combat rolls one check for their primary combat skill ( shooting) and one defense (you have them roll defense? No? Doesn't matter so much...). You can decide that X number of successes (or an ammount of damage) means they've held off the assault until the round is done, while failing to meet that means that the Nugget Army assaults at the end of hte round (regardless if the lockpicking succeeded or failed).  Now, damage inflicted is also abstracted out to a percentage of available targets being injured/incapacatated, while obviously if they fail their defense they took incoming fire, meaning they get hurt... and the lock pick guy may also get hurt, though he isn't shooting back.

Not sure how you'd write that into rules terms exactly...

Some thoughts.
Autofire weapons will allow "splitting" bonuses (Stat + Skill) between multiple targets without having to actually divide the bonus. So, with a semi-auto, if you had a Stat + Ranged Combat of 10, you would need to roll twice and apply only 5 to each roll. With an autofire you could apply the full 10 to each attack.

I am also thinking of increasing damage from autofire weapons based more an the likely hood of being hit than really that they are larger cal.

I will have to think on the rest. Swarming is going to be an important aspect of this game so I need to give some thought on how the players can react to it.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: Spike;272948The problem I regularly see with longer rounds is that they don't really account for the fact that people can do a lot of things quickly. If you are firing off one shot a minute it breaks immersion just as readily as if you are able to run fifty feet, aim for and hit the head of a guy 300m away from you, and do the same to his three buddies, in one second...

My games assume you are firing off a crapload of shots - and missing with most of them - in a one-minute round. The misses are assumed, and you only roll for the ones that have a chance to actually hit.

-clash