Cover is a central mechanic in most modern/futuristic/sci fi wargames. It's a cool mechanic because it gives distinct tactical possibilities and makes positioning important. It's not just rolling dice, it's searching for a suitable place to shoot from, and create advantages and choke points.
Then, what about a mechanic similar to that one, but based on melee combat? Melee is usually just rolling dice and seeing which miniature wins, and it's not so complex, therefore making fantasy/medieval/ancient combat a little more lackluster than their modern counterparts.
How would you fix this? Do you know any wargames with complex melee mechanics?
You could factor in momentum and reach. Warmachine already does that to a limited extent, I guess.
>>43811274
I would say that since games that focus on how positioning works and the effects of cover in depth are usually smaller games, you might want to focus on the large skirmish or almost platoon-level combat for a melee game, and then focus more on Formations, Facings, and unit type.
I would argue that different weapons in a melee game would provide the tactical differences that positioning and cover do in modern or futuristic games, becuase different weapons are designed to do different things in melee.
So, for example, you don't want to engage Pikemen with Cavalry, unless you flank the enemy's pike block. This would, in kind, make the player with Pikemen want to keep his unit either in a place where the Pike unit's flanks aren't exposed, or to keep his flanks protected with other units.
Its less about the individual's positioning, and more about how you set up your battle line, and how you support each unit's particular quirks.
>>43811314
How does momentum work in Warmachine? About reach, yeah, probably handling things like the 'distance' of the melee combat, as in long (spears have a bonus), medium (most weapons), and short (daggers and fists maybe?)
>>43811845
But assuming skirmish level warfare, what would you do?
I want it to be deep but skirmish level. It's pretty hard to do a tactical melee based game if we're talking about skirmishing.
Maybe facing could be important though
>>43812216
>How does momentum work in Warmachine?
I think he's talking about Charges. Charge attacks get an extra die of damage, but you have to complete a charge movement (straight line at your target) of at least 3".
The idea is that you're using the momentum of your charge to put more power behind your swing, thus the extra damage die, but if you haven't moved at least 3" during the charge you didn't work up enough speed to get the extra damage.
>>43812321
I understand. That's cool, but it ends up with people measuring distances like faggots to ensure that they're the ones who charge and so on. Also, there should be a countercharge or something
>>43812216
Many wargames make use of individual facing, along with bonuses for group tactics and how many people are involved in the melee.
Now, before I go onto a little bit of a rant here; what do you consider a good size for Skirmish level games? I've seen games where "Skirmish level" means around a dozen characters on the board (a la Mordheim and Frostgrave), all the way up to having between 50 and 120 people on the board, with characters leading quasi-units called a Large Skirmish game (Sharpe Practice being the best example here).
This can really effect how play works, but there are some underlying tenants that work for pretty much all Skirmish games to considering what the tactics involved will be like, and one of those things is maneuvering.
Maneuvering characters or small quasi-units can mean almost everything depending on the game. In the example another anon in this thread made about Warmahordes, positioning could mean the entire battle as a quick thrust could kill your leader and end the game.
A tactical decision that has been a part of warfare since time immemorial has been the concentration of your forces, and how best to apply that concentration. If your line is too thin, or if your soldiers are outnumbered, the enemy will be able to break apart your foces' cohesion and win the day, but if you concentrate your forces too closely your enemy can more easily flank you, or envelope your forces.
So, force concentration can add tactical depth to a skirmish game, as figuring out how to bring the most of your forces to bear on the enemy without being outmaneuvered will be key.
>How would you fix this? Do you know any wargames with complex melee mechanics?
Melee combat between bodies of troops should place major emphasis on morale and cohesion. Much more so than with ranged combat.
>But assuming skirmish level warfare, what would you do?
Maybe emphasize stances; basic, full-defense, backpedaling, aggressive, etc. Different models could have different aptitudes with each. On-on-one, this wouldn't mean much, but would create tactical opportunities when two squads are fighting.
>>43811274
>Do you know any wargames with complex melee mechanics?
this is about as complicated as would be feasible in a argame
and even then, it got a little convoluted in bigger fights
>>43811274
In mass battle wargames you can probably play with the concept of mass. Some units are just better at pushing people or delivering shock.
In a wider sense there's equipment and orders. Battlestorm had weapon length as initiative (longer weapon is better only at first, then short weapon go first). Having orders could modify rolls. Certain weapons could be used in more than one way too.
>>43812643
Another example, HellDorado had a table of successes for minis. The number defined damage and special effects, and the player could choose any they had enough successes for.
>>43812517
I mean skirmish level with 10-15 miniatures.
That leaves out a lot of stuff about battle lines and formations, that's why I was asking.
A modern or sci fi game with shooting can be made interesting with even 6-7 dudes per side. A fantasy/ancient/medieval... a little bit more difficult I think.
>>43812557
I like the thing about the stances, maybe even weapon reaches and everything.
>>43812592
Remember, I mean about 10-15 miniatures per side. Really low quantity of troops, but with more micromanagement.
Think about Mordheim or Infinity for the scale of the game.
>>43812382
>it ends up with people measuring distances like faggots to ensure that they're the ones who charge and so on
Well, in Warmachine, you can't pre-measure stuff, so it gets around that problem.
>>43812904
Speculating isn't exactly much better, though
>>43812779
Ahh, the true skirmish scale game. Have you looked at Frostgrave's combat system? It does boil down to rolling against one another, but does include what I was talking about earlier when it came to trying to outnumber your opponent without leaving yourself exposed.
But that aside, taking your original posts' point about cover into consideration, you can get a lot of the same effect in a melee-oriented game. I'm not sure if you've looked at the Lord of the Rings SBG system at all, but they had a certain "control zone" around each miniature, going out to 1 inch in a circle around the miniature.
It basically meant that if arrange your soldiers correctly, you can block doorways and break enemy charges because you'll get the drop on the enemy: if the enemy goes through that door that your character is blocking he'll be charged by the character indoors and the other guy gets to hit first.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that, at the bottom line of it all yes, melee combat is about rolling a dice and seeing who kill who. The Tactics are in leading up to that point; getting the most people charging the same target, charging from a flank or from high ground, and getting the first strike in.
>>43812779
Wrath of Kings had a track describing how the unit defended in a 1d10 roll. So some results were evasion, other armor, parrying, magic, etc with a hit at the end.
Thing is, projectiles can't be parried, some weapons break armor, etc. So the right unit had better chances against a particular track.
>>43812779
>Remember, I mean about 10-15 miniatures per side. Really low quantity of troops, but with more micromanagement.
that's not much of a wargame, then
In any case, if you're talking complexity in melee combat, 2nd edition 40k is better than most skirmish games on the market now. Even had rules to kick people out of combat if you took a bionic leg.
>>43813153
Define wargame then. Why isn't it a wargame? Mordheim and Necromunda aren't wargames?
I'll look into it. Don't know how easy would it be to get the rulebook though.
Each models melee weapon has a reach, whoever has the larger number gets the first attack (draws strike simultanouely), but if fighting in terrain, like a forest or a building or something has a maximum reach value, if your weapon is longer than this you strike last. Hence spears and greatswords are great in the open but daggers have a use when the fighting is cramped. I'm don't know if any system uses that idea but it's a way to make the terrain make a difference during a combat.
>>43813238
Necromunda's combat system is 2nd edition 40k, or at least very heavily based on it.
There's also a fan-compiled 2nd edition rulebook floating around online, because fuck hunting for all the different cards and rulebooks.
>>43811274
>Hand to hand combat is a central mechanic in most ancient/medieval/renaissance wargames. It's a cool mechanic because it gives distinct tactical possibilities and makes positioning important. It's not just rolling dice, it's searching for a suitable place to strike from, and create formations and flanking.
>Then, what about a mechanic similar to that one, but based on ranged combat? Shooting is usually just rolling dice and seeing which miniature wins, and it's not so complex, therefore making modern/WW2/sci fi combat a little more lackluster than their ancient counterparts.
>How would you fix this? Do you know any wargames with complex shooting mechanics?
>>43813238
I don't consider Mordheim or Necromunda wargames, but I never thought about why.
They're about fighting, but not strictly about war.
I could accept a game that isn't technically about war being a wargame, but when you start focusing more on individuals and less on groups, I think it stops being a wargame.
Obviously, this doesn't diminish their quality or validity as strategy games in any way.
>>43813414
Also this.
Ancient games have the opposite issue where maneuvering into good melee positions is interesting, but shooting is just rolling cohesion tests.
>>43813513
>They're about fighting, but not strictly about war.
That's dumb. You're dumb.
>>43813672
Are you claiming that Mordheim really is about war or just that it doesn't matter?
If you say it doesn't matter, then I think you're right and the very next line says the same thing.
>>43813252
That's a really neat idea. I was thinking about bonuses of +1 depending on the distance of the melee, but that's great too.
>>43813414
>>43813513
We're talking about 10-15 men skirmishes, remember that this is no massed battle system.
>>43813866
Lots of campaigns and wars were won and lost by skirmishing. I don't know if 10-15 men skirmishes would be the norm, but they sure were plenty
Bumping with some Mordheim goodness
>>43813672
>any fight is a war
>other people are dumb
Stay speshul, anon.
>>43813672
>treasure hunting warbands and gang violence
>wargames
there's a reason people started calling things skirmish games
>>43811274
>Do you know any wargames with complex melee mechanics?
Define what scope.
1v1 mechanics you'd bog down the game and it would be unplayable or take 12+ hours. That's actual footwork of the individual, stances, and swordplay details.
Squad level you're getting into abstraction where you assume they function well as a unit. That leads into:
Mass Combat (Eg Kings of War / WHFB) now the importance is tactical positioning of whole regiments.
Melee at a scale larger than the individual is HEAVILY dependent on strategic coordinated movement and placement in the field. If you've got this factor in your game, then that's about all there is to it aside from fancy rules for defensible positions.
>>43812382
Warmachine deals with that by certain models actually being better protected against charge attacks(most models with traditional spears have Set Defense, which makes them harder to hit when charged, for example).
But yea, getting the alpha is a huge part of warmachine gameplay.
>>43811274
I recall that Freebooter's Fate had a combat mechanic that involved targeting a part of the body, and the defender defending a part of their body, and it was sort of a bluffing game. It's been a really long time since I've looked at it though, so could be wrong or conflating it with some other game.
>>43816852
Probably, but aren't all miniature tabletop games about conflict and fighting called wargames?
Maybe they shouldn't?
I don't know, maybe they should be called "Battlegames" and not wargames, because a war implies a lot more things than just a battle.
Just saying, it's semantics
>>43819488
I'm talking about 15 men vs 15 men
>>43819560
Spears getting a bonus when charged seems sensible, but I think the range advantage should be nice
>>43820310
I've thought about something like that, but it's a little bit random-based. Apart from that, having to select secret options and then showing it to the other player bogs down the gameplay a lot
so, you need to have a mechanic that gives you as much of an advantage for positioning in melee as cover does at range.
So perhaps you have a thing where an enemy gets pushed back if it loses the combat and survives, but if it can't go back (due to a fighter behind it or a wall or whatever) it's more likely to be killed. GW's lotr game was pretty good for this, actually, with how it made positioning in melee (and how you split large fights up and which order you resolved them in actually matter).
>>43821278
>you need to have a mechanic that gives you as much of an advantage for positioning in melee as cover does at range.
How much of a bonus does having the high ground grant
>>43821292
well this entirely depends on the system and how you're resolving combat. Using the LotR system, giving an extra dice to roll to see who wins the duel seems reasonable.
Check out Batman and Lotr for positioning in melee, look at Malifaux, Eden and Bushido for AP based games and non-standart melee.
Also freebooters date is quick enough unless you spend 20 minutes selecting a card.
>>43811274
Maybe actually having a sort of way to respond? Alternatively, I just have us both roll dice together, damn the consequences. The side with more successes, is the winner. The loser has to rout, or roll how many units he has to lose with a d6.
>>43821278
The way Kings of War does that is by making flank and rear charges really powerful, doubling and tripling attacks respectively. Also difficult terrain generally inhibits most foes but especially neuters cavalry which is otherwise quite strong.
>>43811274
>[shooting is] not just rolling dice, it's searching for a suitable place to shoot from, and create advantages and choke points
>melee is usually just rolling dice and seeing which miniature wins
I disagree heartily. Any decent 'block' style wargame will have plenty of positioning and striving for advantages, with considerations of moving your hammers, anvils, chaff/screens, skirmishers, cav and captains and generals. Many of these games have command rules that mean that you may only get to order so many units a turn, or that they may misunderstand orders, and so become about risk management as well.
Or, if you are looking at something smaller-scale, look at Saga. Units get Fatigue from fighting (or running), which must be carefully managed, plus the ingenious battle-board mechanic unlocks a whole bunch of melee options to spice things up.
>>43821425
Remember, this is a 10-15 miniature per side game. It's a skirmish, every man for himself, no units which can be positioned or controlled. You move each figure individually.
That changes a LOT
>>43815321
Someone know a system for complex swordman fight?
