Thursday, February 12, 2009

Proposal: An idea on Combat, making it a bit less random

Military authority has it on good authority that an enemy exists; however, as of yet, this enemy is not defined and thus difficult to Combat. This proposal has been viewed by High Command as too assuming, and too heavy on paperwork; as such, it faces dishonourable discharge.

Reporting, Devenger.

(Timed out after 48 hours; failed 7-8.)

Adminned at 14 Feb 2009 12:56:09 UTC

Create a new Sub-rule of Skirmishes “Combat Statistics” with the text:

Each Soldier has two Combat Statistics tracked in the GNDT known as Accuracy and Dodge.  These Statistics are always whole numbers less than 100.  The default value for these statistics is 0.  If the combined total of a Soldier’s Combat Statistics are ever equal to or less than 0, that soldier may change those statistics to any pair of positives values, as long as the combined total of those values is less than 120.

Create a new Sub-rule of Skirmishes “Combat” with the text:

Combat is handled through the GNDT.  A Soldier (herafter refered to as the Attacked) selects an enemy Combatant (Hereafter refered to as the Defender) and makes a comment in the GDNT with the text I target X, where X is the name of the Defendent.  The soldier then follows the below order of events, unless a rule states that they would be changed.  If at any time the Defender or the Attacker is Dead, the Combat is over.
# The Attacker selects a weapon that they have Carried in their Holster to fire by making a GNDT comment “Firing X at Y” where X is the name of the weapon they are using for this round of combat and Y is their target.
# The Attacker attempts to shoot at the Defender by rolling YDICEX, where X is the Damage Rating of the weapon they are using and Y is the number of shots that they are firing (limited by the weapon).  At this time they also reduce their Ammo by the amount required to fire Y shots.  If the result of the DICE plus the Attacker’s accuracy is more than the Dodge rating of the Defender, the Defender takes damage equal to the Weapon’s Damage Rating, minus the Defender’s Armor.
# The Defender attempts to shoot the Attacker back by rolling DICEX where X is the Damage Rating of the weapon with the highest rating of the weapons that they have Carried in their Holster.  If the result plus the Defender’s Accuracy rating is more than the Attacker’s Dodge rating, the Attacker takes damage equal to the Weapon’s Damage Rating minus the Defender’s Armor.
# The Attacker’s Accuracy and Dodge are both reduced by 1DICE10.
# The Defender’s Accuracy and Dodge are both reduced by 1DICE5
# The Attacker may now choose to Withdraw, ending combat, or begin combat again at the top of this list.  If the Attacker does not have enough Ammo to fire another shot from any Weapon they have Carried in their Holster, then they must Withdraw at this stage.


There are bugs I’m sure, but I wanted to get an idea out there to be looked at. This heavily favors the attacker, intentionally.

Comments

Klisz:

12-02-2009 18:07:15 UTC

imperial  because I don’t have the time to read through all that…

Hix:

12-02-2009 18:09:17 UTC

against

TrumanCapote:

12-02-2009 18:10:24 UTC

against

Oh goodness.  So complicated.  Not that I won’t ever vote for a similar version, but I’m going to need convincing.

Elias IX:

12-02-2009 18:16:37 UTC

against because I don’t have the time to read through all that…

SingularByte: he/him

12-02-2009 18:49:31 UTC

for Because I did have time to read through it and I liked it.

arthexis: he/him

12-02-2009 19:38:57 UTC

against Can we ever have simple game mechanics?

Amnistar: he/him

12-02-2009 20:00:05 UTC

we have plenty of simple mechanics, health is simple.  Loyalty, if it passes, is fairly simple.

All mechanics don’t need to be simple.

Wooden Squid:

12-02-2009 20:10:40 UTC

against bandwagon

Devenger:

12-02-2009 21:56:36 UTC

against  a shot by shot system favours my stunt system, but I’m not exactly sure how the Accuracy and Dodge stuff works - I think that needs simplification or removal.

Darknight: he/him

12-02-2009 22:17:24 UTC

imperial

Sparrow:

12-02-2009 23:36:52 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

12-02-2009 23:51:55 UTC

imperial It’s doable.

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2009 00:59:38 UTC

imperial

Seems okay, apart from a few holes: Where do the enemy combatants’ Accuracy and Dodge come from? And what is this “Armor” of which you speak?

Amnistar: he/him

13-02-2009 17:36:53 UTC

Good questions Kefvan, more undefined aspects that need to be ironed out.

Qwazukee:

14-02-2009 06:15:29 UTC

1-7-4.

Igthorn:

14-02-2009 06:39:32 UTC

imperial

ais523:

14-02-2009 13:15:56 UTC

for 7-7. We can still do this!

Gnauga:

14-02-2009 13:21:13 UTC

against