Forked from Skarg's latest discussion of miniatures/tactical movement in the Design Archive thread, for further comment:

Quote from: Skarg;858973I would say that combat with a map in TFT or GURPS are distinctly different interesting experiences, and offer something completely different from abstract mapless combat systems (where fighter players sometimes complain that all they have to do in combat is pick someone to attack and roll dice) due to the tactical significance (also because of the high lethality) of choices and the details of the situation including who is where facing what situation, with what equipment, doing what each turn. Players control how their characters fight, and have to make life-or-death tactical situations in a rule system which gives appropriate cause and effect. Surviving combat is more about avoiding getting hurt and hurting the enemy by making appropriate choices, rather than by having a high Level and piles of hitpoints which supposedly represent experience and the things that result in not dying - with detailed tactical rules, the player needs to come up with tactical decisions which result in not dying, and a vital part of that is maneuvering for advantage and avoiding doing things that get you killed, in terms of explicit details of position, situation, equipment, skills, attributes and action.

* Some specific mechanics GURPS has which I don't see mentioned include picking various maneuvers each turn which give different effects on what you can do when (attacks, defenses, modifiers, movement options, delayed action), and different movement costs for turning, sidestepping, going backwards, jumping, etc, detailed close-combat rules and body position rules, lines of fire and rolling to miss friends, facing effects, and the importance of having some people Wait so they can respond to enemies and unpredictable events during a turn.
* Under movement system failures, you could include the problems of movement systems that fail to provide limits to combat based on available space and time. For instance, "The thirty-seven goblins all attack Ralph this turn, who gets to do nothing till his turn" (though that's partly a sequence / reaction problem). Or not being able to well describe what happens in confined spaces, either not limiting enough, or limiting too much. Or not handling close combat or grappling well. Or not having a system for limiting who can see or identify or target whom with different types of weapons - in an abstract game, an archer may be able to just say they shoot at the enemy leader, while with a map, you'd trace a line of sight and if people or objects were between them, they might not even see the leader, or have limited target locations and/or steep modifiers to hit and chances to hit intervening people or objects, or for a guard to step up and block the attack, and the archer would need to decide if he wanted to try to move to get a better line of fire, which might put himself at more risk, etc., which is not possible to do in the same way without an actual map and rules for how all that works (unless the GM provides all of that somehow out of his imagination and discretion, which the players then need to learn to trust and interact with, but that's collaborative imagination rather than a rule-based game system, which can be fine or preferable but is a different thing).

(NB: I've snipped note on aerial movement in the archive here, as I will amend separately).
and...

QuoteA great thing about TFT is that is can show players what's so fun and interesting about map-based tactical combat with comprehensive rules, in a game whose basic rules are very short, concise, and easy to learn quickly. Which is quite the opposite of later editions of GURPS, where getting to the point where tactical combat is easy can take a long time (and many players choose to play a basic combat before getting to that point).

In reading the section here on combat actions, I can see that there would be a lot of contrast between D&D-style games and GURPS, and it might be pretty difficult to express in a clear way that combined with what you've written, because the context is different (map-based 1-second turns are a lot different that more abstract, mapless and longer turns). Just listing all the options available in GURPS, to include things in GURPS Martial Arts, GURPS Technical Grappling, GURPS High Tech, and GURPS Tactical Shooting, would be a major work that I'd even have to study up to write.

And then there is Phoenix Command with its impulse-based movement/action system and rules for how quickly on a fine time scale it takes for a chainsaw to cut through someone... ;-)

So...anyone have any comments on more highly tactical games (e.g. GURPS/TFT?) and how they differ from more abstract games?

That covers the subject very well, but one thing I would add is the hit-effect dynamic. In TFT, if you hit someone and they don't hit you (IIRC) you get to move them into one of their rear hexes. This can be pretty significant. Also if you take 8 pts of damage, you fall down; 5 pts and you are at a disadvantage for actions next turn. These aren't completely spatial effects but they do add texture to combat.

Quote from: Arminius;859137That covers the subject very well, but one thing I would add is the hit-effect dynamic. In TFT, if you hit someone and they don't hit you (IIRC) you get to move them into one of their rear hexes. This can be pretty significant. Also if you take 8 pts of damage, you fall down; 5 pts and you are at a disadvantage for actions next turn. These aren't completely spatial effects but they do add texture to combat.

I imagine any sort of wound penalty will have some tactical effects that are interesting.
It would definitely add some icing to the surprise cake if a target suffers hit penalties of some sort, even if they don't die.
...

Wondering if some sort of summary of how TFT (or GURPS) combat works would be a good place to start ?

Well looking around I found a retro-clone of TFT over here (there may be others).  http://www.darkcitygames.com/
I'm not sure its entirely complete (I can't see the rules Arminius quoted on knockdowns, for instance; or any sort of facing rules).
Still, its fairly neat. I can see a few interesting features or things that support fairly tactical combat.

* Dodging as an action (which also needs an unoccupied space to move into). Can't dodge missiles or thrown weapons, so, there's some incentive to use armour.

*armour absorbing damage but reducing DEX slightly. Synergizes nicely with Dodge, inasmuch as the heavily-armoured guy is more likely to be able to (try to) take a hit on armour.

*option to split combat levels between hit or damage. Nice since if you've arranged some mitigating circumstances that will increase your to-hit chance, you can do extra damage instead.

*additional grapplers after the first hitting automatically, making multiple opponents more difficult.

Surprise as a single free turn in TFT is I think less deadly than in AD&D -  where a character could pull off an 'attack routine' each segment. Surprise is maybe an interesting subtopic in its own right, since the '1 attack per segment' in AD&D is basically a patch-fix on minute-long combat rounds, the only time when characters get to count every sword swing individually. (I'm not quite sure if you can still opt to use your next turn as a Dodge in TFT in the event of surprise).

In general, discussing more concrete games in general vs. more abstract games, I find it interesting how things that in an abstract game are just assumed instead become player-level decisions - things like 'should I parry now?', for instance. So more player skill is involved. Mostly a good thing, since that also equals player engagment, though it would also mean that its possible for players to make tactical errors that in-character would be unlikely ( failing to take cover in a game where ranged attacks can't be parried, not realizing how to best distribute attack/defense, or whatever).

I think also there are cases where being more concrete means there's less need to write extra rules to get around corner-cases. Extra surprise attacks, reactions like 'attacks of opportunity' to help prevent cases like the being surrounded by goblins when its not your turn, defense penalties for being caught 'flat-footed', etc. Abstract games aren't necessarily all that unrealistic in places, but it can be more effort to get there.

I was hoping someone else would jump in since I've been busy and I didn't want to dig out my old books. Also thought the clones of TFT would be reasonable replacements. (I think there is at least one other free clone floating around plus a paid one. The name "Heroes and Other Worlds" may help; I know there have been threads here.)

Anyway the rule even in original Melee, published circa 1978, is:

Take five hits in a turn, suffer -2 (?) to Dex next turn. On 3d6 roll-under with most chances in the 8-14 range, this is a pretty big penalty, especially at the lower end, such that you would strongly consider going full-defense. By doing so, you force the opponent to roll 4d6 when they attack you.

Take 8 hits in a turn, you fall down. Makes you easier to hit, and easier to grapple. You can stand up on your turn.

(I'm forgetting turn order. I think initiative lets you choose if your side or the other side moves first. Note there are rules that limit movement when in contact, and also moving+attacking. However regardless of movement, actions including attacking and standing up are carried out in Dex order.)

Drop to 3 hit points and you have -3 (?) Dex. Drop to 0 and you are dead, or at least out of the combat.

I vaguely remember that dodging requires a free hex but I'm not sure. They possibly got that right. However it's not an action. What you are reading is more GURPS-like.

The ability to force an opponent back is important because of terrain/obstacles/overall relative positioning, but also because you could force someone onto rocks or mud or whatever that might make them slip. Plus I think if they had no place to move, they also might fall down. I might be confusing with RQ3's Knockback rule there, though.

Facing is definitely important (+4 for rear hexes I believe) but generally you can't be outflanked unless your opponent is very fast and you are forced to move first, or if facing multiple enemies. Reason: the engagement rule, a sort of "ZOC" if you're familiar with the concept from board wargames.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;859141I imagine any sort of wound penalty will have some tactical effects that are interesting.
It would definitely add some icing to the surprise cake if a target suffers hit penalties of some sort, even if they don't die.
...

Wondering if some sort of summary of how TFT (or GURPS) combat works would be a good place to start ?

Yes. This is another thing that, being used to it in GURPS/TFT feels keenly missing in the many games that don't have it. I can't enjoy the Fallout computer games, for instance, because shooting people, even in the head, at most results in a negligible penalty to their actions, until they die, which can take multiple shots even to the head.

In TFT, for human-sized victims:

• 5 of more hits in one turn gives -2 DX to actions on victim's next turn.
• 8 or more hits in one turn knocks them down and drop weapon (+4DX to hit them, easy to tackle them, can't do much usually except get back up and hope they recover their weapon too).
• Reduced to 3 or less ST: -3DX
• Reduced to 1 ST: unconscious.
• Reduced to 0 or less ST: Dead (some house rules and optional published rules give survival chances).

Note that ST is used for hitpoints and tends to range in the 8-14 range for most people.
Damage from one weapon hit tends to range from 1d to 3d, (4d+4 for a charging poleaxe), and there are critical hits which do double or triple damage, so getting hit is serious business and one-shot kills are quite possible.

TFT facing effects:

• Attacking enemy from rear, or target lying down: +4DX
• Attacking enemy from side: +2DX
• Facing determine whom you can attack, and also which hexes you can stop enemy movement, preventing enemies getting to your side/rear, as well as the chances of people trying to tackle you.

The "retreat" rules mentioned do have a large effect, because they allow you to shape the line of battle, determine who can attack whom, and if there are obstacles such as walls, other figures (standing or not, even dead bodies) or pits or fires, an enemy may fall down or suffer other effects when retreated into them.

In GURPS, basic wound effects are more or less:

• -1 DX & IQ for every point of damage you take, through your next turn.
• If you take damage more than half your Health (average 5 points), you are physically stunned, suffering additional penalties, must roll not to fall down, can do almost nothing and will need to make a health roll to recover or continue to be stunned till the next turn (and each turn after till you make the roll).
• If you take 8 or more points of crushing or cutting damage in one turn (before reduction by armor) you have to roll DX or fall down, and are knocked back one hex for every 8 points, possibly hitting any objects in the way for damage and/or requiring other rolls or circumstances.
• Getting up takes 2 turns (one to kneel, another to stand), or more if optional rules are used and you're encumbered.
• Various penalties for lying down or kneeling (to attack or defend).
• Additional effects based on where you were hit - arm and hand hits may have you drop or unready your gear. Leg and foot hits may have you fall down. Head and different types of vitals hits may have further chances for stunning, knockout, etc, as well as damage multipliers.
• Health reduced to 3 or less: -3 DX.
• Health reduced to 0 or less: Roll each turn on HT to stay conscious.
• Hand/Limb damage above certain amounts cripple the limb making it unusable (various effects such as not being able to stand).
• Head damage above certain amount - unconscious.
• Eye damage - partial or complete blindness - penalties.

And more. In other words, if you hurt someone in GURPS, it tends to impair them in an appropriate and meaningful way even if it doesn't take them out. This adds plenty of considerations, all of them making sense, about what armor to wear where, where to attack which foe with which weapon, and how to move on the battlefield.

In GURPS, basic facing rules are:

• -2 to active defenses against attacks from the side (and no shield effects on the wrong side).
• No active defenses against attacks from the rear.
• Defense penalties based on the body position (kneeling, prone, crouching etc) of the defender (and attack modifiers for attackers in odd positions).
• Facing also affects whom you can attack, how many movement points it takes to step in a given direction with/without moving, or during a Wait (reaction/opportunity move), and strong modifiers to the results of close combat actions, such as a shield slam or flying tackle attempt.

The GURPS equivalent of the TFT retreat mechanic is once per turn (under the right circumstances) you can retreat while taking an active defense, giving you a bonus to the defense but requiring you to move away from the attacker, which as in TFT may have adverse effects as well as tactical consequences. Against ranged attacks you can Dodge & Drop, giving you a bonus but ending with you lying on the ground.

As you can see, the Dark City Games TFT retroclone is similar but different. They add some things and leave some details out, partly assuming that TFT veterans who want them will use the rules they like in TFT.

The basic TFT Melee microgame rules (easiest form to learn the original rules): http://bluwiki.com/go/Tft-melee

Here are the full Advanced Melee rules from TFT: http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/AdvMeleeLarge.pdf

As for surprise,

TFT: One free turn, and/or initiative bonuses.

GURPS: Defenders may be mentally stunned for one or more turns, or need to roll to avoid such, depending on the level of surprise.

Also, in both games, the surprised side generally has unready weapons (it takes a turn to ready most weapons in TFT; more for, say, uncocked crossbows - GURPS takes even longer for some weapons because the turns are shorter) and of course the placement and facing of surprised people may be rather less than tactically optimal. In both games, even one turn of enduring surprise attack while unready and deployed badly can get people killed or a whole side defeated. This gives rise to even more importance for caution and attention to where people are even between combats.

Quote from: Arminius;859209...
Facing is definitely important (+4 for rear hexes I believe) but generally you can't be outflanked unless your opponent is very fast and you are forced to move first, or if facing multiple enemies. Reason: the engagement rule, a sort of "ZOC" if you're familiar with the concept from board wargames.

In TFT, you generally can't be outflanked at will by the enemy - if the circumstances are right, and you move so as to avoid giving them the opportunity. However this is only true when both sides are alert to that danger and deploying cautiously to avoid outflanking, and when the events of battle don't create such opportunities. Also one might offer an opportunity to flank, but one which exposes the flankers to a missile attack or something.

In GURPS, the movement system and resulting tactics are quite different from TFT. In TFT there's an initiative roll each turn and each side moves all its figures together, with actions taking place in adjusted DX order after everyone has moved. Human figures can move about 6-12 hexes per turn, half that if they want to attack, but Front hexes stop enemy movement, so in a typical group combat, fighters tend to end up in a line where most people are mostly fighting and shifting at most one or two hexes per turn.

In GURPS, each figure moves and acts as a combined action (unless they Wait...) but the sequence of who moves & acts when is based on their speed (modified by encumbrance), so opposing sides have the actions of their members intertwined. Figures can move about 2-8 hexes per turn, with restrictions and penalties if they move more than 1 hex and attack (though melee weapons may have 2 or 3 hex reach), but there are no blocking effects on adjacent hexes (unless you actually attack/trip/shove/grapple, or step into someone's path). The results of heavy weapon hits and slam/tackle/shove/judo attempts, and retreats or just falling down into two hexes can all also lead to characters flying one or more hexes out of place. Particularly with enough open space, this can lead to much more fluid and positionally chaotic combat than TFT more typically does. There are often opportunities for actions that could be very effective but are also very risky, such as outflanking or tackling or doing all-out attacks when it seems like no foe will be able to reach you before your next action. Having some people Waiting to react to enemy movement during their turn can make a huge difference in whether or not your side can counter certain enemy maneuvers or not.

Thanks, Skarg.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is to understand initiative. In TFT it is usually group initiative (sometimes with bonuses for special talents) but you could use a form of individual initiative, I think, without upsetting the game. However, init just means you get to decide the order of turns. Order of turn just means you get to move when it's your turn. Attacks are always in Dex order with the exception of charges involving pole-arms.

Also note that you can only attack if you move 1/2 your speed or less, and if you do move to engage & attack, I believe you get a charge bonus to hit. (Plus double damage with pole arms.)

If already engaged you can shift a hex and attack but you won't get a charge bonus.

These produce interesting positioning dynamics.

Yes initiative is an important element. The side who wins the roll needs to decide whether they prefer to move first, giving them the chance to move before the enemy, which can deny them certain moves or get them engaged or whatever, or whether they prefer to make the enemy move first, in which case they can react to the enemy's move rather than vice versa, which sometimes can be more advantageous, especially if you managed to be not in a vulnerable position at the end of last turn. It's a pretty interesting and appropriate way of handling initiative, which is all about maneuver and would have nowhere near as much important or interesting about it if the game didn't have a map and so many rules that make position and facing and terrain and everything matter so much.

An important detail of the TFT initiative system is that if one side is going to run away, they automatically win initiative, but they have to run away.

And yes, you can have one side split into one or more groups for initiative rolls, if there's a reason to do so such as they can't agree on what to do. It's more complex and not generally as practical for the splitting side unless they have a good reason for it, because it means they can't coordinate their movement as well. But it can be interesting and represents well what happens if some people want to flee, or if the group wants to wait and react except Hugrog the Savage, who wants to charge in right away.

Only pole weapons get bonuses to charge or resist charges. Pole weapons do less damage than same-ST weapons of other types, but in a charge they do double damage, and get +2 DX resisting charges, and attack before shorter weapons in a charge due to length. This makes pole weapons potentially very strong shock weapons, especially the larger two-handed polearms. Spears do less damage but can be thrown and used with shields. Pole weapons can also do 2-hex jabs (if using Advanced Melee rules).

Missile weapons can only move 1 hex while firing, IIRC. They can't fire at adjacent attackers, except they do get a final shot if someone moves up to them.

! I hadn't realized that the initiative only determines movement and then attacks resolved later in DEX order.
(I sort of like that armour affects initiative, as well, though I have no idea how realistic this is).

Anyway thanks guys!!

Good clarifications...
Have had a look through the basic game now, starting to look at the advanced. Will hopefully have some more thoughts later (but thought I'd post now before the forum goes read-only from the server upgrade).

As an aside, interesting that I can see some of TFT's lineage from Tunnels and Trolls here in places - ST-required for weapons, damage being subtracted from an attribute, a shield or main-gauche absorbing damage. (T&T combat is entirely different of course, without tactical movement or initiative - I mean, those are built up dramatically and I don't think TFT owes T&T that much, really).

Found a number of interesting things on a read-through of advanced, but most of which I'll just go and put in the other (design) thread where applicable (e.g. the way big creatures can do a mass pushback by comparing Str-vs-Str, invisible creatures being removed from the board, spell maintenance by continuing to expend spell points, checking two stats combined by roll under with 6d6, and the two levels of surprise i.e. lesser that's just an automatic win on initiative, or a full free free). Its pretty cool.

Running away is sort of interesting as well (if I understand correctly you only ever move one square away when 'engaged', but you automatically go first in initiative next turn?).

Very impressive amount of detail with regard to a lot of the positional movement (like crawling gives all rear hexes, flying bats but not man-size creatures getting a dodge bonus, etc.).

Using just original Melee, you can have a great time playing a solo adventure, and it will give you a lot of insight into the tactics. You may be able to find some of the original solos online. I haven't tried any of the Dark City Games solos.

Of the originals, my favorites were Death Test II, Grail Quest, and Security Station. (Out of those, only the first is significantly enhanced by using Wizard, and only Security Station is significantly enhanced by using the Talents rules from In the Labyrinth.)

Good idea! I'll give it a try.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;859229! I hadn't realized that the initiative only determines movement and then attacks resolved later in DEX order.
(I sort of like that armour affects initiative, as well, though I have no idea how realistic this is).

Encumbrance affects order of actions in GURPS, but in GURPS it's not called initiative, as each character has its own place in the turn sequence where they move & act, which is based on Speed. If there's surprise, it's expressed by having one side get a free turn and/or having the other side start mentally stunned and unable to act (severity by level of surprise).

In TFT, initiative rolls are affected by surprise or having leaders with Tactics or Strategy talents (and is trumped by running away), and only determines movement. Order of non-movement actions (e.g. attacks) is in DX order where DX is adjusted by encumbrance (and injury and/or other conditions).