[MUD-Dev] Cognitively Interesting Combat (was Better Combat)

[Richard Woolcock]

ceo wrote:
> cruise wrote:

> Of course, my reasons for disliking chess / C-4 / etc as a leisure
> activity may be unique to me. Certainly, I've always found chess
> peculiarly frustrating, even to an extent "boring", simply because
> you can only ever do one thing at once. Games like Shogun appeal
> because you can easily have 12 units, arranged into 4-6 groups,
> with each group simultaneously carrying out independent
> orders. Perhaps I just prefer inherently parallel games to
> inherently sequential ones...

>> If, say, combat vs. each weapon is a different "game", would that
>> suffice to retain interest?

> Do you mean, one weapon's game would be like chess, another would
> be like the card-game "snap" (A combination of chance and
> reflexes), etc?

> If so, then "YES!", since that would give me some kind of choice
> of what kind of game I was playing when.

I guess I have similar sort of preferences to you, as my combat
system is designed to take both of the above concepts into
consideration.

I handle the parallel activity by divided each (humanoid) character
into three usable locations - left hand, right hand, and feet (the
latter of which also includes general body position and posture).

Each location is assigned a combat table, depending on the weapon
it's using (or for feet, the encumbrance level or type of mount
being ridden).  Each combat table contains its own list of available
commands and fighting techniques, many of which are only available
in combination with other factors (the appropriate level of weapon
skill, a certain fighting style, when used two-handed or with a
specific weapon in the other hand, with a maximum amount of
encumbrance, while mounted, etc).  The commands for each table also
have their own action point cost, just as each technique includes
factors such as performance time and modifiers to reach/range,
attack, defence, damage, and so on.  Many techniques also provide
special bonuses such as counter attacks, weapon breaking, disarm,
sweep, etc.

Combat then varies drastically depending on your configuration, but
in short the three main styles of melee combat work as follows:

  TWO-HANDED WEAPON:

    + You only have to worry about one "hand" location, so there is
    less to keep track of, and less action points spent.

    + You gain a +100% bonus divided among Attack, Defence and
    Damage (the exact division depends on the weapon type).

    + The Brawn, Grace and Size requirements (to use the weapon
    without any penalties) are generally lower.

    + The natural weapon bonuses are generally higher for larger
    weapons.

    + Many techniques are upgraded when the weapon is used two
    -handed.

    - You cannot defend as quickly with only the one weapon
    (although your defence cool -down after a successful parry is
    half the normal time).

    - You cannot attack as fast as with two weapons, therefore your
    opponent will almost always have some sort of defence in place
    if they use that style.

    - Your only defence against high-strength attacks (such as
    arrows and a morning star) will be dodges.

  WEAPON

    + SHIELD:

    + Shields tend to have high natural defence bonuses.

    + Shields have the most powerful blocking techniques of all
    weapons.

    + Shields have the highest defence strength and can potentially
    block ALL attacks, even arrows or crossbow bolts.

    + Shields provide a natural damage absortion like armour to
    certain locations, depending on the size of the shield.

    + You can set your shield hand to defence mode and leave it,
    saving action points.

    + If your shield defence has been knocked down, you've still got
    a weapon that you can use for parrying.

    - Shields have very limited (and weak) bash attacks (although
    they are difficult to block).

  TWO WEAPONS:

    + Some paired weapons have special combo techniques.

    + You can go all -attack, making it very difficult for your
    opponent to defend against you.

    + Some weapons also provide excellent defensive capabilities.

    - You'll probably run out of action points quite quickly.

    - Your only defence against high-strength attacks will be
    dodges.

Even within these categories there is a lot of variation (there are
currently 62 different combat tables, and 1686 fighting techniques).
For example rapier and main gauche or trident and net, while being
technically two weapons, tend to provide many of the defensive
advantages of weapon and shield.  Equally a two-handed morning star
or maul tends to use a far more offensive fighting style than a
two-handed staff.  Many weapons also have their own special tricks
and moves

Obviously there are many other aspects to consider as well.  Lighter
encumbrance means more action points and better feet techniques, not
to mention a faster cool-down after a successful defence - but it
also means less armour (which absorbs a percentage of the damage,
depending on the armour and damage types).  Each weapon also has its
own stat requirements, and many of its techniques fall into only a
handful of the 25 fighting styles, so these aspects need to be taken
into account as well.  A short weakling wielding a pair of
two-handed swords - while perfectly possible - is not going to be
able to put up any reasonable sort of fight.

Ranged weapons and mounted combat add further tactical
opportunities, as does magic (which utilises magic tables for each
flavour of magic, much like the combat tables, and is therefore
fully compatible with regular combat).

So going back to your original post, I guess my equivilent of "snap"
would be an extremely large and strong unarmoured character wielding
a morning star in both hands, using the Bull fighting style and
activating an adrenaline rush at the beginning of the fight.  The
"chess" character would likely have fairly balanced stats and light
armour covering the obvious target locations (face, head, body),
armed with perhaps a longsword and shield.

The "snap" character's tactics would consist of pure offense, with
the understanding that a successful hit would most likely kill his
opponent.  The "chess" character could have any number of tactics
available, and would likely vary them depending on the situation.
Most likely he would also have some alternative weapons with him
that he could swap depending on the situation - against someone
using paired weapons, for example, he might exchange his shield for
a swordbreaker.

--
KaVir.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev