Maximum number of people in close combat

[martinl]

423, as long as they are all cidi.

[shadowjack]

7 humans passes reality check for me; I just a few minutes ago read an account from a cop about a time having to restrain a man who'd taken the bad drugs. He said it took two cops, three hospital security guards, and a nurse to hold the guy down so he could be sedated. That fits evileeyore's "one in the middle, six diving in from the adjacent hexes" model.

I've seen some pretty busy football pile-ups, too.

[Anthony]

I would allow essentially unlimited people in a pile-up, though the pile would be larger than a hex at a certain point, and not everyone in the pile could attack everyone else.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I would allow essentially unlimited people in a pile-up, though the pile would be larger than a hex at a certain point, and not everyone in the pile could attack everyone else.

Yeah. I'm not really trying to exactly model all possible situations here. I'm mostly concerned with coming up with some reasonable rule for maximum number of people in a hex, that gives reasonable results for mobs (zombies and otherwise), as well as situations where 4+ goons gang up on a single cinematic martial artist (or superhero).

"Four people in a hex" might be the best option. It does allow six vs. one if the target is prone, and allows three vs. one against a standing target.

[Plane]

I'd like to see some formula based on size levels of all desired occupants. If a hex reaches "full" capacity then "Shoving People Around" should become mandatory (to relocate some occupants to adjacent hexes) to clear the hex for you to step into it.

Another option might simply be climbing over/atop those in the hex, in which case you are entering a hex ABOVE that hex, on a vertical layer.

I think there's a point at which high SM creatures' melee attacks become area effect attacks? If you're at the point where your fist/foot can attack an entire hex, then your limb should be occupying the majority of that space and your entire person certainly should occupy the entirety of it.

Originally Posted by shadowjack

7 humans passes reality check for me; I just a few minutes ago read an account from a cop about a time having to restrain a man who'd taken the bad drugs. He said it took two cops, three hospital security guards, and a nurse to hold the guy down so he could be sedated. That fits evileeyore's "one in the middle, six diving in from the adjacent hexes" model.

I've seen some pretty busy football pile-ups, too.

All-Out Attack (Long) in GURPS Martial Arts and Committed Attack (Long) in Technical Grappling no longer make it necessary to actually occupy the same hex to grapple someone though, you get +1 to reach so you can grapple them while remaining in adjacent hexes. It also allows punching (but not elbowing) and I guess biting/headbutting/kneeing at reach 1?

When a guy is held down in a lying position, he would also be occupying 2 hexes, meaning you actually would have 8 surrounding hexes with which people could use "Long" grappling attacks to reach you.

[Michael Thayne]

I should say that the initial motivation for this post was that I had been trying running fights with six low-skill goons vs. one 250-point martial artist with Trained By a Master, and when I first ran that scenario I noticed the goons really clumping up. As in, sometimes four would end up in close combat with the martial artist at once, and then the martial artist would retreat, and you'd have four guys awkwardly clumped in one hex. It seemed like a goofy result.

I've run the fight six times now, gradually refining the character builds I use, how I run each side's tactics, and fixing my own initial misreadings of the rules. I never settled on a maximum number of people in close combat, but did wind up solving the clumping problem by rigorously enforcing movement point costs for entering a hex occupied by one or more of your allies. Canonically this is +1 per ally. So if the goon has Move 5 and is 3 yards away from a scrum that already includes 3 goons, the goon just can't enter close combat that turn. This meant that in practice no more than 2 or sometimes 3 goons ever wound up "clumped" in a hex. (Granted it helped that I had the martial artist repeatedly retreat.)

[Plane]

Doesn't the MP+1 cost only apply when moving through an occupied hex (ie not just entering, but exiting the back), rather than into one?

Though maybe the MP cost should scale according to size modifier. It might be harder to move through a hex occupied by a pair of SM+1 allies than three SM-1 allies.

I'd like +1 per anybody instead of +1 per ally. Anybody not making an attempt to obstruct your evading through them is effectively behaving ally-ish.

Evading should probably also be +2 MP since it's harder to move past someone trying to get in your way.

MP fees don't exactly help preventing CC crowding via "step" maneuvers though.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Plane

Doesn't the MP+1 cost only apply when moving through an occupied hex (ie not just entering, but exiting the back), rather than into one?

Not according to the box on B387. It seems like as a general rule, movement point costs are for entering a hex, not exiting.

I'd like +1 per anybody instead of +1 per ally. Anybody not making an attempt to obstruct your evading through them is effectively behaving ally-ish.

Evading should probably also be +2 MP since it's harder to move past someone trying to get in your way.

MP fees don't exactly help preventing CC crowding via "step" maneuvers though.

Inconsistent handling of allies vs. enemies is a bit odd, but I think it works out. Both obstruct you, just in different ways.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Inconsistent handling of allies vs. enemies is a bit odd, but I think it works out. Both obstruct you, just in different ways.

I don't see it as inconsistent as one can actively stop you, while with the other you are still needing to be mindful of while passing.

[Plane]

I think it's intentionally inconsistent because you would want to treat them differently, it's just the direction of the relationship seems inverted, +1 MP "be mindful I don't knock my sidekick down" and +0MP "be mindful this villain doesn't bar my path to the hostage beyond"