Build Assistance: Forcing Opponents to Stay in Close Combat

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm not talking about preventing an opponent from moving away. I'm talking about moving forward simultaneously with the opponent. It's mostly an issue of the way discrete turns are handled:
no matter how fast the offensive character, she can never move forward fast enough to keep the favourable distance. It's an Achilles and the Tortoise thing, but even worse thanks to the minimal unit being one hex:

Part of that is how GURPS handles turns. Changing that is a far-reaching change to the system, not a bolt-on technique.

Plus even in real life people generally don't stick to you like a tango partner when you move unless you also grapple them or they grapple you. If the OP wants someone to unwillingly stay in close combat, some form of grappling is the right approach.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Part of that is how GURPS handles turns. Changing that is a far-reaching change to the system, not a bolt-on technique.

IIRC that wasn't so initially. Either Ellie-era FAQ, or MA, has changed that. (IIRC.)

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Plus even in real life people generally don't stick to you like a tango partner when you move unless you also grapple them or they grapple you. If the OP wants someone to unwillingly stay in close combat, some form of grappling is the right approach.

As it stands, in's simply not possible to exploit the clumsiness of certain weapons in close combat - not even by pushing the defender to the wall (because he will simply Retreat slightly to the side).

[Anders Gabrielsson]

I'm no expert on fighting matters, but this seems quite realistic to me. I have a hard time picturing being able to stay that close to someone - if you're in the same hex you're talking about their bodies being at most a foot or two apart, never mind arms and legs - without grappling, if they can and want to move away from you.

Regarding moving backwards without looking, I don't know if there's a rule for it but I think it would be entirely reasonable for the GM to require some sort of DX roll (or roll vs a relevant DX-based skill) to keep from stumbling or falling if they did that across anything but very even ground.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anders Gabrielsson

I'm no expert on fighting matters, but this seems quite realistic to me. I have a hard time picturing being able to stay that close to someone - if you're in the same hex you're talking about their bodies being at most a foot or two apart, never mind arms and legs - without grappling, if they can and want to move away from you.

Things are made even more complicated by the abstraction. Reach C isn't necessarily 'bodies a foot apart' - it's the range of a punch, a knee strike, and a knife attack (though some knife attacks have Reach 1, and can be bumped to Reach 2 with a Lunge).

[Anders Gabrielsson]

Again, I find it pretty hard to imagine reliably staying close enough to someone to (easily) punch or knee them if they can and want to move away. When people stay that close to each other in a fight it's either because both want to be there or one of them has grabbed the other.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

IIRC that wasn't so initially. Either Ellie-era FAQ, or MA, has changed that. (IIRC.)

I'm sorry, I don't follow that at all.

I think you might be referring to the idea that you could step into close combat in, say, GURPS 1e, and your opponent lost many of his defenses. I recall that got ditched because a) it wasn't realistic and b) it directly implied the existence of separate, non-overlapping turns (because A steps in and knifes B, B can't parry or block unpenalized nor can B back up as A steps in).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As it stands, in's simply not possible to exploit the clumsiness of certain weapons in close combat - not even by pushing the defender to the wall (because he will simply Retreat slightly to the side).

If you give someone any room to retreat and they have the presence of mind to use it, you really can't exploit them very easily. The idea of, "step into close combat, exploiting my reach and frustrating his, and he can't leave" tosses the idea of near-simultaneous turns out the window. It's only when you start in close combat - which presumes the opponent either couldn't, or didn't, move to keep the gap open - that you can do this. I think that's pretty reasonable. The best way to cut off someone's options and keep them from backing up is either to grab them or corner them. The first works better but it's harder.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

If the OP wants someone to unwillingly stay in close combat, some form of grappling is the right approach.

With invisible arms that do this and only this? Seems contrived.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

With invisible arms that do this and only this? Seems contrived.

Well, I'd model a knife fighter who wraps his arms around people to keep them from escaping by giving him a good grappling skill and just grappling people. But I'm a simple guy. :)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

I'm sorry, I don't follow that at all.

I think you might be referring to the idea that you could step into close combat in, say, GURPS 1e, and your opponent lost many of his defenses. I recall that got ditched because a) it wasn't realistic

I'm not advocating total loss of defenses, especially now that we have the Close Combat Technique.

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

and b) it directly implied the existence of separate, non-overlapping turns (because A steps in and knifes B, B can't parry or block unpenalized nor can B back up as A steps in).

Actually, this works both ways. Consider these two generic descriptions, and then think which one applies to what:

A's turn: A moves to set up an action (e.g. attack). B acts as if the move hasn't occurred ('yet').

Now, you can see that two situations can be described with this formula:

• A moves to set up attack at Reach C. B defends as if the distance hasn't changed (yet).
• A moves away to set up an attack at Reach 1. Be attacks as if the distance hasn't changed (yet).

Notice that the former is GURPS-legal but not the latter.

Somehow, no matter how fast the closing attacker is, and no matter how many attacks she does, she can never actually enter Reach C in one turn. But also, no matter what, the retreating foe can always retreat fast enough to step back and then have time to attack at Reach 1.

Now, you mention that this creates an impression of non-overlapping turns. It does, because, say, unlike Spaceships Tactical Combat, GURPS Tactical Combat turns are not resolved simultaneously.

Right now, Reach C weapons (especially weapons with Reach C,1) are very misleading: it seems like being able to fight in C is a good thing (sometimes the whole point, if they're an auxiliary weapon), but when it comes to rules, they don't have an advantage in CC because there's no such thing as CC outside of grappling (and if both parties are armed, grappling is a bad idea in the first place).

Right now, there are two separate turns, and they're different depending on direction of movement and initial distance:
Moving backwards from C to 1, it is generally okay to step then attack (going to Reach 1).
Moving forward from 1 to C, you end up attacking before closing, even if you explicitly choose to Step first (attacks are resolved at Reach 1).
Moving backwards from 1 to 2, it is okay to step then attack (and attack will be resolved at Reach 2).
Moving forward from 2 to 1, it is okay to step then attack (attack will be resolved at Reach 1).
Inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

If you give someone any room to retreat and they have the presence of mind to use it, you really can't exploit them very easily. The idea of, "step into close combat, exploiting my reach and frustrating his, and he can't leave" tosses the idea of near-simultaneous turns out the window. It's only when you start in close combat - which presumes the opponent either couldn't, or didn't, move to keep the gap open - that you can do this. I think that's pretty reasonable. The best way to cut off someone's options and keep them from backing up is either to grab them or corner them. The first works better but it's harder.

The argument applies both ways: if a person can retreat out of CC, and steps back, the rules for some reason suppose that the CC-combatant didn't step forward to prevent the gap from opening.

A good way to avoid the problem (but a slow one) would be to use rules similar to the way GURPS Spaceships handles movement:
people put vectors designating the hexes towards which they are moving, and then movement is resolved for all combatants. So either they're both at Reach 1 for a given point in time, or they're both at Reach C.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anders Gabrielsson

Again, I find it pretty hard to imagine reliably staying close enough to someone to (easily) punch or knee them if they can and want to move away. When people stay that close to each other in a fight it's either because both want to be there or one of them has grabbed the other.

Keeping your distance, especially when you don't know what's behind you, isn't easy either. Except that by the rules, it's trivially easy.