Tactical Consequences of The Last Gasp

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Anders

Has anyone tried to do a Roman legion thing, with front-line fighters keeping up the pressure and then retreating back fresh troops to regain their APs?

Not as part of a large formation, but it has happened when the players took up defensive position in a narrow passage. (and again once in a mountain pass IIRC)

And as Icelander says, it comes up with lots of lower powered chaps going up against a more powerful opponent.


Think of some of the fights in seven samurai with bamboo wielding villagers vs. armoured bandits, or farmers vs. isolated armoured knights, or even just wild life programmes where a pack of something quick and clever wears down something much larger and more powerful.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anders

Right, which is realistic.

Nitpick: no, it isn't. Humans stop sprinting not because they want to conserve FP, but rather because the human organism cannot keep spending FP (from the next type of FP pool) fast enough to power a sprinting rate of movement.

Sure, we're in a game, and a game requires abstraction. But when trying to reduce abstraction and add realism, if you went all the way towards counting different levels of exhaustion-and-recovery, being able to spend the whole of your slowly-recovering bit in a matter of seconds isn't realistic.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The pricing was worked out before Telegraphic Attacks, for example, which made All-Out Attacks a lot more suicidal, and didn't really account for the interplay of extremely nasty grappling moves, Telegraphic Attacks and Targeted Attacks against vulnerable spots and/or Armour Gaps which usually follow an All-Out Attack against an aware foe with combat training and equipment.

Do you tell your Players what Maneuvers their opponents took?

I don't.

So that enemy that just took one attack could have AOA Strong, Attacked, or Defensive Attacked. Likewise the enemy that made two attacks could AOA Double, or Attacked with Rapid Strike/Double Weapon, or Defensive Struck with Rapid Strike/Double Weapon. They won't know until they attack and the opponent doesn't defend.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Do you tell your Players what Maneuvers their opponents took?

I don't.

Maneuvers are balanced against each other on the assumption that this will be apparent, barring Feint and suchlike.

I do use the rules in Tactical Shooting for Situational Awareness, so characters must still succeed at a Per check to notice it in combat, just as with everything else, but if you notice a given foe acting at all, that ought generally be enough for you to know what Maneuver he took.

If the wide openings that All-Out Attack leaves in defences aren't apparent to enemies, it is, of course, a much better option. But that's not how the rules are written to work.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If the wide openings that All-Out Attack leaves in defences aren't apparent to enemies, it is, of course, a much better option. But that's not how the rules are written to work.

Can you point me to the RAW that states this?



I can see the RAI argument. I even used to do it that way.... and then Telegraphic Attack came along. So I stopped.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Can you point me to the RAW that states this?

Here's Kromm on the subject:

Originally Posted by Kromm

The only maneuver that shouldn't be obvious is Feint. Everything else is meant to be stated openly. All-Out Attack would be zero-risk if it weren't obvious, and Concentrate over multiple seconds wouldn't be the drawback that the rules for spells and powers assume it is if enemies weren't aware of it. Another way to put it is as follows: The rules assume that everybody on the battlefield knows everybody else's maneuver, save Feint. If you don't play it that way, certain things become unbalanced.

[Tomsdad]

I find that if you openly state the manoeuvres being used it gives too much information, and further allows perfectly formed responses in combat situations. A problem that is already an issue given we sit around tables not actually fighting second by second.

I like the uncertainty, "is that great big chap with the two handed daneaxe actually doing defensive attacks, even if they feel like full attack on my shield, so is he going to be able to parry?" etc, etc.

Some manoeuvres will become readily apparent anyway from related game effects anyway.

e.g did you target make any attempt to defend you attack after his? No, well that's because he likely used an AoA last time.

or

did that chap not famed for his blistering speed and skill just make two very quick attacks without you getting a reply in, (well likely that's an AoA)

hang on that chap with a mace just parried after making an attack, ok so that
was a defensive attack

What he's going for my face, he's either better than I thought or likely making an AoA(Determined).




So I like the ambiguity of not knowing the difference between an All out defence, evaluation and wait manoeuvre unless you are really looking. I'll happily let people try and spot what it was with a perception based skill roll, if they are happy to take a doing two things at once penalty! (I'll allow it without penalty when evaluating, and I'll give any pre-existing evaluate bonus to it for any roll),


That all said I tend to use my combat descriptions to give hints as well, an AoA strong doesn't get described in the same way as a defensive attack!


The up shot of all this is my players do tend to fight defensively and use evaluate, they also tend to fight based on their own choices not in response to their opponents until they get a measure of them.

But this works for me, I run low power stuff, fighting is tense, I tend not to have mooks etc.


Finally we are often reminded that combat rounds in GURPS are overlapping and not "his second, my second, his second my second".

But allowing people to respond with full knowledge to their opponents last action when making their next directly contradicts this idea, since it directly infers "his action, my action" etc.


I do get the game balance point in abstract, but to be honest I don't think it's a massive deal in play. (anyone who constantly does AoA's, is going to come unstuck sooner or later)

[Anders]

I think I'll reprice Berserk or just disallow it.

Okay, so what happens with armor? Does the cost/benefit of armor change as a consequence of TLG?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'll happily let people try and spot what it was with a perception based skill roll, if they are happy to take doing two things at once penalty! (I'll allow it without penalty when evaluating, and I'll give any pre-existing evaluate bonus to it for any roll)...

That is also how I do it, Body Language or Per-6.

I do get the game balance point in abstract, but to be honest I don't think it's a massive deal in play. (anyone who constants does AoA's, is going to come unstuck sooner or later)

I don't see it as a point balance issue [EDIT - but I'm willing to accept it as such. I won't be changing the way I run though). It's how I did things for most 3e (I did start announcing NPCs Manuevers towards the end of 3e just to make things 'fair', since as the GM I get to know the PCs manuevers) but stopped when Telegraphic Attack came in.

Telegraphic Attack makes AOA almost guaranteed suicide.

[Kalzazz]

Telegraphic Attack is a very odd duck I have mixed feelings about, it can be neat in some cases, but not in others. The 'does not count' toward criticals definitely makes people look askance at using it, even when people do all out attacks


As a DM I hide more than I would like from my players, solely due to the fact I hate chargen with a blinding passion, so my players simply cannot know things I as a DM do not know . . . . but things that I do know (such as the enemies chosen manuever) I am more than willing to share

My dream (which will never happen) is to someday run 'Full Information GURPS', all enemies will have fully done stat sheets which will be shared with the players, and the only things they won't know in advance is what the dice will roll and what the enemies will choose to do

Unfortunately I haven't managed to train my players to actually _act_ on this shared knowledge

DM 'The enemy swings at you with enthusiasm, All Out Attack for damage'
Player 'My go, I swing sneakily, Deceptive -2!'
DM 'GAH! Don't you want to maybe rapid strike or called shot? He All Out Attacked, no defense remember?'