|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 30, 2012 11:14:28 GMT -5
Hey ewookie,
Melee is definitely a focus, but missile combat is a must as well for a balanced party. The standard 4-character assumption is two melee guys, 1 archer, and a wizard. Now you can play around with those numbers, they are not set in stone at all. I always break from that default. But the ability to down some of your enemies from afar is pretty critical. If all four of your guys are melee oriented, they are going to succumb to wounds pretty quickly.
I know this is not exactly what you are saying - just wanted to pint out that archery is as critical to succeeding as melee.
Glad you like our loose ZOC concept!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 22:40:52 GMT -5
that may explain why encounters are so tough on my guys. i've been playing the same strategy, sort of. 2 melee guys getting up close and personal with the baddies and 2 magi hanging back and attacking from afar, usually with Mage Fist. Arrows cost nothing and do slightly more damage that Mage Fist. guess i should start working those in
|
|
|
Post by gigglestick on Jul 1, 2012 12:37:38 GMT -5
I used to use a playtest team that was one Melee Brick, one Archer, one Mage, and one ranged skillmonkey... Send the Brick in to tie up the movement of the opponents and then pepper them with ranged attacks. The skillmonkey could get in and back up the brick if necessary.
Worked pretty well most of the time, as long as you can keep the brick from being swarmed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 13:11:51 GMT -5
i guess it would help if i played the baddies such that they always attacked the closest PC, whether or not that PC already has an attacker. i'm not used to playing with miniatures. i always have baddies attack the closest PC unless that PC already has an attacker. Then the baddie moves on to the next closest attacker. that may explain why my combats are at least 95% melee and my original attitude of 'pffft' concerning archers and rules concerning missile weapons...
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jul 3, 2012 13:36:40 GMT -5
Tactics will definitely vary from encounter to encounter, depending on the number and nature of your adversaries. Keep in mind that it can be more effective to focus all of your attacks on one enemy at a time; you will take him down faster that way, and so will be facing two opponents the next turn rather than three.
Enemies will certainly play this way, too. Multiple melee enemies may opt to focus all of their attacks on the foremost of your warriors, to take him down quickly for the same reasons. This way your frontline guy will tie up most attacks, while you spearman can strike from behind him (this is a house rule, not in he Core LAW rules, but goes way back to original D&D) and your archer can wreak havoc from further back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 23:04:42 GMT -5
i don't recall that i ever played a D&D game in such a manner. however, i remember we had some kind of rule as players that we would all gang up on the biggest foe first because there was some kinda morale check on the weaker monsters.
in TFT, did the minis represent individuals or units? this strategy makes sense for units fighting in a napoleonic-style battle, not so much for individuals...but then again, minions aren't minions for their superior intellect.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jul 4, 2012 16:24:34 GMT -5
The minis were individuals. Definitely you could scale the tactics out to larger conflicts. And tactics definitely vary from specific encounter to specific encounter. But in small unit fights, you want to put your enemies down as fast as possible. So you tie them up and drop them methodically.
Never played Napoleonics, except for some free SPI game way back about Waterloo. These tactics are actually more representative of World War 2 and later; a combined arms fight.
Period literature on four-on-four (and similar-sized) melees is pretty scare, though larger scale battles are pretty well referenced. But The ancient warrior knew his weapons, and the best way to employ them, so it is not so difficult to see a small group of warriors fighting to their weapons' and styles' best effect.
There are some acounts of Roman gladitorial fights, but they are less focused on tactics than outcome. Let me know if you are familiar with any!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 1:09:08 GMT -5
i was speaking of the tactics employed by NPCs (goblins and such) when playing an adventure. in particular, the tactic whereby they all gang up on the closest PC and ignore any ranged attackers. to me, this seemed comparable to ancient (roman) and napoleonic warfare where you have infantry march out on a battlefield and attack the opposing infantry while both sides fire artillery into the fray. that sort of tactic seems intelligent in those massive-scale situations.
as far as individual-style or four-on-four tactics, i am only familiar with my own experiences in gang-type fights. if the brawlers were already evenly matched, i would try to take out one of the guys shooting or throwing stuff from a distance. i hope the reasons for that would be common sense to anyone. this seems to work well for my team when playing team oddball halo also.
now back to the tactics employed by NPCs. having them all gang up on the closest PC while other PCs fire from a distance is not very smart on the part of NPCs but that is as it should be. most of the NPCs we face in adventures are minions or some other creatures of low intelligence. so i was agreeing that that is how NPCs should be controlled and that i was playing them too intelligently.
|
|