[X] My Assistant

[Sintrea]

Hi!
Going to start playing a new game of Shadowrun 4th edition, but this question would be cool for any pen and paper game, like the Star Wars game we're currently playing.

I was wondering if anyone had any combat tactics for when you're on the grid. I know it depends a lot on situation but there's got to be a few universal ones right?

For example, I'm making twin siblings with another player, and it would be neat if we used each other to cause mayhem, confusion and all together sweet moves. Like being back to back to avoid flanking, except the more complex the plan the better.

Basically, any ideas on how to make melee or ranged combat more interesting. Formation? Leverage? Jump attacks? I'm not sure, just brainstorming.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Not being an expert on the matter I will offer up what little I believe to be worth while.

If you are playing with miniatures implementing tactics is easier. So I am going to base much of what I say off of that.

As a Shadowrunner, a prolonged combat is going to work against you. As the opposition (corp security, Lone Star, etc.) have more resources to throw at the fight than you do. The first unsurpressed shot is going to alert God and Universe that something is up. You can only expect your decker to keep the opposition blind for so long. If you cannot quickly overwhelm the enemy, you have to break off the engagement and use an alternative route.

Thermal smoke is good for covering your retreat along with the odd improvised munition to slow pursuit.

When you plan your runs look for natural choke points where you can be pinned down at. That is a position that you have to deny the enemy from controlling. Long corridors with a vault at the end of them but no doors on either side, dead end alleys, and things of this type all qualiy.

Learn the different between concealment and cover. An standard interior residential wall is concealment, meaning that you cannot be seen. It is not cover as it will not stop a round from a heavy pistol let alone a shotgun shooting slugs. Concealment includes things like a car door, an empty 50 gallon drum, a bush, well you get the idea. Cover on the other hand will stop incoming rounds. This could be a concrete wall, a bulldozer blade (Lethal Weapon and 9mm Cop Killer bullets not withstanding), even a thick tree trunk, all qualify. Concealment is nice but cover will save you.

Inevitably you are going to run up against opposition in a better position than you and your only option is to fight your way out. You are going to want to use a theme and variation of fire and maneuver, one element lays down covering fire while the other element moves to a flanking position. The goal is to get an angle on the enemy where their cover is no longer hindering a clear shot.

Of course all of this is just the physical side of things. Magic, which cuts both ways, can allow a team to create diversions, have spirits manifest behind your opposition, and so forth. If I think of anything really cool I will throw it out there for people to mull over. But for tonight...I am done.

[Blade]

If you can defeat the opposition before they have time to act, do it.
If you can't, get cover (or at least concealment) before anything else.

Use grenades.

[toturi]

If you can defeat the opposition before they have time to act, do it.
If you can't, get cover (or at least concealment) before anything else.

Use grenades.

True.

Defeat the opposition before they can act. If not, do not even initiate the fight. Control the time and location of the fight. Fight only when the odds are overwhelmingly on your side, refuse combat at any other time.

But the above only works in game systems that have a high element of lethality. In some other game systems, surprise do not work out as well.

[Blade]

I just recalled Dying Earth combat tactics:
Don't fight. It's too risky. If you can't negotiate, just run away.

[Warlordtheft]

You might want to read up on swat tactics for clearing rooms and such. Stacking, covering fire and the like (matrix and magic makes this easier or harder depending on the opposostion's expertise in these areas).

I'd stay away from full blown military tactics in SR as a runner, you don't have the resources to pull it off. In a Merc campaign you could though.

[Critias]

It really depends, by and large, on the game system in question. While it's not a bad idea to, when in doubt, ambush whenever possible, even the effectiveness of that varies wildly based on the game system (heck, even between editions of some games, Shadowrun being one of them). Sometimes it'll net you a bonus to hit, sometimes it'll net your Rogue extra damage, sometimes it'll mean they can't dodge, sometimes all it will mean is that you'll go first and combat will otherwise be unaffected -- it's never a bad idea, mind, but it's hardly going to win every single fight for you, in every single game system.

Likewise, the usage (or denial) of cover, flanking, enfilading fire, grenades (wildly vary in damage potential from game to game)...it's all stuff that's so different from game to game it's tough to suggest anything as the automatic win.

When in doubt, you want to go first, you want to take out dangerous targets as quickly as possible, and you want to remain unharmed while you do so. That generally translates to ambush, concentrating your fire, and using some sort of defensive measure in the meantime (be it cover, simply outranging your opponent, opening with a flash-pak or something, etc). In other games that might mean the Evoker goes first and the Cleric holds his action for heal spells, or that you make a point of shooting with PPCs before missile barrages to crit-seek.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

I agree with Warlordtheft's suggestion about reading up on SWAT tactics. Even if you can't use them in each and every encounter it never hurts to understand the principles in play. Fire and maneuvere can be used effectively with as few people as two, well at least in paintball. I think the essence of fire and maneuvere is a philosophy that you don't want to get sucked into a prolonged gunfight.

Critias is right, I hope my suggestions didn't come off as automatic wins because they are not.

[Critias]

I think the essence of fire and maneuvere is a philosophy that you don't want to get sucked into a prolonged gunfight.

Unless you've got flanking elements and the other guy doesn't, at least. Then it's just fun to hunker down behind cover and swap fire, keep their heads down, while someone goes circling around to nail 'em (or the drone goes overhead, or the spirits manifest behind them, or whatever). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Unless you've got flanking elements and the other guy doesn't, at least. Then it's just fun to hunker down behind cover and swap fire, keep their heads down, while someone goes circling around to nail 'em (or the drone goes overhead, or the spirits manifest behind them, or whatever). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

I can see your point.

The questions I would ask...

How much time are you willing to burn? Every combat round means the possibility of reinforcements or Lone Star.

Who is it you are up against? Not just the NPCs, if the GM is Rommel reincarnate you might have a problem. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Like it has been said previously, individual situations are going to dictate the course of action. Hopefully, you and the rest of your team will make fewer mistakes than the opposition.

[Dumori]

I run my NPC as they would likely play. So say I've got a hidden R&D lab under a warehouse the corpsec on the surface would likely panic and call for back up if under fire. Where as the guards in the lab and the rapid response unit would be more militaristic using stealth if needed cover and small unit tactics. I can be a a nasty tactistion witch may be why I limit my self this way it could be that I come form the toturi school of GMing I'm not quite as DP based but I am thee with him on that you need a tactics skill to make use of them or you have to default.

[Critias]

...but I am thee with him on that you need a tactics skill to make use of them or you have to default.

So what counts as the "tactics" that you need a skill to justify? Do you need to make a tactics skill roll to take cover? To concentrate your fire? To sneak up behind someone? To sneak at all (instead of just kicking in a door and charging in)? Does it takes a tactics skill roll to send in the Sammie and the Adept to fight, instead of the Hacker and the Face? Should it really take a tactics skill to think "shoot first," or "ambush them," or similar? What about to know to throw a grenade, wait for the boom, and THEN rush a room?

This whole "you need to make a tactics skill roll to not act like a retard" thing that's sprung up in the last few days is really blindsiding me, because it never occured to me a GM would require such a thing. Most of my SR3 characters had Small Unit Tactics to a healthy (or, in one case, bought up nearly into the double digits) level, so it's largely a non issue...but to require a character to succeed at a skill roll to allow the players to make a plan is just absurd to me.

As far as "you should only plan based on what your characters can do/plan," that seems largely self-correcting to me. I won't add a demo charge to a plan if my character hasn't got Demolitions, in the same way I won't plan for Character A to sit and snipe somewhere if he hasn't got a rifle and doesn't know how to use it. My tactical scheming won't include commando-style stealth if no one's got the skills to pull it off, etc, etc... the "only plan what your character would plan" is a non-issue unless someone's hip deep in skillchips or something.

Why stifle the one part of a game where the players are the most likely to kick back and try to be smart and creative? Why bog down the scenes most likely to be filled with teamwork and a group-oriented mentality? Why screw up the "planning" stage of a game, before combat kicks in and the game's already about to slow to a crawl and wade through initiative phases, roll after contested roll after soak roll, etc, etc...and take away the glorious "ah HAH!" moments of friends sitting at a table and getting a great idea about how to cleverly do the improbable, and replace them with die rolls, instead?

I just really don't get it.

[Warlordtheft]

As a GM---I would say don't mess with players plans or tacticle choices because the PC doesn't have a tactics skills (this is railroading which is bad). Tactics skills should give you a bonus of some sort-as I reacall it is a boost to the initiative. Not having the skill means that you can't execute tactical plans as qucickly.

[Wounded Ronin]

Hi!
Going to start playing a new game of Shadowrun 4th edition, but this question would be cool for any pen and paper game, like the Star Wars game we're currently playing.

I was wondering if anyone had any combat tactics for when you're on the grid. I know it depends a lot on situation but there's got to be a few universal ones right?

For example, I'm making twin siblings with another player, and it would be neat if we used each other to cause mayhem, confusion and all together sweet moves. Like being back to back to avoid flanking, except the more complex the plan the better.

Basically, any ideas on how to make melee or ranged combat more interesting. Formation? Leverage? Jump attacks? I'm not sure, just brainstorming.

Flanking is the true way of the jedi.

[PBTHHHHT]

As a GM---I would say don't mess with players plans or tacticle choices because the PC doesn't have a tactics skills (this is railroading which is bad). Tactics skills should give you a bonus of some sort-as I reacall it is a boost to the initiative. Not having the skill means that you can't execute tactical plans as qucickly.

As a GM, I don't mess with what the players do, instead the tactics skill allows them to anticipate what the opposition might do. It's a bit too much to try and force every bit of rolling before letting them do some action. To try and separate the character knowledge from player knowledge for actions on that level would bog the game down even more.

[PBTHHHHT]

Flanking is the true way of the jedi.

I thought the true way was having the high ground...

[hyzmarca]

When you're smashing an enemy force to pieces with superior firepower, always make sure to have someone cut off their retreat, so that you can slaughter them totally. But never let your enemy know that retreat has been cut off. If they know that they can't escape, then they're sure to fight to the death. Ideally, you want to kill them after they've stopped fighting. It's much safer for you that way.

[Fuchs]

Why stifle the one part of a game where the players are the most likely to kick back and try to be smart and creative? Why bog down the scenes most likely to be filled with teamwork and a group-oriented mentality? Why screw up the "planning" stage of a game, before combat kicks in and the game's already about to slow to a crawl and wade through initiative phases, roll after contested roll after soak roll, etc, etc...and take away the glorious "ah HAH!" moments of friends sitting at a table and getting a great idea about how to cleverly do the improbable, and replace them with die rolls, instead?

I just really don't get it.

Well, it's not everyone's experience, but in my experience, that planning stage slowed the game down to a crawl. That's ok if all players are on board, but when just one or two were into such planning, it was more disruptive than a matrix session in SR1.

In my current campaign extensive planning is done by the NPC leader. That means I need less time spent on preparing for all eventualities but can focus on what will be needed for the session. Since no PC is very suited for planning runs, it also means less time spent on out of character stuff instead of in character stuff.

[Blade]

I use the tactics (or any other appropriate) skill to see how long I can let the player decide his action.
I do this because on one hand I was tired of players spending 20 minutes talking OOC about the best way to coordinate their action to kill everyone in one combat turn but on the other hand most of the time my players aren't as good in combat/tactics as their characters are.

[PBTHHHHT]

Well, it's not everyone's experience, but in my experience, that planning stage slowed the game down to a crawl. That's ok if all players are on board, but when just one or two were into such planning, it was more disruptive than a matrix session in SR1.

In my current campaign extensive planning is done by the NPC leader. That means I need less time spent on preparing for all eventualities but can focus on what will be needed for the session. Since no PC is very suited for planning runs, it also means less time spent on out of character stuff instead of in character stuff.

One thing maybe is to have a timer and give them an alotted amount of time for planning, to represent their character time limit in planning. A week of character planning may equate to say an half an hour? just throwing a number out. Just let them know they have a hard time to come up with something. That way it doesn't bog down too too much and gives you as a gm a much needed bathroom/smoke break. All the while, letting the players have some fun time doing planning because sometimes that has it's own fun too. It at least gives the ones that like to plan some fun with that, though yeah, that's a bummer if not all the players are into planning, maybe the ones doing it should be encouraged to ask the others for input, unless that's been already tried.

[Fuchs]

One thing maybe is to have a timer and give them an alotted amount of time for planning, to represent their character time limit in planning. A week of character planning may equate to say an half an hour? just throwing a number out. Just let them know they have a hard time to come up with something. That way it doesn't bog down too too much and gives you as a gm a much needed bathroom/smoke break. All the while, letting the players have some fun time doing planning because sometimes that has it's own fun too. It at least gives the ones that like to plan some fun with that, though yeah, that's a bummer if not all the players are into planning, maybe the ones doing it should be encouraged to ask the others for input, unless that's been already tried.

That presumes that those players even have characters who are good at planning. That is not the case - the current team is mainly made up of people who you do not want planning a run. So, if given the choice between playing your character and not doing any planning, or metagaming and doing the planning, you'd have to really enjoy the planning aspect to make metagaming worth it.

[Wounded Ronin]

When you're smashing an enemy force to pieces with superior firepower, always make sure to have someone cut off their retreat, so that you can slaughter them totally. But never let your enemy know that retreat has been cut off. If they know that they can't escape, then they're sure to fight to the death. Ideally, you want to kill them after they've stopped fighting. It's much safer for you that way.

A quote from the character Duke in the classic game Damage Incorported, delivered in a casual John Wayne while killing enemies:

By the time we're done here we're going to need a garbage truck for all the bodies.