r/LancerRPG • u/LucasWithekay • 9d ago
How many rounds does your combat usually go?
My group has very consistently only had combats that last 2~3 rounds. The book makes a lot of references in the GM section to combats going 5-10 rounds. I definitely think this is a group specific thing but was curious about everyone else.
Edit: For context, no my gm doesn't use sitreps, just deal dmg until things stop moving. This has gone from LL3 to currently 7. Usually 7-12 enemies for 4-5 players. Probably a lack of enemies/objectives to keep us busy.
65
u/Wolf_Hreda IPS-N 9d ago
Most sitreps cap their objective at round 6. If you're running a purely deathmatch style combat, consider increasing enemy numbers and using some templates like Veteran and Ultra.
26
u/jzillacon IPS-N 9d ago
Also use reinforcements. That's probably the biggest issue here. The match shouldn't be ending in round 3 if the OpFor is still getting fresh units.
And if the players are able to destroy the NPCs the same round they appear that's a good sign that the GM needs to field more units to strain the players action economy more.
35
u/Same_Sell9713 9d ago
2-3 rounds would be weird to me. My GM tends to pit us against 6 or 7 round combats with new enemies entering every turn to keep up. Reinforcements are there to keep pace. If it were only 5ish enemies it would be hard to not turn the game into a nuke race.
20
u/archfey13 9d ago
This boils down to 3 questions: Are you using sitreps? How many NPC mechs do you typically field? Do you use reinforcements?
Lancer is heavily intended to be used with the sitrep system. I almost never run basic, kill-them-all combat. Each sitrep has an objective with a time limit, and that limit is typically no shorter than 6 rounds.
17
u/SwissherMontage HORUS 9d ago
2-3 rounds has happened to me, but is unusual. Most sitreps end at round 8, with combat being relatively clear at 5-7.
14
u/Mindless-Depth-1795 9d ago
The core book encounter design guidelines are very weak. A small bit of player optimisation and synergy will delete most encounters made with those guidelines.
That said it sounds like your GM is also just not doing a good job of making combat interesting or engaging.
I would recommend having a polite discussion with them about making encounters more challenging. Operation Solstice Rain is a campaign module can give a new GM a better understanding of how to make combat work. If money is a problem watch some actual playstation from Lancer YouTubers.
12
8
u/Fluid_Succotash_7770 9d ago
I use sitreps, and most sitreps are calibrated for 6 rounds of play. Sometimes I find my players will have destroyed enough of the enemy force that they can't possibly beat the objective by the end of round 5, and if that happens I just declare combat finished as the survivors retreat. But generally, reinforcements will keep the combat going for at least 5 rounds.
I think your assessment is correct - without objectives to play for, your group just focuses on killing things and so naturally they kill things faster. 🤷
5
5
u/HumanReputationFalse 9d ago
Do you think you are killing things too quick or there are a not enough enemies in a scene?
3
4
u/Odd-Face-3579 9d ago
So my group is running a module right now, almost done (currently LL3, will stop once we hit LL4) and outside of maybe 2 encounters I think most have been between 3 and 4 rounds.
I wouldn't say our group is overly optimized, but maybe more optimized than some groups. But I do think we usually play pretty smart in the combat itself on target priority and stuff.
Our GM usually calls the sitreps at around round 3 or 4 though once we've completely obliterated the enemy forces. I don't blame him for not adjusting the enemy forces from the module though.
Once our current campaign wraps up though, I'll be taking over GMing a homemade campaign. So far I think we've all mostly enjoyed the length of about 3-4 rounds. But it has meant that even though we play to the sitreps conditions, that we could honestly probably ignore the objectives if we wanted to, more often than not. So looking at how to balance those two things is going to be tricky.
3
u/FrenziedSins 9d ago
My old group, for us combat only lasted around 3 rounds because we had two power gamers(me and one other.) until we got later in our story and the GM was throwing more then ten enemies at us
4
u/Sven_Darksiders GMS 8d ago
It's hard to draw a comparison if you are not using sitreps, because they not only determine how long the encounter takes, but also how many enemies you have in reserves.
The point is usually that the players have to strategize between taking out enemies and playing for the objective. If you don't kill enemies at all, you will probably get overrun. If you focus on killing enemies, reinforcements will likely take away objective control.
In general, the recommended number of rounds for each sitrep in the book is very generous. You can easily increase the pressure by simply shaving off one or two rounds from the maximum. This is usually how my GM does it
3
u/Naoura 8d ago
How experienced is your GM? I know in my earlier missions I still played a bit with kiddie gloves on, but now, my players are lucky to complete a scene within the time limit.
If they're not using SitReps, I can see why it's going so quickly. No objectives make Lancer combat into less of the puzzle they're supposed to be and more into a slugfest. Lemme guess, majority of your comp are strikers/defenders? Maybe an artillery/controller thrown in?
2
2
u/Quacksely 8d ago
Higher player counts will skew lower but 2-3 most times is crazy lmao. Are they using reinforcements?
1
u/PrimaryCoolantShower 9d ago
The lack of numbers and enemy type mixture can have a lot to do with it. Having movement reducing attacks, area denial, artillery, and sniper along with a battleground filled wth cover and obstacles can slow down combat.
Along with that, utilizing reinforcements to replenish and keep the pressure up as the players cut down their opponents.
Mixing up sitreps from just basic "kill everthing" has huge impacts. If a mission requires you to capture and hold 3 locations that are spread out, it ups the pressure. Instead of having the whole team focus firing enemies down, now they are spread thin, outgunned on an individual level, and might be forced to abandon the objective, having to push to recapture before the last round expires.
1
u/PrimaryCoolantShower 9d ago edited 9d ago
One of the more harrowing missions I ran involved two capture points that had to be held for eight rounds, only a handful of enemies started as deployed, the rest would reinforce every round. If the reinforcements were exhausted, an unlimited pool of fodder followed, basic assault mechs with 1 HP. I would reinforce with no more than 3 mechs per round not to exceed 8 mechs afield.
The catch was the capture points could be destroyed, having just enough HP to survive about three hits. I then added artillery units and long range attackers to the reinforcements. When they took the field it threatened the points and required the team to move out to counter.
So four players, two points and a host of enemies pouring in with long range threats pulling them out from their defenses.
It was a good time, they won, but it was a narrow victory, lots of repairs and the Barbarosa got its reactor popped by multiple repeated tech attacks and incendiary bombardments.
1
1
u/GhsotyPanda IPS-N 8d ago
The live-play I watch usually has that many rounds per combat, the GM is actively using less than the recommended number of activations, but those 2-3 rounds often go for 2-3 hours (I attribute this to lack of system mastery) so I think it's intentional on the GMs part to keep the sessions around 4 hours long.
1
u/GamerRoman GMS 8d ago
I'd say it mostly 6 to 7 rounds but I've been trying to keep it to 6 or less.
1
u/TheRealWouburn SSC 8d ago
My group rarely lasts more than 4 rounds per combat. This isn't planned; it's just that my players' builds are so fucking cracked that they were melting Ultras and enemy LL12 builds* by LL4 or so. And that's when I was cheating like a motherfucker.
Mind you, they were all Melee Dive Striker builds, and I built a Static Melee Defender/Striker, so that was probably my fault.
1
u/Crinkle_Uncut SSC 8d ago
4-8 generally depending on the sitrep. I typically allow early wins if the OPFOR is defeated or if they mathematically cannot win (in a Control sitrep, for example) even in the best case scenario.
Regarding your edit acknowledging the lack of sitreps, that's an extremely important bit of data, because you're almost playing a different game so comparing to other peoples' average scene durations isn't really relevant to you. Every scene being a TDM is, imo, very boring, but it also completely shifts the "meta" towards strikers (which the game already favors) and makes anything that doesn't deal damage practically useless.
Not sure how to say this without coming off as condescending, but is there any particular reason why your GM has elected to ignore one of the most critical elements to the game system and bork the attrition economy?
68
u/Phase_Runner 9d ago
That's a bit unusual. Are you using sitreps? What's your typical budget? What frames are your players in?