New here, some questions

[Meridian]

@Hobbes: Turns out I was talking about computer games and he was talking about tabletop games. So technically he's right in his context, I know nothing about tabletop games.

But back to topic.
I tried googling Necromunda rules and mechanics, but unfortunately I didn't find anything about actively disrupting buckshot in the face.

1. Necromunda intro video doesn't mention anything like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtB0tGKUyI

2. Necromunda summary sheet also doesn't mention anything: https://necromunda.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/Necro_RefRoster_ENG.pdf

There's an 8-step close combat sequence described there, without any mention of enemy able to disrupt your close range shotguns.

3. Necromunda rulebook: http://ascfi1.asoc.fi.upm.es/wikirol/images/9/9b/Necromunda_Underhive_2017_rules_en.pdf

On page 24, I was able to find 2 mechanics that maybe were what he meant, however none of them is even close to the current OXCE mechanic.

a/ "Interference" = "When a fighter makes close combat attacks, they suffer interference from each other enemy fighter who is a) Engaged with the attacker, and b) not Engaged with any other fighters in the attacker's gang.Each interference subtracts 1 from the result of the attacker's hit roll."

This directly corresponds to OXCE melee dodge, not CQB.
(Edit: OXCE melee dodge is actually stronger, since it's always-on, but let's say we close one eye there)

b/ "Parry" = "After an enemy makes close combat attacks against a fighter armed with a Parry weapon, the fighter can force the attacking player to re-roll one successful hit. If the fighter is armed with two Parry weapons, they can force the attacking player to re-roll two successful hits instead."

This is the closest I could find to CQB, but still miles away from current OXCE implementation:
a/ only applies to melee weapons, pistols and unarmed combat; not to shotguns for example as in OXCE
b/ the enemy must have a specific weapon, which he can use to counterattack (e.g. sword on sword), and after the counter attack the attacking player gets ANOTHER roll... so in most cases he will hit again... whereas in OXCE, it's a guaranteed miss
c/ the amount of counterattacks is limited to max. 2, but it must be a highly specialized unit, if I understand correctly, most of the time it will be 0 counterattacks, sometimes 1... unlike in OXCE, where every fatman has unlimited OP counterattacks

So, bottomline... I didn't find anything even remotely similar to OXCE CQB. Shotguns from 1-tile distance work the same way as shotguns from 5-tile distance. Necromunda-style Parry mechanic seems very balanced to me and I would immediately take it instead of OXCE CQB.

[Solarius Scorch]

I could be wrong, but I think Necromunda was more of an example of approach rather than a particular solution.

From my personal perspective, CQB is something like this:

(Generic RPG session)

Player: I continue down the corridor and turn around the corner, shotgun ready.
GM: As you turn, you almost walk into a commando/stormtrooper/spetsnaz. Roll for initiative.
Player: ...17.
GM: Lucky you, he has 16. What are you going to do?
Player: I shoot him!
GM: okay, but he's like 4 feet away, and he's a skilled soldier.  He reacts immediately to knock your shotgun aside. Roll for melee.

That's a bit off-topic, just thought I'd present why I advocate for the CQB to be in the game, irrelevant of the exact mechanics. I don't want the NPC from the example above to automatically get shot, since it's not fun and also not even that realistic, based on what I know about close combat (assuming trained combatants). Games can't and often shouldn't be realistic, but this is also a matter of what works on the player experience level. And no CQC would be like no Z levels - acceptable, but impoverishing.

[Hobbes]

@Hobbes: Turns out I was talking about computer games and he was talking about tabletop games. So technically he's right in his context, I know nothing about tabletop games.

I've played a few old-school tabletop games that predate Necromunda by 10 or 20 years, like Battletech or DnD, so claiming that a game released in 1995 defined a specific mechanic, and thus you're ignorant if you don't know the game, it simply makes me laugh at the absurdity of the statement.

Plus, regarding game design, the distinction between tabletop and computer games is zero regarding the core mechanics that you can implement in either. It's merely a matter of choices. CBQ is just another mechanic like Hunter-Killers, which are basically a sequence of specific steps activated by specific circumstances - on its own it doesn't make a game better or more fun, and adding it can actually have quite the opposite effect.

And since you're the guy coding and implementing it, you can bet you know a lot more about game mechanics than a regular player.

[Bobit]

Miniature wargames are definitely a sister genre. But then again so are classic roguelikes, GMT/block wargames, and Battle Brothers. Honestly the only thing truly like XCOM is games that tried to remake it.

There's a bunch of stuff you could do to improve CQB, such as:

• Increase range in which it activates to 2
• Make it take slightly more TU to move near enemies so they can't just move away (wrestling)
• Add a new rule for each alien: "avoidsCQB" default false. If enabled will attempt to move out of CQB before firing.
• Same as above but make the AI always pick the higher damage option. Kinda cheaty though, it shouldn't know whether it will win CQB.
• Add another option which just reduces point-blank range as in FiraxisXCOM.
• Free melee reactions which can stun instead? Nobody likes this idea though
• Make the attack's accuracy based on the CQB stat. After all, are you really going to miss with a shotgun that's up against their head? Not unless they wrestle it out.