Tentative Zombie Game Supplement for OMOG Advanced

The tentative Zombie Supplement to OMOG Advanced is available at our Shambattle and OMOG Facebook group at

https://www.facebook.com/groups/shambattle/


Come join the fun!

The Best Troops for Shambattle

Shambattle: How to Play with Toy Soldiers was written in 1929. Judging by the illustrations in the book, the author used three types of soldiers. Some were from the Theodore Hahn company of Jersey City. Several illustrations of officers and mounted men look as if they were inspired by Hahn figures. The rest apparently came from traditional toy soldier companies such as Britains, Johillco and others. I can assume that a few figures used were dimestore West Point cadets.
Today, Britains figures can be pricey. Johillco and other traditional toymakers have long since folded their tents. Theodore Hahn’s last year of production was 1929. What modern troops would suffice for a Shambattle army?
Let’s be practical. the main consideration for an army is its color: red, blue, green, yellow, etc Judging by the book, Shambattle armies represent fictional nations, each of which is based on a singular color. The book cities two fictional nations and their attendant colors. Red for Redina and Blue for Bluvia. People can add other colors to make other countries.
Shambattle is a stylized type of warfare. There is no musketry, no use of cover and traditional combat techniques. The resolution of battle is mostly through close combat. The roles of machine guns and artillery are minimal. Many combat poses might be out of place here.
Plastic figures are suitable, as are painted metal soldiers. Here are a few suggestions:

Napoleonic Figures and War of 1812 Troops

Most of the plastic Napoleonic figures have a big advantage because they are molded in color: Red for British, Blue for French and Americans, Green for Russians, and so on. The poses also tend to be more easily organized: marching, kneeling and standing shooters and such. Metal figures are painted in the same colors. For aesthetic purposes, small cannons can replace the machine guns, though they would fire the same way in the game.

Revolutionary War figures:

The majority of plastic Revolutionary War troops are Red for British, Blue for Americans, White for French and Green for Royalists. One brand even had Hessians in black.  As with Napoleonics, small cannons replace machine guns.

Civil War

Most sets of plastic and metal Civil War soldiers have good poses for use in Shambattle. Most Plastic Civil War figures are molded in blue and gray. Some makers also offer them in butternut tan and rifleman green. Zouaves in red plastic are also available. Gatling guns can be used as machine guns..
Note that troops from the Spanish-American war also look good in these games.

World War I Troops

The soldiers that come to mind are the Beton troops in pre-War Brodie helmets. They look pretty good and would make an interesting Shambattle army. Opt for the various standing, marching and advancing riflemen. Beton made one type of mounted World War I soldier. Most of the Betons are molded in tan or olive drab. There are other makes of World War I figures today, so you have more from which to choose. Those made in plastic come in colors related to the various armies and units. For games, exclude crawling and most kneeling figures.

Guardsmen

Traditional guard type troops are perfect for Shambattle. West Point cadets and various British and French Guardsmen can be employed. What with the color variations in guards’ uniforms, you can have a very colorful army, indeed! You may use machine guns or Gatlings.

Colonial Troops

Colonial Troops are often colorful and distinctive. Among these are Indian troops during the British “Raj”, American Troops in the Philippines and China, French troops in North Africa and British troops from the Zulu, Sudan and Egyptian campaigns.  Few armies are as colorful and varied as the Indian troops from 1850 to the 1920s. Colonial natives can also make interesting armies. One of the best I’ve seen is an Egyptian army in white with red fezes. You can also make attractive armies such as the Chinese boxers, Sudanese Dervishes and Tuaregs.  Mitrailleuse, Gatlings and machine guns fit the bill here.

The salient fact is that today, there are even more options when it comes to armies for Shambattle. You can have it fast and cheap with colored plastic troops, or go for the more expensive, painted plastic and metal figures. You might even make your own! More than a few folks like to cast their own soldiers the old fashioned way.

You can obtain a reprint of the original Shambattle: How to Play with Toy Soldiers and the other Shambattle rules here:

http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/subs.html

There is a Shambattle and OMOG toy soldier games discussion on Facebook at

https://www.facebook.com/groups/shambattle/  

Shambattle: Classic Toy Soldiers Game

Shambattle?

H.G. Wells’ book “Little Wars” is considered the cornerstone from which wargaming developed. I first came across a reprint of it in the early 1970s. Wells’ game is simple and rational in design. He obviously wrote it for the toy soldiers of his day. The game is based on classic warfare from the late 19th Century. “Little Wars” requires firing spring-loaded cannons at the troops.

In 1929, an Army Lieutenant named Harry G. Dowdall was stationed on Governor’s Island in New York Harbor. Dowdall concocted a game of his own for toy soldiers. The game eliminated the actual firing of guns. In collaboration with a fellow named John H. Gleason, Lt. Dowdall published the rules in a book entitled Shambattle: How to Play with Toy Soldiers.

Apprised of the book, I decided to obtain a copy. It is expensive on the second-hand market. However, I found a copy relatively cheap, mainly because it was missing a couple of pages. No problem. A fellow hobbyists sent me copies of the missing pages.

Shambattle was presented in three levels: Lieutenant, Captain and General. They depict the game in increasing levels of complexity. The rules use a 3 by 5 foot area with towns, a river, bridges and other terrain. Movement is simple, too. The games uses a 6-inch long movement stick. Rules include medics and fire from a cannon and machine guns. Combat can be resolved by the flip of a penny, roll of the dice or a spinner.

Shambattle is played on a map.

Scenery is drawn. One does not need special scenery. Towns, rivers, woods and swamps are simple drawings on which the soldiers maneuver.

Shambattle is quaint. Its major flaw is that the roll of the dice decided everything. Victory was more luck than strategy. The book itself is ponderous to read.

.Shambattle was written when most armies still had horse cavalry. There are no concessions made to armored vehicles. Everything is at the speed of horses and men. It is a game of infantry and cavalry. Judging by pictures in the book, it was meant for the traditional toy soldiers that were popular at the time.

The basic system of movement and terrain is good for games in limited space. Resolving combat left a few things to be desired in the original game. Nonetheless, Shambattle is a good game for budding wargamers. Children can easily learn the basics of toy battles in a format that is relatively simple and lots of fun.

Unlike Little Wars, you can play Shambattle without worrying about damaging your favorite figures!

I saw the potential of the game and decided to write an version that was easier to understand. I also added an optional rule that changes the game from random dice rolls to strategy. Another improvement was a better way to use the movement stick. This newer work is entitled Shambattle: A Game for Old Fashioned Toy Soldiers.

The game also had potential for other toy figures. I devised two other versions based on Shambattle: Knightly Fightly for medieval figures, and Wild West Shambattle for Cowboys & Indians.

The movement and terrain system of Shambattle was a good start. A little innovation and adaptation make it useful for modern skirmish games. With a little effort, it was refined and improved for the OMOG series of skirmish games. Shambattle was also the basis for two “Spy Agent” games made about ten years ago.

There is a Shambattle and OMOG toy soldier games discussion on Facebook at 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/shambattle/

Please Share!

You can obtain a reprint of the original Shambattle: How to Play with Toy Soldiers and the other Shambattle rules here:

http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/subs.html

You can download free copies of OMOG and other games. OMOG games use a movement system inspired by Shambattle

http://www.thortrains.net/milihistriot/downloads.html

and

http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/sandygme.htm


You can find free Shambattle paper soldiers here:

http://www.thortrains.net/shambattle/shamsoldiers.htm


******

Anomalous Soldiers

Most of the toy soldier illustrations in the original Shambattle depict figures common to makers like Britains, Johillco and Lone Star. One particular illustration baffled me. At that time, none of the English makers produced a figure quite like the fellow in tin helmet charging with bayonet. I figured it was just some artistic license on the part of the illustrator. 

Wrong! 

I came across these tin fellows who were almost exactly posed like the illustration. They were made by Theodore Hahn, a company that had a small range of soldiers produced between 1921 and 1927. They operated out of 16-18 Hopkins Ave in Jersey City. The building is still there.

Along with common doughboys, Hahn made a few figures with swivel arms like Britains as well as mounted soldiers. The doughboys were painted as shown ,or with red pants and either blue or green jackets and helmets..Blue soldiers were supposed to represent French troops. Green ones were just an uncertain “foreign” army. 

One anomaly: bases are often marked "France." It is assumed that the molds may have been acquired from France.

Here are some pictures:

Sci-Fi; Adding Mystical Power to Games

 

The mix of mystical powers and science fiction is hard enough to reconcile. Though the Warhammer 40,000 series of games seems ot have done it, they are a genre all their own. Warhammer blends science fiction and fantasy and technologies that have long since passed plausible reality. It is strictly a game that stands alone. Most science fiction does not blend the two easily. 

The following examples are ideas on what might be usable in sci-fi games. They are general concepts which can be adapted to fit within a game. I wrote them with the intention that they serve as idea which others would want to alter and adapt to fit their own games. Please feel free to adapt as you see fit.

Shambattle Spy Rule: Each side designates one soldier of the enemy to act as a spy. This figure is played as a normal soldier on the other wise. The spymaster chooses when to activate him. At that point, he is operated by the spymaster. He can be used to attack enemy soldiers.

In my opinion, there have to be limits. He cannot be an officer. You may have to limit what kind of soldier he is. Maybe he cannot be a heavy weapons man, or an elite trooper, etc.

Telepaths and empaths: there is little use for telepathy in the heat of a battle. Like most psychic skills, its use is for non-combat situations. Indeed, most psychics cannot use their skills when under duress, such as in a gunfight. They need time and enough calm to concentrate. The one use in a battle game would be to expose the spy. Should a telepath come within a half move of a spy, the agent is exposed. To make it harder, neither the telepath nor those within a half move of him can have fired that move. The also cannot be involved in hand to hand combat or the operation of a weapon.

Zen / The Force: A fighter using spiritual power will have certain advantages. The use of Zen and the Force are both legendary in their respective fields. The first obvious effect is to enhance the fighter’s offense and defense in close combat. A fighter can strike and deflect weapons.

A second enhancement is for those fighters who may use aimed weapons. They will have improved accuracy, like snipers. Think of Luke using the force to aim his missiles in the first Star Wars movie, or a Zen Kyudo archer hitting target.

The Force allows a fighter to move objects and attack at a distance. He can push an enemy or knock him down, depending on his skill.

With Zen and the Force, there are levels of ability. We can simplify this for game purposes. These would be Novice, Average and Master. We think of a novice as Luke first learning to use the Force. A Master is a highly accomplished fighter. Historical figures like Miyamoto Musashi and fictional characters like Obi Wan and Darth Vader are masters.

A Novice gets +1 when defending and attacking with a sword or light saber. If using the Force he can also deflect one shooter per turn using a standard firearm. (This is not a Zen power, except whe ndeflecting arrows and hand-launched projectiles).

An Average warrior gets +2 on attack and defense. A Force user can deflect 2 shooters per turn using standard personal firearms.

A Master gets +3 on attack and defense. Usoign the Force, he can deflect three shooters with personal weapons or one squad-level heavy weapon.

As novices have yet to develop enough concentration, they must roll before using the Force. On a six-sided die (not the nerdy D&D dice) 1 and 2 he fails the concentrate and so fight as a normal fighter.

An average Force fighter who is not shooting or in close combat can stop an opponent at 1/2 move away. This does not work on other Force users, nor on officers, as they have developed sufficient will to be unaffected. The affected individual cannot move for 1 move.

A Master force fighter can push an opponent to the ground at 1/2 move. The individual cannot move for 1 turn and fights at -1 for one turn. If the opponent is an Average Force user, he can only push him back. A Master can use this skill against anyone with whom he is not engaged in combat.

Like a telepath, a Force fighter will detect a spy at up to 1/2 move away.

A Master is going to be a very powerful piece in a game, so steps must be taken to retain game balance.

Rule of Three: to make close combat more practical ,we had invented the Rule of Three for the updated Shambatte (A Game for Old Fashioned Toy Soldiers) and OMOG. A figure attacked by three figures resolves combat thus:

In a 2 to 1 fight, the single fighter is penalized:

He fights at -1 against the first enemy

He fights at -2 against the second foe

If there is a third enemy in the fight, the defender still fights the first and second enemies as above. The third automatically kills him. This Rule applies to all normal fighters and the Novice.

　

For fighters using the Force, an Average level fighter has the Rule of three extended to a Rule of Four. He gets -1 for the first enemy, -2 each for the 2^nd and 3^rd enemies, and is automatically killed if there is a 4th enemy.

For a master, he fights the first enemy at no loss, the second fighter at -1, and additional enemies at -2. He is not automatically killed, no matter how many are in the melee..

***

Thinking of Sci Fi commanders, who would be my picks? Kirk was too much of a hothead and too impatient. He got a lot of people killed. Not a guy you want on your side in a gunfight. Adama was too laid back. Picard was passable., Archer and Crichton both would be good in small actions with a squad or smaller. Darth Vader was good with small units and larger operations. He would be a good man to have on your side in a small gunfight and a larger assault.

Vader’s problem is the material with which he must work. Let’s face it, folks, Imperial Stormtroopers are matched by Star Trek’s red-shirt security for coming up short in a fight. If Vader had troops like the mobile infantry of Starship Trooper, he would have done wonders. Even with mediocre troops, Darth Vader got things done

 

Sci-Fi: Ray Guns, Grenades, and Close Combat in Space

Sci-Fi: Ray Guns, Grenades, and Close Combat in Space

Let’s face it , folks. I have been exposed to outer space stuff for almost 60 years. There were children’s shows and reruns of space movies to get us started. Saturday morning kids’ shows played reruns of old Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials. The Air Force had its high-altitude balloons and X15s scratching the edge of space. Then came NASA and Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Moon. Forbidden Planet and The Twilight Zone used SciFi to ask the deeper questions. Lost in Space amused us. The new type series like Star Trek and Space 1999 enthralled us. Along came the Space Shuttle, and then Star Wars, Stargate, the Martian Chronicles and topping the list, Farscape.

Toy-wise ,we came a long way too.  From the clunky spacemen of Archer and Ajax in the 1950s to MPC’s “Mercury” astronauts, it began. Next came the figures based on TV shows and moves, from the Thunderbirds of ITC TV to Imperial Stormtroopers and Klingon soldiers.

There is the challenge - to make a space game that can accommodate almost any space toy figure in the last 60 years. One game that did it well is Laserblade by Echidna Games, Laserblade accommodates small skirmish action for three to perhaps ten or twelve pieces. It focuses on individuals.  OMOG differs, being a squad-level game that emphasizes a small unit.

Space Weapons

The Ray Gun of science fiction originated in people’s fascination with X-rays and radioactive waves.  In the 1920s, science was discovering more about radiation and waves. Fantastic possibilities were discussed as to the future benefits of Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays. Being a science-savvy lot, science fiction writers seized on these ideas. They concocted a variety of ray guns, disrupters and disintegrators. This was a few decades before lasers, by the way.

Ray guns and their lot are energy weapons. They emit a wave of energy at their targets. The immediate problem is containing the energy so it does not dissipate.  The energy must be focused. Other measures have to be invented so that the wave or ray is not dissipated by the atmosphere or conditions like clouds, dust, humidity, etc. These are among the reasons why long range laser weapons are only now becoming possible. Science has found ways to focus the ray and minimize dissipation.

The only hand-held energy weapons in general use today are stun guns, cattle prods and Tasers.  All discharge electrical energy and all require contact with the target. A stun gun and cattle prod has to have its electrical nodes pressed against an opponent. A Taser fires thin wires with a small barb to attach to the target, after which an electrical charge is sent through them. The smallest lasers are laser pointers, and the green ones can pop a balloon if fired at it long enough at close range. That is, if they do not run out of energy first.

Small lasers do not pack much power. Powerful lasers need plenty of energy. A person using one would have to wear a bulky battery packs, and even then it would only be good for two or three bursts. Obviously, part of the science is to devise a more compact power supply. Power supplies are already getting smaller so it is only a matter of decades before science creates one that could fit into a man-carried weapon.

The use of energy weapons would be practical, once focusing the beam and powering it are perfected. The necessities of space make them more practical than projectile weapons. In low-gravity and weightless conditions, a weapon with even the slightest recoil can unbalance and even topple the shooter. Projectile weapons, be they powered like our bullets or if their bullets are small rockets, will have some degree of recoil. In low gravity, even the almost-imperceptible recoil of an M16 could dislodge a person. The other problem is in thin-atmosphere and no-atmosphere conditions. Most projectile weapons require some sort of ignition. In space, the ammo or weapon would have to contain the oxygen necessary for ignition. Energy weapons have no recoil and require no air supply. They would work in high gravity, low gravity and no gravity. Gravity would not affect their range, either. A high-gravity situation would alter the path and range of a projectile.

Liquid-squirting weapons would also be at a disadvantage, since they have a “recoil” of their own. Anyone who has fired a man-carried flamethrower knows the push they feel as the jet of liquid flame squirts forth.

Would a small energy weapon have the range and power of a larger one?  After all, one might argue, they are only firing waves of some sort of radiation. The answer is a resounding NO.  A major aspect of an energy weapon is to contain and focus the energy. The smaller weapon could contain and control a lesser amount of energy than a larger one. Compare a pistol-sized weapon to one the size of a rifle. The pistol contains and controls less, and so the ray it emits is weaker and dissipates at a much closer range than that of a larger weapon.  The larger weapon can contain and control more energy, allowing each shot to have more power and greater range.

Heat would be a factor.  One of the problems of automatic weapons is their tendency to get hot after firing for awhile. The larger the barrel and weapon itself, the more it can withstand heat. Indeed, heat would be a bigger problem in energy weapons. Not-yet-invented materials might help dampen some of the heat.  Nonetheless, better dampening would require more material, more technology, and thus a larger weapon. The heat that could be dissipated in something the size of a pistol would have to be much less than that of a rifle. A smaller weapon would be unlikely to sustain as much shooting. A pistol might be limited to single shots like a semi-automatic weapon. The same may apply to a rifle firing more powerful rounds.  A larger rifle might be needed to fire bursts or a longer sustained shot.

Rays could vary.  Some would obviously be destructive, harming materials and damaging the body. Others may or may not break materials, but could adversely affect bodily functions, either permanently or temporarily. A “stun” weapon is likely. Knowing how radiation has adversely affected people, from Madame Curie to the more current disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, a harmful ray is likely.  It would not have to damage materials to affect the body. The Neutron Bomb comes to mind as an example. This may be the alternative to chemical warfare in the future. Of course, it is already covered by various treaties. However, those treaties would not apply in space against aliens. I imagine that these rays would be a technological equivalent to “Dim Mak”, the delayed-reaction ancient Chinese “death touch.”

There can be no “cold ray,” as cold is a slowing of molecules. For a ray or wave to move, the molecules would necessarily have to be accelerated.

The only projectiles useful in space would be rockets. The problem would be the back blast. The Bazooka remedied it partly by letting the back blast escape from he rear of the launcher. While small projectiles fired from pistols and rifles would be impractical, larger launchers might have their place. Rockets move by the energy they emit in flight. They would have to be large enough to carry their own oxygen. Large rockets meant to reach space have been doing this for over 70 years. Perhaps smaller rockets would have to do the same, Then again, perhaps the future will see a different propulsion system that needs no oxygen to work in a vacuum.

The idea of smart munitions and guided bullets sounds fascinating, but they will have their limits. I believe shooters will still be required to aim, to some degree.

Certain old weapons would still be around, with improvements. Hand grenades would be around. Along with the explosive, concussion, fragmentation and white phosphorous (incendiary) grenades there might be different radiation and energy burst weapons. Some may even have a small time and / or impact detonator. A futuristic “smart” grenade could also be set for a burst or for blasting through an obstacle. One version is drawn from the old Archer (now Glencoe) spacemen. He holds a finned grenade. A weapon like this would be thrown toward the target. A few feet after leaving the thrower’s hand, it would ignite a small rocket motor and proceed to target.  Perhaps there might even be limited guidance to target, but that is unlikely in a weapon so small and cheap.  Guidance systems are better reserved for weapons aimed at larger targets.

Those physics classes paid off! They have certainly given insight into the future possibilities of weaponry for this planet and beyond.

Close Combat in Space.

In the Star Trek: the Next Generation movie “First Contact,” Captain Picard and Worff are on the outside of the starship. They wear space suits. Their goal is to defeat several Borg tampering with the ship.  Somewhere along the line, Picard mentions remembering their anti-gravity hand-to-hand combat lessons.

My mind went back to the old Gemini space mission and some of the special tools they had to invent for work in weightless space. They had to make a special hammer.  If an astronaut was using a hammer and cocked back his arm to swing, that motion would propel him  backward., For every move there is a counter-move, according to Newton’s Third Law of Physics.

Another example was from an old ninja manual from the 70s.  It showed a few special techniques for fighting in water. Though not exactly weightless, many of the same principles apply to a buoyant individual.

(You an find the Ninja book here: http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/oldninjabook.pdf )

Close combat training was also mentioned in Robert Heinlein’s brilliant book, “Starship Troopers”. There the fighting happened in places with gravity. I do not remember if low-gravity combat was discussed in the book.

Human unarmed and close combat systems were developed on our won planet where there is gravity. They apply the physics of gravity.  This is obvious with Judo, Aiki and Chin Na, which use various throws and takedowns to defeat an opponent. The same dependance on gravity exists in Boxing, Karate, Chinese Boxing (Kung Fu) and arts using hand held weapons. Some leverage has to be gained in order to power a strike, trip or trap. Even a leaping punch, kick or thrust still requires thrusting one’s feet against the ground. Do that in low-gravity of weightless environments and you may find yourself headed for planetary orbit!

The same goes for primitive projectile weapons. Thrown weapons, arrows and slings all require drawing back.  The pilum-thrower draws back his arm.  The archer draws back his firing arm, and the slinger spins his sling and cocks his arm back before shooting. These could all be problematic in a low or no gravity environment. Add the fact that it would also affect trajectories and the like.  This would also occur in low or no atmosphere. All would be lurched back by drawing their weapon and forward by launching it in the usual way, if it happened where gravity was lacking.

For fighting within gravity, the annals of close combat are voluminous. There are many systems for hand-held weapons, striking and grappling. While the Asian fighting arts have enjoyed some popularity, older systems from Europe and elsewhere have left such traces as manuals, guidebooks, literature and art. Indeed, one can this very day see the methods used for Medieval polearms, Renaissance fencing and Ancient Egyptian wrestling.

What would a hand-to-hand system be like in the future? Let us clear up a distinction between martial arts and hand to hand combat. A martial artist is someone who dedicates himself to the study of close combat systems.  He works to perfect his skill.. Most martial artists are actually sportsmen.

Hand to hand combat is a collection of fighting techniques intended for defeating an opponent. It is neither a sport nor an art. One might more correctly describe many of the hand-to-hand systems as self defense. However, more than few are also offensive. Hand to hand combat is taught to those who are not going to devote their lives to the study of martial arts. It is taught to soldiers, police, and corrections officers. A self-defense version is taught to civilians.

The kind of hand-to-hand taught to space personnel would likely include unarmed techniques and others using hand -held weapons. Modern troops learn striking and grappling, as well as the combat knife, club or baton, and rifle with bayonet. Troops improvise weapons from entrenching tools, pioneer gear, etc. I had learned the riot baton as well as bayonet. In the early 70s, baton was taught to a few combat arms units on each post. They were to back up the military police in repelling anti-war protesters.

A low and no gravity system would have to avoid maneuvers that unbalance the fighter. Cocking one’s arm to strike would be omitted. Leaping kicks would also be eschewed, as these would likely send the kicker flying backward. The most likely methods would be grappling: holds, locks and chokes.

A problem emerges in just what holds to use on aliens whose physiology makes it difficult. Imagine a being with an arm more like the prehensile tail of a monkey than that of

a human. And consider a creature with almost no neck, which would be nearly impervious to chokes. The armies of the future might have to develop techniques for fighting adversaries with tentacles, extra arms, or one or more robotic limbs.

Soldiers would be taught to use a knife or stick to enhance grappling.

An important aspect of modern close combat is the use of weak spots and pressure points. Hand to hand fighters are taught to strike vulnerable places such as the throat, base of the skull, collarbones, kidneys, groin and joints. Certain holds put pressure to the throat, neck , limbs, spine and joints. Aliens species may have different weak spots. Some could be “double-jointed” and rather impervious to joint locks. Others may have evolved thicker, more muscular necks that resist strangles and chokes. Some may have evolved a bone structure over the throat or nape of the neck. All this certainly adds new elements to the development of close combat for space. You can be sure that potential alien adversaries would be teaching their troops how to defeat out weak points, just as we would teach ours to attacks theirs.

System developed by other species would reflect their strengths and weaknesses.  At one end would be a lighter, supple species who would capitalize on agility and speed. The other end would be a heavier, slower, bulkier species who would focus on power and strength. Think of a lighter, faster type of King Fu like White Crane opposed to Sambo Wrestling. Each species would naturally builds its system on its own abilities.

I do not think hand-help weapons would change all that much. A few might be issued as weapons, but most would be weapons of opportunity. The standards would be combat knives, short swords / machetes, bayonets / lances and sticks.  A fighter might make do with whatever is at hand, hence axes, impromptu clubs, etc. Someone with good hand-to-hand training could do serious damage with anything he picked up. There may even be specialized hand-to-hand weapons in some species, such as tentacle choppers, antennae loppers and the like.

There would be one other aspect to hand-to-hand combat. The way one fights in normal attire different from how one can fight when encumbered with extra clothing, a space suit or some type of armor. A person would have to be trained to fight in those circumstances. He would also need special techniques, as the presence of a suit would make some methods impractical, if not impossible. There is also the problem of fighting a suited or armored opponent. Again, methods to be used by an unencumbered fighter would be different from those used by one who is wearing armor or a space suit.

Now comes the problem of fighting alien species in their space gear and body armor. Indeed, hand-to-hand combat will be a very intriguing thing under those circumstances. We have an Earthly precedent which can give us a little idea of what is to come. The methods used by frogmen when fighting other divers include cutting air hoses, turning off regulators, unseating masks, and so on. I am sure that there would be a set of close combat techniques for interfering with an adversary’s protective suit and breathing apparatus.

Man to man combat in space and against aliens is going to face very different conditions than what we have encountered on Earth. Be it an individual gunslinger, military squad to hand-to-hand fighter, conditions such as gravity, weightlessness, toxic are and the vacuum of space will affect how one fights.

(This is part of the original thought experiment. I thought our serious sci-fi fans and battle gamers might enjoy it. The idea here is not to provide answer, but to provoke thought on the subject. This all started over devising space game skirmish rules and it quickly snowballed. The experiment has gone past military concerns and now totals about 50 pages.)