Do you think the MEA are overpowered?

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:17 pm

there are no mobility kills though. I find the ramming which happens in BFEvo a bit silly.
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
The Old Soldier
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 3:02 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio. Where pigs fly but turkeys don't

Postby The Old Soldier » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:20 pm

emperorpenguin wrote:there are no mobility kills though. I find the ramming which happens in BFEvo a bit silly.
WORD! QFT!
"On the Bounce"
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:25 pm

The Old Soldier wrote:CC with vehicles is kind of silly really. First off what does it mean? Ramming? mgs firing at very close range? .
yeah I've heard both explanations


I can suspend disbelief that infantry cc represents the occassional bayonet charge with grenades being lobbed and close range spray and pray, but vehicles ramming each other? :roll:
What is this Gorkamorka!? :lol:
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
Xorrandor
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Postby Xorrandor » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:50 pm

Ben2 wrote:If you ever feel the MEA are overpowered, sit your Brits or USMC in cover, and sit your big scary good tank in cover, and see what happens then.
Heh. My usual opponent has about 500 points of MEA total, so we tend to play every one of his units against some USMC force I make up to match. No big scary tank, because I don't have the points for it. I could try setting up in cover, but then he can set up in cover and sniper me to death slowly. Or run me over with technicals. Or just ignore me and we have a very boring afternoon :) .

I'm pretty sure this is only a problem because of the low point total, but that was part of the original question. I'm curious at what point level it stops being the case, though: tank + full squad (600)? 2 tanks (850)?
Xorrandor
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Postby Xorrandor » Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:58 pm

The Old Soldier wrote:CC with vehicles is kind of silly really. First off what does it mean? Ramming? mgs firing at very close range?
I think it means whatever a vehicle needs to do to get an infantry squad out of cover. I don't think that's too unreasonable a thing for a tank to be able to do, or even a glorified pickup truck.

The problem comes in when they start doing it on the open street. Or worse yet, to each other. I'll admit it: I won a game by ramming a Challenger with a Shadow :oops: . Cheese weasel city.

It might be better to have a push-through rule or something, so that you can clear out the infantry without having much chance of hurting them. Although you can pretty much do that by lowering CC dice to d6 instead of d10: the smaller model moves away at the end of CC, which accomplishes the "make them scatter" goal.
Ben2
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1470
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:35 pm

Postby Ben2 » Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:05 am

Go for scenario play, hopefully that will encourage more movement.

OR

Go for really dense terrain. You'll virtually always be in cover, but the blocking of LOS means you'll both have to move to get clear shots.

However yeah, this is because of the low points value. With 500 points are you taking infantry or infantry plus shadows?

You could let him proxy? Does he plan on getting anymore? At very low points levels where everyone else cannot take tanks or IFV or special forces due to points I can see your problem. MEA points costs are so low he can pimp up a little at that level of game.
Old B5W developer and professional shut in.
Bondarus
Stoat
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Location: Arse end of Cornwall

Postby Bondarus » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:09 am

Yeah, I tend to use my Type 99's CC ability against troops only. In my last game, my opponent had a readied machine gun behind a barricade that was pinning my men down, so i just rolled the tank over the barricade and flattened his men! :lol:
www.myspace.com/enochiantheoryband

www.enochiantheory.co.uk - Multi media sections, press reviews, interviews & tour news

New album 'EVOLUTION: Creatio Ex Nihilio' out NOW


'A monument to the death of an idea' EP also available
cordas
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:54 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK

Postby cordas » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:54 am

We have only really ever used vehicles ramming each other in one battle, and that was for a laugh. However raming infantry in or behind cover is very useful, and realistic (or as realistic as any war game can be).

Imagine you have infantry hiding in woods (just over an inch back so can't be seen or shot from outside the woods), the enemy may decide the he is going to drive his tank into those woods looking for you, should he stop just before he encounters your 1st model, or will he try and run him over before he opens up with his guns as his next action if he can.

I just wish the rules went a bit further for vehicles ramming structures and emplacements, to have something representing a tank or APC deciding to drive over a fox hole, or into a building through a wall.
We play CTA/SFoS (using counters and FA models), Starship Troopers (evo), 40k, Flames of War, BF EVO

RP, B5, Star Wars, and others. If you are local to Newcastle upon Tyne and fancy joining in drop me a message.
jdrew
Weasel
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:52 am

Postby jdrew » Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:56 pm

I think that MGP should allow MEA to set up suicide bombers in the techinicals. That would be cool.
Lorcan Nagle
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2404
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:46 am
Location: Ireland

Postby Lorcan Nagle » Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:08 pm

They decided against that particular unit type on the grounds of it being in questionable taste.
Image
cordas
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1769
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:54 am
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK

Postby cordas » Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:21 pm

jdrew wrote:I think that MGP should allow MEA to set up suicide bombers in the techinicals. That would be cool.
Lorcan Nagle wrote:They decided against that particular unit type on the grounds of it being in questionable taste.
Tough call, I understand it and agree its politicaly correct. However this is a war game and by its very nature its politcaly incorrect. I think it could be possible to make a comprmoise technical which comes with some form of explosive charge that can tackle tanks.
We play CTA/SFoS (using counters and FA models), Starship Troopers (evo), 40k, Flames of War, BF EVO

RP, B5, Star Wars, and others. If you are local to Newcastle upon Tyne and fancy joining in drop me a message.
EmperorNortonII
Shrew
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:51 pm

Postby EmperorNortonII » Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:05 pm

Lorcan Nagle wrote:They decided against that particular unit type on the grounds of it being in questionable taste.
That didn't stop Westwood from doing it in Command and Conquer: Generals
voncougar
Stoat
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:03 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby voncougar » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:26 pm

Of the three games I've played, the MEA side have won EACH time.
Overpowered? Not at all. Cocky opponents doing silly things? Yessir!

The first game saw two beefed up MEA squads against two lessened USMC squads. The USMC were annihilated, because they were in the open too much, and took the RPG fire.

The second game saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad and two technicals take on two PLA squads. The PLA got crushed.

The third game, this past weekend, saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad, and three Technicals fight two PLA squads (minus one MG team) and two FAVs. As the PLA I was cocky, and didn't wait long enough to strike. My low-rolling and his high-rolling were also factors. My FAVs only took out a couple of guys before being knocked out soundly. One outright, one needing two shots. The rest of my PLA took cover, but when exposed took lead.

I'm more upset with how the PLA are over-costed than how the MEA are overpowered. I haven't dealt with EFTF and USMC much, so I'm not considering them. However, I would love it if Mongoose re-pointed the PLA infantry, at least. I don't know how Team 1 of 4 guys costs 100 points, but Teams 2 and 3 cost 30 and 60 points. Very dumb indeed, and detrimental to us PLA users, I would think.

*sigh*

I'm looking forward to beefing up both armies of mine, MEA and PLA. Some more infantry, vehicles and tanks will go a long way towards bigger and meatier battles.
Lorcan Nagle
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2404
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:46 am
Location: Ireland

Postby Lorcan Nagle » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:47 pm

I had an MEA on PLA game last week that came right down to the wire. I fielded 4 squads of basic infantry, 1 of fedayeen (all with the extra models form the basic box), 4 technicals, and a Tunguska. My enemy fielded 2 squads fof infantry (minus one MG team), an APC, a FAV, a command section and a Type 99.

The fight was centred on a ruin surrounded by hills (to the west and south west) and forests (to the east and south) which the PLA occupied in short order, with the T-99 taking point and the FAV swinging out on his west flank. It promptly died to a highly accurate RPG. the rest of the forces, mounted in technicals went screaming out of the deployment zone to try and surround the ruin, attempting to avoid the T-99 as best they could. Eventually the Tunguska tired to close assult it, only to die the next turn.

After this the game bogged down into attrition as the MEA basic infantry hugged cover and fired in on the Chinese, taking increasing losses each turn. The Fedayeen made a dash for the Chinese Table edge to scare the command squad out of cover, and eventually took them out right at the end of the game.

Final score was the Chinese shattered mainly through infantry losses. The MEA lost the Tunguska, 2 technicals, and the bulk of 3 squads of troops.
Image
britneyfan97
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:01 pm

Postby britneyfan97 » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:30 pm

I don't have any of my MEA cards with me... but what about putting a Fedayeen IED on a technical, then ramming?
Image
The Old Soldier
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 3:02 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio. Where pigs fly but turkeys don't

Postby The Old Soldier » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:40 pm

britneyfan97 wrote:I don't have any of my MEA cards with me... but what about putting a Fedayeen IED on a technical, then ramming?
MP ruled them mean't the card to used on ENEMY models. That said, they also stated the card breaks the rules when the two conflict. So even thought the ruling was that you couldn't do it, many players like to do just what you suggested, and will continue to do so.

Just don't expect it to be allowed in a Official MP tourney.
"On the Bounce"
Templar
Weasel
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Postby Templar » Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:09 pm

I play USMC, and have other players who play EFTF, 2 PLA, MEA, and USMC.

Of all those opponents, only the EFTF give the USMC a run for the money anymore, specifically when the USMC and EFTF players constantly take advantage of cover, and when point cost allows for vehicles.

The MEA and PLA have a lot of versatility, but they lack any sort of follow-through. It isn't like I am playing dumb players - all have been min-gaming for years, some with a great degree of success.

I believe both the MEA and PLA are underpowered, but not because they are overpriced. I think that if you look at the units themselves, outside of the realm of the game, what they do for the point value is fair. It is as soon as you start comparing them that it becomes apparent that the reduced range and reduced firepower have a huge impact on the game and how it plays out. I have been trying to get more people to play, but thus far and with current releases, the high end armor of the EFTF and USMC have just destroyed anything they come against.

As for suicide bombers, I think that would be true to fashion, but I am not one to be PC.
Templar
Weasel
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Postby Templar » Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:11 pm

Oh, and TOS, you can't put IEDs on a technical. Superjaded tried that, and i allowed it, but the D10 damage it does to the surrounding units isn't enough to matter, and it just resulted in him blowing up a lot of technicals and killing a handful of infantry, but losing far more in lethality by losing the 3d6 guns of the technical.

But according to the rules, you can't charge your own units, so the Fedayeen can't place IEDs on technicals.

But i must say... it was pretty dang clever.
The Old Soldier
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 3:02 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio. Where pigs fly but turkeys don't

Postby The Old Soldier » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:03 pm

Templar wrote:Oh, and TOS, you can't put IEDs on a technical. Superjaded tried that, and i allowed it, but the D10 damage it does to the surrounding units isn't enough to matter, and it just resulted in him blowing up a lot of technicals and killing a handful of infantry, but losing far more in lethality by losing the 3d6 guns of the technical.

But according to the rules, you can't charge your own units, so the Fedayeen can't place IEDs on technicals.

But i must say... it was pretty dang clever.
Didn't I just say that? MP ruled you couldn't but since cards overrule the rule book, unofficially you can. The card needs errata to say ENEMY vehicles. I still think it is a clever tactic. Say the vehicle was loaded with 4 bombs it still would be able to roll 4D10, not bad really. But, I will not be using this tactic anyway. Pietia has a card bomb card that is much more effective.
"On the Bounce"
britneyfan97
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:01 pm

Postby britneyfan97 » Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:11 pm

How is this folks?
I don't have any cards with me as I'm working right now.


HouseRule: VBIED (Vehicle-Borne, Improvised Explosive Device)

IED's can be deployed on a friendly vehicle (technical) following three Fedayeen models taking ready actions while in contact with the technical. The technical may take no actions in the turn it is wired. The wired up technical will detonate following the next charge action it takes (be it in that turn, or in 3 turns, whatever...)

Upon completing that charge action roll a D10.

1-2: Dud. Work out normal charge damage, but the explosives did not detonate. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.

3-10: Any models in immediate contact with technical take full IED damage. Splash damage should be worked out as normal. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests