Battlefield Evolution - a Quick Playtest Report
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
KeithMc said:emperorpenguin said:
I'm just going to put my hands over my ears, close my eyes and yell 'Don't care! Don't care! Don't care!' as loud as I can over and over again until anyone with a real problem with it goes away!
Unfortuantely its in the nature of 28mm/30mm gaming that unless your willing to play the game on a football pitch instead of a table you are not going to be able to use realistic ranges on the weapons. I do think its funny that a tank commander with a pistol sitting in the turret of his tank probably would not be able to shoot someone standing on the front of his own tank but at this point I just admit to myself that I'm playing 'toy soldiers' and shouldn't take it (or myself!) too seriously.
Keith Mc
I think if a Tanky has resorted to using his small arms, he really is in deep 'Doo-Doo'. Especially when in Modern Warfare, a lot of armour tends to avoid direct confrontation with infantry (as in an Urban enviroment). With the advent of the airbourne cavalry, I think that the days of the Tank might be numbered.
Kristovich
Mongoose
*hops around like a crazy frog in the room*
AWSOME! AWSOME!
So, to bad there wasn't any digital camera around, but still!
You just wait until I get hold of some models and convert 'em to swedes!
Seriously though, I am SO looking forward to getting BF Evo.
AWSOME! AWSOME!
So, to bad there wasn't any digital camera around, but still!
You just wait until I get hold of some models and convert 'em to swedes!
Seriously though, I am SO looking forward to getting BF Evo.
I don't care so much about the ground scale issue. Almost all wargames abuse the ground scale. All that matters is that the relative ranges are correct (e.g. a tank gun can shoot further than a rifle, etc.).
My problem lies in the mix of forces. If I'm not mistaken, in the real world armies function as units, not as individual tanks or squads. So in what situation would you have an action where the force is two main battle tanks (apparently operating independently) backed up by about a half platoon of infantry backed up by SAS and French Foreign Legion.
While fun, it sounds a bit silly to me. It's not so much of a problem in SST (since it's science fiction, there's more leeway) but I think that it's asking to suspend too much disbelief if this is an example of how you can compose your force.
Of course, I could be completely mistaken too.
My problem lies in the mix of forces. If I'm not mistaken, in the real world armies function as units, not as individual tanks or squads. So in what situation would you have an action where the force is two main battle tanks (apparently operating independently) backed up by about a half platoon of infantry backed up by SAS and French Foreign Legion.
While fun, it sounds a bit silly to me. It's not so much of a problem in SST (since it's science fiction, there's more leeway) but I think that it's asking to suspend too much disbelief if this is an example of how you can compose your force.
Of course, I could be completely mistaken too.
Hiromoon said:
Well its more a matter of fact, ever since the Vietnam war. The use of Air Cav has increased, and you will not find many Tanks in Afghanistan. Tanks are becoming more like mid range Artillery unit, and all the fast strikes are going to be managed by the likes of the Longbow and Lynx.
*pats Reaverman on the head* I'm afraid, Reaverman, we didn't encounter anything close to resembling the surface to air capabilities a decent enemy would muster in Afganistan. How many aircraft did the US lose during those operations? Also, the terrain in which most of our Air Cav based operations occured were very prohibitive towards actual armored vehicles. That said, we look to the past Iraq war. How much of a role did we see Air Cav there? We learned the hard way you don't send attack copters in without support. And while Helicopters are nice for close in air support, it doesn't have the staying power of a good MBT. Even with the latest developments in Anti-Tank missiles, nothing quite beats the phsycological and physical effects of a column of tanks rolling towards the enemy.
For those who do not relate well to Ground distances being at a different scale than the figures, too bad!! I guess you will have to go to 1:385 scale such as GHQ scale, build special movable pre scenicked tables based on accurate topographical maps of the battle area.
You will also need a room approx 30 by 60 feet (10 by 20 meters) to fight battles much larger than patrol skirmish type battles.
That is especially important with the range capabilities of modern armor, air and anti-air weapons.
Let me see 1500 meters in 1:385 would be 3.896 meters, assuming modern tank weapons effective at that range.
Ground to air and air to ground several Klicks in each case say 3000 meters would be 7.792 meters. In this case air or anti-air would have full coverage in a room 15.5 by 15.5 meters.
One tank with an open Line of sight could cover a room 7.79 meters by 7.79 meters.
All of this is caused by insisting on a simulation rather than a game.
So for those who insist that Ground scale must be the same as figure scale, I do not feel it is a legitimate consideration, at least not for Game Play, for a Simulation, go for it!!!
Consioder the center point of any figure (tiny dot) to accurately show the size of the figure at Ground Scale. The miniatures are there to show you what the unit members actually look like, nothing more.
If you were to shift the scale argument to 28 or 30mm scale: Let us assume that 30mm represents 1/72nd scale. At this scale a 300 meter effective weapons range scales out to be a 50 inch range, a 1000 meter range for a tanks main gun would be equal to approx 528 inches on the table or 44 feet.
As people who play games in small areas we have to use a certain suspension of disbelief, or none of it makes any sense at all.
Since as a game it will have rules for ranges etc. we either deal with them or start playing GO. No painting of game pieces allowed there. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
All in all, a compressed Ground Scale is the only practical way to play these wargames.
You will also need a room approx 30 by 60 feet (10 by 20 meters) to fight battles much larger than patrol skirmish type battles.
That is especially important with the range capabilities of modern armor, air and anti-air weapons.
Let me see 1500 meters in 1:385 would be 3.896 meters, assuming modern tank weapons effective at that range.
Ground to air and air to ground several Klicks in each case say 3000 meters would be 7.792 meters. In this case air or anti-air would have full coverage in a room 15.5 by 15.5 meters.
One tank with an open Line of sight could cover a room 7.79 meters by 7.79 meters.
All of this is caused by insisting on a simulation rather than a game.
So for those who insist that Ground scale must be the same as figure scale, I do not feel it is a legitimate consideration, at least not for Game Play, for a Simulation, go for it!!!
Consioder the center point of any figure (tiny dot) to accurately show the size of the figure at Ground Scale. The miniatures are there to show you what the unit members actually look like, nothing more.
If you were to shift the scale argument to 28 or 30mm scale: Let us assume that 30mm represents 1/72nd scale. At this scale a 300 meter effective weapons range scales out to be a 50 inch range, a 1000 meter range for a tanks main gun would be equal to approx 528 inches on the table or 44 feet.
As people who play games in small areas we have to use a certain suspension of disbelief, or none of it makes any sense at all.
Since as a game it will have rules for ranges etc. we either deal with them or start playing GO. No painting of game pieces allowed there. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
All in all, a compressed Ground Scale is the only practical way to play these wargames.
Hiromoon said:
What like flying in, attacking...returning reloading, flying in, attacking...returning reloading, flying in, attacking...returning reloading etc.
Meanwhile the the Tank lumbers in, wreaks havoc for a short time. Whilst drawing in Artillery, ATGM's, and struggles with various mines, as well as the local terrain.
Whilst the Battle of the Bulge had no air cav, it proved that restictive terrain, and supplies can seriously effect the "Staying power of Armour".
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying Armou is obselete. But I think its going to be taking a more of a rear role, supporting infantry etc.
Nah...the staying power comes from it durability when it comes to the supply chain. Aircraft always have a limit, especially if they have to run continuous mission. A tank just needs three things: 1 Fuel, 2 Ammo, 3 Food for the crew. Most of the time they carry their spare parts with them, or some recovery vehicle within the squadron has those parts. Aircraft have a set operational period before they need maintenance, so it can only do the return to reload and fuel back up only so many times before it needs to be shut down, torn down, and repaired.
And we (as in the United States) used to use the tank as a infantry support vehicle during the second World War. When it encountered another tank they were supposed to hold off till a Tank Hunter got up there to knock out the other tank.
Though, in reality this is all fairly mute, since most modern military practice Combined Arms, featuring tank spear points supported by fast moving mechanized infantry, with air support.
And we (as in the United States) used to use the tank as a infantry support vehicle during the second World War. When it encountered another tank they were supposed to hold off till a Tank Hunter got up there to knock out the other tank.
Though, in reality this is all fairly mute, since most modern military practice Combined Arms, featuring tank spear points supported by fast moving mechanized infantry, with air support.
Kristovich
Mongoose
Well, that was WWI Hiro, time to wake up :wink:
Anyhow, I know that our armed forces combine armour and infantry, the infantry is often mounted in Strv/90's and the like (wich, by the way, I heard was one of the most effective tanks in the world).
I think armour has a future, not sure wich one though :?
Anyhow, I know that our armed forces combine armour and infantry, the infantry is often mounted in Strv/90's and the like (wich, by the way, I heard was one of the most effective tanks in the world).
I think armour has a future, not sure wich one though :?
Kristovich
Mongoose
You wrote first World War :wink:
Why would you need a football field to play with realistic ranges? Ranges should be restricted by terrain and other battlefield effects, not by capabilities of the weapons. And that's the way it is in real life too. IIRC the 7.62mm assault rifle I used during my military service had sight settings for up to 600m, but you would never get to use it at that range.. because something gets in the way. Why not make a wargame like that?KeithMc said:Unfortuantely its in the nature of 28mm/30mm gaming that unless your willing to play the game on a football pitch instead of a table you are not going to be able to use realistic ranges on the weapons. I do think its funny that a tank commander with a pistol sitting in the turret of his tank probably would not be able to shoot someone standing on the front of his own tank but at this point I just admit to myself that I'm playing 'toy soldiers' and shouldn't take it (or myself!) too seriously.
Keith Mc
I'm not trying to make a realism point. Rather a silliness avoidance point. It looks extremely stupid when your trooper can't hit an enemy soldier standing on the other side of a freeway! If you argue that models are there just for show and that the trooper actually occupies only the center point of the base, you bring terrain(buildings mostly) out of scale. Point blanc range is also determined using the model.
Giving basic infantry weapons longer ranges would of course make it very difficult to advance through open ground.. but that's just how it is like.
