Battlefield Evolution - a Quick Playtest Report

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.
and that's IMO the main problem-the game has to have some sort of "failsafe" built-in, in case someone insists on playing on a frying pan, or has a very limited collection of terrain. plus, long ranges in weapons do seem to have a strange effect on most gamers, making them think that SAFH is the best way of playing evar. which makes for boring games. short ranges ensure that the game is, at least to a point, played in short ranges that make it intresting for both parts, regardless of the actual terrain.
of course if you and your opponent feel that realism is the most important factor, i belive the Company won't send a kill-team after you if you tweak the ranges :wink:
 
Reaverman said:
Infantry did not have the likes of Tow, or Milan during WWII though

Ah, but they did have the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck. And even today, a soldier still has to be trained to properly used the TOW and the Milan, and the Javlin and the Dragon...because even just smacking a tank runs the risk of merely annoying it.
 
Hiromoon said:
Reaverman said:
Infantry did not have the likes of Tow, or Milan during WWII though

Ah, but they did have the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck. And even today, a soldier still has to be trained to properly used the TOW and the Milan, and the Javlin and the Dragon...because even just smacking a tank runs the risk of merely annoying it.

So you are saying the US army are not capable of using their equipment?
 
GreyDL,

Obviously LoS comes into play. In poiint of fact if you read my post I mentioned Open i.e. not blocked Line of Sight.

The European Theatre of Operations is not as short ranged as a thick jungle.

Throughout much of the world, Iraq for instance there are many instances of quite extended Lines of Sight.

We were not discussing anything other than the ranges of weapons in relationship to the size of Tank Models etc.

I was simply showing what the insistence on too much realism can have on a game situation, note the Game.

The specific combat table setup I discussed in GHQ scale was used in Battle Simulations in Germany during the late 1960's to help train unit Commanders. The boards were moveable to allow for moving the GHQ Miniatures, the terrain was Topographically correct including buildings.

But it certainly was NOT a GAME nor was it doable for most game playing individuals.

As foe terrain blocking Los, of course, but if I place my tank, artillery or unit on a high point (very common tactic) I do cover effectively the areas mentioned in the scales specified.

If you will look at most game tables you will see relatively little vertical variation, while the real world has a lot.
In 30mm scale a 5-7 story structure will represent approx 80 feet and require a minimum 12 inch tall structure.

Trees in my second neighbors back yard were over 140 feet tall till they were cut down. A scale model of them would be nearly 2 feet tall!!

Again we have to consider practicality for our wargames.

As someone on this thread, they were more concerned that ranges for various weapons were relatively comparable to one another. Tanks, shoulder fired weapons, emplacements etc.

As far as not hitting someone on the other side of a freeway, ha, ha ha I have seen supposedly well trained marksmen shoot at a moving/fleeing target at ranges of 12 to 24 feet (handguns) 23 shots fired no hits of any sort on target. Honestly not that uncommon in high stress situations.
 
Hiromoon said:
Reaverman said:
So you are saying the US army are not capable of using their equipment?

Can you use a TOW out of the box?

Did I say I served in the US Army?

I am sure if its too complicated for the grunt to use, then its not in service very long. Looking at the Tow, it must have been in service for about 15+ years.

Or are you suggesting that in future contemporary wargames, the Anti Tank units have to do a CQ check to use their kit?
 
Well I for one am rejoyced at hereing a battle rep but would have loved some pics.

Oh and I going to buy some FFL for the hell of it and convert one into O'Connle from the first Mummy movie, but of course when he's still the lieutenant for them, maybe even his dip-sh*t "friend" Benny yo boot as well :lol: .

Sorry if this has been said somewhere, but are there Navy SEALs being made for BFE? Make for some fun to convert up and give some spare flash-bang grenades I have in my bits box :twisted: .

I am planning to have the USMC and possibly some ueropeans to mangle each other, oh and because I need somemore people to successfully make a WW3 game, US, canada, british, and some converted dudes for some anzac. I dunno why but I always for some reason see bush getting the US armed forces to become the new-age nazi power(and the only americans I dispise is Bush, and that guy who asked me If I live in an igloo...), my girlfriend's american FYI...

Oh yeah, I need to get off me arse at some point and paint some of my terrain :P
 
GreyDL said:
Point blanc range is also determined using the model.

Yep. From center of model to center of model. Hmmmmm...

Anyway 2 points. a) as pointed out scales are out of whackoo anyway. b) too long ranges for weapons lead to boring games. Is that really what you want? 2 armies, deploy, then shoot-shoot-shoot-shoot until game is over. Hmmm...Why bother deploying models then?
 
CudaHP said:
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.

All in all, a compressed Ground Scale is the only practical way to play these wargames.

ChudHP,

I agree, yes you have to compress the ground scale to get a playable game, or simulation. OTOH you don't have to destroy the look of a game to make a playable game. There are ways to go about this...

1) Change the figure scale. A 15mm tank looks better with a 20 inch range than a 28mm tank.

2) Limit the scope of the game. Make everything infantry based. Only infantry allowed.

3) Allow everything, but make the ranges more realistic, i.e. a tank can fire at anything in LOS, so would some machine guns.

In my previous post I never brought up the specter of 'simulation vs. gamism', and I do realize your comments are probably not directed at me. But I think it important to say that I thing BF:Evo would fail as a simulation, and making it a fun game is the only way it will be successful.

With that said, a commander that can't shoot his pistol further than the end of his tank, or the tank that can't fire at another tank on a distant hilltop is ruining the asthetic of the game for some and is just bad game design IMHO. There are many games out there that get past this scale issue, I don't see why BF:EVo has to be hampered by it.
 
Reaverman said:
Did I say I served in the US Army?

I am sure if its too complicated for the grunt to use, then its not in service very long. Looking at the Tow, it must have been in service for about 15+ years.

Or are you suggesting that in future contemporary wargames, the Anti Tank units have to do a CQ check to use their kit?


Wow.....look, the average grunt doesn't haul around a TOW. The Javalin system is the new tool for the US Army. Also, you require training to use the system. And even then, there's other limitations to the anti-tank missile systems. What I'm saying is that no matter how fancy the anti-tank rocket gets, it's only as good as the shmuck firing it.
 
Hiromoon said:
I'm saying is that no matter how fancy the anti-tank rocket gets, it's only as good as the shmuck firing it.
Well said :) , even for me, I'm pretty good at sharp-shooting, but if I can't practise or keep my focus, am I going to be able to hit snuf? Nope, but those handy dandy laser guidance systems take some of the fun outta hitting stuff, the rest of the fun is blowing stuff up with your RPG 8) :lol:
 
I agree with Hiro, people have been saying the tank was obsolete for years.....

As for helicopters replacing them. Remind me what was the life expectancy of a set of rotor blades in the Gulf Wars? Bloody short with the corrosive dust. Air support was limited as a result.

I remember reading Anthony Beevor's "THe British Army" in the early 90s in which he said tanks were obsolete and the army expected to have flying tanks by 2020...... I'll be impressed if we have typhoons and aircraft carriers by then, let alone flying tanks! :lol:
 
I agree, tanks will keep on going, as will helis. Tanks may well end up like in GiTS but Tanks will always be there.
 
Plus even more importantly Tank models are fun to build and modify with all the kit Tankers tend to drag along.

Being third generation Okie, born in Oklahoma I feel free to say that sometimes armored columns look more like refugees from the Dust Bowl Era. Not just everything but including the kitchen sink.

Nets, camouflage, sand backs, spare parts, tools and the list goes on.

The prepaints will let me go at this sprt of detail much more easily. :D :D
 
I wonder if this will make an appearance:
922366_20050204_screen006.jpg
 
It'd be nice.... DARPA's working on getting powered exoskeletons for the Army... This is Dale Brown's vision of that.
 
Back
Top