Battlefield Evolution - a Quick Playtest Report
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
roughneck GIR
Mongoose
So from inspecting the "stats" thing
we could see real stats as lami armor save, 2 wounds, a six-gun, and javlin as weapons, hmm to bad it'll suck against bugs when the lami in it is skewered and ripped outta the kevlar/mylar suit :lol:
we could see real stats as lami armor save, 2 wounds, a six-gun, and javlin as weapons, hmm to bad it'll suck against bugs when the lami in it is skewered and ripped outta the kevlar/mylar suit :lol:
N
noobdelux
Guest
i was just wondering, why choose that scale? why not go for say 15 mm?
well its probably waste of screen cause it would be xxxxxx harder to paint??? : P
well its probably waste of screen cause it would be xxxxxx harder to paint??? : P
N
noobdelux
Guest
crap dd post : (
at the matter of ranges...well..i have to admit i never looked down gunsights in real life, but is started thinking about it while playing operation flashpoint and americas army lately...they're just computer games, but these enemy soldiers are pretty tiny cute little dots at ranges of 100m and above. then i started looking around in the internet, comparing distances and the relative change of object scale on the street i think 300m may be engagement distance for a assault rifle, but spotting the enemy on such distances and then getting your your small dot or whatever over the small point in the correct way, while breathing at last, if not being under fire at the same time...doen'st sound like high hit probability to me...
and thus it seems much better to me to scale down ranges for a wargame to distances where you can relatively easy spot and hit your target, as the only alternative would be excessive range penaltys and/or spotting rules.
and thus it seems much better to me to scale down ranges for a wargame to distances where you can relatively easy spot and hit your target, as the only alternative would be excessive range penaltys and/or spotting rules.
cOwgummi said:
OK but the point is that we are not just talking about scaling down to where the average soldier could score a hit.
Lets crunch some numbers:
If a normal 28mm miniature represents a man 6 feet tall (72") then
100m would be approx 1240mm or 49" (say roughly the width of an average gaming table)
300m would be around 12" or say twice the length of an average gaming table.
When I was in the Irish Reserves many,many years ago we did actually practice (and score hits) at that range (though I was a really bad shot I'm afraid :? )
Now this brings us to the range of an assault rifle in SST : 20"
That equates to an effective range of approx 40m.
For Tanks this becomes crazy: The max range you could get on a 6' by 4' table is around 7' (84"). That would equate to a range of around 160m. For a Tanker that would not be so much 'point-blank' range as it would be 'engaged in sexual relations' range.
The other point about limiting ranges to the max a troop could probably see is that you don't NEED to do that. You have terrain on the table that cuts down your line of sight. If you were to use this method consistently then all weapons carried by infantry would have to have the same range.
All of that being said, it is just a game. Balance and fun is far more important than 'realism' as far as I'm concerned.
Keith Mc
Benjamen the Wolf
Mongoose
KeithMc said:
Well said
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
KeithMc said:
To be fair most games have the figure scale different to the ground scale.
Was that when the FCA was still using the Lee Enfield? I toyed with joining, fancied going armoured to get in a Panhard!
Agreed with the game balance!
emperorpenguin said:
Given the choice I would much ratter big chunky models and a bit of fudging with the scale to having to play with fiddly little 15mm stuff with no detail.
emperorpenguin said:
Yep, I used the Lee Enfield on the range a few times. Since I was in the MPs I mostly used the Gustav sub-machinegun and the BAP. The Gustav was horrible. The first time we were on the range the Sgt. picked one up, loaded it, held it by the stock and the magazine and gave it a good shake. Half the magazine roared off despite his finger being nowhere near the trigger. The things were so old and so word that just about anything could set them off. You never ever loaded it until you were ready to fire and you pulled the magazine immediately when you were finished. Add to that the fact that some of the guys in the unit were so dumb I wouldn't trust them with a pair of shoe laces much less a twitchy machine gun and you'll see why I only spent two years in the reserves. I immagine they all gave a tremendous sigh of relief when the Lee Enfields and the Gustavs were upgraded to standard Steyr AUGs.
emperorpenguin said:
Game balance and fun - doesn't matter what else you have in a game, you can't be successful without those two.
Keith Mc
crucible_orc
Mongoose
I wasn't advocating an 80" range for rifles or anything.
But 20" range when there are models on the tables that are more then a 3rd of that long makes it seem ridiculous(Range of morita vs Tanker).
i am hoping that the rifles fall between 30 and 40 inches for range. I'm also hoping that they don't put a cap on Tank ranges. Or maybe they could ahve unlimited range versus other tanks only(infantry would be really hard to see past a five hundred meters) What they do with tank ranges will be a defining moment for this game i think. It will decide whether or not they start to pull more players modern/historical crowd into their game.
It's not the Sci-fi crowd I'm worried about accepting this game. it the people who sit down and think " A challenger can hit tanks a few kilometers away, so why do they only have an effective range twice that of my infantry with assault rifles?"
At some point, the abstract becomes the absurd, and if mongoose crosses that line, it will stop people(but clearly not most SST players) from playing the game.
But 20" range when there are models on the tables that are more then a 3rd of that long makes it seem ridiculous(Range of morita vs Tanker).
i am hoping that the rifles fall between 30 and 40 inches for range. I'm also hoping that they don't put a cap on Tank ranges. Or maybe they could ahve unlimited range versus other tanks only(infantry would be really hard to see past a five hundred meters) What they do with tank ranges will be a defining moment for this game i think. It will decide whether or not they start to pull more players modern/historical crowd into their game.
It's not the Sci-fi crowd I'm worried about accepting this game. it the people who sit down and think " A challenger can hit tanks a few kilometers away, so why do they only have an effective range twice that of my infantry with assault rifles?"
At some point, the abstract becomes the absurd, and if mongoose crosses that line, it will stop people(but clearly not most SST players) from playing the game.
N
noobdelux
Guest
KeithMc said:
well let me dig up an site that got some realy nice figs on that 6 mm : P
Reaverman said:And that, is where you will never get them to agree. You'll have the gamers, the Armchair Stattos, and the realists. All three will argue, until the cows come home. My advice....live with it
I'm somewhere between the latter two when it comes to wargaming. Wargaming to me is usually a strategic simulation that I can participate in and enjoy (things such as rules, points values, and balance can go hang if they don't fit in with the simulation). That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the odd "tournament game" here and there as well, I just tend towards the former and am usually very clear which format I'm participating in before setting up the table.
It's a similar thing when I play an RTS - I prefer the single-player "missions" to the multiplayer stuff because the latter usually feels too organised to be a real situation - in Warcraft I'm happier defending my little town against four times as many orcs than I am facing an equal number on what is usually a geometrically balanced battlefield. If I play multiplayer it's usually a scenario I've written myself with specific forces to act out a specific battle I've invented.
I also know lots of people feel differently to this. There are those to whom the rulebook is the game, and their forces just playing pieces to move around according to how the rules dictate. It's just two different styles of play
