Battlefield: Modern Combat Questions

[Kerrik13]

I am new to the game and just recently purchased a good sized collection of figures off of Ebay. I love the game mechanics and have played a couple games with some friends. Some rules questions have popped up. I know that I can just make house rules for anything that my gaming group doesn't understand or agree with, but I'm hoping to get some feedback from veteran players so I don't break the balancing of the game too bad.

1) In the original Evolution rules, obscurement used to make it harder to hit models by giving them +1 to their Target score. Now, obscurement gives them a +1 to their Armour score? I don't understand why the rules change. This then expands into Cover (walls, buildings, etc) that used to provide a bonus to the target score and instant kill score (which to me make sense), but now they offer a bonus to the armor score and kill score. The armor bonus doesn't make sense to me... shouldn't they be harder to hit while in cover?

2) Anti-Armor weapons in this game seem ridiculously overpowered... some of the MBTs can one-shot most other MBTs in the game, and single shots can completely destroy infantry squads. Now, I can understand that if an Abrams blasts a Challenger and hits it, it is going to do major damage. Depleted uranium armor-piercing slugs can do some major damage, but the part I don't understand is why the weapons have both massive attacks (1d10+4 or 1d10+5 which are almost guaranteed hits) and massive armor piercing (Peircing of 4 or so) all rolled into one. Doesn't this seem a bit odd? I thought it might make more sense to have massive armor piercing (they are MBT cannons, afterall) but reduce the hit score appropriately so something like 1d10+1 or 1d10+2. This means that IF they hit, they are going to hit HARD but they actually have to hit first and have a decent chance to miss. Some like this would also reduce the way-too-common one-hit-kill shots during tank battles.
Can someone share some reasoning or opinions on why the big anti-vehicle weapons are handled this way?

3) The next question is a combination of the 2 questions combined.... Infantry VS Armor. Most/all MBTs carry machine guns and pintle mounted weapons for anti-infantry weapons. Why would anyone really use that when they can target an infantry unit with a 1d10+5 weapon (which guarantees a hit since most infantry have 4 or 5 Target scores) which will punch through any armor (even bonuses granted for cover). I could understand the instant-splat if a tank round hits an infantry (emphasis on if, considering how infantry are far smaller targets than vehicles), but then the large blast radius can decimate entire squads, allowing rolls of 1d10+5 for everyone caught in the blast. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind this one... shouldn't the cannons be used to punch through armor (Piercing/4 or so) and the machine guns used on the infantry instead of shooting instant-hit armor-piercing slugs at infantry that explode and decimate entire squads?

4) In the Modern Combat book there is a rule that any hits from Artillery ignore both concealment and cover. I can understand concealment (a smoke cloud isn't going to stop shrapnel from a mortar) but ignoring cover seems odd. Practically every war movie has some scene where people "take cover" or "hit the deck" during an artillery barrage, and defensive structures are designed to help save people from this kind of attack. So how come mortars can do maximized damage against a dug in enemy with fortifications?

Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to any replies.

 

[Agis]

snip

3) The next question is a combination of the 2 questions combined.... Infantry VS Armor. Most/all MBTs carry machine guns and pintle mounted weapons for anti-infantry weapons. Why would anyone really use that when they can target an infantry unit with a 1d10+5 weapon (which guarantees a hit since most infantry have 4 or 5 Target scores) which will punch through any armor (even bonuses granted for cover). I could understand the instant-splat if a tank round hits an infantry (emphasis on if, considering how infantry are far smaller targets than vehicles), but then the large blast radius can decimate entire squads, allowing rolls of 1d10+5 for everyone caught in the blast. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind this one... shouldn't the cannons be used to punch through armor (Piercing/4 or so) and the machine guns used on the infantry instead of shooting instant-hit armor-piercing slugs at infantry that explode and decimate entire squads?

Hi Kerrik13 and welcome to the board.
While I was not involved in the MC rule book (most of the above good questions are more directed into Matt’s direction) I can say something to your 3rd question.

Most tanks guns can NOT kill whole squads.
The LZ is too small to get the all.
OK, if your opponent really squeezes all his infantry minis into one spot you might be able to get 2 or 3 into the LZ, but no more.
Bear in mind that the command range is 6", so a smart opponent will spread his infantry unit wide.
And suddenly a MG with the auto traits makes sense again, or?

 

[SnowDog]

1) In the original Evolution rules, obscurement used to make it harder to hit models by giving them +1 to their Target score. Now, obscurement gives them a +1 to their Armour score? I don't understand why the rules change. This then expands into Cover (walls, buildings, etc) that used to provide a bonus to the target score and instant kill score (which to me make sense), but now they offer a bonus to the armor score and kill score. The armor bonus doesn't make sense to me... shouldn't they be harder to hit while in cover?

As I have only played original Evo rules, I can't really say why the change....

2) Anti-Armor weapons in this game seem ridiculously overpowered... some of the MBTs can one-shot most other MBTs in the game, and single shots can completely destroy infantry squads. Now, I can understand that if an Abrams blasts a Challenger and hits it, it is going to do major damage. Depleted uranium armor-piercing slugs can do some major damage, but the part I don't understand is why the weapons have both massive attacks (1d10+4 or 1d10+5 which are almost guaranteed hits) and massive armor piercing (Peircing of 4 or so) all rolled into one. Doesn't this seem a bit odd? I thought it might make more sense to have massive armor piercing (they are MBT cannons, afterall) but reduce the hit score appropriately so something like 1d10+1 or 1d10+2. This means that IF they hit, they are going to hit HARD but they actually have to hit first and have a decent chance to miss. Some like this would also reduce the way-too-common one-hit-kill shots during tank battles.
Can someone share some reasoning or opinions on why the big anti-vehicle weapons are handled this way?

Modern MBTs have insane targeting systems that allow them to shoot pretty darn accurately. Personally I don't see a problem with tanks killing each other even with one shot. That's why cover and hull-down are important, even for tanks.

In our original Evo battles I usually tried to get my tank to cover and hunt down the opposing tank (usually Chinese) to get rid of it.

Still, Chinese AT missiles were bad enough to cause some damage even to my Abrams...

3) The next question is a combination of the 2 questions combined.... Infantry VS Armor. Most/all MBTs carry machine guns and pintle mounted weapons for anti-infantry weapons. Why would anyone really use that when they can target an infantry unit with a 1d10+5 weapon (which guarantees a hit since most infantry have 4 or 5 Target scores) which will punch through any armor (even bonuses granted for cover). I could understand the instant-splat if a tank round hits an infantry (emphasis on if, considering how infantry are far smaller targets than vehicles), but then the large blast radius can decimate entire squads, allowing rolls of 1d10+5 for everyone caught in the blast. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind this one... shouldn't the cannons be used to punch through armor (Piercing/4 or so) and the machine guns used on the infantry instead of shooting instant-hit armor-piercing slugs at infantry that explode and decimate entire squads?

At least in original Evo rules you could use multiple weapons. That way it was possible to get the whole enemy squad in one volley. Usually even one shot at the main gun would not kill all of the enemy squad because they were stretched too far apart (like previous poster already commented).

4) In the Modern Combat book there is a rule that any hits from Artillery ignore both concealment and cover. I can understand concealment (a smoke cloud isn't going to stop shrapnel from a mortar) but ignoring cover seems odd. Practically every war movie has some scene where people "take cover" or "hit the deck" during an artillery barrage, and defensive structures are designed to help save people from this kind of attack. So how come mortars can do maximized damage against a dug in enemy with fortifications?

Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to any replies.

Seems odd since in real life mortars don't have all that good penetration against hard targets. Sure, they are murder against personnel but not against fortifications.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

1) In the original Evolution rules, obscurement used to make it harder to hit models by giving them +1 to their Target score. Now, obscurement gives them a +1 to their Armour score? I don't understand why the rules change. This then expands into Cover (walls, buildings, etc) that used to provide a bonus to the target score and instant kill score (which to me make sense), but now they offer a bonus to the armor score and kill score. The armor bonus doesn't make sense to me... shouldn't they be harder to hit while in cover?

As I have only played original Evo rules, I can't really say why the change....

It was a point of much debate on the boards - with the bonus to the target score it made it less likely people would be hit at all, and a number of people argued that this meant too few casualties in general.

2) Anti-Armor weapons in this game seem ridiculously overpowered... some of the MBTs can one-shot most other MBTs in the game, and single shots can completely destroy infantry squads. Now, I can understand that if an Abrams blasts a Challenger and hits it, it is going to do major damage. Depleted uranium armor-piercing slugs can do some major damage, but the part I don't understand is why the weapons have both massive attacks (1d10+4 or 1d10+5 which are almost guaranteed hits) and massive armor piercing (Peircing of 4 or so) all rolled into one. Doesn't this seem a bit odd? I thought it might make more sense to have massive armor piercing (they are MBT cannons, afterall) but reduce the hit score appropriately so something like 1d10+1 or 1d10+2. This means that IF they hit, they are going to hit HARD but they actually have to hit first and have a decent chance to miss. Some like this would also reduce the way-too-common one-hit-kill shots during tank battles.
Can someone share some reasoning or opinions on why the big anti-vehicle weapons are handled this way?

Modern MBTs have insane targeting systems that allow them to shoot pretty darn accurately. Personally I don't see a problem with tanks killing each other even with one shot. That's why cover and hull-down are important, even for tanks.

In our original Evo battles I usually tried to get my tank to cover and hunt down the opposing tank (usually Chinese) to get rid of it.

Still, Chinese AT missiles were bad enough to cause some damage even to my Abrams...

Agreed. In modern combat most tank fighting comes down to who penetrates the enemy's armour first, and that's generally the first direct hit from a main gun.

3) The next question is a combination of the 2 questions combined.... Infantry VS Armor. Most/all MBTs carry machine guns and pintle mounted weapons for anti-infantry weapons. Why would anyone really use that when they can target an infantry unit with a 1d10+5 weapon (which guarantees a hit since most infantry have 4 or 5 Target scores) which will punch through any armor (even bonuses granted for cover). I could understand the instant-splat if a tank round hits an infantry (emphasis on if, considering how infantry are far smaller targets than vehicles), but then the large blast radius can decimate entire squads, allowing rolls of 1d10+5 for everyone caught in the blast. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind this one... shouldn't the cannons be used to punch through armor (Piercing/4 or so) and the machine guns used on the infantry instead of shooting instant-hit armor-piercing slugs at infantry that explode and decimate entire squads?

At least in original Evo rules you could use multiple weapons. That way it was possible to get the whole enemy squad in one volley. Usually even one shot at the main gun would not kill all of the enemy squad because they were stretched too far apart (like previous poster already commented).

In MC most vehicles have a trait called multifire, which lets you fire more than one weapon per turn. You can fire that tank's cannon at an infantry unit and unless the enemy's an idiot and has everyone bunched up, you'll kill two or three of them. Alternately you can take a shot at the enemy tank, which is far more dangerous and worth more VPs...

4) In the Modern Combat book there is a rule that any hits from Artillery ignore both concealment and cover. I can understand concealment (a smoke cloud isn't going to stop shrapnel from a mortar) but ignoring cover seems odd. Practically every war movie has some scene where people "take cover" or "hit the deck" during an artillery barrage, and defensive structures are designed to help save people from this kind of attack. So how come mortars can do maximized damage against a dug in enemy with fortifications?

Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to any replies.

Seems odd since in real life mortars don't have all that good penetration against hard targets. Sure, they are murder against personnel but not against fortifications.

If you're in fortifications then you're in a building and IIRC the mortar can't actually damage you. personally I think the AOEs should not ignore cover if it intervenes between the point of impact and the target.

 

[Mac]

1) In the original Evolution rules, obscurement used to make it harder to hit models by giving them +1 to their Target score. Now, obscurement gives them a +1 to their Armour score? I don't understand why the rules change. This then expands into Cover (walls, buildings, etc) that used to provide a bonus to the target score and instant kill score (which to me make sense), but now they offer a bonus to the armor score and kill score. The armor bonus doesn't make sense to me... shouldn't they be harder to hit while in cover?

As I have only played original Evo rules, I can't really say why the change....

It was a point of much debate on the boards - with the bonus to the target score it made it less likely people would be hit at all, and a number of people argued that this meant too few casualties in general.

Something I have discovered, the new cover rules (w/Armor and Kill Number bonuses) make cover absolutely useless for MEA non-government troops. As MEA insurgents have no Armor Save, the 4+ Target Number is a kill. Being in Heavy Cover with a +2 Kill Number bonus is worthless. Since they have no Armor, the +2 Armor save is of no benefit either.

My solution to this problem:

Obscured LoS: +1 Target Number

Light Cover: +1 Target Number
Medium Cover: +1 Target Number, +1 Armor Save roll
Heavy Cover: +1 Target Number, +2 Armor Save roll

I base this on my good old (US) Army Training (SIR!). There is Concealment, which hides you from the OPFOR and makes you more difficult to hit. Smoke screens and tall grass are examples of Concealment. Smoke and tall grass, no matter how thick, will not stop bullets. The OPFOR will simply spray the area with fire and hope they hit you.

Cover stops (or at least slows down) bullets. It actually protects you from the lethal effects of incoming fire. Cover also offers you Concealment. If the Cover can stop bullets, it also (usually) stops visible light. Thicker Cover offers more protection.

Kill Numbers remain the same. A head shot is still a head shot.

This way, MEA Insurgents gain some benefit from being in Cover. Otherwise, you might as well simply stand them in the open. Something that is very unrealistic in the Real World(tm) and should be reflected in the game.

 

[Agis]

Hmmm, I have always read the non existing save of the MEA or similar units like this:
Open: T:4+ Save:None Kill: 6+
Obscured/ Light Cover: T:4+ Save:None Kill: 7+
Medium Cover: T:4+ Save:6+ Kill: 7+
Heavy Cover: T:4+ Save:5+ Kill: 8+


Maybe something for Matt to clarify!

 

[Agis]

Answered here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36592&highlight=
Basically as I presumed... 8)

 

[Murrayer]

1) In the original Evolution rules, obscurement used to make it harder to hit models by giving them +1 to their Target score. Now, obscurement gives them a +1 to their Armour score? I don't understand why the rules change. This then expands into Cover (walls, buildings, etc) that used to provide a bonus to the target score and instant kill score (which to me make sense), but now they offer a bonus to the armor score and kill score. The armor bonus doesn't make sense to me... shouldn't they be harder to hit while in cover?

As I have only played original Evo rules, I can't really say why the change....

It was a point of much debate on the boards - with the bonus to the target score it made it less likely people would be hit at all, and a number of people argued that this meant too few casualties in general.

2) Anti-Armor weapons in this game seem ridiculously overpowered... some of the MBTs can one-shot most other MBTs in the game, and single shots can completely destroy infantry squads. Now, I can understand that if an Abrams blasts a Challenger and hits it, it is going to do major damage. Depleted uranium armor-piercing slugs can do some major damage, but the part I don't understand is why the weapons have both massive attacks (1d10+4 or 1d10+5 which are almost guaranteed hits) and massive armor piercing (Peircing of 4 or so) all rolled into one. Doesn't this seem a bit odd? I thought it might make more sense to have massive armor piercing (they are MBT cannons, afterall) but reduce the hit score appropriately so something like 1d10+1 or 1d10+2. This means that IF they hit, they are going to hit HARD but they actually have to hit first and have a decent chance to miss. Some like this would also reduce the way-too-common one-hit-kill shots during tank battles.
Can someone share some reasoning or opinions on why the big anti-vehicle weapons are handled this way?

Modern MBTs have insane targeting systems that allow them to shoot pretty darn accurately. Personally I don't see a problem with tanks killing each other even with one shot. That's why cover and hull-down are important, even for tanks.

In our original Evo battles I usually tried to get my tank to cover and hunt down the opposing tank (usually Chinese) to get rid of it.

Still, Chinese AT missiles were bad enough to cause some damage even to my Abrams...

Agreed. In modern combat most tank fighting comes down to who penetrates the enemy's armour first, and that's generally the first direct hit from a main gun.

3) The next question is a combination of the 2 questions combined.... Infantry VS Armor. Most/all MBTs carry machine guns and pintle mounted weapons for anti-infantry weapons. Why would anyone really use that when they can target an infantry unit with a 1d10+5 weapon (which guarantees a hit since most infantry have 4 or 5 Target scores) which will punch through any armor (even bonuses granted for cover). I could understand the instant-splat if a tank round hits an infantry (emphasis on if, considering how infantry are far smaller targets than vehicles), but then the large blast radius can decimate entire squads, allowing rolls of 1d10+5 for everyone caught in the blast. I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind this one... shouldn't the cannons be used to punch through armor (Piercing/4 or so) and the machine guns used on the infantry instead of shooting instant-hit armor-piercing slugs at infantry that explode and decimate entire squads?

At least in original Evo rules you could use multiple weapons. That way it was possible to get the whole enemy squad in one volley. Usually even one shot at the main gun would not kill all of the enemy squad because they were stretched too far apart (like previous poster already commented).

In MC most vehicles have a trait called multifire, which lets you fire more than one weapon per turn. You can fire that tank's cannon at an infantry unit and unless the enemy's an idiot and has everyone bunched up, you'll kill two or three of them. Alternately you can take a shot at the enemy tank, which is far more dangerous and worth more VPs...

4) In the Modern Combat book there is a rule that any hits from Artillery ignore both concealment and cover. I can understand concealment (a smoke cloud isn't going to stop shrapnel from a mortar) but ignoring cover seems odd. Practically every war movie has some scene where people "take cover" or "hit the deck" during an artillery barrage, and defensive structures are designed to help save people from this kind of attack. So how come mortars can do maximized damage against a dug in enemy with fortifications?

Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to any replies.

Seems odd since in real life mortars don't have all that good penetration against hard targets. Sure, they are murder against personnel but not against fortifications.

If you're in fortifications then you're in a building and IIRC the mortar can't actually damage you. personally I think the AOEs should not ignore cover if it intervenes between the point of impact and the target.

Hey a fellow Irish player! Do you play Modern Combat in Dublin?

 

[Ali the conqueror]

Hmmm, I have always read the non existing save of the MEA or similar units like this:
Open: T:4+ Save:None Kill: 6+
Obscured/ Light Cover: T:4+ Save:None Kill: 7+
Medium Cover: T:4+ Save:6+ Kill: 7+
Heavy Cover: T:4+ Save:5+ Kill: 8+


Maybe something for Matt to clarify!

sometimes I would think MEA are very IN NEED of cover (medium cover at least) to get a save but I always play MEA on horde, so I could care little less on saving because they are just gonna die anyway