Bf evo should it be 15mm or 20mm and why
- Thread starter Mr Evil
- Start date
You have to ask yourself though, is the target market for this game the hardcore, historical, simulation gamer? I would have to say no. There are rule systems out there already for those folks. I think this was made for people like myself who love the prepainted 28mm figs, love the hardware and just want a quick fun game that 'feels' right. I know there are plenty of us out there.
dyssnowman
Mongoose
jmatrica said:
I have to agree with you. Heck, I know that half the acronyms that I see on this particular forum are complete gibberish to me, but that doesn't mean that I am not going to get into the game! If anything, this is openning a doorway for people that would normally steer clear of any kind of remotely historical or modern game. They have just never interested me. But with good game mechanics and pre-painted minis, I think that this has incredible potential. I know that locally there are even some EE gamers that are excited about this game, but if Mongoose had done it in 20mm or 10mm I doubt that would have happened.
Another big plus in my book is that the terrain is universal. I can make things for use in BF: Evo or SST since they are both the same scale. And you can easily proxy the BF: Evo vehicles into SST; I can finally field a Gecko!!! :lol:
So my 2 cents (which to a large extent are worthless since the game is already in existence and will not change no matter what I say), I think that Mongoose made the right choice by going with 25/28mm.
The "doorway" factor is a good one, and on which i think applies also to Victory at Sea and (moving away from Mongoose) to rules such as Warhammer Ancient Battles. For what its worth I think the question of scale and the rules themselves are really independent. From a marketing and attracting-new-players the use of 28mm figures is the way to go. They'll probably attrack "knocks" from the historical community (the scale argument, and discussion about the relative size of vehicles and figures has already taken place on TMP for example) but so what? On the question of the rules they ought to give a decent game regardless of what scale figures are used. It'll probably look more realistic using 20mm or 15mm (the "empty batlefield" argument) - I guess we'll find out on or about Dec 1st.
One thought - doors work both ways; the rule might evenserve to attract historical platers into SST
One thought - doors work both ways; the rule might evenserve to attract historical platers into SST
The whole issue of questioning the scale of BF:Evo is pointless and time wasting at this point in time.
Mongoose has chosen their scale and committed to the figure production.
If you really hate the scale play something else, simple.
This has to be the tenth or more time wasting thread by people who happen to prefer some other scale, usually for some personal reason of esthetics.
If you do not want to play BF Evo at the scale it is being produced for sale for goodness sake just go play whatever ruleset you make up, in whatever scale you prefer and please please cease starting arguments about the fripping scale :!: :!: :!:
What a waste of thread space and time.
Mongoose has chosen their scale and committed to the figure production.
If you really hate the scale play something else, simple.
This has to be the tenth or more time wasting thread by people who happen to prefer some other scale, usually for some personal reason of esthetics.
If you do not want to play BF Evo at the scale it is being produced for sale for goodness sake just go play whatever ruleset you make up, in whatever scale you prefer and please please cease starting arguments about the fripping scale :!: :!: :!:
What a waste of thread space and time.
From the looks of it I would keep all the ranges and such the same, and use 15mm figures. Using the smaller models makes the scale look more realistic, and doesn't affect the gameplay at all. I think 28mm models always look cheesy when their guns only fire 2 feet or so, and artillary only hits a 4" area.
The point is, this subject has been debated to death by certain individuals.
As I said it all seems to come down to personal preferences.
This is not a general debate on scale choice rather the thread is basically complaining about the choice that has already been finalized by Mongoose. For that reason and that reason alone this is a pointlessly repetitive discussion, which has been discussed endlessly on the Mongoose Forums.
If you do not want to read my legitimate opinions and concerns perhaps you could simply avoid reading my posts on the matter.
My opinions are no less important or valuable than anyone elses on these Forums. If you find this whole thread incredibly interesting and valuable, good for you.
If you will go down the thread list less than ten topics you will find another thread discussing vehicle versus figures scale. If you will utilize the search function, I am quite certain many more such discussions can be found.
None of these discussions are likely to cause Mongoose to change the scales involved in BF:Evo at this late date in their production schedule.
Scale was chosen largely for compatibility with SST and apparently for using forces from one game in the other; hence, the use of the same scale.
Esthetically it is Hobson's choice. Each game player will choose the games they prefer in the scale they desire. That is what I said in my first post.
As I said it all seems to come down to personal preferences.
This is not a general debate on scale choice rather the thread is basically complaining about the choice that has already been finalized by Mongoose. For that reason and that reason alone this is a pointlessly repetitive discussion, which has been discussed endlessly on the Mongoose Forums.
If you do not want to read my legitimate opinions and concerns perhaps you could simply avoid reading my posts on the matter.
My opinions are no less important or valuable than anyone elses on these Forums. If you find this whole thread incredibly interesting and valuable, good for you.
If you will go down the thread list less than ten topics you will find another thread discussing vehicle versus figures scale. If you will utilize the search function, I am quite certain many more such discussions can be found.
None of these discussions are likely to cause Mongoose to change the scales involved in BF:Evo at this late date in their production schedule.
Scale was chosen largely for compatibility with SST and apparently for using forces from one game in the other; hence, the use of the same scale.
Esthetically it is Hobson's choice. Each game player will choose the games they prefer in the scale they desire. That is what I said in my first post.
cud i think your missing the point of this thread
its not saying the scale is wrong its looking into is the scale right, the dicusion is in a way comming to a better conclusion than saying its 28mm cuz it is so there....
remember discusion is revolution.
if this is to be a revolutionary game it needs discusion.
its not saying the scale is wrong its looking into is the scale right, the dicusion is in a way comming to a better conclusion than saying its 28mm cuz it is so there....
remember discusion is revolution.
if this is to be a revolutionary game it needs discusion.
No problem DM.
to Mr Evil My real point was not that it is 28mm cuz it is, it was that the esthetics of scale choice for games is ultimately a purely subjective choice.
Considering the merits, in each participants (in the discussion) as being subjectively valid and to be equal in effect and merit value, then I do not understand what possible effect this discussion is supposed to have on
Mongoose chosen scale for BF:Evo.
It appears to me that was the question you were posing. Further as I stated, when you look back down the list of thread topics there have multiple threads regarding this very subject (Several started by Mr Evil).
It was this multiple threads on the same general topic that has caused me to question the usefulness of yet more discussion on choice of scale.
Sorry if I have offended any sensibilities. I was simply hoping for something other than the regurgitation of the same series of old arguments or discussion from the various opposing viewpoints.
We can all discuss on to our hearts content, but it really is not going to change the realities of production schedules and Mongoose choice of scale.
Any way, may you all have a Happy Thanksgiving and carry on having fun.
to Mr Evil My real point was not that it is 28mm cuz it is, it was that the esthetics of scale choice for games is ultimately a purely subjective choice.
Considering the merits, in each participants (in the discussion) as being subjectively valid and to be equal in effect and merit value, then I do not understand what possible effect this discussion is supposed to have on
Mongoose chosen scale for BF:Evo.
It appears to me that was the question you were posing. Further as I stated, when you look back down the list of thread topics there have multiple threads regarding this very subject (Several started by Mr Evil).
It was this multiple threads on the same general topic that has caused me to question the usefulness of yet more discussion on choice of scale.
Sorry if I have offended any sensibilities. I was simply hoping for something other than the regurgitation of the same series of old arguments or discussion from the various opposing viewpoints.
We can all discuss on to our hearts content, but it really is not going to change the realities of production schedules and Mongoose choice of scale.
Any way, may you all have a Happy Thanksgiving and carry on having fun.
To continue the lovefest (and also glad everyone is keeping sensible about this), I was entertained and informed a few months ago by a 2-part video on youtube. It was a declassified video made for the U.S. Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, and is called "Concealment does NOT equal Cover." Here is the link to the first half of the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE
The salient point in the video that is of possible value here is that they said that in urban combat the average engagement distance was about 19 meters or about 60 feet. Since most of the scenarios within BF:E are probably going to be urban shootouts, I thought this was something to be brought forth to throw into the pot for discussion. If 28mm figures approximate 1/65 scale m/l and if the game's range scale is consistant with the figure scale, then we are talking about an average tabletop engagement range of eleven inches, gentlemen :shock: . Obviously the video focuses mostly on infantry arms, but this translates surprisingly well for 28mm figures. I must say I was "enlightened" by that info, and it does give a bit of real-world backing to the 28mm argument for game units. Now understand that this is not the weapon's range, but the typical engagement distance in urban combat, mostly (probably) due to LOS restrictions. At the end of part 2 (the 2nd video, visible for viewing on the right of the website), you will see demonstrations of 30mm chaingun weapons that have an effective range in 28mm terms of around 46 feet worth of game table. Also, a small man-portable anti-tank weapon had a maximum 28mm "game" range of about 25 feet. While these last weapons support gaming in smaller scales like 10-15mm, in urban environments you have to see it to engage it. This last bit might be where we are going to find the "logic" in justifying 28mm tabletop urban combat. It looks as though most of the fighting is at point-blank range, so the "maximum range" of the weapons isn't a dominating characteristic. Now go and enjoy the flicks. I really liked the .50 cal. "Ma Duece", as for myself. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhMOfaYwvE
The salient point in the video that is of possible value here is that they said that in urban combat the average engagement distance was about 19 meters or about 60 feet. Since most of the scenarios within BF:E are probably going to be urban shootouts, I thought this was something to be brought forth to throw into the pot for discussion. If 28mm figures approximate 1/65 scale m/l and if the game's range scale is consistant with the figure scale, then we are talking about an average tabletop engagement range of eleven inches, gentlemen :shock: . Obviously the video focuses mostly on infantry arms, but this translates surprisingly well for 28mm figures. I must say I was "enlightened" by that info, and it does give a bit of real-world backing to the 28mm argument for game units. Now understand that this is not the weapon's range, but the typical engagement distance in urban combat, mostly (probably) due to LOS restrictions. At the end of part 2 (the 2nd video, visible for viewing on the right of the website), you will see demonstrations of 30mm chaingun weapons that have an effective range in 28mm terms of around 46 feet worth of game table. Also, a small man-portable anti-tank weapon had a maximum 28mm "game" range of about 25 feet. While these last weapons support gaming in smaller scales like 10-15mm, in urban environments you have to see it to engage it. This last bit might be where we are going to find the "logic" in justifying 28mm tabletop urban combat. It looks as though most of the fighting is at point-blank range, so the "maximum range" of the weapons isn't a dominating characteristic. Now go and enjoy the flicks. I really liked the .50 cal. "Ma Duece", as for myself. :wink:
EvilGinger
Mongoose
I would use 15mm figures ideally for modern platoon level skirmish there is a good range of figures and model vehicles and the ground scale would look better if not being strictly correct. 20mm would also look good and have similar advantages and probably have an even better range of figures as well as appropriate terrain.
I would also likely double or triple even quadruple weapons ranges as the standard range of engagement these days is based on spotting range not weapons range is 300-400m for small arms 88.5-118” on a ground scale of one to one for 15mm. Tanks can and do engage at over a kilometre in terrain which allows it which is why use of armour in skirmish games becomes problematic.
Personally I would not expect BF EVO to be a realistic game of modern warfare for that I would go to Table Top Games Challenger II rules or Firefight. I feel its meant to be a fast paced game of a fantasy near future warfare in the same way Starship troopers is or Stargrunt or even those products of the evil empire of the Lentonites. Real Near future warfare or even present warfare is something I would not chose to inflict on any of you
I would also likely double or triple even quadruple weapons ranges as the standard range of engagement these days is based on spotting range not weapons range is 300-400m for small arms 88.5-118” on a ground scale of one to one for 15mm. Tanks can and do engage at over a kilometre in terrain which allows it which is why use of armour in skirmish games becomes problematic.
Personally I would not expect BF EVO to be a realistic game of modern warfare for that I would go to Table Top Games Challenger II rules or Firefight. I feel its meant to be a fast paced game of a fantasy near future warfare in the same way Starship troopers is or Stargrunt or even those products of the evil empire of the Lentonites. Real Near future warfare or even present warfare is something I would not chose to inflict on any of you
So basically EvilGinger, you would give every weapon in the game pretty much the range of anywhere on a 4 foot by 8 foot table?? Or almost all weapons.?? Triple the ranges???
That would seem to lead to a nice static WW I style trench warfare style of game . . . . . rather than a modern more dynamic styule of battle.
As I see it (My Opinion only) It could lead to an I put my figures in good cover and shoot anything that moves into LOS.
Let me see 300 Meters average Marksman rated shot hits one in five to ten shots on man sized target at 350 meters if the target is still and not moving fifty percent exposed, good light etc. If target is hustling from cover to cover, reduced that by a factor of ten so one potential hit in fifty to one hundred shots.
Vietnam taght military trainers the folly of area fire on full-auto by the average grunt. Averaged something on the order of one MILLION shots fired per enemy killed, more or less. Very near 100,000 shots fired per enemy wounded/casualty.
Let me see 1.3 seconds to empty a 20 round magazine 2.1 to empty a 30 round magazine, all on full-auto. . .
History records from time of initial engagement to calls for ammo resupply, were consistently well under five minutes of engagement time, based on normal max ammo load out.
From what I have seen and heard BF:Evo should work fine just as it is.
No offense EvilGinger most of us have to deal with very finite table sizes to game on. Esthetically, your idea sounds fine but, in all practicality it would lead to a very different game style.
That would seem to lead to a nice static WW I style trench warfare style of game . . . . . rather than a modern more dynamic styule of battle.
As I see it (My Opinion only) It could lead to an I put my figures in good cover and shoot anything that moves into LOS.
Let me see 300 Meters average Marksman rated shot hits one in five to ten shots on man sized target at 350 meters if the target is still and not moving fifty percent exposed, good light etc. If target is hustling from cover to cover, reduced that by a factor of ten so one potential hit in fifty to one hundred shots.
Vietnam taght military trainers the folly of area fire on full-auto by the average grunt. Averaged something on the order of one MILLION shots fired per enemy killed, more or less. Very near 100,000 shots fired per enemy wounded/casualty.
Let me see 1.3 seconds to empty a 20 round magazine 2.1 to empty a 30 round magazine, all on full-auto. . .
History records from time of initial engagement to calls for ammo resupply, were consistently well under five minutes of engagement time, based on normal max ammo load out.
From what I have seen and heard BF:Evo should work fine just as it is.
No offense EvilGinger most of us have to deal with very finite table sizes to game on. Esthetically, your idea sounds fine but, in all practicality it would lead to a very different game style.
That would seem to be pretty realistic
I've actually played modern and WW2 skirmish games where the weapon ranges in the game would potentially allow them to shoot clear across the table. However, the terrian was pretty close in places, more open in others(mimicking the actual terrain over which our action was fought -a recreation of one of the old exercise areas on which I used to "play"), resulting in some fairly realistic tactics, use of smoke, careful use of cover etc. and confirmation that locally outnumbering the defenders by 3:1 (whether in actual numbers or weight of deployable fire) was a prerequisite!
IIRC there is at least one set of commercially available rules that uses the same approach, but I forget which one it is.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
That would be Crossfire. If you can see it, you can fire upon it.
Im rather tempted to play this game in 15mm, since its what I use for skirmsih gaming anyways, and the availability and variety is better.
That said, I will likely be picking up a few boxes of Mongoose's infantry as well, both to support the game, and for variety
Im rather tempted to play this game in 15mm, since its what I use for skirmsih gaming anyways, and the availability and variety is better.
That said, I will likely be picking up a few boxes of Mongoose's infantry as well, both to support the game, and for variety
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
What it comes down to, and I think I've ssaid this before, is whether you're looking for an accurate simulation or a quick,fun game. I vote for fun.
