Bf evo should it be 15mm or 20mm and why

[Rick]

More than any other period (except perhaps Napoleonics), Modern Gamers all have their fave scales. Mine is 1/200th, I've got about 2/3rds of a Russian Tank Regiment in 1:1 in 1/200th, no decent set of rules to use it with, was excited when War without End was suggested as 1/200th lends itself to squad-scale games (1 squad/ 1 tank as the smallest unit), but I won't be using them for BFE, got some very nice 15mm's for that. Yes, I like having room to manouevre on a tabletop!

 

[Mr Evil]

yup il use 20mm or 15 mm and just convert 1" to 1cm if i have to, that said the ranges should be right incomaparison to the figs with no measure change and as the rules will use center points it will make no diferance to game play, it would just be more visualy correct.

il also get a few mongoos bits for tournys as well.

 

[Tathlum]

I'm perfectly happy with the scale, and its a bit late in the day for a change. I dont like the lack of detail and the poses on most 15/20mm.
Fireing at maximum range results in wasted ammo, loss of surprise and very little else. That maximum range should at the same scale as the figures is no more vital/realistic than having the figures scream and bleed.

 

[Wing Commander]

You'll get the scale argument being argued for years as everybody has their favourite. Mongoose have gone for the prepainted plastic and want to make an impact, thus 28mm. If you like nice 18mm modern check out Flashpoint (we carry their new stuff at www.idgaming.co.uk), their new minis are jawdroppingly good.
We're finding that many of our customers are eagerly awaiting EVO coz they simply buy a unit, turn round and slap it on the table... no fuss, no glue, no painting, just a quick start and you're into the fight.

 

[Col. Hammer]

We're finding that many of our customers are eagerly awaiting EVO coz they simply buy a unit, turn round and slap it on the table... no fuss, no glue, no painting, just a quick start and you're into the fight.

This is exactly why I'm waiting for EVO too!

And I know the rules are ok because I have played SST. I don't mind the range issue at all. Infantry weapons do not get used on their maximum range that often (unless you are a sniper, I suppose). LOS gets blocked by terrain, smoke, dust, rain and so on, and so forth.

 

[Omegamann]

First I guess BFEvo is about MOUTtype smal scale skirmisch warfare and not big open landbattles we would have seen in the 1980s if NATO and WPact would have met in my homecountry.

Most infantry weapons have an effective (not maximum) range of about 400m.
And even though snipers can operate at double this length (or even over 2000m if the terrain and field of fire is right, they still fit in nicely as support options.

I do hope there are rules for offboard artillery and SAM support (not being familliar with SST)

 

[SickBunny]

I dont much like bulletpoints but its the best way for me not to go on a wild rampage of stream of thought... and nobody wants that... :lol:

1) Most Real battles tend to take place between hugely noncompetitive forces where the other side has a distinctive advantage of manpower, tactical assets, intelligence (always in question in war...) or simple brute force in the form of tanks, artillery and airsupport. We havent seen equal forces fighting it out since the WWII and perhaps to a point, Vietnam. Equal skirmishes may take place in Africa and other locations we dont have reliable access to when it comes to military sciences or bbc... Any general worth his stars is Not going to get caught in an even battle where if moral is not going to be an issue, either due to the speed of the battle or simple confusion, both sides are going to suffer intolerable losses by modern standards...

2) The rare times when battles have been of roughly equal ground, the endresults have always been heroic, catastrophic and brutal... Exactly what a nice few hours by the table demand... and those said battles have not really taken part with units miles away from eachother... And within urban warfare etc, its useless to mull over massive ranges, some with broken terrain or forest. Your actual combat ranges will then go from hundreds to tens of meters... then you simply Dont worry about that little unit of footsloggers a mile away... you dont waste the time taking potshots at those guys when you are worried about the guys right behind the corner or in the next building...

Thats what I want to see on the table... and I know that Evo rules are giving me just that... brutal, horribly close fighting... panic and claustrophobia...

If you want realism, you can always play your evo games with one side armed with 200 points and the other with 2000 points... thats realism... thats BBC war for you...

 

[Col_stone]

If you want realism, you can always play your evo games with one side armed with 200 points and the other with 2000 points... thats realism... thats BBC war for you...

And it makes for fun games aswell

 

[Mr Evil]

in afganistan the average fire fight is over a 1-2000 meters range the rockey teerrain often offers close fire fights but with around 70% of incomming fire from other units thousands of yard away.

modern helicopters dont engage units within 700 meters if them under that the balsitic small arms the enemy carry can pose a risk evan to an armoured helicopter !!!!

friends dad of mine, works as a mercenary over in iraq at the moment, rule of thumb is dont engage an enemy within 1000 yards unless your actualy getting the hell out or making them get the hell out one moves away slowly the other moves away faster, to a position where you can snipe and concerve ammo, once the enemy have sprayed you a 5th time you can move forward as there pretty much low on ammo and retreating.

troops are used to protect tank flanks against ambushes ( rarer now and in the future due to a spy in the sky) there also used to clear building, but in a full scale war (wich iraq isnt) a shot of napalm will do the same effect or nerve gas !

if your troops are ina skirmish situation as in BF-evo or evan say FOW scale you just call a mortar/ air attack and walk through the dead bodies.

what im trying to figure out is how do these unit meet in an engagment of a skirmish without one or the other first being eliminated via air or long range combat ?

maybe we should select our armies then roll for morter attack then air attack damage on each unit befor the game starts, so you buy a 8 man unit but by the time the game starts the only 4 have survived from that unit and the tank is delayed due to mechanical failure after an air attack.

just ideas and thoughts.

remeber discusion is revolution, i fully support this game but id rather pull and push it now so we have the answers for later rather than go ummmm eeerrrrr but ,, aaaaa eeerrrrr later

 

[MongooseMatt]

what im trying to figure out is how do these unit meet in an engagment of a skirmish without one or the other first being eliminated via air or long range com

Because things are never, ever that easy in war. Ever.

People have already covered the differences between maximum and effective ranges, so I'll just leave you with this.

Try the game when it comes out. You'll get the point

 

[Lane Shutt]

I like the scale and range system in BF:E

Using the 25-28 mm scale
1) Takes advantage of terrain people already have available.
2) Is more visually stimulating, even well painted 15mm WWII minis are a bit plain from a few feet.
3) Most 15mm scale games move troops as a group, 25 mm as individuals.
4) The choice of scale for vehicles makes them practical. A 1:65 scale M1A2 Abrams is about the size of a 40k scale Rhino.

Weapon ranges (while still out of scale) are better than most games.
1) most modern assault rifles have a max effective range of 400-500m. In combat conditions this is reduced to 200-250m, even with modern combat optics. When the target is moving erratically and you are being shot at you simply have less time to aim.
2) Most basic weapons in BF:E have a 20-24" range. This is a good range for playability on 4' x 6' tables as you can shoot a fair size section of table but probably not kill the enemy before the move first turn.
3) The scale comparison , assuming a 1" figure is 2m, is about 10:1 for ranges.
4) the combat system allows firing at double range, making troops in the open vulnerable but those in cover very hard to hit.
5) Compare these ranges to a popular WWII game in 15mm.
Their basic troop has a range of 16" on a mini roughly 1/2 the size.
Tanks have 24-36" ranges and IIRC a penalty to hit at over 1/2 range.
This makes the ranges fairly close, with BF:E slightly shorter due to size constraints.

 

[BuShips]

what im trying to figure out is how do these unit meet in an engagment of a skirmish without one or the other first being eliminated via air or long range com

Because things are never, ever that easy in war. Ever.

Well if they were that easy, you could come out with a boxed game called "Death From Above" using smart bombs and satellites. The rules sheet would be on one page, with an attack like "Roll a die. On 1-5 the ground target dies. If you roll a 6, that entitles you to a new roll. Repeat until one side is eliminated." It would have the fewest parts, just above that of rock, paper, scissors. :wink:

 

[Soulmage]

modern helicopters dont engage units within 700 meters if them under that the balsitic small arms the enemy carry can pose a risk evan to an armoured helicopter !!!!

Hmmm. . . perhaps you ought to review the events that inspired the book and movie "Blackhawk Down."

For that matter, there's a perfect example of how forces could meet w/o being eliminated by long range fire.

Not every battlefield is a perfectly flat, featureless plain where the only thing that can interfere with your shot is the curvature of the earth!

Modern warfare is predominantly, smaller scale, short ranged, brutal, and in an urban setting. Sounds like BF:Evo will mirror this exactly! The days of the massed tank battalions pursuing each other in the desert are probably over for a while.

 

[Rick]

People probably said that after Kursk, El Alamein, the 6-day war. Most modern engagements are going to be similiar to the ww2 normandy fighting rather than the open manouevring of whole armoured battalions, but don't rule it out completely. Most of modern warfare is about out-manouevring your opponent to bring overwhelming firepower to bear on your target, while minimising the amount he dishes out in return. There is also surprise. I've forgotten the source, but I read a very good maxim at some point, something about; if you can create surprise in the mind of the enemy commander you have beaten him. Something like that, anyway!

 

[Mr Evil]

Hmmm. . . perhaps you ought to review the events that inspired the book and movie "Blackhawk Down."

For that matter, there's a perfect example of how forces could meet w/o being eliminated by long range fire.

the book mis enterpreted events as did the movie, evan the auther and people involved admitted that, but then it sold.

but evan so this situation in the book/movie isnt the sorta thing represneted within BF evo.

helicopters are used for extraction but gunships would not close in close enough to a combat area that a 6x4 games table would represent.

its sertainly going to be interesting to see how all these units act on the games table in this scale.

 

[witteridderludo]

modern helicopters dont engage units within 700 meters if them under that the balsitic small arms the enemy carry can pose a risk evan to an armoured helicopter !!!!

Hmmm. . . perhaps you ought to review the events that inspired the book and movie "Blackhawk Down."

Seems the Americans have taken that lesson to heart.

Modern warfare is predominantly, smaller scale, short ranged, brutal, and in an urban setting. Sounds like BF:Evo will mirror this exactly! The days of the massed tank battalions pursuing each other in the desert are probably over for a while.

Modern warfare is: the Gulf Wars, Kosovo (partly), Afghanistan in the early stages: massive firepower from the sky, long range, a smaller but high tech force engaging larger but ill-equipped and demoralized (from the bombing) enemy. Hardly any casualties on our side vs massive bodycounts (by today standards anyway).

Look at Afghanistan and Iraq now, real combat engagements are all at long range. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the whole world is a heavily built up area just like Western Europe. Those countries are basically empty, I've seen enough footage and pictures of these places, nothing but dirt and rocks. Even the cities are relatively open (compared to Europe).

Current operations are just not interesting to play out in BE. Most of the time you face IEDs, roadside bombs, or in the cities a quick burst of small arms fire from guys who immediately dissapear. You won't see the platoon vs platoon sized engagements with vehicles on both sides.

I think most of my games will be played solo, give a buddy a map and a list of resources and let him draw up an ambush. Just put the pre-arranged convoy on the right spot, start with blowing the roadside bomb(s) and take it from there.

 

[Omegamann]

Still I think scale depends on what you scenarios and combat environment you want to depict in BF Evo.
Although the Factions are all able to wage a conventional war at roughly equal strength (even the MEA once it gets more mechanized and less guerillia themend), contemporary military doctrine has always been to only attack with overwhelming force.
So battles on equal terms can only happen if intel on the enemy totaly fails, or an objective is of such a great strategic value that an engagement on equal terms can not be avoided to achive a strategic goal.
I do admit that conventinal battles (like Gulf War one and two) would be batter depicted at 20 mm (or 1:72 scale) but these battles would very much focus on vehicle combat with dismounted infantry only playing a very smal role.
In asymetrical warfare (contemporary Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Irak, Chechnya) combat distance does very much depend on terrain.
Though I do admit that Afghanistan features "infantry" battles at long ranges (simply because vehicles cant operate very well in Afghanistan) most of the exchanges I have read about are mortar and sniper battles, or infantry simply taxies air support or designates artillery tragets, not very enganging as a table top battle.
I do think however that BF Evo will focus on the scenarios, where close range combat is inevitable.
The second battle of Grozny is a very good example of a defender holding a strategic ground even though the attacker used his superior artillery and air support assets without much restraint.
So that MOUT infantry combat becomes inevitable.
I do think that even a future conventinal war bewteen the factions in BF Evo will focus on these kinds of engagements, as the current conflicts do show quite nicely that even technologicaly inferior forces can hold ground very well in modern urban environments.

 

[Mr Evil]

an area of strategic importance is often tear gassed befor an attack, or if a challenger is used, they will use there smoke blowers to clear the area as you can lob a tear gas canister in with smoke so its clear to enter.

there are alot of unwriten tank tactics that are employed.

small engagments\ are so thin on the ground now, in the gulf air destroyed more units than tanks, to the extent the americans used more tank ammo practicing than they did in combat !

if enemy are in a building and held up, yes the europe/ america would send in troops, the chineese would just blow the building up, and shoot survivors from the air. the mea would just probably do the same or use nerve agents if its a religeos building

will we get nerve gas ot tear gas in bf-evo ? as thats where the small intercontinental engagments are going to e solved.

 

[DM]

I do admit that conventinal battles (like Gulf War one and two) would be batter depicted at 20 mm (or 1:72 scale) but these battles would very much focus on vehicle combat with dismounted infantry only playing a very smal role.

I was under the impression from talking to my chums who are working on Dismounted Close Combat (and thus involving things like FIST and other near term infantrydevelopments) that mounted combat for troops was most definitely out of vogue in the West (and that we only really got suckered into it because of the development of the BMP and its associated tactics) - the troops do't like going into action in a magnet for incoming fire.

The rules ought to work just as well for close quarter infantry battles in a conventional war setting as for the more common "peace enforcement" actions that I think most Western nations are likely to eb involve din over the next decade or so (I can't remember whether "peace enforcement" is currently what the grown-ups have decided we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it looks like it ).

 

[Poko]

question-who wants to play accurate simulation, where all you do is blast the nemy to smithereens with long range bombardment, tomahawks, stealth bombers? now, who wants to play a dynamic game that involves soldiers engaged in a bloody short-range combat, with an odd tank thrown in for the fun of it? i know what i'd prefer...
say no to simulations, say YES to gameplay 8)