BF Evo - Simulation or Sci-Fi?

[Grimm]

I read through the articles in the latest S&P and am very interested in the game. However, it is a bit unclear to me where the focus of this game really is. Is this an attempt to be an reasonably accurate simulation of what warfare may look like 10 years out? Or will it really be more of a casual sci-fi game that will focus on the "what might be" weapons.

A couple of points:

The article mentions the F-35 and F-22. While I could see a use for the F-35, I'm not sure why the F-22 would be represented in this scale. The plane has no business in a ground combat game.

Predator (recently renamed the Reaper) - what about the half dozen or so different types of micro UAVs that are currently in regular use? Will they be represented?

Mention of the B-2. Not sure if the developers realized the B-1 and to a lesser extent the B-2 are being used today as tactical assets over Iraq and Afghanistan?

T-99 - I did a little research on this tank since I had not heard much about it before. There is very little reliable information out there on it and it has been described as both being a star wars type super tank all the way down to a upgraded T-72. It is currenlty in low production so even in 10 years it will not be a common sight on the battlefield. I'm very curious as to how this tank will be played.

I would really like to hear a bit more on the design philosophy of the game. Thanks for your time.

 

[Hiromoon]

The F-22 can double as a fighter bomber if need be. It can carry either 2 1000lb GBU bombs or four 500lb GBUs.

The Reaper is the USAF's armed Predator....

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

The objective of the game is to present a fun and playable game based on realistic technology set approximately 10-15 years in the future. There is some supposition, which is necessary when looking into the near future, but everyone involved is trying to make this as accurate as possible, both in terms of gameplay and technology (you wouldn't believe how long it took us to work out the suppression rules!) Matt selected the playtesting group based on experiene and knowledge (ranging from legacy soldiers to writers on joint technology development). He has relied heavily on the playtesting group to ensure accuracy in the most minute detail (well, as minute as we can get without getting into classified information )

As the game progresses, depending on RL technological developments and the gaming public's feedback, more advanced things could appear in the future (some things are already planned, but I don't know if I can divulge). Basically, expect cool, realistic stuff, but probably don't look for 40-foot tall robots with laser swords.

 

[Aniyn]

Well, to answer your first question, the F-22 is an air suppiriority fighter. It's very hard for the other guys planes to come in and drop bombs on your men if your F-22 shoots it down before it gets there.
What I want to know is if the F-22 and F-35's will get a stealth trait, or it will just be put to use as a higher hit/kill score.

 

[Hiromoon]

Hey Shotgun, shame you're not up here with me this coming monday.... AUSA convention is going to be going on this coming week with all the latest and neatest toys on display.

 

[Kristovich]

You can't make a minis game a smiulation in it's true meaning, if you do {insert long rable about scales and ranges here}.

Also, like Aniyn said; if you can shoot down the enemy bomber before he can drop a bomb, all the better, so the F-22 has a role there.

What I'm wondering about is if we'll see SAM's like Stingers (if I got the name right, not sure I did) or the like.

 

[Aniyn]

What I'm wondering about is if we'll see SAM's like Stingers (if I got the name right, not sure I did) or the like.

Yup, Matt said those would be in there.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

Hiro, you lucky dog...

Although I may apply for a very interesting position with Raytheon in the near future...

 

[JoseDominguez]

You can't make a minis game a smiulation in it's true meaning, if you do {insert long rable about scales and ranges here}.

Also, like Aniyn said; if you can shoot down the enemy bomber before he can drop a bomb, all the better, so the F-22 has a role there.

What I'm wondering about is if we'll see SAM's like Stingers (if I got the name right, not sure I did) or the like.

Yup, keep it fun, I'm not flocking a 200 metre long games table for anyone.

 

[Hiromoon]

Oh my poor feet... AUSA was AWSOME, with lots of new technology for the military.....

 

[mthomason]

I agree with Kristovich on the fact you can't make any miniatures game a true simulation (at least not at this scale, and if you want a game that is also fun to play).

That said, BF Evo *feels* better than most miniatures games to me when played. A lot of wargames are more "game" and less "war" - that is, they're all about the rules and finding rules tactics to beat your opponent. This rule trumps that rule and so forth, this piece can move like this and has this special rule and therefore it's to your advantage to move it before your opponent moves that piece with that special rule. In other words, you have to forget all about real military tactics with your units and treat them as playing pieces in a game, rather than as pieces that represent the location of military units on a battlefield.

If I play a wargame, I don't want to beat my opponent by using rules, I want to beat them by being better with real tactics, such as getting my units into the best positions for the battle and deciding which targets to hit, when, and what with. Not using this special rule to give me a bonus with this playing piece in this situation.

Now, before the people that prefer playing games to simulating a battle on the tabletop start screaming that they hate this idea, there's something else...

BF Evo still has those rules, and you can still play it as a rules-based game. The thing is, the design makes sense - the rules assigned to units (in the majority of cases) aren't there in order to make the units interesting or balanced, they're there because they make the unit work the way it ought to on the battlefield. All of the "balancing" has been done with points values.

If you know what a unit does IRL, you should be able to use it effectively in BF Evo without giving the special rules too much thought - they fairly accurately simulate that unit's real-world use. For someone like me who likes to look at the miniatures on the table and decide what to do from just that visual reference, and then consult the rules afterwards to find out what happens, it works really well.

If you are a rules freak, and don't know much (or anything) about real world militaries, you can sit and examine the rules and still be able to play the game. If you like to think about the rules effects of moving certain units, and decide your strategy based on that, it works really well.

This game actually manages to be a playable game and a fairly accurate (ranges aside) simulation at the same time, and I'm hard pushed to think of anything else that manages it - especially in a game that doesn't need a half-inch thick manual to learn in order to play it.

 

[Rick]

It's really no different at all from what all micro-modern players were doing at the height of the cold war with wargames.

Most of it was speculative wargaming, based on existing units and vehicles and there was a mad scramble to field the very latest technologies in your wargames, even when they hadn't reached actual front-line units.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I agree with Kristovich on the fact you can't make any miniatures game a true simulation (at least not at this scale, and if you want a game that is also fun to play).

That said, BF Evo *feels* better than most miniatures games to me when played. A lot of wargames are more "game" and less "war" - that is, they're all about the rules and finding rules tactics to beat your opponent. This rule trumps that rule and so forth, this piece can move like this and has this special rule and therefore it's to your advantage to move it before your opponent moves that piece with that special rule. In other words, you have to forget all about real military tactics with your units and treat them as playing pieces in a game, rather than as pieces that represent the location of military units on a battlefield.

If I play a wargame, I don't want to beat my opponent by using rules, I want to beat them by being better with real tactics, such as getting my units into the best positions for the battle and deciding which targets to hit, when, and what with. Not using this special rule to give me a bonus with this playing piece in this situation.

Now, before the people that prefer playing games to simulating a battle on the tabletop start screaming that they hate this idea, there's something else...

BF Evo still has those rules, and you can still play it as a rules-based game. The thing is, the design makes sense - the rules assigned to units (in the majority of cases) aren't there in order to make the units interesting or balanced, they're there because they make the unit work the way it ought to on the battlefield. All of the "balancing" has been done with points values.

If you know what a unit does IRL, you should be able to use it effectively in BF Evo without giving the special rules too much thought - they fairly accurately simulate that unit's real-world use. For someone like me who likes to look at the miniatures on the table and decide what to do from just that visual reference, and then consult the rules afterwards to find out what happens, it works really well.

If you are a rules freak, and don't know much (or anything) about real world militaries, you can sit and examine the rules and still be able to play the game. If you like to think about the rules effects of moving certain units, and decide your strategy based on that, it works really well.

This game actually manages to be a playable game and a fairly accurate (ranges aside) simulation at the same time, and I'm hard pushed to think of anything else that manages it - especially in a game that doesn't need a half-inch thick manual to learn in order to play it.

You're my new hero. Please re-write ACtA with this philosophy... :wink:

 

[mthomason]

Aww, shucks

The credit however belongs to Matthew Sprange for the refinements in the Evo system, not me for stating how much it meets my personal tastes Most of the features that make it work the way I mentioned were already there when it reached us in the playtest group (although we did have a hand in making a few nice tweaks here and there).

Although now you mention it, I think a 2nd edition of ACTA could certainly benefit from the "Evo Treatment", with a single rulebook and all the details on how individual types of weapons work on ship data cards. If Matthew is reading this I'd love to get involved if such a thing ever happened

 

[soulman]

Battlefield is set 10-15 years in the future, but not much has changed from todays weapons etc...
Hummer has been replaced, remote drones in the air, the worlds best armys have a land warrior system for the troops etc...
BUT...
Its fine for black hawk down games, with rules for helicopters and fast roping in the advanced rules
Its fine to try out 80`s cold war battles with nato...
Its fine to play out falklands game too, and with the simple rules, you can take it to say 30-60 years in the future, and add basic walker models if you wish..
As for me, i like to try some " battlefield 2015" games with walkers etc..

Battlefield rules, are simple for your rules changes and adding extra units, i pop together a ghost recon squad in mins, and the same with a Lav 25 apc....

I have about 6 rule sets for modern rules, and some of them are bogged down with spotting rules, or other crazy stuff... battlefield will let you play any battle you wish, vetnam are well...

If we can support this and it sells well, then i guess the nest step is WW2, which i think will all went, i must say i could add some WW2 extra rules, right now, its a great little system....

So don`t worry its for all battles from year dot until the far future with some extra rules etc...

 

[Kristovich]

A WWII game using the BF: Evo system or something like that would rock! I'd so buy that since there are few 28mm WWII games out there.

Anyhow, BF: Evo comes first, and I'll be damned if I can't get hold of it.

 

[soulman]

I have been waiting for a great set of modern rules for years now, and mongoose has done a great job with them, not 100% perfect for me, but the best i have seen for years, nice and simple, loads of units etc..
I hope it does well, so a WW2 system comes out, but i say its 100% will, and a lot of WW2 players will play with the new rules, also buying a pre-painted tiger tank would be so cool..!!!

My only litle nit pick with Battlefield is that the soldiers don`t have a shooting skill to roll under to hit, just the target/kill of SST, thats my only nitpick for me, but the system is great for the tanks etc....
Alan

Ps.. i`m looing at trying a smaller scale version, more counter T stuff, as i`m a playtester, and have the rules in front of me to reread...
Have a good weekend
Alan

 

[Ben2]

The BF:Evo rules are very good.

And very flexible. At my local club we've been playing games set a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. And it has worked very well.

 

[Mr Evil]

if i was on the playtest group (and im not ) id have sugested to have a training level and that dictates there auto firzone area, so a MEA would be say at level 3 so have a 3" fire zone to shoot into, whle british troops could be on 9 so would effect a 9" area, this would represent the better training and more independant inteligence of the unit, at picking there targets from surounding area.

Just my point of view.