emperorpenguin
Mongoose
there are no mobility kills though. I find the ramming which happens in BFEvo a bit silly.
Do you think the MEA are overpowered?
- Thread starter Bede
- Start date
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
WORD! QFT!
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
The Old Soldier said:
yeah I've heard both explanations
I can suspend disbelief that infantry cc represents the occassional bayonet charge with grenades being lobbed and close range spray and pray, but vehicles ramming each other? :roll:
What is this Gorkamorka!? :lol:
Ben2 said:
Heh. My usual opponent has about 500 points of MEA total, so we tend to play every one of his units against some USMC force I make up to match. No big scary tank, because I don't have the points for it. I could try setting up in cover, but then he can set up in cover and sniper me to death slowly. Or run me over with technicals. Or just ignore me and we have a very boring afternoon
.I'm pretty sure this is only a problem because of the low point total, but that was part of the original question. I'm curious at what point level it stops being the case, though: tank + full squad (600)? 2 tanks (850)?
The Old Soldier said:
I think it means whatever a vehicle needs to do to get an infantry squad out of cover. I don't think that's too unreasonable a thing for a tank to be able to do, or even a glorified pickup truck.
The problem comes in when they start doing it on the open street. Or worse yet, to each other. I'll admit it: I won a game by ramming a Challenger with a Shadow
. Cheese weasel city.It might be better to have a push-through rule or something, so that you can clear out the infantry without having much chance of hurting them. Although you can pretty much do that by lowering CC dice to d6 instead of d10: the smaller model moves away at the end of CC, which accomplishes the "make them scatter" goal.
Go for scenario play, hopefully that will encourage more movement.
OR
Go for really dense terrain. You'll virtually always be in cover, but the blocking of LOS means you'll both have to move to get clear shots.
However yeah, this is because of the low points value. With 500 points are you taking infantry or infantry plus shadows?
You could let him proxy? Does he plan on getting anymore? At very low points levels where everyone else cannot take tanks or IFV or special forces due to points I can see your problem. MEA points costs are so low he can pimp up a little at that level of game.
OR
Go for really dense terrain. You'll virtually always be in cover, but the blocking of LOS means you'll both have to move to get clear shots.
However yeah, this is because of the low points value. With 500 points are you taking infantry or infantry plus shadows?
You could let him proxy? Does he plan on getting anymore? At very low points levels where everyone else cannot take tanks or IFV or special forces due to points I can see your problem. MEA points costs are so low he can pimp up a little at that level of game.
We have only really ever used vehicles ramming each other in one battle, and that was for a laugh. However raming infantry in or behind cover is very useful, and realistic (or as realistic as any war game can be).
Imagine you have infantry hiding in woods (just over an inch back so can't be seen or shot from outside the woods), the enemy may decide the he is going to drive his tank into those woods looking for you, should he stop just before he encounters your 1st model, or will he try and run him over before he opens up with his guns as his next action if he can.
I just wish the rules went a bit further for vehicles ramming structures and emplacements, to have something representing a tank or APC deciding to drive over a fox hole, or into a building through a wall.
Imagine you have infantry hiding in woods (just over an inch back so can't be seen or shot from outside the woods), the enemy may decide the he is going to drive his tank into those woods looking for you, should he stop just before he encounters your 1st model, or will he try and run him over before he opens up with his guns as his next action if he can.
I just wish the rules went a bit further for vehicles ramming structures and emplacements, to have something representing a tank or APC deciding to drive over a fox hole, or into a building through a wall.
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
They decided against that particular unit type on the grounds of it being in questionable taste.
jdrew said:
Lorcan Nagle said:
Tough call, I understand it and agree its politicaly correct. However this is a war game and by its very nature its politcaly incorrect. I think it could be possible to make a comprmoise technical which comes with some form of explosive charge that can tackle tanks.
EmperorNortonII
Mongoose
Lorcan Nagle said:
That didn't stop Westwood from doing it in Command and Conquer: Generals
Of the three games I've played, the MEA side have won EACH time.
Overpowered? Not at all. Cocky opponents doing silly things? Yessir!
The first game saw two beefed up MEA squads against two lessened USMC squads. The USMC were annihilated, because they were in the open too much, and took the RPG fire.
The second game saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad and two technicals take on two PLA squads. The PLA got crushed.
The third game, this past weekend, saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad, and three Technicals fight two PLA squads (minus one MG team) and two FAVs. As the PLA I was cocky, and didn't wait long enough to strike. My low-rolling and his high-rolling were also factors. My FAVs only took out a couple of guys before being knocked out soundly. One outright, one needing two shots. The rest of my PLA took cover, but when exposed took lead.
I'm more upset with how the PLA are over-costed than how the MEA are overpowered. I haven't dealt with EFTF and USMC much, so I'm not considering them. However, I would love it if Mongoose re-pointed the PLA infantry, at least. I don't know how Team 1 of 4 guys costs 100 points, but Teams 2 and 3 cost 30 and 60 points. Very dumb indeed, and detrimental to us PLA users, I would think.
*sigh*
I'm looking forward to beefing up both armies of mine, MEA and PLA. Some more infantry, vehicles and tanks will go a long way towards bigger and meatier battles.
Overpowered? Not at all. Cocky opponents doing silly things? Yessir!
The first game saw two beefed up MEA squads against two lessened USMC squads. The USMC were annihilated, because they were in the open too much, and took the RPG fire.
The second game saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad and two technicals take on two PLA squads. The PLA got crushed.
The third game, this past weekend, saw two MEA squads, a Fed squad, and three Technicals fight two PLA squads (minus one MG team) and two FAVs. As the PLA I was cocky, and didn't wait long enough to strike. My low-rolling and his high-rolling were also factors. My FAVs only took out a couple of guys before being knocked out soundly. One outright, one needing two shots. The rest of my PLA took cover, but when exposed took lead.
I'm more upset with how the PLA are over-costed than how the MEA are overpowered. I haven't dealt with EFTF and USMC much, so I'm not considering them. However, I would love it if Mongoose re-pointed the PLA infantry, at least. I don't know how Team 1 of 4 guys costs 100 points, but Teams 2 and 3 cost 30 and 60 points. Very dumb indeed, and detrimental to us PLA users, I would think.
*sigh*
I'm looking forward to beefing up both armies of mine, MEA and PLA. Some more infantry, vehicles and tanks will go a long way towards bigger and meatier battles.
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
I had an MEA on PLA game last week that came right down to the wire. I fielded 4 squads of basic infantry, 1 of fedayeen (all with the extra models form the basic box), 4 technicals, and a Tunguska. My enemy fielded 2 squads fof infantry (minus one MG team), an APC, a FAV, a command section and a Type 99.
The fight was centred on a ruin surrounded by hills (to the west and south west) and forests (to the east and south) which the PLA occupied in short order, with the T-99 taking point and the FAV swinging out on his west flank. It promptly died to a highly accurate RPG. the rest of the forces, mounted in technicals went screaming out of the deployment zone to try and surround the ruin, attempting to avoid the T-99 as best they could. Eventually the Tunguska tired to close assult it, only to die the next turn.
After this the game bogged down into attrition as the MEA basic infantry hugged cover and fired in on the Chinese, taking increasing losses each turn. The Fedayeen made a dash for the Chinese Table edge to scare the command squad out of cover, and eventually took them out right at the end of the game.
Final score was the Chinese shattered mainly through infantry losses. The MEA lost the Tunguska, 2 technicals, and the bulk of 3 squads of troops.
The fight was centred on a ruin surrounded by hills (to the west and south west) and forests (to the east and south) which the PLA occupied in short order, with the T-99 taking point and the FAV swinging out on his west flank. It promptly died to a highly accurate RPG. the rest of the forces, mounted in technicals went screaming out of the deployment zone to try and surround the ruin, attempting to avoid the T-99 as best they could. Eventually the Tunguska tired to close assult it, only to die the next turn.
After this the game bogged down into attrition as the MEA basic infantry hugged cover and fired in on the Chinese, taking increasing losses each turn. The Fedayeen made a dash for the Chinese Table edge to scare the command squad out of cover, and eventually took them out right at the end of the game.
Final score was the Chinese shattered mainly through infantry losses. The MEA lost the Tunguska, 2 technicals, and the bulk of 3 squads of troops.
britneyfan97
Mongoose
I don't have any of my MEA cards with me... but what about putting a Fedayeen IED on a technical, then ramming?
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
britneyfan97 said:
MP ruled them mean't the card to used on ENEMY models. That said, they also stated the card breaks the rules when the two conflict. So even thought the ruling was that you couldn't do it, many players like to do just what you suggested, and will continue to do so.
Just don't expect it to be allowed in a Official MP tourney.
I play USMC, and have other players who play EFTF, 2 PLA, MEA, and USMC.
Of all those opponents, only the EFTF give the USMC a run for the money anymore, specifically when the USMC and EFTF players constantly take advantage of cover, and when point cost allows for vehicles.
The MEA and PLA have a lot of versatility, but they lack any sort of follow-through. It isn't like I am playing dumb players - all have been min-gaming for years, some with a great degree of success.
I believe both the MEA and PLA are underpowered, but not because they are overpriced. I think that if you look at the units themselves, outside of the realm of the game, what they do for the point value is fair. It is as soon as you start comparing them that it becomes apparent that the reduced range and reduced firepower have a huge impact on the game and how it plays out. I have been trying to get more people to play, but thus far and with current releases, the high end armor of the EFTF and USMC have just destroyed anything they come against.
As for suicide bombers, I think that would be true to fashion, but I am not one to be PC.
Of all those opponents, only the EFTF give the USMC a run for the money anymore, specifically when the USMC and EFTF players constantly take advantage of cover, and when point cost allows for vehicles.
The MEA and PLA have a lot of versatility, but they lack any sort of follow-through. It isn't like I am playing dumb players - all have been min-gaming for years, some with a great degree of success.
I believe both the MEA and PLA are underpowered, but not because they are overpriced. I think that if you look at the units themselves, outside of the realm of the game, what they do for the point value is fair. It is as soon as you start comparing them that it becomes apparent that the reduced range and reduced firepower have a huge impact on the game and how it plays out. I have been trying to get more people to play, but thus far and with current releases, the high end armor of the EFTF and USMC have just destroyed anything they come against.
As for suicide bombers, I think that would be true to fashion, but I am not one to be PC.
Oh, and TOS, you can't put IEDs on a technical. Superjaded tried that, and i allowed it, but the D10 damage it does to the surrounding units isn't enough to matter, and it just resulted in him blowing up a lot of technicals and killing a handful of infantry, but losing far more in lethality by losing the 3d6 guns of the technical.
But according to the rules, you can't charge your own units, so the Fedayeen can't place IEDs on technicals.
But i must say... it was pretty dang clever.
But according to the rules, you can't charge your own units, so the Fedayeen can't place IEDs on technicals.
But i must say... it was pretty dang clever.
The Old Soldier
Mongoose
Templar said:
Didn't I just say that? MP ruled you couldn't but since cards overrule the rule book, unofficially you can. The card needs errata to say ENEMY vehicles. I still think it is a clever tactic. Say the vehicle was loaded with 4 bombs it still would be able to roll 4D10, not bad really. But, I will not be using this tactic anyway. Pietia has a card bomb card that is much more effective.
britneyfan97
Mongoose
How is this folks?
I don't have any cards with me as I'm working right now.
HouseRule: VBIED (Vehicle-Borne, Improvised Explosive Device)
IED's can be deployed on a friendly vehicle (technical) following three Fedayeen models taking ready actions while in contact with the technical. The technical may take no actions in the turn it is wired. The wired up technical will detonate following the next charge action it takes (be it in that turn, or in 3 turns, whatever...)
Upon completing that charge action roll a D10.
1-2: Dud. Work out normal charge damage, but the explosives did not detonate. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.
3-10: Any models in immediate contact with technical take full IED damage. Splash damage should be worked out as normal. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.
I don't have any cards with me as I'm working right now.
HouseRule: VBIED (Vehicle-Borne, Improvised Explosive Device)
IED's can be deployed on a friendly vehicle (technical) following three Fedayeen models taking ready actions while in contact with the technical. The technical may take no actions in the turn it is wired. The wired up technical will detonate following the next charge action it takes (be it in that turn, or in 3 turns, whatever...)
Upon completing that charge action roll a D10.
1-2: Dud. Work out normal charge damage, but the explosives did not detonate. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.
3-10: Any models in immediate contact with technical take full IED damage. Splash damage should be worked out as normal. The wired up technical is automatically destroyed.
Similar threads
