Modern Combat & Infantry - Differentation?

[Proteus454]

Mild Disclaimer: In terms of the theory and practice of actual military hardware, I'm a complete n00b. I shoudl also point out that my knowledge of the ongoing plans for Modern Combat are minimal, but I'll be listing my assumptions as I go. Also, this entire question may already have been covered.

Onward!


When Battlefield Evo first came out, I was massively intrigued. With the near-future setting and the very exciting faux-newspaper thingamadoodle they had put out at the time, I was actually expecting something along the lines of Warmachine, in that there would be a persistent storyline (and a forgiving attitude towards where exactly into that timeline any given battle fit into) with ongoing global events, cross-border invasion, you name it.

One of the key ideas that intrigued me was the idea of a semi-unified Europe. Before actually reading the book, I had imagined plans were to take the same tack taken previously with the League in ACTA - That is, several smaller(?) but distinct armies, and the option to fiedl them together with some restrictions or limitations.

While initial sales plans did seem to bear out my idea (Remember the plan to put out Armee De Terre and Bundeswehr troops? Good times, good times.), in the end Mongoose sprang for a "do as you like" policy with just the one kind of infantry and armour platoons.

Since then, a lot has happened. Initial release plans had faltered, and then there was the release of the stats for British AT Sections. (And this point I wondered, are giving up on Europe entirely or what? It seems that, initially at least, the move to US/UK/Russia/China/MEA would bear this out, but that's not the topic of this rant) The thing is, if the planned distinction, within the streamlined context of Battlefield Evo was that Brits had LMGs and Panzergrenadiers carried AT weaponry, and the Brits now had an AT-type section...


The point I am painfully, laboriously, torturously dragging us towards here is that I don't think Mongoose REALLY took into account the scale of differentiation they wound up with, and how it didn't really cut it if one was to spring for a bevy of global, let alone pan-European, infantry.

We're all humans here, so Russians taking RPG shots to the chest and laughing is (probably) out. Squads armed entirely with automatic shotguns or frontline infantry with organic/integrated flamethrowers is probably out too.

So what are the things that CAN be done within the context (a context that is, I admit, likely to change but I DO want to make my concerns known) of established rules canon?
- Nations without a planned Land Warrior-equiv but that can afford to organize their troops properly (fire teams) and equip them with proper body armour and integrated LMGs [I imagined that some of the Euro nations would take this tack]
- Alternatively, certain tin-pot-types might field paramilitaries along the lines of the fedayeen, wearing body armour and carrying better guns but organized mob-like, akin to the MEA

Of course, each nation and sub-group would have it's own vehicles and AFVs, this is true. But Battlefield has to be about the foot soldiers as much as the tanks, and I am a little worried that Mongoose is gonna shoot itself in the foot again and we'll wind up with foot soldiers that are much samier than they should be the further in we go.

What do you folks think, then?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Not completely sure what you are asking, but here is the current army list entry for a British Army Rifle Section, one of two Squad Asset choices for the British Army;

Rifleman Section – 140 points
The basic core of rifle platoons, British Army sections contain extremely well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers.

Fire Team 1: 1 Corporal (unit leader) with L85A2, 1 Soldier with L85A2, 1 Soldier with L85A2 (AG36), 1 Soldier with Minimi Para.

Fire Team 2: 1 Lance Corporal with L85A2, 1 Soldier with L85A2, 1 Soldier with L85A2 (AG36), 1 Soldier with Minimi Para.

Fire Teams: The Lance Corporal may act as unit leader to Fire Team 2, splitting off to act as a separate unit.

Options: The section may be mounted on board a Saxon for +60 points, a Warrior for +160 points or a Land Rover for +30 points. Lose Fire Team 2 for –65 points. Any Minimi Paras may be replaced with MBT LAWs for +40 points each. Up to one Soldier in each Fire Team may replace their L85A2 with an L86A2 LSW for +0 points.


There is also a 'global' army rule that allows the addition of FIST. Pick a Warrior for this section, and you can upgrade it to have a 40mm cannon, or give it the Warrior 2000 update. The Land Rover can be given additional armour, or an MG or two.

If you don't want all Rifle Sections, you can put in the odd Manoeuvre Support Section. There are plenty of armoured vehicles to add to the rest of your force, the SAS are still in there (natch) as a support element, and the RAF can get involved if you need a strong strike capability. Perhaps you want your troops coming into battle on a Super Lynx or a Chinook. You can do that too.

The point, which I hope answers your question, is that you now get a lot of variety and choices for your forces. One of the benefits of being freed from an official miniatures line!

 

[tiepilot1138]

Wouldn't you need two land rovers? I can't imagine you can fit 8 men into one.

 

[Proteus454]

The point, which I hope answers your question, is that you now get a lot of variety and choices for your forces. One of the benefits of being freed from an official miniatures line!

Well, let me first of all say that what you've shown me looks really good; I'm reminded of all the fancy options one used to have for the good ol' MI, and it's awesome that you guys have brought all that goodness back as I hoped you would.


Ah, but I guess I talked too much and said too little. My concern, you see, is not for variety within the army lists, but rather variety between the PBI from lists to lists.

Let me try again - Statistically, in game, what was the difference between, say, a USMC Rifleman and a British Army Soldier? Only that you could have more fire teams in a USMC squad, really.

The impression I got from you guys when the release of French and German squads was still in the cards was that the main difference was in the armament - AT weapons for the Panzergrenadiers for example. And now that the Brits have that as an option, well, what's the point?

As I said, to a certain degree, that is to be expected - this isn't 40K, after all, we're all human here on Earth. I also appreciate that we have to limit ourselves to feasible examples, so SMG squads with underslung flamethrowers is probably not in the cards.
But if the system is really going to be able to encompass truly global conflicts - that is, in theory, with any established army or reasonable facsimile out there - then you guys are gonna find yourself with little room to expand without getting very, very samey.

So what kind of differences can we expect to see between the humble grunts of each army? And more to the point, how much room is there going to be if you, or any enterprising third-party, wants to have a bash at making more armies without simply retreading old ground?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Let me try again - Statistically, in game, what was the difference between, say, a USMC Rifleman and a British Army Soldier? Only that you could have more fire teams in a USMC squad, really.

Ah - I wondered if that was what you were getting at. First let me ask you a question. . .

In the real world, if we are talking about infantry and nothing more, what are the percentile differences between the soldiers of different forces? Or, putting it more bluntly, which is 'better'? A USMC Rifleman, a Russian soldier, or a British squaddie?

We very, very intentionally drew a line in BF Evo that said, at a core level, no nation necessarily produces beter soldiers than another. You could have elite soldiers, you could have better equipped ones, and better supported ones. But give a man a rifle, and the baseline would be pretty much the same across the board.

What makes a British Army soldier a 'better playing piece' in the game compared to, say, an MEA Insurgent is his better body armour, access to FIST, standard support weapons in the section, the ability to split the section into fire teams, and an army list that has clearly superior armour and aircraft.

Strip all that away, however, and the two men are identical, game-wise.

As a related aside, I was reading something the other day that suggested that all the modern training the soldiers of western forces get, all their revised and improved equipment, all the millions and millions of pounds spent supporting them and improving their chances in battle, all of it, just makes them 10% more effective in terms of performance.

Now, in a life or death firefight, 10% is likely a great deal, I would imagine. But it ain't so much in a D6 based game. It is not a great deal in a D10 based game! But, I digress.

Anyway, BF Evo is not about nationalism, and never will be. We support soldiers, whoever they fight for.

 

[Proteus454]

All of which I sussed out as I read the initial BFE, and jolly glad I was about to; I was most impressed with the even-handed approach to the whole shebang.

What makes a British Army soldier a 'better playing piece' in the game compared to, say, an MEA Insurgent is his better body armour, access to FIST, standard support weapons in the section, the ability to split the section into fire teams, and an army list that has clearly superior armour and aircraft.

Precisely, precisely.
What, then, differentiates a British Army soldier from a soldat of the Armee de Terre, or a Bundeswehr panzergrenadier?

And this, you see, is my concern. Once we've defined the spectrum of fancy gubbins (the list you describe above) that ranges from the humble insurgent to the tricked-out First Worlder, it leaves me wondering where we can go from there.

Notwithstanding that this game has to at least try to mimic this particular world in the foreseeable future, it'd be a shame if the only meaningful difference between any further armies (official or no) winds being in the vehicles and the vehicles alone.

 

[MongooseMatt]

What, then, differentiates a British Army soldier from a soldat of the Armee de Terre, or a Bundeswehr panzergrenadier?

Soldier to soldier, very little - and this is probably correct int he real world as well.

However, we have also included 'global' rules for specific armies. For example, British troops are trained to use their initiative rather than slavishly follow the book, so to speak, and so gain a benefit when out of command. US troops are backed up by incredible logistics and intelligence support, and so gain an advantage there. Russian troops keep going no matter what the odds, and so gain a different bonus.

I think that is what you might be looking for, in terms of 'flavour'.

However, train a soldier, give him body armour, a rifle and plenty of ammunition, and I would not be entirely certain you will see a large difference between nations (at least in effect, if not method) in a strictly one-on-one situation.

If that makes sense

 

[Proteus454]

However, we have also included 'global' rules for specific armies. For example, British troops are trained to use their initiative rather than slavishly follow the book, so to speak, and so gain a benefit when out of command. US troops are backed up by incredible logistics and intelligence support, and so gain an advantage there. Russian troops keep going no matter what the odds, and so gain a different bonus.

I think that is what you might be looking for, in terms of 'flavour'.

Aaaaaaaah. We're doing that now, are we? Gotcha - Well, that answers the lion's share of my concerns, chief.

(My confusion, of course, stemmed from the way things were done in BFE. Necessity dictated a more "streamlined" take, I reckon, with all the "options" you'd see in SST being pared down or all set a certain by default, and I was concerned that would leave little room for future variation.)

Good to know we won't have to resort to swapping out LMGs for designated marksmen in the rank-and-file or NCO's double-fisting MP5s in the near future. :lol: