Problems in my last night game

[xbowmen]

Last night I GM a game involving Chinese attacking the British in a prepare position. I should have known better not to use a "Bridge To Far," type scenario.
The scenario I use last night had 2 flaws
1) Chinese was channel over one bridge which made it easy to destroy their units as they cross and
2) if the Chinese could have destroy the Challenger II it would have meant an automatic victory for the Chinese because once the British tank and Warrior were gone, the British has no one to fire any anti tank weapon.

Until Mongoose market products to amend the above weakness, I believe it is best to have the British or American be allied to either PLA or MEA. This will give a better balance to the game.

I also believe that I'm going to remove command units for both the PLA and British until I receive an solution for the units that are targeted by those units that receive a third action, namely armor. The fact that a Challenger can move, shoot and scoot back out of line of sight without a reaction from MBT 99's seems to unbalance the game and I have to ask the question, "Why can't tanks heavy weapon and anti tank personal weapons be able to react?" It would seems that a reaction from a target, be it armor or a personal that have anti tank weapon, should be able to react once they are fire upon.
Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these weapons?
Den

 

[cordas]

We have had a few games, and whilst the EFTF command squad is very nice it actually isn't that over powered most of the time. Other forces now have access to the command abilites from the main rule book.

The USMC and EFTF do suffer from no AT in their infantry squads but the Shadows and Warrior do make up for this a bit. You just have to be creative with your tactics.....

Give it a few more games before you start altering things and you may find these are less of an issue.

P.S. I can't wait to get some panzerknackers for my EFTF .

 

[Xorrandor]

2) if the Chinese could have destroy the Challenger II it would have meant an automatic victory for the Chinese because once the British tank and Warrior were gone, the British has no one to fire any anti tank weapon.

Until Mongoose market products to amend the above weakness, I believe it is best to have the British or American be allied to either PLA or MEA. This will give a better balance to the game.

Agreed, especially for smaller games. If you're playing 2000 points, you can survive an unlucky hit on a tank, because you've got another one. At 1000 points, you're probably SOL.

Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these (tank main gun) weapons?

I can guess. Armor is notoriously inflexible in an urban environment, and BFE really tries to hammer this home.

An alternative would be to set up supression zones; other rulesets do this, but all are more complicated than the fast and simple BFE model. A possible house rule, for those really bothered by this: use a Ready action to set up a fire zone on your turn. Any enemy model passing through this Fire Zone then counts as having ended a move within 10" for Reaction purposes (i.e. you can shoot at them, or run away if they're big and scary). For extra credit, you might lose the ability to React if someone does end up within 10" of you, because you're so focused on the target point; I'm not sure if this is necessary for game balance, and it makes a complication even more complicated, so I'm not sure it's worth it.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Okay the reason for tanks not reacting with the main gun is simple. GAME BALANCE. I'm not going to give you a bunch of smoke and mirrors or excuses, it was purely game balance. That said..... some really good ideas on using tank rounds in a reaction is found on the www.evocommand.com website in the rule section.

Now as to your other thought. Again, you hit a sore spot in the system. AT infantry. All modern armed forces have AT weapons used by the infantry. From man portable fire and forget, to larger stuff. Not having those weapons is just plain silly. At least there could have been dedicated AT teams as support (company level assets) I suggest either making your own, or to represent them. OR just allow a squad to use said weapon without representing them.

Each squad without said weapons can upgrade for 50pts to have 1 in the squad. This is not on any one model, but represents the squad having light portable AT rockets throughout the squad. One model each turn may fire said rocket, the model may not any other weapon that turn. But may react with main weapon as normal. Range 30" Damage D10+2. (remember any one model may use this, and it doesn't have to be the same model each turn).

 

[retaf33c]

I now have an EFTF Armoured Company which I've used the last couple of times I've played. This has been a solid force with two Challengers, an HQ and an infantry squad both in Warriors. As our games increase in points, I will add the SAS and probably another infantry unit.

 

[Xorrandor]

Now as to your other thought. Again, you hit a sore spot in the system. AT infantry. All modern armed forces have AT weapons used by the infantry.

I've been wondering about this, actually. Are US forces in Iraq carrying AT weapons as a matter of course? I guess I just assumed they call in air support or armor for the few occasions where they need a big boom. Granted, if they were expecting to see tanks (i.e. not a ambush scenario), that would probably change.

The real reason we want these weapons, though, is game balance. As you mentioned for tank guns .

 

[lastbesthope]

Your point about losing the Chaly and Warrior is valid in one case, but the same can be said for any faction, take out the AT capability and they can't kill a tank. When I played against PLA in a tourney, I carefully aligned my FZs to surgically strike the PLA RPG infantry.

LBH

 

[The Old Soldier]

Your point about losing the Chaly and Warrior is valid in one case, but the same can be said for any faction, take out the AT capability and they can't kill a tank. When I played against PLA in a tourney, I carefully aligned my FZs to surgically strike the PLA RPG infantry.

LBH

Which again brings up the silly tactics that defies real combat. I would have rather just had the PLA squad considered to have those AT weapons instead of modeling them and calling them gunners. Really those are fire and forget weapons. Just about any squad will have them available to thier men. What that gunner REALLY is, is just a rifleman firing a AT weapon. If he dies, someone else would fire his AT weapon or pick up that man's weapon if possible.

I would have prefered to just have it as a option on the squad card.
PLA PF98-LAW range 20" D10+2 damage, cost 30pts.
MEA RPG-29 range 30" D10 damage, cost 20pts
USMC '''''''''' range 30" D10+2 damage cost 40pts
EFTF ''''''''' as above.
MEA Fedayeen AT-14 range 40" D10+2, cost 50pts.

Now all troops have the option to upgrade. It would lower the cost of the unit since all troops are effectively riflemen and or Mg gunners and grenadiers.

 

[xbowmen]

I have to ask the question again, "Why can't anti tank personal weapons be able to react?" How long does it take to reload a LAW or Kornet?It would seems that a reaction from a target, (a personal that have anti tank weapon, )should be able to react once they are fire upon.
Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these weapons?
Also can a LAW or Kornet be allow to destory buildings? I make all building in my game as commerical Block structures,Target 8+, Armor 4+, Kill 11+. So can a Law and Kornet destory a building? I have one person in my group that say no.
Den

 

[The Old Soldier]

I have to ask the question again, "Why can't anti tank personal weapons be able to react?" How long does it take to reload a LAW or Kornet?It would seems that a reaction from a target, (a personal that have anti tank weapon, )should be able to react once they are fire upon.
Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these weapons?
Also can a LAW or Kornet be allow to destory buildings? I make all building in my game as commerical Block structures,Target 8+, Armor 4+, Kill 11+. So can a Law and Kornet destory a building? I have one person in my group that say no.
Den

Well for one LAWs are fire and forget weapons. You throw them away after each use. As for reactions, it is a simple game mechanic, the same reason you do not fire MBT's main gun as a reaction.

If the buildings Kill number is low enough, such as the one you mentioned a AT weapon CAN destroy the building if the building is the target of the attack.

 

[xbowmen]

I have to ask the question again, "Why can't anti tank personal weapons be able to react?" How long does it take to reload a LAW or Kornet?It would seems that a reaction from a target, (a personal that have anti tank weapon, )should be able to react once they are fire upon.
Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these weapons?
Also can a LAW or Kornet be allow to destory buildings? I make all building in my game as commerical Block structures,Target 8+, Armor 4+, Kill 11+. So can a Law and Kornet destory a building? I have one person in my group that say no.
Den

Well for one LAWs are fire and forget weapons. You throw them away after each use. As for reactions, it is a simple game mechanic, the same reason you do not fire MBT's main gun as a reaction.

If the buildings Kill number is low enough, such as the one you mentioned a AT weapon CAN destroy the building if the building is the target of the attack.

So a LAW weapon should only fire once per game? Or is there an endless supply of LAW available to the squad. If there is, then once again I think it would be just as quick to have one ready to react if fire upon. What do you think?
Den

 

[lastbesthope]

I hadn't even noticed that the existing infantry AT weapons couldn't fire as a reaction. Comes from not having any in my army I suppose. Thanks for that lesson.

LBH

 

[The Old Soldier]

Den, not sure about using them in reaction, that would mess with the game balance. But, yes, I mean't them to be used once per turn with a unlimited supply.

 

[Xorrandor]

I have to ask the question again, "Why can't anti tank personal weapons be able to react?" How long does it take to reload a LAW or Kornet?It would seems that a reaction from a target, (a personal that have anti tank weapon, )should be able to react once they are fire upon.
Can anyone give me the reason why BFE does not allow reaction from these weapons?

Ah, sorry, I thought you were just talking about tank guns.

The only reason I can think of is avoiding record keeping: if you want a LAW or Kornet to only fire once per turn (which I think does make sense), then you would have to track the last time it fired all the time. Not a strong reason, and if your group wanted to track that sort of thing I would say go for it.

It may also be that Reactions are supposed to be 3-second quick shots, but that's not how they're used in practice, so I don't like that explanation either.

 

[The Old Soldier]

Well really there is no record keeping, since the AT Infantry weapon will only fire once per turn per squad. Each squad has only two actions normally. How hard is it to remember that you fired it in your 1st or 2nd action? :lol:

 

[cordas]

I would imagine that AT weapons are fire once per turn and never as a reaction because each round has to be manualy loaded and aimed, hence only being able to be shot once per round, there is enough fudge time to reload between now and the next turn. As for it not being fired in reaction, these aren't quick point and shoot weapons when compared to rifles and mgs.

Game balance also has something to do with this, it stops them from ruling the battle field more than they should... I would imagine that most infantry are generaly more scared of a solitary guy with an assault rifle spraying lead at them pretty much constantly, than one guy with a rocket launcher launching infrequent solitary shots off.

 

[MaxSteiner]

.... So basically if Evo used the traits system from SST, and AT weapons had something like say, the pack trait, would this still be a problem?

 

[cordas]

.... So basically if Evo used the traits system from SST, and AT weapons had something like say, the pack trait, would this still be a problem?

I think this is just the SST pack trait, without saying pack, just giving a rule that limits how the weapon is used by its special rules. With giving each weapon individual specail rules rather than having a set list of traits to draw on which gives them greater flexability in the future for intorucing new and specailist weapons.

 

[xbowmen]

.... So basically if Evo used the traits system from SST, and AT weapons had something like say, the pack trait, would this still be a problem?

Max, the problem is that I don't play SST, (and I imagine I'm not the only one here on this forum that does not play SST,) so I have no idea what traits system is all about.
Den

 

[cordas]

.... So basically if Evo used the traits system from SST, and AT weapons had something like say, the pack trait, would this still be a problem?

Max, the problem is that I don't play SST, (and I imagine I'm not the only one here on this forum that does not play SST,) so I have no idea what traits system is all about.
Den

Forget about the pack trait, its been replaced with the specail rules that say what each weapon can do individualy.

SST was the rule system that got simplified and modified to become the Evo rules. Its a good game in its own right but I prefer Evo, and am eagerly awaiting the release of of SST:Evo.