Released! Tread-Head: Armored Combat in WW2

[Rabidchild]

I just put up my book last night:

Tread-Head: Armored Combat in WW2
Available now from WargameVault.com for $9.99!

This 41 page book has everything you need to field Tank Companies, new vehicles, and new weapons with Mongoose Publishing's Battlefield Evolution: World at War. Tread-Head: Armored Combat expands on this rules set with the addition of Bolt-On rules. These rules are simply added to the ones you already know. More options for more strategy.

Tread-head's critical damage system:
This allows players to determine the effects of well placed shots while maintaining fast-paced game play.

This rulebook contains 16 new vehicles and two new armylists:

US Medium Tank Company Armylist
German Panzerkompanie Armylist

M5A1 STUART LIGHT TANK
M26 PERSHING HEAVY TANK
M36 JACKSON TANK-DESTROYER
M36 SLUGGER TANK- DESTROYER
RECON JEEP
RECON M8 GREYHOUND ARMORED CAR
RECON M20 SCOUT CAR

JAGDPANZER VI JAGDTIGER
PANZERJÄGER TIGER (P) ELEFANT
SCOUT SDKFZ 222
SCOUT SDKFZ 234/1 8-RAD
SCOUT SDKFZ 234/2 8-RAD PUMA
SCOUT SDKFZ 234/3 8-RAD
SCOUT SDKFZ 234/4 8-RAD
SCOUT SDKFZ 250/9 NEU HALFTRACK
STURMGESCHÜTZ IV ASSAULT GUN

All vehicles fully compatible with the Battlefield Evolution: World at War
Rulebook and when used with Tread-Head army lists gain additional options.

* Optional stats to differentiate the German big guns
* Scout and Recon units allow vehicles to infiltrate
* New scenario for tanks: Behind Enemy Lines
* Field Platoons and Companies of Armor
* Force reactions with harassing vehicles
* Choose a leader with unique abilities
* Three new vehicle traits


Requires the use of Battlefield Evolution: World at War, available from Mongoose Publishing. “Battlefield Evolution” and the Battlefield Evolution logo are copyright 2008 Mongoose Publishing Ltd, and are used with permission. Battlefield Evolution rulebooks are available from Mongoose Publishing.

Look for Tread-Head: British and Soviet Armor to be released January 2009!

A big thanks to Agis for all his help during the process, his feedback was invaluable and I really can't thank him enough. As well, I would like to thank everyone at EvoCommand.com for keeping the community alive. Thanks guys!

 

[pauld895]

1 copy sold - now to print, read and play

Looks good

 

[Rabidchild]

Thank you, and may your horde of tanks bring you much joy.

 

[DaWarbossMI]

Make that 2 copies!! While I haven't had a chance to give it a thorough read-though, it looks great! Can't wait to start reading!

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Question from a luddite friend: Is it tanks only, or can you use infantry and air power?

 

[Mongoose Alex]

Just downloaded it - looks excellent!

I'm definitely up for a rematch the next time I get out to the West Coast

 

[DaWarbossMI]

Just downloaded it - looks excellent!

I'm definitely up for a rematch the next time I get out to the West Coast

You've gotta stick here to get whooped by my Germans first pal!!!

 

[Rabidchild]

Question from a luddite friend: Is it tanks only, or can you use infantry and air power?

Thanks for the question, Tread-Head has new vehicles that can be used in a regular game of Battlefield Evolution: World at War. Additionally, it has full German and US armylists for fielding the tanks of an armored company with attached infantry and supporting aircraft. Think of it as the numbers of required Armor and Infantry are switched, and you won't be far wrong. Of course there's more to it than that, such as a Recon Jeep leading a pair of M10's into the perfect ambush position, or a Scout SdKfz 234/2 8-Rad Puma forcing an enemy unit to react as it throws harassing fire at their flanks.

Just downloaded it - looks excellent!

I'm definitely up for a rematch the next time I get out to the West Coast

Thank you for the kind words, and you're on!

 

[the red son]

can you tell me why theres such a big difference between the stats from thread head and the german compandium :?:


thank you

 

[Agis]

can you tell me why theres such a big difference between the stats from thread head and the german compandium :?:
thank you

Well different authors, different stats... :wink: :wink: :wink:

Sounds kind a snippy, but unfortunately it really is this way, the whole problem was discussed here in depth: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=38072

Reuben and I worked together in switching roles. I reviewed his file while he did the same for me.
We disagreed sometimes, which is absolutely OK with me. IMO it just gives the player more options.
I can only assure you that my books are coherent and balanced with the WaW rulebook, Pacific War and all subsequent books from me.

 

[Rabidchild]

can you tell me why theres such a big difference between the stats from thread head and the german compandium :?:

The goal of Tread-Head is to build on the World at War rulebook, so those units and stats are taken as the baseline and any new units are created by comparing difference in the real-world vehicles (one statted in WaW), and then creating stats for the new vehicle based on the difference. In this way, Tread-Head players don't have to re-learn anything, only add to the vehicles and units they know. This is why I named the additions "Bolt-on rules", because they're added to the WaW rules, more options for more strategy.

Exactly as Agis says, different authors means that we each came at the vehicle stats from a slightly different angle and so we had different numbers. We did work together and proofread each other's files, but we each have a different focus and different design concept. I can only assure you that my designs are meant to be added directly to WaW for new options in line with the WaW rules, and can be used in Tread-Head armylists for a balanced armored-combat experience. That was long-winded but I hope it answers your question.

 

[DM]

Exactly as Agis says, different authors means that we each came at the vehicle stats from a slightly different angle and so we had different numbers.

This is always going to be an issue with a set of rules where there is no explicit design system. The personal perceptions and prejudices of the authors of each additional book will mean that such variations are inevitable. Some may say thats a good thing, some may say its bad. The slightly convoluted nature of the various traits, modifiers, etc. doesn't exactly help in ths regard (as indicated by the discussions ongoing regarding Su-100s and T-34s in another threat )

 

[Alexb83]

DM hits the nail on the head as usual. The problem is the lack of a transparent and uniform design system for the units.

The fundamental problem with the points based system (when looking between game lines) is that things haven't all been costed against the same notional base. If they had been, then you would be able to play a balanced game with a Challenger 2 vs. an appropriate number of Panther tanks - they would cost the same for the same destructive power. That is: enough panthers to have an even chance of killing the Challenger before it killed all of them.
Infantry squad layouts are fine and change historically - but the basic infantryman is the core of the system. The only price difference between Tommy in the trenches from WW1 and Lance Space Corporal Zim should be the difference in effectiveness (and by abstraction, value) of Zim's wazer wifle compared to Tommy's short magazine Lee Enfield.

The way in which the game system has been shoehorned into various different time periods doesn't help. The fundamental problem is that as it stands atm say, a /piercing point on a 120mm rifled tank gun with CHARM II ammunition is not worth the same as a /piercing point on a 17pdr AT gun.

In order to have a system where you could move from WW1 to WW2 to Vietnam to Modern, to future - you would need to start at WW1 (heck, start with the unarmed man) as your base, and build up from there with a consistent, robust design philosophy.

You also have to eschew ideas which popped up early on in the WaW lifecycle, like machine guns costing one army more than they did another (these people made more of them than those people, therefore they should cost less?!) - in a points based system, you should pay for what you get, and if people get the same, they should pay the same. Otherwise you can't have a balanced game.

If you want to play a realistic/historical game, then you are seldom going to be playing a balanced one - the points value would bear this out if you ever took a real life OOB and 'pointed it up'.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I don't think you can necessarily expect parity between different main line BF:Evo games though. Modern combat points are balanced against other modern combat units to allow for a platoon sized game in 1,000-2,000 points. WaW is balanced to allow similar sized games. There's been no attempt to balance and crossover like Warmahcine and Hordes, think of it more like Warhammer Fantasy Battle anf 40K - similar core rules, but that's it.

 

[dsfrankevo]

I don't think you can necessarily expect parity between different main line BF:Evo games though. Modern combat points are balanced against other modern combat units to allow for a platoon sized game in 1,000-2,000 points. WaW is balanced to allow similar sized games. There's been no attempt to balance and crossover like Warmahcine and Hordes, think of it more like Warhammer Fantasy Battle anf 40K - similar core rules, but that's it.

I have to admit that I was initially disappointed by the discussed lack of cross compatibility.

I still am disappointed that the ability to fight across periods is missing - a blemish on an otherwise very enjoyable system

- but I've come to understand the limitations of working with only 6 sided & 10 sided dice (not a complaint) and the difficulties of making the game mechanics work for cross period play -

Right now - for MC, WaW, & even SST the biggest damage die is about d10+4 - this is pretty much the practical limit without having drastic ramifications across other portions of the mechanics

so given the mechanics as they are the limitations of the dice & modifiers trying to balance out a Panther vs an M1 would be problematic

Lorcan's 40k vs WFB analogy works well here - a bolt gun from 40k and a crossbow have similar stats and both fill the appropriate role in their own game - pitting crossbow armed dwarfs vs bolt gun armed space marines would lead to a less than satisfying result while each fit in well in their own genre

so to wrap up a post that is too long - 'I feel your pain' re: cross period incompatibility - but I have come to peace with it from a game mechanics standpoint

 

[Alexb83]

I don't think you can necessarily expect parity between different main line BF:Evo games though. Modern combat points are balanced against other modern combat units to allow for a platoon sized game in 1,000-2,000 points. WaW is balanced to allow similar sized games. There's been no attempt to balance and crossover like Warmahcine and Hordes, think of it more like Warhammer Fantasy Battle anf 40K - similar core rules, but that's it.

There's simply no reason that you can't have cross-compatability, though - all it takes is forethought and a robust mechanic. You just put a disclaimer in the front of each book saying that the game is intended for points values between x and >x, whereas in another gaming system, it's intended for <x and x, and so on.

How many zeroes are behind those numbers is irrelevant when you consider each gaming system independently - they are just arbitrary numbers to start with! What matters is the consistency in the scale - you get that, and you can play Grizzly exosuits tearing open challengers, blowing up panthers, blowing up Mk1 tanks, rolling over cavemen who are fighting dinosaurs.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I don't think you can necessarily expect parity between different main line BF:Evo games though. Modern combat points are balanced against other modern combat units to allow for a platoon sized game in 1,000-2,000 points. WaW is balanced to allow similar sized games. There's been no attempt to balance and crossover like Warmahcine and Hordes, think of it more like Warhammer Fantasy Battle anf 40K - similar core rules, but that's it.

There's simply no reason that you can't have cross-compatability, though - all it takes is forethought and a robust mechanic. You just put a disclaimer in the front of each book saying that the game is intended for points values between x and >x, whereas in another gaming system, it's intended for <x and x, and so on.

How many zeroes are behind those numbers is irrelevant when you consider each gaming system independently - they are just arbitrary numbers to start with! What matters is the consistency in the scale - you get that, and you can play Grizzly exosuits tearing open challengers, blowing up panthers, blowing up Mk1 tanks, rolling over cavemen who are fighting dinosaurs.

Even if you scale the points upwards, how do you represent a long or crossbow in a way that leaves them as highly lethal weapons in the context of a low-tech game and yet not as useful in a modern or (especially) SF setting? The system is flexible enough to represent a wide variety of periods and genres, but the limited nature of using single D6s and D10s to represent damage potential means that you can't factor all of them together into one unifying game without the higher levels being D6 or D10+some unearthly number that guarantees a kill against all manner of targets on any roll that isn't a 1.

 

[DM]

Even if you scale the points upwards, how do you represent a long or crossbow in a way that leaves them as highly lethal weapons in the context of a low-tech game and yet not as useful in a modern or (especially) SF setting? The system is flexible enough to represent a wide variety of periods and genres, but the limited nature of using single D6s and D10s to represent damage potential means that you can't factor all of them together into one unifying game without the higher levels being D6 or D10+some unearthly number that guarantees a kill against all manner of targets on any roll that isn't a 1.

Ask the people who play Traveller - its combat system seems to cover everything from sticks and stones to FGMP-15s

 

[Agis]

Ask the people who play Traveller - its combat system seems to cover everything from sticks and stones to FGMP-15s

Yup, but in a RPG environment with a game master and all that is necessary to iron small problems out... 8)
IMO a 1 on 1 war game is a different story. It can be done, but for what? I fail to see the fun of playing WWI troops vs a modern day Abrams tank... :wink:

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Even if you scale the points upwards, how do you represent a long or crossbow in a way that leaves them as highly lethal weapons in the context of a low-tech game and yet not as useful in a modern or (especially) SF setting? The system is flexible enough to represent a wide variety of periods and genres, but the limited nature of using single D6s and D10s to represent damage potential means that you can't factor all of them together into one unifying game without the higher levels being D6 or D10+some unearthly number that guarantees a kill against all manner of targets on any roll that isn't a 1.

Ask the people who play Traveller - its combat system seems to cover everything from sticks and stones to FGMP-15s

I was talking specifically about Battlefield Evolution.