seen the minis, my oppinion

Mr Evil said:
do you wish for it to be gold plated with dancing girls as well ? :D

No thanks, the dancing girls would probably keep me from noticing the minis and gold does nothing for me. :lol: :twisted: :roll:
 
tneva82 said:
Did you notice the part of with terrain being more of limit? So basicly in that case range is of no concern and if you can see it you can shoot it would rule. Not that interesting either...

There would be then no range issues whatsoever in any situation...Well. Atleast it would simplify unit cards since no mention of ranges would be needed.

Exactly :)

The idea that in modern combat troops can see each other but somehow be unable to fire upon each other is as absurd as it would be to have infantry move faster than jetplanes.
 
Except that this is a game not a simulation. You're pushing little toy soldiers around on a table and rolling dice. This is not a simulation, nor has BFE ever tried to be a simulation. If you want a simulation, there's plenty of other more realism oriented moderns out there. I like the emphasis of gameplay more than realism, and overall it works.

Those of you who are complaining about ranges have you even played the game yet? I have, it works just fine and does as intended.
 
I want to play the game with the house rules, then with Iron Ivan's Disposable Heroes Modern supplement. I'll take the minis as is though...
 
Turtle said:
Except that this is a game not a simulation. You're pushing little toy soldiers around on a table and rolling dice. This is not a simulation, nor has BFE ever tried to be a simulation. If you want a simulation, there's plenty of other more realism oriented moderns out there. I like the emphasis of gameplay more than realism, and overall it works.

Those of you who are complaining about ranges have you even played the game yet? I have, it works just fine and does as intended.

Any wargame is a simulation of warfare. The "just a game" argument fails to realize that noone is calling for big complex calculations. Only a game model that actually seems semi-plausible.


As for the second question, yes I have, using the playtest rules and the stats published on the other thread. On a small table, it works since everything is in range. On a 4 by 6 or 6 by 8 table (typical game store size ) it becomes retarded.
 
weasel_fierce said:
The idea that in modern combat troops can see each other but somehow be unable to fire upon each other is as absurd as it would be to have infantry move faster than jetplanes.

Okay so this pistol here fires unlimited range...Hmmmm...

But in the end it's about dynamic game. Unlimited ranges do not support that. And add also extra burden for starting players. Imagine starting BF:Evo players who start game and learn that first thing they need is HUGE amount of terrain...

We are talking about GAME here. Not simulator...
 
weasel_fierce said:
Any wargame is a simulation of warfare. The "just a game" argument fails to realize that noone is calling for big complex calculations. Only a game model that actually seems semi-plausible.

Game needs more than simple enough rules to grasp. It needs to be DYNAMIC and INTERESTING as well. Easy enough to start with(not like: Buy models, make huge amount of terrain, THEN play...) doesn't hurt either.

What works in simulation does not automaticly work in game.
 
tneva82 said:
Okay so this pistol here fires unlimited range...Hmmmm...
We are talking about rifles and other infantry weapons. None of the units shown so far carry pistols, or even SMG's where range would be a factor

But in the end it's about dynamic game. Unlimited ranges do not support that. And add also extra burden for starting players. Imagine starting BF:Evo players who start game and learn that first thing they need is HUGE amount of terrain...

We are talking about GAME here. Not simulator...

Again, unsupported bullhockey. Unrestricted range encourages dynamic play, because you cannot simply crawl around on the edge of the table, and rely on an arbitrary invisible wall to protect you. You have to utilize terrain and leapfrog between positions.

Setting up a table with 2 trees, a house and nothing else on a 4 by 6 foot table may work for 40K, but how interesting to look at is that ?
 
tneva82 said:
Game needs more than simple enough rules to grasp. It needs to be DYNAMIC and INTERESTING as well. Easy enough to start with(not like: Buy models, make huge amount of terrain, THEN play...) doesn't hurt either.

What works in simulation does not automaticly work in game.

So why complicate the rules further by adding arbitrary range values that players have to memorize, and which even differ depending on what nation you choose to play ?
 
weasel_fierce said:
We are talking about rifles and other infantry weapons. None of the units shown so far carry pistols, or even SMG's where range would be a factor

Which doesn't mean there won't be any in the future...

Again, unsupported bullhockey. Unrestricted range encourages dynamic play,

It support "let's sit here and shoot with both actions" play.
 
tneva82 said:
It support "let's sit here and shoot with both actions" play.

Your statement is not supported by actual evidence. Go out there and try it out, on a decently set up table. You'll be surprised.


In any event, this is beginning to sound like a broken record for both of us. Back to talking about the mini's.
 
weasel_fierce said:
Your statement is not supported by actual evidence. Go out there and try it out, on a decently set up table. You'll be surprised.

I have tried out games where weapon ranges were not an issue. What do you think most of times units did? Yup. Shoot. Why bother moving when there's shooting to be done...
 
tneva82 said:
weasel_fierce said:
Your statement is not supported by actual evidence. Go out there and try it out, on a decently set up table. You'll be surprised.

I have tried out games where weapon ranges were not an issue. What do you think most of times units did? Yup. Shoot. Why bother moving when there's shooting to be done...

But what about terrain blocking LOS? Wouldn't that offer an incentive to move, irrrespective of ranges?
 
I have tried out games where weapon ranges were not an issue. What do you think most of times units did? Yup. Shoot. Why bother moving when there's shooting to be done...

What was the terrain layout ? As a general rule, there should not be a clear line of sight from one deployment area across the table to another.

A mostly empty table gives a crap game, regardless of weapon ranges. If we used weapon ranges on the same table, you get the same result, but with 2 turns of moving into range first (or just sniping with machine guns, while standing still)
 
MaxSteiner said:
But what about terrain blocking LOS? Wouldn't that offer an incentive to move, irrrespective of ranges?

If you have suitable amount of terrain why freth over wether there's range or not? If you find yourself out of range you are then playing with too little terrain...So you can just as well just FORGET about weapon ranges and not make a fuss about it...
 
But isn't that what Weasel_Fierce was proposing?
Actually that is one of the things I like about AT-43, how weapons have different effective ranges, without there being a max range.
 
MaxSteiner said:
But isn't that what Weasel_Fierce was proposing?
Actually that is one of the things I like about AT-43, how weapons have different effective ranges, without there being a max range.

But then again that assumes you have enough terrain...Poor game starters who first needs to spend HOURS and HOURS and HOURS before they can play game other than stand up and shoot then...
 
It's easy to come up with terrain on the cheap. If you're not bothered on it looking great to start with (cos you don't know you're going to stick at it) you can use all manner of household items. My favourite is raiding the packaging of large house items. Polystyrene galore!

If the game is worth playing you'll find a way.
 
Back
Top