seen the minis, my oppinion
- Thread starter katadder
- Start date
on the results chart. THAT'S your max range.maybe it should be described as max effective range.
i had a sytem like this years ago, ranges were about double but every 2" over gave the target more armour and less chance of being hurt. but you got into needless maths at that point.
maybe for advance rules allow tropps to extend the range, but that would purly be for advance, non tourny rules.
i had a sytem like this years ago, ranges were about double but every 2" over gave the target more armour and less chance of being hurt. but you got into needless maths at that point.
maybe for advance rules allow tropps to extend the range, but that would purly be for advance, non tourny rules.
Another reason why there's a compressed ground scale is that it speeds up the game, but not because it allows movement without getting shot at. Instead, it means players don't waste time standing there shooting at each other at extreme ranges hoping for 6s and 10s on all their dice.
I played Vor, a scifigame that had very good weapon ranges, the basic infantry rifle fired accross at least 36" of table space at long range. Now that really bogged down the game in shooty battles.
Sure you can make the argument for more terrain, but then that just defeats the argument because why have that extra range if terrain just blocks it? It just means units funnel into the few passages to get closer to the enemy.
Also, the ranges in game help to emphasize the difference between infantry, special weapon, and vehicle combats. Where infantry get in to firefights around 24" away, vehicles and other special weapons engage at 34"-80".
BFE is certainly plausible enough for being a game. Remember that the focus of BFE is to be a game, not a simulation. You're statement that every wargame is also a simulation is only partially true. Wargames of all kinds strive to be different levels of game to simulation ratio, BFE ends up more on the game side. If it's that big of an issue there are other modern games out there, or you could play with 15mm-20mm figures.
The weapon ranges as they are now work as a game mechanic, and are certainly not as limiting as say Warmachine and Warhammer's ridiculously short ranges.
I played Vor, a scifigame that had very good weapon ranges, the basic infantry rifle fired accross at least 36" of table space at long range. Now that really bogged down the game in shooty battles.
Sure you can make the argument for more terrain, but then that just defeats the argument because why have that extra range if terrain just blocks it? It just means units funnel into the few passages to get closer to the enemy.
Also, the ranges in game help to emphasize the difference between infantry, special weapon, and vehicle combats. Where infantry get in to firefights around 24" away, vehicles and other special weapons engage at 34"-80".
BFE is certainly plausible enough for being a game. Remember that the focus of BFE is to be a game, not a simulation. You're statement that every wargame is also a simulation is only partially true. Wargames of all kinds strive to be different levels of game to simulation ratio, BFE ends up more on the game side. If it's that big of an issue there are other modern games out there, or you could play with 15mm-20mm figures.
The weapon ranges as they are now work as a game mechanic, and are certainly not as limiting as say Warmachine and Warhammer's ridiculously short ranges.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
warhammer 40K has a base weapons range of 24", and base movement of 6. Not that different from evolution, if not even a bit more in some cases.
In any event, I guess the disappointment is that it seems they've tried to make a realistic game that actually "feels" like modern combat. Then drop it with warhammer-style pop-gun ranges.
Ah well. Its easily houseruled. Lets get back to those mini;s then
In any event, I guess the disappointment is that it seems they've tried to make a realistic game that actually "feels" like modern combat. Then drop it with warhammer-style pop-gun ranges.
Ah well. Its easily houseruled. Lets get back to those mini;s then
Especially as we have rules that allow you to shoot beyond the maximum range of your weapons. . .
SickBunny
Mongoose
msprange said:
We do? *Now Really wants to be one of the we*
And on this infinite range question... how many of those infinite range games has armies solely dedicated to close combat and armies with godlike firepower who can leap around the battlefield...
We have to remember that the evolution system is based on SST... and will inevitably Be SST in a few months... range is there to provide for an interesting, aggressive game that will not turn into the boring slugfest across the field... but will instead award active, aggressive gaming style... and give those poor bugs a chance...
No longer quite so sure if the two games will be completely intermingable after having seen the models, but who knows, they might yet opt for slighter humans in the finished versions. Exos and anything else that warps the human form, not to mention the alien races naturally still fit and if the points are going to be similarly balanced, I for one plan to see how that M1A2 tank urban survival kitted tincan will fare against the awesome might of a Real Tanker... :lol:
Seriously, this is a gaming systemplatform Mongoose is creating, a system that will have to house multiple different types of games so ranges are a tolerable solution.
In 40K I frequently used Scout Sniper heavy units, to suppress and destroy my enemies. Once moved into a protected , covered and concealed position not to move again during the game, only to fire each game turn.
The problem on most gaming tables always comes back to "insufficient scenery".
On a 4 by 8 foot table at minimum 35 percent of the table should have LOS blocking terrain features to force proper battlefield tactics. This would equate to approx 11.2 square feet of terrain or 20 -- 6 inch by 6 inch pieces of terrain. Use slighly more or less to suit your own taste and to enhance your own game experiences.
Try this out on graph paper and you will quickly see how this dendity of terrain features greatly reduces the effect of simulation type relatively unlimited ranges, Better yet try it out on a tabletop a few times. I think most players will find it challenging.
The problem on most gaming tables always comes back to "insufficient scenery".
On a 4 by 8 foot table at minimum 35 percent of the table should have LOS blocking terrain features to force proper battlefield tactics. This would equate to approx 11.2 square feet of terrain or 20 -- 6 inch by 6 inch pieces of terrain. Use slighly more or less to suit your own taste and to enhance your own game experiences.
Try this out on graph paper and you will quickly see how this dendity of terrain features greatly reduces the effect of simulation type relatively unlimited ranges, Better yet try it out on a tabletop a few times. I think most players will find it challenging.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
SickBunny said:
The main inspiration is Crossfire, which is ww2. So no bizarre monkey armies there
Damn you Matt. I was already excited about the snippets of advanced rules in the preview, now there's this tidbit which makes me want to see them even more.
To admit, I was actually very much turned off of the SST rules after playing it a while and finding its faults. And yet, here comes BFE that seems to fix things up and add more depth. Luckily I already have two big SST armies.
I betcha have some rule that'll give units in cover extra armor save isn't there? Thus explaining giving units with no armor a different kill result.
To admit, I was actually very much turned off of the SST rules after playing it a while and finding its faults. And yet, here comes BFE that seems to fix things up and add more depth. Luckily I already have two big SST armies.
I betcha have some rule that'll give units in cover extra armor save isn't there? Thus explaining giving units with no armor a different kill result.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
It seems every time I complain, Matt pops up and shows a little leg to draw me back in 
tneva82 said:
Why bother moving? It's called an objective.
It's bad enough that futuristic games have ridiculously small ranges, I know for a fact that the effective ranges for modern rifles are much longer than this game is representing.
Are you honestly expecting every battle to revolve around tons of terrain? Ever been in the military? That doesn't always happen. Trust me. In those instances, the enemy doesn't waltz around at the edge of some mystical line of invulnerability.
seen the minis today(the usual demo ones), and while the eyes were bad(as was the beard on one of the arabs),the rest was reasonable in terms of painting-there were some minis that had bits of paint in the wrong place, but on the tabletop it would be largely invisible.
the biggest shock-those guys are tiny compared to SSt or GW minis :shock:
the biggest shock-those guys are tiny compared to SSt or GW minis :shock:
Wulfen said:
If there's not lots of terrain and there's objective then howabout this idea: Shoot the enemy out and THEN move...Not particulary interesting game but with unlimited range and low terrain that's only way you could hope to win. Moving into objective would see your army just blown apart.
We aren't talking about SIMULATION here but GOOD GAME. There's difference between the two.
