Unit prices consistent throughout the BE line?

[AmanAgain]

So if I wanted to take my WWII GIs on a visit to Mutant Land with Apocolypse Z, or use WaW stats for colonists on a distant planet, or Jihadists against zombies, etc, are all the various prices for units andsuch internally consistent within the BE system?

Or does each book have a completely seperate way to price units out?

Obviously, the former is preferable to the latter, and gives the book line tremendous diversity a la "TRaveller" or something.

Thanks,
AA

 

[wkehrman]

M4A3E2 "Jumbo"--395 points (S&P 62)
M1A2 "Abrams"--380 points (BE:MC)

I'm thinkin' not....

 

[AmanAgain]

M4A3E2 "Jumbo"--395 points (S&P 62)
M1A2 "Abrams"--380 points (BE:MC)
I'm thinkin' not....

Question is, what are their stat lines? You aren't really pricing out a specific vehicle (which is meaningless) but the stat lines. So if the two stat lines of a WWI tank and a WWIV tank are the same, they'd be priced the same.

And if the vehicles aren't consistent, are the infantry and their weapons consistent? Certainly those stats are less likely to change over the timeline of various supplements than others.

 

[Rabidchild]

Good question Aman, I took a look at WaW and MC for something to compare

Case 1: JagdPanther vs ChallengerII.
Points: JagdPather +5pts
Size: Same
Move: Same
Close Combat : Same
Front Facing: JagdPather +1 target, Chally +1 save, same kill
Side facing: Same target, Chally +3 save, same kill
Rear Facing: Same target, Chally +2 save, same kill
Traits: Chally +1 hit, both lumbering, both may fire all weapons, chally +4" tracks.
Weapons: Chally +12" range, Chally +1 difference to the D10, Chally +1" to the LZ, both multihit, chally +1 piercing, both slow.
Chally has turret and +1 MG all with 360 arcs, JagdPanther has FaF weapons.

Case2: Firefly vs Type96
Points: Firefly +10points
Size: Same
Move: Type96 +1"
Close Combat: Same
Front Facing: Same target, Type96 +2 save, Firefly +1 kill
Side Facing: Type 96 +1 target, Type96 +2 save, Firefly +1 kill
Rear Facing: Same target, Type96 +2 save, Firefly +1 kill
Traits: Type 96 +1 hit, both lumbering, Type96 may fire one more weapon than Firefly, Type 96 Tracks +2".
Weapons: Same range, same damage, Type 96 +1" LZ, both have multihit, Type96 +3 piercing, both slow.
Same MGs, Firefly has one limited to FaF. Firefly has .50cal.

Looks like MC comes out on top to me. This is interesting from a design perspective. In theory, do different environments rate different points for the same stats? If not, are these two games simply working from a different baseline? If so, what are the factors that contribute to the change? (Can anyone tell I wrote research papers for the end of this term? )

 

[AmanAgain]

The BE series of rules would be much more effective as a total (and garner more crossover sales) if there is one baseline. Then people could pit armies from different eras against each other or just use the stats from different armies cratively.

An example of a game that has one baseline would be the Traveller series, I'd think.

It makes sense to me to do it that way. That doesn't mean they DID do it that way! :lol:

 

[AmanAgain]

actually, are the unit/figure/trait prices in the developer's pack? Or are they priced out somewhere else?

 

[wkehrman]

M4A3E2 "Jumbo"--395 points (S&P 62)
M1A2 "Abrams"--380 points (BE:MC)
I'm thinkin' not....

Question is, what are their stat lines? You aren't really pricing out a specific vehicle (which is meaningless) but the stat lines. So if the two stat lines of a WWI tank and a WWIV tank are the same, they'd be priced the same.

And if the vehicles aren't consistent, are the infantry and their weapons consistent? Certainly those stats are less likely to change over the timeline of various supplements than others.

Taking up the Call....
WWII US Army Infantry Rifle Squad 180 points

12 Men 2 SMG; 9 Garand, 1 BAR

SMG: 12"; 3xD6
Garand: 24"; D6; Auto
BAR: 24"; 3xD6; Auto

Modern US Army Rifle Squad 120 points

9 Men 7 M4; 2 M203; 2 M249 SAW

M4: (oops, not in arsenal, using M16A4) 24"; D6; Auto
M203: 20"; D6+1; Artillery; Lethal Zone/2"; Ready
M249: 30"; 2xD6; Auto; Prone

To balance out the points, add one understrength rifle squad to the Modern force. This gives the Modern US Army force (@170 points, still 10 points short) 14 men 11 M4; 3 M203; 3 M249 SAW.

If one ignores the M203 for a moment, the WWII unit "fires" 12 D6 out to 24" while the Modern unit "fires" 17 D6 out to 24". I think the edge goes to the Modern guys here. If the zombies start 24" away, then in seven turns, the Modern guys "fire" 119 times. In the same setting, the WWII guys fire 102 times. On turn eight the zombies are in Close Combat then The Maker help you.

I've not gotten Apocalypse Z yet, so I don't know what 180 points of zombies gets you.

All that being said, I think with some scenarios you could probably cross books. "The Dirty Dozen" meets "Dawn of the Dead" would work. "The Final Countdown 2: Kasserine Pass" probably won't work. Your initial suggestion of GIs vs zombies certainly implies a certain cinematic element.


Hmmm, that gives me an idea.....

 

[MongooseMatt]

You can't balance across different games - or, put another way, Game A could have one scale for points costs, and Game B could have another. In this way, a unit with the same stats could have very different points costs in different games.

Put simply, imagine an infantryman with 6+ armour and a D6 weapon (fairly common between games). In Game A you could assign him a points cost of 5 points, and base everything else in the game on that. However, if Game B made him 10 points, then everything else in Game B would be twice as expensive as those in Game A, even if they had the same stats. It is a game design choice, really.

If you think about it, you _can't_ just move some units between games anyway. Take an Abrams or Challenger II - now stick them in World at War.

What sort of stats would they have in WWII? They would have to change from their MC scores anyway. . .

 

[Agis]

I can only wholeheartedly agree with Matt here!

I tried to stat out an Abrams using my WaW approach for vehicle design and ended with an un-killable vehicle around 3000 points... :wink:

I can only assure you that the WaW stats from me are consistent...

 

[MongooseMatt]

I tried to stat out an Abrams using my WaW approach for vehicle design and ended with an un-killable vehicle around 3000 points... :wink:

Which, to be fair, is probably about right - though there are a few things in the forthcoming Warbirds that might have a good go at it

 

[Agis]

I tried to stat out an Abrams using my WaW approach for vehicle design and ended with an un-killable vehicle around 3000 points... :wink:

Which, to be fair, is probably about right - though there are a few things in the forthcoming Warbirds that might have a good go at it

Hmm, like your S&P dam busting scenario?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hmm, like your S&P dam busting scenario?

Not sure a bouncing bomb would do the job

 

[SgtHulka]

The BE series of rules would be much more effective as a total (and garner more crossover sales) if there is one baseline. Then people could pit armies from different eras against each other or just use the stats from different armies cratively.

When I converted Battlefield: Evolution to Traveller, I used the SRD Modern Combat stats as a baseline, because I happen to believe Marc Miller (sp?) and Frank Chadwick used the 1980's as a baseline.

What I discovered fairly quickly is that World at War and Modern Combat are not compatible with each other. The M1A1 Abrams is compariable, stats-wise, to a Panther or Tiger. In other words, for vehicles, the two games use the same basic stat ranges and balance the vehicles against each other for their own era, not against each other at different eras. It would obviously be absurd for a Panther to give an M1Abrams a stand-up fight.

The infantry weapons, however, are still fairly close. I believe the .50 caliber machinegun is about the same in both games. Modern Combat troops gain a 5+ save for their body armor compared to World at War 6+ saves. There was a puzzling difference in assault rifles -- Modern Combat stats them as 24" range, 1xD6, auto, the same as the World at War Garand. The World at War assault rifle is arguably better, with an 18" range, 2xd6, auto.

The original Classic Traveller Striker boxed set statted out a German Panther as its example for its vehicle design sequence. You can see in my design post how I statted out the M1Abrams, and how close it came to the Moder Combat stat line. By comparison, here's how the Panther should look converted from Striker:

______________________________________________________________________________
TYPE....|SIZE|MOVE....|CLOSE COMBAT|FACING|...|TARGET|SAVE|KILL|TRAITS            |
Panther.|3...|2"......|4xd10.......|Front.|...|8+....|4+..|10+.|Hits/3, Lumbering,|
........|....|........|............|Side..|...|8+....|5+..|9+..|Multifire/4,      |
........|....|........|............|Rear..|...|8+....|5+..|9+..|Tracks/9 "        |
........|....|........|............|Belly.|...|7+....|6+..|8+..|                  |
........|....|........|............|Deck..|...|6+....|5+..|7+..|                  |
________|____|________|____________|______|___|______|____|____|__________________|
UNIT: Panther tank with 7.5 cm HV CPR Gun and 3 Light Machineguns.
CO-AXIAL MOUNT: One Light Machinegun must use the same Fire Zone as the TL7 HV CPR Gun.
______________________________________________________________________________
WEAPON............|RANGE.......|DAMAGE.|TRAITS................................|
TL6 HV CPR Gun....|72".........|1xd10+3|Piercing/2, Slow......................|
Light Machinegun..|30".........|2xd6...|Auto, Piercing/1......................|
______________________________________________________________________________|

That isn't to say the Striker-designed Panther uses accurate dimensions and armor thicknesses (I haven't researched it), nor is it to say my conversion is perfect. But you can see at least how this versoin of the Panther would be eaten alive by the M1Abrams.

As a side note, I actually agree with the design decision to make WaW and Modern Combat incompatible. I think it gives both games a lot more leeway to explore the nuances in stat lines between different weapons and armor systems of the same era.

 

[shotgun-toting chipmunk]

You also have to remember that while the basic mechanics are the same across games, some of the more advanced mechanics make them different. For example, in WaW vehicles suffer a penalty for moving and shooting in the same turn. This is not the case in Modern Combat, as most modern weapons are now stabilized. It kinda turns it into comparing apples and oranges.

As for the Zombies, the game was designed to be compatible with Modern Combat with minor tweaks (Many units cost more "due to rarity").

 

[AmanAgain]

So two questions:

1. Are the stat lines (not the weapons "in reality") for weapons basically compatible across the board? In other words, if the 24" d6 weapon infantryman and two identical stat line tanks (hypothetically the Abrams and the Tiger) in the two books priced out about the same?
##The answer appears to be "close but not quite".

2. Are the points systems explained in teh Development Pack?
## The answer thus far appears to be "no", but it's hard to tell.

 

[SgtHulka]

You also have to remember that while the basic mechanics are the same across games, some of the more advanced mechanics make them different. For example, in WaW vehicles suffer a penalty for moving and shooting in the same turn. This is not the case in Modern Combat, as most modern weapons are now stabilized. It kinda turns it into comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks for reminding me. The Panther tank I statted out above should have gained the "Unstabilized" Trait.

 

[SgtHulka]

You also have to remember that while the basic mechanics are the same across games, some of the more advanced mechanics make them different.

I also tend to think the time scale is different between the two games. Whereas World at War might be between five and ten minutes per turn (just pulling a number out of a hat), Modern Combat might be between one and five minutes.

I'm not sure that was a conscious design decision, or if the designers would even agree, but in my own mind it helps justify why a Panther moves about as quickly as an Abrams. (in other words, the Panther is slower, but because the time scale is larger it moves the same distance in a turn).

Alternatively, you could assume the ground scales are different, or a little bit of both. Conveniently, neither ground scale nor time scale are defined.

 

[Agis]

The infantry weapons, however, are still fairly close. I believe the .50 caliber machinegun is about the same in both games. Modern Combat troops gain a 5+ save for their body armor compared to World at War 6+ saves. There was a puzzling difference in assault rifles -- Modern Combat stats them as 24" range, 1xD6, auto, the same as the World at War Garand. The World at War assault rifle is arguably better, with an 18" range, 2xd6, auto.

Deliberately, think of the effect in WW II and how common they are now.
Compared to the WW II stats every assault rifle should better.

 

[Agis]

In other words, for vehicles, the two games use the same basic stat ranges and balance the vehicles against each other for their own era, not against each other at different eras.

Exactly and spot on target!
IMO you have 2 methods of designing army list using a points value.
1 - You create a point system and design the units with it.
2 - You design 1 or 2 baseline vehicles, agree after some testing to a given value and balance the following vehicles against the baseline vehicles after more and more testing.
The 2nd is the approach I took in WaW.

That is also the reason why the fabled Points system is not there and why it could not be included in any system reference doc. :wink:

 

[Agis]

You also have to remember that while the basic mechanics are the same across games, some of the more advanced mechanics make them different.

I also tend to think the time scale is different between the two games. Whereas World at War might be between five and ten minutes per turn (just pulling a number out of a hat), Modern Combat might be between one and five minutes.
I'm not sure that was a conscious design decision, or if the designers would even agree, but in my own mind it helps justify why a Panther moves about as quickly as an Abrams. (in other words, the Panther is slower, but because the time scale is larger it moves the same distance in a turn).
Alternatively, you could assume the ground scales are different, or a little bit of both. Conveniently, neither ground scale nor time scale are defined.

You are reading too much into the game, there is no time or ground scale!