What's up with the Wheel Special Movement Action?

[big RED many]

Well if you want to play some fantasy game go ahead and play but I play WW2 games because I want them to feel like WW2 and not some hocus-pokus fantasy game.

And because you have to reroll your d6+3 Quad-mount AA gun to hit 4+ infantry and the only reason ones miss is because the rules tell you they have to, that makes it historically accurate?

Not quite.

If you are going for historically accurate, moving while firing should make your opponent harder to hit (i.e. increasing target number), not rerolling a 4+ on d10 with most german AT guns to pop an Allied tank at 80% chance.

This is a game with names and equipment similar to WWII. Not a WWII game. Gameplay should take a backseat to historical accuracy.

Get off the high horse.

 

[tneva82]

If you are going for historically accurate, moving while firing should make your opponent harder to hit (i.e. increasing target number), not rerolling a 4+ on d10 with most german AT guns to pop an Allied tank at 80% chance.

Mechanics doesn't matter. Effect does. Rerolling or adding target number. Both result in lower chance to hit.

Mechanic doesn't matter. Effect does.

And WW2 sets the setting for the game. If you want to ignore WW2 completely why have WW2 units and weapons in a first place? Why not have hocus-pokus world with random names for units and weapons? Answer: You want to attract WW2 games which means that you need to both provide accurate names for units and weapons AND appropriate feel to games. There's no reason whatsoever for WW2 games to have vechiles moving and shooting accuratly. If you want move&shoot vechiles don't play WW2 games but look instead for modern or sci-fi games!

Gameplay should be priority but you don't have to ignore historical aspects just for sake of ignoring it. That serves no purpose whatsoever and will instead just result in lost customers...Hardly good idea for company like Mongoose eh?

 

[Rick]

All wargames are fantasy, to a lesser or greater extent, even the "historical" ones. Let's face it, we all like playing "what if" with our games and seeing what will happen.
The best you can hope for with a decent set of rules is that they capture the feel of the time that you've set for the game, and that they're enjoyable to play.
In my humble opinion, Evo does just that. :wink:

 

[big RED many]

Game play should be priority but you don't have to ignore historical aspects just for sake of ignoring it. That serves no purpose whatsoever and will instead just result in lost customers...Hardly good idea for company like Mongoose eh?

You are looking at it from a strictly black or white perspective, it's either "historically accurate" or not. There needs to be a blend.

I don't have enough fingers to count the things not historically accurate with this game. Moving while firing is on the very bottom I assure you. I wouldn't pick it as my battle to take a stand on, but you appear vehemently opposed to not letting vehicles fire on the move, as it in your eyes appears to be a staple of "historical realism."

Just because Gray doesn't agree with this rule doesn't mean he wants to throw out everything in the book to the wind and play a, in your words, "hocus pocus fantasy game." He and I agree that with his simple adjustment it gives people a choice of whether they want to move around at a slower pace and improve their accuracy, or charge all out and try to aim close.

Taking a move action and a shoot action in the same turn should not penalize shooting, because in essence you are either moving then stopping to fire, or firing then moving. His house rule change simply prevents everyone from tracking all over the place because with the current rule there is no disadvantage from using track over a normal move then fire, you take a penalty either way.

He made that adjustment for the simple fact that track in this game is absurd. Tanks did not plow through terrain and forests. That is not historically accurate.

Tanks stayed the hell away from thick terrain because A) they had potential to get bogged down and be stuck, presenting an easy target for hours while they waited for assistance, or B) terribly afraid of an infantry ambush.

As someone who appears to be so knowledgeable on "historical accuracy" you would know this. Why you think that simply allowing a tank to shoot then move slowly, or vice versa, means that it should be penalized in the same way than if it was hauling ass across a field is beyond me.

Why you feel it's a subject worth taking a stand and insulting tastes over is further baffling.

 

[Mr Evil]

any game that uses dice to tell the out come of an effect is not going to be hitoricaly acurate..

its a game.. a war game...

as is chess but nobody ever complained about moving castles did they..

personaly game play is most important once you got that frame work correct you can apply it to differnet settings by changing stats in attempt to reflect different equipment....

i personaly feel the wheel trait is fine and most importantly a good bit of fun, but i do feel stats applied to some of the equipment is a bit skwiffy...

dont forget this a war game as well not a simulation...

 

[Graywinter]

My point back at the very beginning was how come unarmed vehicles with the wheel trait move NO FASTER than if they took two move actions. Lacking an intelligent answer, you started making a personal stab at my tastes.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am forever working to integrate MORE realism into this game. I have railed about lack of observation. I have complained about the track rule that allows tanks to jet through the woods. I have griped about deep striking paratroopers who land in a tight little bunch with guns blazing. AT guns that stand zero chance of killing an enemy tank because they can't hide, Shermans that move slower than Panzer IVs and cost way more than historical production values would suggest... the list goes on.

I find it laughable and downright insulting that you would dare to insinuate that the rules are somehow perfect and that my opinion about vehicles moving and shooting makes me a "fantasy player" and that you would jump in the pulpit and preach the finer points of historical WW2 at me.

I still play this game because I think the mechanics are solid, and the gameplay is fast and fun. I am working to make the game better by offering constructive criticism (which is more often than not ignored) and participating in a forum with others who play this game for the same reason. I do not come here to listen to someone flame bait me because I have a particular opinion.

If I didn't like the game, I'd go play something else. I'm not some moaning sycophant or GW fanboy - I have long ago found the value of my time and I won't waste it in a pursuit I detest.. like playing tournaments with jerk powergamers, roleplaying with munchkins, or arguing on forums with trolls.

/rant off.

I apologize - but I had to vent. I'm done now.

 

[MarkNorfolk]

My point back at the very beginning was how come unarmed vehicles with the wheel trait move NO FASTER than if they took two move actions. Lacking an intelligent answer, you started making a personal stab at my tastes.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am forever working to integrate MORE realism into this game. I have railed about lack of observation. I have complained about the track rule that allows tanks to jet through the woods. I have griped about deep striking paratroopers who land in a tight little bunch with guns blazing. AT guns that stand zero chance of killing an enemy tank because they can't hide, Shermans that move slower than Panzer IVs and cost way more than historical production values would suggest... the list goes on.

I'm planning on demoing this game in about a month and now I'm getting the glum feeling that a WW2 expert is going to laugh in my face .

Unarmed wheeled vehicles do seem disadvantaged with Special Movement except for running people over, and as a non-expert I'd have thought that tracks woud get an advantage over rough terrain (weight spread over a larger contact area). Maybe roads should be normal or clear terrain, fields difficult and forests impassable?

Cheers
Mark

 

[tneva82]

Taking a move action and a shoot action in the same turn should not penalize shooting, because in essence you are either moving then stopping to fire, or firing then moving.

No. You are moving AND shooting. Count the actions you do in turn. Are both move and shoot actions done? Íf yes you are moving and shooting and should be penalised.

He made that adjustment for the simple fact that track in this game is absurd. Tanks did not plow through terrain and forests. That is not historically accurate.

Penalty for move&shoot and ignoring terrain restrictions goes not hand to hand. If you want to stop tanks from plowing through forrest then create house rule to prevent that instead of giving modern era stabilisers to them. Fix what needs to be fixed instead of doing bit of time jumps. Did WW2 engineers suddenly get visitors from future providing blue prints of modern stabilisers?

Tanks in our games aren't travelling through big honking tree(do they turn corporeal or how that happens?) and we did this without altering moving&shooting penalties. Hardly hard to do.

 

[big RED many]

Taking a move action and a shoot action in the same turn should not penalize shooting, because in essence you are either moving then stopping to fire, or firing then moving.

No. You are moving AND shooting. Count the actions you do in turn. Are both move and shoot actions done? Íf yes you are moving and shooting and should be penalised.

He made that adjustment for the simple fact that track in this game is absurd. Tanks did not plow through terrain and forests. That is not historically accurate.

Penalty for move&shoot and ignoring terrain restrictions goes not hand to hand. If you want to stop tanks from plowing through forrest then create house rule to prevent that instead of giving modern era stabilisers to them. Fix what needs to be fixed instead of doing bit of time jumps. Did WW2 engineers suddenly get visitors from future providing blue prints of modern stabilisers?

Tanks in our games aren't travelling through big honking tree(do they turn corporeal or how that happens?) and we did this without altering moving&shooting penalties. Hardly hard to do.

And both of these examples you are completely missing my point and arguing semantics on something very small. Simply because we don't agree with ONE individual RULE in a GAME, does not mean we want to throw out the WWII feel. That is an absurd statement.

Do you know for scientific fact how long a turn in this game lasts? Are you the expert on game turn => real life time?

Who are you to say that:

1. tracking across a battlefield at 30 mph for a turn while firing, and

2. advancing 20 feet at a slower pace, stopping, moving your turret and firing

cannot happen in the same time frame? What gives you the absolute knowledge of what you can and cannot do in a turn?

 

[Mr Evil]

hey guys stop being harsh on each other,,, tis only a game...

dont tell anyone but i dont put the spades and handles on my armoured cars..

 

[Laffe]

hey guys stop being harsh on each other,,, tis only a game...

dont tell anyone but i dont put the spades and handles on my armoured cars..

HERESY :shock:

How else is a SdKfz 23445.3424346 Ausf XXW Achtungwaffneträgerkampfmusterspähpolizeischnauserwagen be able to dig in by itself in a turn. Which, by the way, the rules don't cover. It's a crap game!!!! And you are all wrong!

(And in case you don't get it: )

 

[Agis]

How else is a SdKfz 23445.3424346 Ausf XXW Achtungwaffneträgerkampfmusterspähpolizeischnauserwagen be able to dig in by itself in a turn. Which, by the way, the rules don't cover. It's a crap game!!!! And you are all wrong!

(And in case you don't get it: )

Even I got this one... :wink: :wink: :wink: