Jump to content



Photo

The designer is in.


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Gobbo

Gobbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 03:59 PM

Algesan said:

Being more serious, can the enhanced Reaction Fire rules in DW be useful in DT to improve the rules there?

IN YOUR OPINION, I know you cannot set policy, just do you think it might work without being a big mess of rules.

In my opinion, I think with a few changes, it could very well work well.



#122 Airborne

Airborne

    Member

  • Members
  • 26 posts

Posted 05 October 2011 - 10:49 AM

Will Dust Warfare give the walkers a more realistic feel by addressing the concept of crew bail outs?  Also creating a more punishing wounded rule would reflect  real  life. Where a wounded man or woman causes men to be redispersed as the person is taken to a field hospital,  moral drops as friends see the wounded  taken off the field. Many snipers actually shot to wound rather than to kill. It is just one aspect  I would like to see in a new game if possible,  especially as  new sniper sets are available.



#123 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 06 October 2011 - 02:27 AM

New sniper sets?  Why do we need new ones?  Other than the fact that a lot of WW2 snipers actually worked alone and not with the modern spotter/partner.

The problem with crew bail outs and figuring on people to deal with the wounded is that it complicates the game.  For crew bail outs, we'd need to know where the hit came at, what the munition was, the expected survivability of that kind of hit by each crew member, the results of that kind of hit on the vehicle, etc., etc., etc.  Easier to say the crew (1 man Axis, 2 man Allied for medium walkers from Dust comic) become a casualty when the walker fails (maybe just knocked out badly). 

Dealing with wounded, same thing.  Some of the people "killed" are either wounded and/or dealing with casualties, but in either case are no longer available for combat.  Also remember that the troops so far are in the "Ranger" elite mode.  Get in, hit hard and get cycled out of combat in a couple of days.  Morale in the context you are talking about is a non-issue as the casualty rate of WW2 Ranger operations show.  All nationalities had similar elite units.



#124 Hanomag

Hanomag

    Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 09 October 2011 - 03:29 PM

I can see an armor 3 sniper.  I would rather see some sort of mortar trooper/sqaud and a heavy MG team, but that's me.

My biggest design question right now is, now that we have obviously scrubbed the planned expansions mentioned in the first core set what are the plans now?  More Allied/Axis expansions to flush out the rules (read: aircraft) or the intro of new factions?  Also, will we see new theaters of war such as the desert.

 

-Jeff



#125 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:38 PM

I have problems with an Armor 3 Sniper.  The big bulky armor would be a bit of a problem for stealthy maneuver for the right shot.  It doesn't really fit the Sniper concept of trying to stay unseen before striking.

Admitedly, DUST Tactics doesn't really have a mechanic to keep Snipers alive other than a better range, but Snipers in a pitched battle frequently found themselves simply more light infantry.

I will heartily agree with the request for heavy weapon teams and light mortars. 

On the idea of mortars and artillery, will blast weapons remain a single unit target weapon, or gain more of an area of effect?

I don't care if there are templates (in fact, with the issues they frequently cause, I'd be happy not seeing them), but a big gun having a bigger effect could be nice.  I play a historical WW2 game that simply gives blast weapons a range from a target unit to affect an additional unit at reduced effect.  A small blast can target one unit.  A larger blast can target one, and the one closest unit, friend or foe, within 6".  An even bigger weapon extends the radius and the number of units that can be affected.  Really big guns (ie: 16" offshore battleships) can target multiple units in a 24" radius.  Each additional unit is attacked as one class lower artillery.

That gives the possibility of a serious Danger Close situation, improves large calber ordnance, and still gets away without having to carry around templates people will argue over.

DUST could do it simply by removing attack dice for the additional units.  An alpha strike from a Steel Rain could cause 12 dice on the target unit, and then 6 dice on nearby units with any models within something like 3-6".  A Lothar would do 6 and 3 dice (2/+ and 1/+ vs infantry).  Because they'd be farther from the center of effect, Incendiary Blast weapons might allow cover for the additional units.

The ground scale is different enough in DUST that larger areas of effect would make less sense and cause other problems, but having artillery strike an area would make people think about how close they bunch their troops.



#126 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:55 PM

It could be said that Snipers always count as having an extra soft cover ("hit" saving throw) from their concealment skills.  I'd have said "Damage Resistant" but that wouldn't apply if they get hit by attacks that allow for no cover save.  Also, the range should be extended on to double the base infantry range as that was fairly standard across the board with WW2 sniper variants which were tested for extra accuracy and fitted with scopes.



#127 felkor

felkor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,001 posts

Posted 12 October 2011 - 01:35 AM

Gimp said:

Admitedly, DUST Tactics doesn't really have a mechanic to keep Snipers alive other than a better range.



Not quite true - their soft cover is as strong as hard cover for them.

 



#128 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 12 October 2011 - 12:02 PM

Algesan said:

It could be said that Snipers always count as having an extra soft cover ("hit" saving throw) from their concealment skills.  I'd have said "Damage Resistant" but that wouldn't apply if they get hit by attacks that allow for no cover save.  Also, the range should be extended on to double the base infantry range as that was fairly standard across the board with WW2 sniper variants which were tested for extra accuracy and fitted with scopes.

I tend to think anti-sniper like a military man.  You go after them with things that don't care about cover, because, in the real world, you aren't likely to see exactly where the good ones are.  Artillery and flamethrowers are nice choices.  They do benefit from better light cover modifiers against attacks that care.

As for extending the range that far, it's very questionable.  While snipers did have scopes, and sometimes much better rifles, many of them acknowledged they did not engage at much greater distances than normal infantry, because the risk of exposure for a less likely kill was not worth it.

I read an interview with several of Germany's surviving leading snipers, and most did not trust engagements beyond 4-600 meters.  Average rifle marksmanship is considered effective out to 400 meters. 

Today, we have developed sniper wepons and tactics that have generated huge kill ranges, but that is very recent history.  It isn't just the weapons and equipment, it's also that WW2 taught us a lot about sniping, and we've been working on that since.

 



#129 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 12 October 2011 - 08:02 PM

Gimp said:

 

I tend to think anti-sniper like a military man.  You go after them with things that don't care about cover, because, in the real world, you aren't likely to see exactly where the good ones are.  Artillery and flamethrowers are nice choices.  They do benefit from better light cover modifiers against attacks that care.

As for extending the range that far, it's very questionable.  While snipers did have scopes, and sometimes much better rifles, many of them acknowledged they did not engage at much greater distances than normal infantry, because the risk of exposure for a less likely kill was not worth it.

I read an interview with several of Germany's surviving leading snipers, and most did not trust engagements beyond 4-600 meters.  Average rifle marksmanship is considered effective out to 400 meters. 

Today, we have developed sniper wepons and tactics that have generated huge kill ranges, but that is very recent history.  It isn't just the weapons and equipment, it's also that WW2 taught us a lot about sniping, and we've been working on that since.

I'm not thinking about absolute range here, but effective engagement ranges, which were much less than an ideal engagement range.  So, 4-600m would be about double range.  Training for 3-400m engagement ranges doesn't translate on the battlefield range.  IIRC from various studies conducted in the WW2/Korean War period, engagement ranges were found to be mainly in the sub 100-150m range and almost always below the 200m range, which is why the zeroing for iron sight M16A2s was based on a 250m simulated target.  Those studies were what also lead fairly directly to the M16 and other "assault" rifles.



#130 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 09:42 AM

Not quite. The battlefield zero on a sight is not set for maximum engagement, but for slightly past mid-line.

 

An additional part of those studies is where they pulled the concept of 'maximum effective range' for various weapons.

Maximum effective range is defined as the range at which the average soldier has a 50% chance to hit a man sized target.

Zeroing a weapon for 250 meters on a weapon assumed to be effective out to 360 meters (Army) or 500 meters (Marines) gives a fairly flat trajectory that should be functional in combat. If you aim for the center of mass, the minor variation in round flight gives a solid chance of an effective hit.

For tripod mounted machine guns, they were frequently set to fire aimed to 'grazing range'. which is defined as the range the weapon's round stays within 1 meter of the ground. Anyone moving at other then a low crawl through that area is in significant danger.

Any soldier is trained to know where their weapon is zeroed, and to be able to adjust their aim based on actual percieved range.

Engagment ranges are also in a flux based on environment, as they are finding the battles in Iraq tened to start at longer ranges in the open areas, and at much shorter in urban areas.

Snipers also have to worry about engagement ranges, because the engagement range is based on how far away you can see and engage the enemy. Snipers are trained to be able to spot things quickly, so they are more likely to be able to engage a target at a greater range, but you can never fight effectively beyond the range where you identify your target.

In WW2, they were still working with training soldiers to adjust sights for various ranges, as opposed to simply setting a battlefield zero. Many soldiers did simply work with a battlefield zero, but they all new how to adjust.

Marines got the nickname of Devil Dogs because the normal Marines were shooting German soldiers in trenches 5-700 meters away when they first got to the battlefields of WW1. They had the lines of sight to engage, and the training to be comfortable engaging at those ranges.

When I was serving in Eurpoe, we trained with the expectation of 3-400 meter engagement ranges because of the terrain. Most of the suggested battlefields in DUST would match or exceed that.
 



#131 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 13 October 2011 - 01:10 PM

Gimp said:

Not quite. The battlefield zero on a sight is not set for maximum engagement, but for slightly past mid-line.

 

An additional part of those studies is where they pulled the concept of 'maximum effective range' for various weapons.

Maximum effective range is defined as the range at which the average soldier has a 50% chance to hit a man sized target.

Zeroing a weapon for 250 meters on a weapon assumed to be effective out to 360 meters (Army) or 500 meters (Marines) gives a fairly flat trajectory that should be functional in combat. If you aim for the center of mass, the minor variation in round flight gives a solid chance of an effective hit.

For tripod mounted machine guns, they were frequently set to fire aimed to 'grazing range'. which is defined as the range the weapon's round stays within 1 meter of the ground. Anyone moving at other then a low crawl through that area is in significant danger.

Any soldier is trained to know where their weapon is zeroed, and to be able to adjust their aim based on actual percieved range.

Engagment ranges are also in a flux based on environment, as they are finding the battles in Iraq tened to start at longer ranges in the open areas, and at much shorter in urban areas.

Snipers also have to worry about engagement ranges, because the engagement range is based on how far away you can see and engage the enemy. Snipers are trained to be able to spot things quickly, so they are more likely to be able to engage a target at a greater range, but you can never fight effectively beyond the range where you identify your target.

In WW2, they were still working with training soldiers to adjust sights for various ranges, as opposed to simply setting a battlefield zero. Many soldiers did simply work with a battlefield zero, but they all new how to adjust.

Marines got the nickname of Devil Dogs because the normal Marines were shooting German soldiers in trenches 5-700 meters away when they first got to the battlefields of WW1. They had the lines of sight to engage, and the training to be comfortable engaging at those ranges.

When I was serving in Eurpoe, we trained with the expectation of 3-400 meter engagement ranges because of the terrain. Most of the suggested battlefields in DUST would match or exceed that.
 

Where did you serve in Europe?



#132 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 08:39 AM

Peacekeeper_b said:

Where did you serve in Europe?

2nd Armored Division (fwd) near Garlstad, in northern Germany.  We had a honeymoon apartment (I was deployed right after we got married) in Bremen.

As a 'small world' moment, my brother now works with an engineer that grew up right across the river from the apartments we lived in.



#133 Peacekeeper_b

Peacekeeper_b

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 09:49 AM

Gimp said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

Where did you serve in Europe?

 

 

2nd Armored Division (fwd) near Garlstad, in northern Germany.  We had a honeymoon apartment (I was deployed right after we got married) in Bremen.

As a 'small world' moment, my brother now works with an engineer that grew up right across the river from the apartments we lived in.

I was in Hohenfels, 2003-2005 and 2007-2010.



#134 Major Headcase

Major Headcase

    Member

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 17 October 2011 - 04:43 PM

   The idea of snipers in Power Armor always make me chuckle!

    Years ago me and my Roleplay group were playing a game of Inquizitor, by GW, with home-grown RPG rule added, and one of the players was a Space Marine equiped with Heavy Power Armor ( like the kind worn by Devestater Marines, and some Veteran Sgts) and he tried to "sneak" up on a Gene-stealer sentry! He, of course, failed the skill check! He was so mad! he argued for over an hour about the "years of battle expirience" makeing up for a HUGE, CLANKING, MOTORIZED combat suit!

   To this day I still see, in my head, the image of a 7 ft tall Space Marine, sneaking down a shadowed corridor on his tip-toes! his feet making the quiet sqweek-sqweek, like a pare of sneakers! I die laughing inside!

   Yeah, no AR3 snipers for me!

   Have fun blow'n stuff up!.....loudly!



#135 Algesan

Algesan

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:43 AM

GAH!  Something I always loved about the Rolemaster system.  You could buy skill in "Armor Handling" for various types of armor which then let you reduce the penalties for wearing armor while doing other things like sneaking or swimming.  Then you could buy the specific skill (like sneaking or swimming) up higher, but except for light armors your never could overcome the penalties fully.  So a strong swimmer with practice in wearing heavy armor could manage to swim some and probably be drown proof and you could stealth up on someone who wasn't paying much attention, but not against an alert sentry.



#136 BernieTerminator

BernieTerminator

    Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 02:59 PM

 Hi andy, I have a question. Will this game be a I go you go? I always liked Rackham E's rules that you use one unit then the enemy does. Maybe it will be done by class? Like heavy walkers go, then infantry, then heroes etc.......



#137 feildmarshallolberhus

feildmarshallolberhus

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 25 October 2011 - 09:50 AM

Hi i`m new to dust warfare and dust in general please forgive me if i posted this in the wrong spot, i have most of the axis models and they are awesome from the sculpts to them being primed.

My question to Andy  is related to JET aircraft i have some 1/48 scale models from years ago and would using them be allowed in dust warfare, most importantly i`m interested in weird WWII german jet fighters i.e. the salamander,ME 262,komet,V-2 flying bomb and the horton flying wing as this would fit into the mythology of the dust world and would make for interesting play. Are there going to be rules on calling in air support, bomb runs and one side having air superiority over the other i think things like this would add a realistic WWII feel to things.

I would love to see a game revolving around the allies trying to capture a jet fighter or jet bomber, the Horton flying wing as an objective being guarded by luthers and me262`s would be real interesting .

Do you think FF would support this or would i have to come up with stats and cards then go it alone as i have the models.

Thanks to Andy for reading all of this and taking it into consideration 



#138 Gimp

Gimp

    Member

  • Members
  • 559 posts

Posted 25 October 2011 - 10:46 AM

They haven't put out aircraft yet, but the game is structured to include them.

For now, setting up a scenario with a flying wing base being attacked could be very interesting.  The wings could either be on a runway or in a hanger, with the objective to either destroy or capture them.

You wouldn't need any stats other than an armor rating and a number of wounds for the planes to play it out.



#139 BigDogg

BigDogg

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:10 PM

Quick question. Will a turn in DW be of measured time. Such as each turn represents 1 minute, or 2 minutes, etc. or less.

 

tj


  • Rebels: 5 X-wing, 3 Y-wing, 3 A-wing, 3 B-wing, 2 Hawk 290 and  a YT-1300
  • Imperial: 9 Tie fighters, 3 Advanced, 3 Interceoters, 2 Bombers, a Shuttle and Firspray 31

#140 feildmarshallolberhus

feildmarshallolberhus

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:51 PM

 Thanks gimp this is great news i love air power and i just found ME 262`s as well as salamanders online i`m going to paint `em up and use them as objectives.

This should be a great battle and will lead the allies to discover jet tech.

Should i use bf 109`s and other prop airplanes like mustangs and bombers or just the cool jet stuff from later in the war?

My question is when using the airplanes as an attack option how would they be activated? Would they be set to the side activated then when needed come into use bombing and strafing then be set aside again, representing the return to an airfield to refuel (how much fuel will they have and could they run out of fuel?) and reload the weapons.

I believe the air power options and models will be a big reason that i play and i truly hope the rules on the jets and other WWII fighters is done with detail and realism. If not for air power and the firebombing of germany and japan i do not think the allies would have won WWII

I know i know this is a game but doing airplanes and doing them right will blow this game out of the water and make this Dust Warfare the best weird WWII game out.

I thank you for reading.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS