Warboss Krag
-
Content Count
379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Warboss Krag
-
-
Ouch. I wish I could say that you'd read something wrong, but I can't. And still I have trouble winning with the Americans (the only 'allies' are the British paratroopers), thanks largely to the German (again, I see no Italian, Romanian, or Japanse forces here. I call it as it appears) Kampfaffan and Untertoten units. These are blindingly fast, take no suppression whatsoever, are tough, and put out a lot of dice (20 attack dice vs. Infantry armor 2 for the zombies, 12 for the gorillas). And with Marcus leading a unit of affen, they get to attack as part of their move action, meaning they can attack from outside of 12", and the reply must be close combat weapons…with which very few units can affect armor 3 infantry.
-
Actually, Denied, I do know how games are made. From 1986 to 1997 I was a free-lance author. I had the great good fortune to work with some really good editors (a good line editor is worth his weight in iridium. Trust me, I know; I did some editing, and it's not only a very difficult job. it's frustrating and thankless to boot). I did some anthology work (that is, works where I was one of several authors, working on different parts), and I did work that was just me and my editor. Usually, though, my work stood on its own, or didn't; there were very few times that I had anyone else to blame. And I certainly didn't have anyone nerfing my work - instead, my editors would call me, and we'd hash out a reasonable compromise, rather than massive changes behind my back.
-
The impression I get of VK armor is similar to that of the "transparent aluminum" metal actually made in China a few years back (you take molten steel and superfreeze it, causing the molecules to align. It gives a steel that is 5 times stronger than normal high-grade steel, millimeter for millimeter, making it give the same protection with 1/5 the thickness and resultant mass. The only problem is, it's really overly expensive to make. The team that cracked the process is cracking the whip to refine that process to make it much cheaper. Oh, and the stuff really is transparent, like glass! Reality is often stranger than fiction). It's not unreal, it's just better. Without something really light-weight that provides equivalent protection, walkers would suck. So an armor 4 walker probably only weighs about 15-20 tons at the outside (stats provided by anyone Japanese notwithstanding; I have yet to see anything anime or anime-like where any sort of even quasi-realistic masses are listed. Mobile Suit Gundam, RX-78, is so large that the air inside it, at sea level, probably masses more than the entire fantasy is said to weigh), not 23-30 tons, like WWII tanks (Pz IV, Sherman, T34). So an armor 5 walker (Mk III) would probably mass about 25-30 tons, not 45 like the Panther.
That being said, I'd rate a Bradley IFV at Armor 4, and an Abrahms at 8+.
-
As for game time, I just played a 220 point game in 1:30. And that includes table set-up. It was a draw.
(Darn, zombies are hard to get rid of!)
-
If I might make a suggestion related to an arms quibble: The .50 cal machinegun. Whoever came up with the basic stats showed a lack of respect for this shell, and heavy machinegun shells in general, that borders on the flagrantly insulting. Sure, against lightly armored infantry, it's only about as good as a normal .30 cal or so. Against infantry behind hard cover, now…you need a classic Squad Leader stone building to weather someone saying "Come to Christ" with a Ma Deuce. Same with the Russian DhSK 12.7mm, and that goes double for the KPV 14.5mm anti-tank rifle round!
My point being that heavy machineguns (maybe even a German 13mm - they used them on their fighter planes, mounted atop the nose) should do 3/1 against Armor 3 infantry, and at least 2/1 against Armor 4 infantry. They can even damage Armor 3 vehicles, for Pete's sake! (Particularly the KPV and its anti-tank rifle sniper counterparts - yes, the Russians employed these in 6-man, 3-gun squads, and went shooting at German tank vision slits. No lie.) I can't see personal heavy armor being more incredibly damage-resistant than the armor on a light walker.
-
[sami K said:
Excellent post. So FFG dumbed down the game, that's what the delay was about? How sad.
And to hear that the November edition was so much better (I only needed to hear that only flamethrower weapons ignored cover there) is quite frustrating, but also gives me hope that FFG might later atone for its erroneous ways, and introduce a second edition with Andy Chambers' vision intact.
Sigh. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you have a committee making a game.Can you imagine, say, Arkham Horror dumbed down? (Good lord, imagine that it was! What sort of choice slice of hell, then, would the original look like?)
-
Yes, indeed, track turning on the move is not sanguine. I was actually thinking of a stationary pivot, really. And as for the maneuverability of Dust walkers? Pathetic. You see, the maneuverability we usually associate with walking comes from swivel-hipped humans; with said pelvic flexibility, adding in the counter-weight of the mobile arms, turning is something of an on-a-dime proposition (with some surprisingly massive blokes managing awesome maneuverability - running backs in particular). Maybe Gundam-style Mobile Suits, possibly Battletech Battlemechs, but not Dust walkers. I'm afraid the best model for their maneuvering extant is the AT-ST from Return of the Jedi. Watch it again, and you'll see what I mean.
-
Harikaridog's response is certainly food for thought. I;m glad that there is someone willing to speak up about playtesting; While I understand non-disclosure format while the product is still awaiting production, I despise the 'gag order' business that seems to be only to bully playtesters into not pointing out the flaws they saw coming (and those they weren't allowed to see in final production), simply to protect someone's ego (or multiple someones).
Interesting, the things that got changed - distance measuring, sniper targeting; all apparently for the sake of some sort of simplification. Hmm.As a matter of interest to me, Harikaridog, were there any area terrain rules in place during the Chambers playtest?
-
With the option of a 1-4 shot barrage, the rockets would perform much more like I would think they should, too. Hmm. Sounds like a case of "too effective in playtest opinion" 'nerfing.'
-
Hmm. Ever seen a tracked vehicle change its facing? Sure, it's a pain on a wheeled vehicle, but tracks pivot quite nicely. And, as a matter of fact, walkers do not (try it yourself; you're a walker! Not just a hip swivel, but a full facing change, in place. And on that, don't some walker models have the body of the walker on a swivel themselves, making most of the German walkers technically capable of 'turret' movement?).
While the idea of the make-your-own-vehicle is interesting, it is also subject to some abuse. However, that could be nullified by insistance on using real-world models. On that subject, Warlord models in the UK does make 28mm WWII models at a reasonable price (when compared to the other 28mm model maker, GW).
-
Re: SgtManuel and his mention of mortars: How could I have forgotten about them? Thank you, sergeant! It would be nice to have something to artillery-spot for on the Allied side besides a single rocket shot (why doesn't the 75mm howitzer do indirect? Oh, yeah, too restricted a firing arc). Would sort of make the Allied spotter team worth having.
Pssst! FFG employees reading this! There does seem to be a desire (and a tactical need) for gun teams! Pass it on!
-
An open question to all of those spending your money on Warfare: How many of you would cheerfully buy gun teams, two or three men and a tripod for mounting a couple of included weapons? My suggestion for weapons would be heavy machineguns (dual MGs for the Germans, M2HB for the Allies, and a KPV for the SSU), and recoilless rifles (75mm for Germans and Allies, 76.2mm for the SSU)?
My reasoning is that I'd like heavy MGs that had a 24" range for actual MG use as a support weapon rather than an integral squad weapon, and I'd certainly like to have recoilless rifles for both anti-infantry fire and certainly anti-tank, something that outranges the wussy anti-tank rocket launchers and is useful against all targets (except fliers). There would have to be a rule concerning their lack of mobility - like they couldn't fire on the same turn they moved; moving would give them a reaction counter - but aside from that, the game designers should realize that the armaments initially conceived for the Dust background revolved around a very close, very mobile Staligrad-style conflict, and Warfare takes place on tables that aren't so crowded, generally…
-
As for 'conventional' weapons, I don't think much has been done with their penetration and ammo; an M2 .50 cal looks just the same as always. I think that the VK tech has largely been used only for super-weapons and armor, making the latter lighter and stronger than normal steel. Also, the alien tech seems to have been used for power generators. So I'd leave the weapons the same on the 'conventionals.'
As for armor, 1 is for unarmored vehicles, 2 is for light stuff that's barely armored - halftracks, scout cars, etc. - 3 would be for up-rated tanks such as the Sherman, the Chaffee, the Pz IV, and even the basic T34/76. Armor 4 would apply to such things as the Panther, the T34/85, and the Tiger I. Armor 6, believe it or not, applies to the King Tiger, the JS II, the IS 122, the Jagdtiger, the Jagdpanther, and the Pershing. Armor 7 is right out, and should be the property of the super-heavy VK walkers and the Ferdinand, aka the Elefant.
I do like the idea that 'normal' vehicles might be coming into play. It just doesn't make sense, if VK tech and the VK material is so rare, to completely supplant this resource with VK-based rarities. Particularly if you're Josef Stalin, a man who was never ham-strung with the sort of attention-deficit "what's cool right now" impulsiveness of Adolf Hitler. Unkle Yo knew that he had tens of thousands of 'conventional' tanks, and he used them. I don't see why this universe would be any different. Sure, normal stuff isn't as light, can't be deployed as swiftly, and isn't as fast, but it can sure make up for those characteristics with volume, particularly during more set-piece engagements.
(It would be nice to see tank-bearing cannons that have HE with them. The auto-loaded walker cannons - Ludwig and Pounder - obviously are only packing AP, since they're practically useless against infantry, relying on their machineguns instead.)
(Oh, and please don't make the mistake the Dust Wars comic did, including M5 Stuarts in the picture as active tanks, years after their demobbing and replacement by M24 Chaffes.)
-
Huzzah, KiltedWolf, huzzah! Your point is the point of attack for this thread, really: Let's make a cogent list of the problems that we've found with Warfare and present it to the FFG people in order to assist them in making the errata we desire to actually play the game without the problems that we've found. We'll likely find others, naturally, but this would be a concrete and positive start.
Others have mentioned so many of the other problems that I'll only state one: A lot of us play with area terrain, particularly foliage-based terrain - you know, the stuff that you can find all over Earth, sequestering carbon and releasing oxygen? As such, we need actual rules concerning line-of-sight into such terrain, since an actual representation of such dense foliage would be impossible to place figures in and move figures through - and I'm talking infantry; I won't even get into walkers.
-
Hmm. Up until I read this thread I would have also said that the Schwerer Lasers weren't worth the points. They are sort of a heavy anti-tank squad, though, as mentioned, and are more survivable than a Mk II Ludwig. As I haven't faced any super-heavies yet, I can't vouch for anyone's effectiveness against such a monster (although Angela with a sniper spotter will give one fits).
Maladict (I hope I got that right from memory) does have a point in that these grenadiers are more expensive than the Heavy Assault Rangers, who are, point for point, the most furiously effective troops on the entire table. (No pun intended on the 'furiously'; I only just now realized the comparison with Rhino, nee Nick Fury.) They can bound from cover to cover, maximizing their armor saves, and fling themselves at units which, for some other-worldly reason, can't respond by blasting them out of the skies (anyone ever been *****-shooting?), and deliver the most devastating volley of hit percentage available to any unit in the game, without the target benefitting from cover.
Under the circumstances, I would prefer some rules tweaking: Either raise the points of the Heavy Assault Rangers to, say, 40+, lower the points of the Schwerer Laser Grenadiers to, say, 25, or both. I believe that the overall points problem is that Dust Warfare is using the exact same points values as Dust Tactics, while the units are performing differently because of the different situations (Warfare has a lot longer comparative ranges, a lot more cover, and a lot more maneuverability than Tactics). Adjustments need to be made.
-
I made this comment on a separate thread, but I repeat it here, since the commentary has already been made on the efficacy of snipers: Stick Angela with a sniper squad. Sje hits on a blank-side die roll, because of the spotter. I had her take down a Mickey (walker) in one firing phase (she gets two shots, each does 2 points of damage, on a 4-hit walker - boom! No armor or cover applied). A steal at 42 points for the whole group.
-
Angela with a sniper unit. Ouch. Took out a medium walker with one firing phase (she gets two shots, each hits 2/3 of the time at 36" range, no armor or cover saves…dead walker). Worth the 42 total points.
-
Ouch. Yes, that would make a Blutkreutz zombie/gorilla list very nasty indeed.
-
Interesting. I usually avoid the internet, because of all the debate (I refer to it as debate because it's largely rhetorical battle, not logical argument/discussion. A good debater doesn't care if the subject being defended is clearly untrue or not), which resolves nothing. As such, I am perhaps not applying the same definition to 'trolling.' Is it just me, or does it seem that said term is now defined as anyone who would like more actual information, and not just rhetorical debate back and forth? I was curious about Gimp's wargaming background merely as a matter of context, and for one am pleased to find another old-school gamer out there.
Re: Gimp's original subject, I found his list of problems to be informative and actually reasonable. I also understand his reticence towards adopting Warfare; indeed, following these posts has shown me that my initial sunny evaluation of the game didn't see all the dark clouds lurking beneath the sunny exterior. I've been checking this forum routinely, learning more about the rules as I read, and I'm quite glad that there have been a lot of people who haven't been the least bit bashful about speaking up to answer rules questions (thanks much!). Just because I don't weigh in on every dispute doesn't mean I'm not interested. Like most of the rest of us, I'm waiting for the errata (I do love and respect that FFG still refers to it as errata, and not some mealy-mouthed pseudonym such as 'FAQ.' The first time I saw that bit was in the early 90s, put out by Games Workshop, under the apparent auspicies of 'we don't have errors, we only have 'frequently asked questions.' Good on FFG!). Hopefully, at that time, a lot of the dissention will be cleared up.
(Yes, I know, awfully optimistic of me, but I can hope.)
-
Yikes. I had not considered the application of working before the game starts to limit LOS to 16". Given a kampfaffen/untertoten list, that would be hideous.
-
And so it is. Thanks for the heads-up; we were using it wrong last night.
On a different (and funnier) vein, has anyone else experienced the "burning pig" effect of having a walker damaged and getting the 'on fire' effect? And then noticing that it makes a fast walker into a mobile, movement-based, flamethrower? Hello, game designers, is there a way we can simulate this effect during the game at will? It would be perfect for a light American walker; light that puppy, and watch it barrel through ranks of German untertoten and kampfaffen!
-
Hmm. My problem with Tactics was that infantry was so slow, and so short-ranged, that walkers clearly dominated the game to the point of making it simiilar to Battletech, where nothing else mattered but walkers. In all fairness, this impression was made with the first play of the original basic set - when a Pounder practically cleared the board in a few turns - and I didn't play with the following expansions; Armor 3 infantry would have made quite the difference, I think. And, yes, I have all the expansions, I just kept them for the tabletop game.
I certainly understand Gimp's reaction to the Heavy Assault Rangers; they are a fairly broken unit. I can attest to this after blasting them last night with three squads and a heavy walker, for three turns, without causing any effects other than suppression, which they shrugged off, thanks to their accompanying hero.
I'll have to look up the Tactics rules for snipers; mine certainly did journeyman service last night, and my opponent is now well interested in a sniper team himself.
(As for your gaming pedigree, Gimp old man, it's nice to meet a fellow fatbeard!)
-
Ah, and kleine Hans also counts as an Artillery weapon! Which is huge, for 25 points. Beobacher team, anyone? Also, the U.S. Wildfire is a very effective little anti-infantry beast for 20 points.
I only wish the original U.S. light walker looked as cool as the one that comes in the Revised basic set. Riding on a tractor seat, poised 5m in the air, with no armor, and a clearly-marked pseudo-nuclear reactor a couple of meters from one's dangly bits, is no way to go into combat.
-
Right. Got it. Thanks for the single-line rule spotting! Does take a load off my mind.
Gun Teams
in Dust Warfare
Posted
A gun mount (tripod) does change the range, and often the combat nature, of a weapon. It steadies the weapon, allowing for more accurate fire. It balances a longer, larger weapon - something that could be mounted on a light walker, say - so that said larger, longer weapon could be used at said longer range. And a crew-served weapon loads faster, and can fire larger ammo. Try building an auto-loader for a 25cm long shell, and mount it on a powered armor. Ironically, there are powered armors which do this. They're part of the SSU army, and are a darn sight larger than any armor 3 infantry. Think about the advantage of having the 75mm gun from the Mickey as an infantry-served weapon, which could conceal itself much more easily than a full-sized walker. It would be more vulnerable than a walker, but it'd be less expensive, and would be man-packed.
In addition, consider a mortar unit - range 36", minimum range 12", can fire indirectly using the same rules as 'A' weapons but without the range of the entire battlefield. Talk about making spotter teams worth it.
My point, and I think the point of others, is that the originator of the Dust millieu was going for the anime cool factor when he made his models: Essentially 3D 'pin-ups,' not an actual war-game. Also, gun teams would allow FFG to add another dimension of models to the line; if they're stuck with just the stuff the original line had, it's going to be a short-lived game.