Advanced Range

[squinch]

OK, Here is one for testing...

Long Range Modifier Proposal 1:

Base Rules: Range Band x2 modifier -3

Proposal for Infantry and Vehicles:
Base Skill: 4 (Seasoned)

Range Band x1: 0 (no modifier)
Range Band x2: -1
Range Band x3: -2
Range Band x4: -3
Etc…

Squinch

[peabody]

Super, will take this to the firing range asap! Just need some clarifications:

For the above, what is a Range Band equal to?

Please clarify 'Range Band x2 modifer -3'

[squinch]

Range Band x1 is whatever the normal range happens to be for that particular weapon. No changes are needed to any printed weapon ranges.

For example a missile with a range of 15 uses the following mods:
Range up to 15: 0
16 to 30: -1
31 to 45: -2
etc

Squinch

[papabees]

Works for me as well. Will test as soon as I can.

[RuneCaster_Aris]

Hey Papabees! Good contribution, here are my own thoughts on the matter, assuming your first example of this:

8" - no mod
up to 16" -2
up to 24" -4
up to 32" -6
etc.
___________________________________________

Okay, when I think "Gruntz" I think simplicity of game play, and it's one of the biggest reasons I pick this over Warhammer or Warmachine/hordes. This fits that mold quite well. It's easy to remember, every X" after the first X" is an additional -2 modifier. Simple as sin.

That stated, I think that having infinite range with infinite modifier takes away from a bit of the realism aspect, (for what little there can be). A bullet generally looses it's lethality after double it's range, a laser can go quite far but eventually becomes a glorified laser pointer, and plasma disperses after a distance.

I also think this might encourage too much table edge skirting and not wanting to take high risk/high reward tactics that make the game exciting. I would suggest adding in a simple damage modifier as follows:

Assuming an 8" weapon again...

8" - no mod
up to 16" -2 to Hit/-0 Dmg
up to 24" -4 to Hit/-2 Dmg
up to 32" -6 to Hit/-4 Dmg
etc.


What this does is dumb down infantry weapons at too far range, and only mildly downgrade the more powerful weapons used on tanks and such.

To give an example, lets look at my much beloved and feared Draconian Mk.V walker's Foehammer Siege Cannons (Rng 16/Dam 13/Ap4)

16" - no mod
up to 32" -2 to Hit/-0 Dmg (Dam 13)
up to 48" -4 to Hit/-2 Dmg (Dam 11)
up to 32" -6 to Hit/-4 Dmg (Dam 9)
etc.

The Foehammer's are still quite powerful to be sure, but they aren't nearly the dominating, end all guns they are at close range, and the likely hood of hitting goes down considerably, making such attacks more potshot than strategic at super long range.

With this addition, you account for the accuracy of the shooter along with the fall-off of the projectile, while still keeping this rule very simple and easy to remember. Not to mention will keep players from wanting to bunker their troops at the one spot that has some good firing lanes and just poke their way to victory with lucky hits.

[papabees]

Hmmm. Good point Aris. I had really been thinking Infantry but with Vees the extra range could get crazy. My initial impression of your proposal is a positive one though.

[squinch]

After playing a few more games with various modifier tables a couple thoughts have shuffled to the top and they aren't necessarily related to the range modifiers. Well, they're related but not directly.

It seems as though the range mod question came up as a consequence to low hit probabilities and the various methods different groups were using to make the end results more satisfying and/or intuitive.

After reading every AAR I could find I began to notice the huge difference in seemingly benign areas like terrain coverage. This alone has a very real impact on final hit probabilities, etc.

That being said, I wanted to add another layer to our discussion and caution playtesters to consider that variable when they judge changes to the core modifiers.

I also want to give credit to _Aris for the sugeestion of damage mods to accompany the range mods. I have been churning that in my mind for awhile now and after seeing that suggestion decided to implement it, with a slight change. We tried it as a modifier to gruntz fire but not for vehicles. Our reasoning is as follow:

With no stated game 'scale' and the understanding this is a skirmish game, the representative scale is adequate for judging effect. That implies a 4'x4' table is something on the order of 70 inches (OK, it's 67.8). By figure size that's 700 feet. I do not believe any serious case can be made for a degradation in lethality when either combat system total range or effective range is reviewed. The distances are just too short. The current modifiers for moving, cover, etc provide some variation anyway.

I know the above reasoning discounts my next line of thought but we felt a slight degredation of gruntz damage was necessary to allow the far more powerful vehicles to keep their advantage. We also wanted to keep the very simple -1 per band and use it for range and damage..KISS.

Also, don't forget to include some actual examples of to-hit probabilities using your proposed tables (i.e. Veteran blah blah shooting at blah blah in blah cover is a x% to hit). It always helps to state an example and see if it feels right.

Squinch

[RuneCaster_Aris]

Another thing to note when play testing is to keep an eye on player behavior.

What that means to you, is that when gaming, always make mental note of how your experience is changing with the implication of new rules. Are you wanting to go to CQ faster? Are you staying back further? are you moving more? Less? Keep note of these things.

Edit: In fact, after play testing, report how the play was compared to your previous games. What strategies worked that didn't before, and what didn't work that did. How had your game behavior changed?

[squinch]

Great point.

One difficulty I've noticed is that the higher price units make analysis of different mods tough. In a 150-200 point game, if a powerful med or heavy unit (usually tank or mecha)hits or misses at a critical time, the game changes immensely.

Not that it shouldn't but it points out the difficulty in picking out the fly %$% from the pepper when your talking about small variables vs. a few critical die rolls.

Perhaps we need to focus on more, smaller units to get a better feel.
Squinch

[lordvankar44]

I am going to add my thoughts on this. I have been a tabletop wargamer for 30 years so far, and am a serving member of the military (infantry) for over 25 years now. I have played many miniature games, all with generally the same idea on ranges and weapon capabilities, and some of them a little more realistically played than others.
So my take on the ranges is as follows. If we are to use range band modifiers, I would change the ranges of the weapons. i look at 15mm scale as 1 inch equal to 5m, especially when I have vehicles in play. With that scale, the pistol ranges are okay, as a range of 6 would be equal to 30m which is about right for effective range of pistol.
For the rifles, especially projectile rifles, a range of 8 is too short and not much better than a pistol. If it were something like an MP5 SMG, then it would be okay. However, I give my rifles a range of at least 16" (90m), as any trained soldier can fire effectively at a target 100m away almost 100% of the time.
Once I have the base ranges sorted out, I then look beyond that. So for pistols, the range band would be 6" at 0 mod, 12" at -2, 24" at -4, 48" at -6 etc. Which means for a trained soldier to hit a target with Guard of 10 he would need a 13+ on 2d6 (less than 0%) to hit a stationary target at 48" (240m (away). To hit it up to 24" (120m) would be 11+ (16%). An Elite soldier would need 9+ (33%) to hit.
For the projectile rilfe, range band would be 16" at 0 mod, 32" at -1, 64" at -2 and 128" at -3. Which means a trained soldier firing on a target with Guard 10 would need a 10+ on 2d6 (25%) to hit a stationary target 128" (640m) away. An Elite soldier would need 5+ (66%) to hit. If the Elite was a sniper, based on the game rules, it would give him a 3+ (84%) with the Snipe ability using a projectile rifle. With a SA Sniper Medium weapon with a base range of 30"(vice the 14" in the game), he could still hit a target at 240" (1200m) on 4+ (75%) with Snipe ability or 6+ (60%) without it. This is very close to what a real soldier can do, although snipers can actually hit a lot better than that.
You probably noted that the range band modifier is worse for pistols than rifles only because a pistol is a very short range weapon,and only the most experienced and well trained soldiers, or someone who spends a lot of time on a shooting range, could possibly effectively hit a target center of mass at 100m at least 80% of the time. Also, as we all know, rifles have longer barrels, are rifled to allow for better flat trajectory of the round and increases the range. Energy based weapons would not need rifleing, but they would usually have rifle length barrels but maybe the range would not be as good as a projectile weapon, but they could do more damage.
i don't really have a problem with the weapon damages so much as the range capabilities. So this is how I play my games for Gurntz.

[lordvankar44]

Further to my last message, regarding vehicle weapons, as they are not much better in range than a soldier's weapon in the game, I have modified them a little more realistically. For example, the Vehicle Heavy Projectile has a base effective range of 15". By my scale of 1 " = 5m, that is only 75m. Way too short for an effective tank gun. I have modified that to 3 times, so 45" as base range. With range bands it would be as follows:

45" (225m) is 0 mod
90" (450M) is -1 mod
180" (900m) is -2 mod
360" (1800m) is -3 mod

For a trained tank gunner that means hitting a Guard 10 target at 360" (1800m) on 10+. For a Veteran gunner it would be 8+ to hit. Pretty decent and more realistic.
Of course, if the table is only 4ft by 4 ft, which is 240m on a side, then that means for some weapons, they could shoot anywhere on the table. So be it. It just means the targets have to use cover and overwatch, whcih is what any reasonable army would do when advancing on an opposing force.
By the current game terms, a Gruntz squad with Guard 12 could stand out in the open against a heavy tank 30" away and with a weapon range of 15", which would be -3 at 30". For a trained tank crew that means hitting the squad on 12+ at 30" or 150m. There is no way a tank crew could have that low a chance of hitting a squad of infantry at 150m if they are using HE rounds.
By my modifications, the same tank crew would be able to hit the infantry squad on a 9+ as the range would be 45" with 0 modifier. At least they have a better chance of hitting infantry in the open.
Once again, my take on ranges, but we all play what we are comfortable with. I like some realism in my games.

[baldlea]

lordvankar, do you change the point values at all in your version of the rules?

[squinch]

Great input lordvankar44.

What do you use as your average troop skill level?

It's definitely a tough call on where to draw the line on realism vs. abstract. I've always thought the toughest aspect of a skirmish rule set is how to include infantry and vehicles without overpowering or marginalizing either one.
Squinch

[lordvankar44]

First, to answer baldlea's question on points, I did have a system whereby it was 1 pt for every 6" of base range, or portion thereof. So if a weapon had a base range of 1-6, it would be 1 pts, 7-12, 2 pts, and so on.

To answer squinch's question on troop skill levels, the average I use is Seasoned, so a 4. For example, a soldier just out of basic training is Trained at Skill 3. A soldier who has served for serveral years and been on at least one operation would be Seasoned at 4. A person who has served many years and been on several operations is a Veteran at 5. I reserve Experts and Elites for heroes, Special Forces, certain alien races, etc.

Just to stay within certain topics, see my thread on Campaign Rules for Unit Replenishment.

[peabody]

Could you link to that thread?
A search for 'Campaign' and 'Unit Replenishment' only turned up your post above...