|
Post by papabees on Mar 27, 2013 15:16:34 GMT -5
In an effort to change some comments in another post into a somewhat formalised playtest I was hoping to discuss a change to the ranges. Basically I was planning on playing that the listed range for a weapon was it's first range band, and for every range band thereafter you would get a -2 mod to shoot. Thus if you have an 8" range band it would look like this:
8" - no mod up to 16" -2 up to 24" -4 up to 32" -6 etc.
One other alternative would be to double the increment each time:
8" - no mod up to 16" -2 up to 32" -4 up to 64" -6 etc. Thoughts? I lean toward the first as it's easier. I'm just trying to get a good number of people playtesting the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Mar 28, 2013 4:41:17 GMT -5
Well I'll go for the first as I have used it when I used 28mm figures and work for them I can see a desert or plains fight working well with that system too in 15mm I'll defenately give it a go
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Mar 28, 2013 5:03:40 GMT -5
Very interesting. Possibly falls closer to the Battletech range setup. All looks good to me and certainly worth considering as a more advanced option for ranges when players want more detail or 28mm.
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Mar 31, 2013 13:14:20 GMT -5
I would even suggest a more gradual degredation of hit probability as a playtest. It proposes a larger change in 'negatives' but it might be harder to pick out very small ones in a limited turn game.
I should add that our group is using the following table (8" primary range ex): 8": no mod 9-16: -1 17-24: -2 25-32: -3 etc
I use as an intuitive example a seasoned troop firing in the third range band (-2) with a target (guard 11) in light cover. The final to-hit roll is: 4-1 (cover)-2 (range mod)=1 plus 2d6, needing a 10 to hit. I believe there are 6 permutations of dice that result in a 10+ so the chances are 6/36 or 1/6. In a six turn game you can figure on one hit. This isn't assuming everyone sits still all game but it helps to pick an example. Using the suggested -4 mod requires a natural 12 to hit, or 1 out of 36 chances. Why even take that shot.
I would further my example by suggesting that the miniature scale results in a scale range of roughly 10 feet per inch. A 24" shot is well under 100 meters and well within the normal tactical ranges seen in modern combat. A 1/36 chance may well be realistic but seldom passes the tabletop test. I'm also not suggesring the scale be declared as 10' per inch, or any other value as I can see the value in some telescoping required to ensure movement and shooting ranges don't conflict; just thinking that the scale has an implied 'comfort' zone with what seems reasonable.
You could add that the more gradual degradation puts more emphasis on tactically sound actions when you are within eye and earshot of the enemy.
Our group has found that the application of proper terrain (reducing but not eliminating) limits the stand and fire, not to mention scenario objectives, etc. Anything willing to dominate the field is probably in the sights of plenty of enemy. Seems a natural solution.
What kind of hit probabilities are you guys seeing using the -2,-4,-6 mods?
Squinch
|
|
peabody
Grunt
Canuck Amok
Posts: 95
|
Post by peabody on Mar 31, 2013 14:51:52 GMT -5
Good work and a convincing argument Squinch.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Mar 31, 2013 17:40:13 GMT -5
I suppose in a sense it comes down to what ones typical Shoot stat is. I find us playing fives and sixes so a -2 mod is not all that difficult. The same scenario above is giving me an 8-9 plus which increases the odds quite a bit.
I will say that we tend to use the higher Shoot skill in order to be able to make shots at range so if the -1 per band were used we might see the Shoot skill start to drop across the board.
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Apr 1, 2013 10:59:38 GMT -5
papabees- Sounds like we both came up against the same issue from different directions. I apologize I'm such a late-comer to the forum and probably missed much of the discussion on or off-line on this.
I would hazard a guess that since it felt wrong enough for you to have to tune up general skill values just as the general hit chances felt wrong in our group, that the issue is more related to core rules.
Our group was hoping to preserve the skill values in lieu of having a skill escalation to fix the low to-hit probabilities. We wanted to be able to represent truly elite forces while the base skill level remained 'seasoned'. Definitely a decision for each gaming group.
If you have tuned your skills up like that I'll bet your 1st range band firefights are incredibly deadly. A stationary skill 6 firing on a Guard 11 in light cover is a 5 to hit. Wow, drop prone and you tag them on 4's. Does anyone survive long enough for a close-combat?
Can anyone else comment on skill creep as a possible response to the low to-hit values?
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Apr 1, 2013 11:06:06 GMT -5
Papabees - I should have added that it might be helpful to normalize a base skill level for playtesting your suggested range mods. Otherwise each group might report a different result depending on their average skill value.
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by doombunny on Apr 1, 2013 11:13:22 GMT -5
Hello every one, I am in agreement with Squinch. It was nice to use what was intended in the book for seasoned troops and the range band worked like a charm. i just don't see everyone using five and sixes all the time makes for quick games if you like just shooting. With the right terrain and range bands it makes the world of difference.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Apr 1, 2013 17:37:03 GMT -5
papabees- If you have tuned your skills up like that I'll bet your 1st range band firefights are incredibly deadly. A stationary skill 6 firing on a Guard 11 in light cover is a 5 to hit. Wow, drop prone and you tag them on 4's. Does anyone survive long enough for a close-combat? Squinch Very true. We have seldom seen large close combat melees because most of our units are dying from gunfire before they ever get in close. The more I think this through the more I think you may be on to something. When I playtest I'll go with a "Seasoned" stat per the book which I believe is a 4.
|
|
|
Post by timvidlak on Apr 2, 2013 0:32:18 GMT -5
I suppose in a sense it comes down to what ones typical Shoot stat is. I find us playing fives and sixes so a -2 mod is not all that difficult. The same scenario above is giving me an 8-9 plus which increases the odds quite a bit. I will say that we tend to use the higher Shoot skill in order to be able to make shots at range so if the -1 per band were used we might see the Shoot skill start to drop across the board. I also use Higher Shoot Skills with 5 being average soldiers, with medium Tech as this would effect their Shooting. My average High Tech troops Have Targeting Systems which makes the average between 5 & 6. Suprisingly Quite a few Close Assaults happen in my Games I even Have a Hive Intellect which is Primarily an Assault Army . I do play Very Large Games on Average being at the Company Level. Most of these Factions are Fully Integrated Combined Arms Forces. In addition I use a lot of terrain in most of my Games. I Suggested a more limited range bands in the discussion Re: Experimenting with long range Read more: gruntz15.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=disc&action=display&thread=1149#ixzz2PH6qrvnG"I think Range Bands for weapons is a good Idea with a progressive -1 to hit per Range Band beyond Combat Range. I think the Combat or Primary Range equals the Weapons Range listed in the book & each Range Bands beyond this should be 1/2 the primary Range for the weapon, as this would have less of an effect on the overall Game mechanics with all weapons Having 4 Range Bands. The Range Bands being Combat or Primary Range, Extended Range, Long Range & Finally Extreme Range. This also makes it playable on a smaller Table." The progressive -1 or -2 per range band I believe is a mistake. After Testing out the Range Bands & Modifiers both from papabees & the Suggestion I Made in the Quote Above from the other thread. I Found that A linear to hit modifier of - 1 or -2 per Range Band didn't work as well as I would have Liked. So I tried out a Progressive to hit modifier & I found I liked the way it worked much better. Most troops are trained to fire at Combat Range which is the base range of the weapon & many can even hit at double this but once you go beyond that only the very best Marksmanship or Technology will allow Troops to consistently hits beyond this Range ( Range Bands are 1/2 the Base Rang for the Weapon.) . This System Doubles the Modifier for each Range Band after the Base Starting at -1. Using this Progression a Weapon with a Base Range of 8 would have the following Modifiers. 0 to 8" - no mod 9 to 12" -1 13 to 16" -2 17 to 24" -4 25 to 28" -8 I Think the above Modifiers are one of the best possible compromises Allowing Both Better Chances to hit at longer Range without Giving total domination of the Board for those playing on Smaller tables. I have debated a Slightly different Range Bands & Modifiers for Vehicle & Deployed Crew Served Weapons which have Spent 1 Action Deploying & have not moved since deploying there weapons. With A Progression of to hit mods as Above, but a different Set of Range Bands( Range Bands are Range x 1.5 the Rang for the Weapon Cumulative.). Making Vehicle Mounted & Team Deployed Weapons More effective at Range Due to them being a More Stable Firing Platform. I haven't tested the Vehicle Mounted Weapons Range Bands yet, but think they are Sound. 0 to 8" - no mod 9 to 12" -1 13 to 18" -2 25 to 27" -4 29 to 40" -8
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Apr 2, 2013 2:21:03 GMT -5
Interesting discussion.
I couldn't begin to guess the average quality of future combat troops but what limited knowledge I have on contemporary and historical warfare suggests that all things being equal (which they never are) the average quality of combat troops usually falls somewhere between trained and veteran. In the case of Gruntz this would fall in the category of seasoned. I would distinguish veteran from elite in so far as veterans typically don't possess large investments of training (compared to elite) but tend to have survived the attrition aspect of combat. Elites generally fall in a category of significantly more training and investment, possibly more than all other lower categories combined.
Regardless, i think we all should have the flexibility to create the type and flavor of troops we desire but the real question is are we all treating symptoms in our own ways and not looking for the pathology?
Timvidlak- Would you consider that you have treated the symptoms with a combination of skill creep and liberal perkz? If your toolbox contains no troops with a skill class of 4 or lower you seem to have identified an intuitive problem and solved it.
Regarding the linear vs progressive range modifiers I would ask you to consider the following: In papabees range mod (and mine) a simple linear modifier is used. Now consider the brilliance of the game designer in using a 2D6 dice combination. The distribution curve is far from linear so even though the modifier is linear, the hit probabilities are far from it. For example, the difference (reduction) in probability between rolling a 6+ and a 7+ is about 20%, betwen a 9+ and 10+ is 40%. Or another way, you are twice as likely to roll a 10+ vs. rolling an 11+. Three times as likely to roll a 11+ vs. getting a 12.
What i'm getting at is your progressive mods have the impact of creating a much steeper relationship, not, i suspect, the result you were after.
In summary, a linear modifier combined with the (non-linear) 2D6 probabilities already gives you the progressive results you seek.
What are your thoughts on scale range? What i mean by that is figure scale suggests a table inch is 10 feet. If we take that approximate value, a 100 meter engagement range, which is quite common and within contemporary grunt and weapon capabilities, is about 30". Does it seem abstract to create, in essence, night fighting rules with such heavy modifiers? In your example a prone veteran soldier would need a 12 to hit a tank (11 guard) at 100 meters, less than 3% chance.
Perhaps a general question to the game designer on their thoughts about abstract vs. more 'scaled' ranges is in order.
Squinch
|
|
|
Post by doombunny on Apr 2, 2013 12:01:22 GMT -5
OK Timvidlak and Squich you both make good points, but first thing is there was no intended scale for the game. You have to know what the scale per inch is going to be to justify what your ranges will be. I was looking at a study done by the US Army on the M4 rifle. The max range is 3600 meters but the point range was 500 meters and the effective range is 600meters. So if you look at an inch being 20meters the game designer is on target for effective ranges for gruntz. But looking at a M1A1 of course your range is going to be 200 inches. troops should not be able to fire all the way across the table. That being said one range band at the -2makes sense. I think instead of increasing range bands their should be better perks that you pay for to increase the skill of your troops. So that person that has a unit that's not trained like a 3 skill but has a rifle with a scope gets them to the skill of 4 makes for sense for hit prob. than increasing range. The game was meant to be up close and personal. But keeping one thing in mind this game was built as a play it how you feel and if i was a power gamer everything would be set high in the first place. I think more on the real side and what is put in the book is right that a seasoned troop should be a 4 and more people should play to that. Not every soldier is an Elite warrior (All though we would like to be).
|
|
|
Post by doombunny on Apr 2, 2013 12:15:54 GMT -5
so looking at the rules the ranges he has are short but not by much. a standard projectile rifle has a range of 8. looking at what i was saying the max range is 30 inches so the effective range is 15 so your mods would be at every 5 points after to a max of 30.
|
|
peabody
Grunt
Canuck Amok
Posts: 95
|
Post by peabody on Apr 2, 2013 14:09:36 GMT -5
Ok, so lets keep the 2d6 bell-curve in mind and also work with the idea that we want to play with seasoned troops and maintain a place for higher cost, higher quality troops.
Lets see a proposal for firing at Advanced Range using range bands, with easy to use linear modifiers for infantry.
|
|