Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 417 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Dollar Store Find #96651
    madman
    Participant

    Looked and looked and couldn’t find images of the micro machines set. Turns out it must be a Hot Wheels set! This is what the packaging looked like;

    https://www.fun.com/hot-wheels-star-wars-transporter-vs-x-wing-2-pack.html

    My bad!

    in reply to: Looking for Rules Which Cover… #95908
    madman
    Participant

    Thank you again. BTW that is the first three questions of two pages. Your description and answers, although not exactly matching my thoughts, are intriguing and show good enough ideas that I have bought the rules. Will be pouring over them tonight. Thank you.

    Stephen

    who is half way through his two week summer shut down.

    in reply to: Looking for Rules Which Cover… #95905
    madman
    Participant

    Ivan

     

    Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

    To limit unit “availability” do you determine which units specific are available, or how many in total you can use? Personally I prefer a system like CoC where you see how functional your leaders are and they are the ones who activate units. There are lots of mechanics for accomplishing that. I have found the omnipotence of past rules does not have the feel I desire now.

    So a single D6 roll gives results from no effect (for whatever reason) to target eliminated? Or are you describing the effect after a previous roll which results in a hit? I understand the former would be subject to a number of modifiers but frankly to me that seems very coarse.

    Would one of your other rules sets give a feel for playing as a platoon level commander? Perhaps your change point for detail and mine are a little different.

    Thank you.

    Stephen

    in reply to: Introduction #95833
    madman
    Participant

    Brian

    Hello. I have been following your posts on TMP and would like to ask a few questions about your rules. Quite a few actually. First my background.

    I have been gaming since the early ’70s as a young teen. I started collecting micro armour before I found some rules a couple of years later. The rule set I used back then was Tractics. I also had Angrief Attack and later wrg but the only one I played more than once was Tractics. I am just back into gaming after a 25 year interruption and after a lot of effort have located a few other gamers in my area interested in micro armour. Along with my waistline my interest in different periods and arenas of war has expanded and evolved some. I have been looking into quite a few rules sets including the board games Squad Leader/ASL and Conflict of Heroes using micro armour and enlarged maps. Nothing has caught me yet but there are so many sets out there now it is becoming a bewildering choice.

    I would like to find a set of rules where one stand of infantry is a squad, fire team, weapons team or leader. A single vehicle figure is one vehicle or weapon. Crews are handled as separate from their weapons. The effects of leaders is tangible in some way. I would like to be able, with appropriate considerations, to be able to play one set of rules for the period from between the wars up to modern day and possibly into science fiction (if possible). The most important aspects to me are the effects and limitations of command and control on your forces. My ideal force size would be a platoon or two of infantry and a company of armour all with some supporting elements.

    If this sounds like your rules let me know and if I can give you my list of more detailed questions, either by posting them here so others can compare how close they should be to their own tastes, or as a private message. Thank you.

    Stephen

    in reply to: RPG's #95460
    madman
    Participant

    Back in the day I played RPGs the D&D players came to it from wargaming. They were Napoleon at heart and no matter the level or experience of their character, our opponents were toast. They knew every modifier, rule and could coordinate a combined arms attack the likes of which Romel would die of envy from. No ROLE playing just ROLL playing.

    On the flip side I played in a post apocalypse game, the Morrow Project, which had the most deadly combat system out there. But the GM and players role played it, rarely came into combat, gamed it as a story being told by all the participants and enjoyed it to the heights. Don’t pick a fight and you probably won’t die, just like real life. Of course every now and again we do have to save the world. After all we are heroes…..

    So if you want to run it as a cooperative form of storytelling where sticking to the exact interpretation of the rules is far from paramount go for it, use any system, fudge the results to suit the needs of the moment (don’t let the players know just throw in enough hits or damage or missed opportunities to keep them from catching on) and go for it. Any game system or setting will do. Personally I find Traveller a great system with good portability between genres but that is what I grew up (RPG wise) with.

    Lets face it D&D has so much stuff available you could pick up a module as an idea starter and go from there. Also many people have a rough idea what D&D is from all the mention in media. There are lots of rules neutral scenarios, campaigns, etc. you could use for background or start from a favorite movie or book.

     

    In my opinion making the players the characters from a book or movie is touchy at best. Place them in the same world time/space but say just next door, or just before or after the events of the source material. Middle Earth Role Playing moved them one age before or after the events of the books. Depending on their age and maturity I like lots of the Miyazaki films and the books from the Airborn series by  Kenneth Oppel. But I am a dieselpunk fan at heart. For a little earlier I found a new author doing steampunk in her own way a series called Tales of the Captain Duke a lot of fun. The author is Rebecca Deim and there are four books to the series. Most of these titles have very strong female characters which is great for more modern tastes.

    in reply to: After: Tales of the Post Apocalypse on my Blog #95410
    madman
    Participant

    Every time I see an update to this topic I get excited. Your post apoc vision is great. It makes me want to move house so I can have space for 28mm skirmishing.

    Ha! Your posts make me keep thinking of 6mm skirmish and what can be accomplished.

    in reply to: Naval Campaign Game 4, Rendezvous #95034
    madman
    Participant

    Regards the shell count it’s a negative I’m afraid. I play Campaigns now as a series of linked Scenarios rather than tracking fuel usage etc, I tried the full detail, plot every search pattern Campaign and people just get bored and the Campaign dies. Having individual scenarios the consequences of which effect the following games is far better method and all our players really enjoy it. Regards Ken The Yarkshire Gamer

     

    Very good advice. If you are gaming with interested but not obsessed players getting a lot of good linked scenarios to keep the enjoyment up without grinding the attraction away in the name of detail during a campaign is definitely the way to go. I will have to remember that when and if I start my North Africa campaign using Campaign for North Africa (spi) as a scenario generator! What could go wrong?

    in reply to: After: Tales of the Post Apocalypse on my Blog #95033
    madman
    Participant

    I am going to put in a dissenting voice here as to revealing your factions. If your AARs are going to be as good as the ones so far I would rather read their stories, even over a few parts. Then fill in the gaps, flesh them out for us after introducing them.

    I also found the greenies jarring. Probably because they seemed so overpowering at first. I did not see them as 40K-ish so much as biologically unsound(?). Plant men with high metabolisms and intelligence (also a big user of energy) seems a contradiction. I also come from a PA background from long ago but that is through Morrow Project which has a number of mutants but with some thought towards their evolution. You have done the same which makes them more real.

    Keep up the AARs and stories. Thank you.

     

    Stephen

    in reply to: After: Tales of the Post Apocalypse on my Blog #94776
    madman
    Participant

    Well handled Herb. If 1 in 10 encounters of this nature were to go the way most games or movies do there would be no one left at all, let alone enough to rebuild civilization. People will be scared, hurt and trigger happy but, if things are to go on, they would mostly have to be accepting. Good work.

    Stephen

    in reply to: Sardines a la WW2 #94752
    madman
    Participant

    OK I give the the heck is BKC?

    in reply to: Thuseld's 6mm Journey #94397
    madman
    Participant

    With the birthday money I receive I will be ordering a load of mecha from Iron Wind Metals, and an order from Heroics and Ros: Dismounted Cavalry from ACW era, hoping I can use them as cowboy looking people for Starport Scum. I will also be ordering a number of vehicles, some WW2, others modern. This should give me enough to paint over the year.

    I have some ACW cavalry, mounted and dismounted, from many years past. Bought them with the intent of using them for Krell forces in a Morrow Project post apoc wargame setting. Figured troops in large floppy hats (confederates) would be ideal generic infantry. Some were suitable while others less so. I can’t remember the proprietor’s name off hand, despite often corresponding, Andy I think. Anyways contact him through his web site and state what you are trying to achieve. If you can give him a link to a picture on the web of what you have in mind that would be best. I can’t promise anything but he has always been very responsive to my inquiries and may be able to recommend the most suitable figures. I think there may be up to 5 versions of the confederate troops to choose from. Also with his WWII and modern ranges many of the 50 pack of figures can be ordered as 5 to 10 figure strips so a strip or two of each variety may work better for you as you are basically skirmish gaming. Plus don’t overlook any of his other historical ranges, many WWII or modern troopers would make very good sci fi forces. I have some old school H&R colonials I am painting and basing for between the wars colonial actions.

     

    He also has an unreleased group of dedicated sci fi micro armour figures. I have seen pictures in various places of some of the range. He has mentioned they are available, he just doesn’t seem to promote them, yet. From what I remember they were a cross between ’30s serial Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon types and early Doctor Who cybermen.

    in reply to: After: Tales of the Post Apocalypse on my Blog #94277
    madman
    Participant

    Just found this. Awesome work and write ups Herb.

    Stephen

    in reply to: Communal planet #93224
    madman
    Participant

    Together these three entities orbit the plane in an eclipse, alighting every seven and a half years producing a very peculiar radio interference phenomenon where the bodies trap solar flare radiation from the star. The phenomenon lasts 6-11 hours depending on strength of the solar flare. Communication during this period is near impossible and travel along the upper atmosphere and beyond is extremely dangerous. At ground level radiation risk is minimal except at the north and south pole. ..

     

    Because of this the planet has no up port, or orbital space facility. In fact satellites are designed to be disposable as they are damaged beyond use during this period. This means all customs transactions, both import and export take place directly on the planetary surface. Usually at one of the downports but potentially, and often, transactions occur under less official scrutiny….

    madman
    Participant

    I will also have to read the story but have a few thoughts.

    Technology will always be hard to predict. The best way to simulate would be in an abstract “information warfare” level. Modelling the effects on a battlefield, especially at the tactical or sub-tactical level would be the hardest. At a strategic level you could degrade the effectiveness of units and/or make them more vulnerable. But at the low level the individual characteristics of the systems, their effects, vulnerabilities, requirements (like power, space, distance from like or opposite systems) could only be guessed at. The abstract level is used in a few games but frankly I don’t like the modeling. That being I assign X points to offensive warfare and Y points to defensive warfare this turn. Compare each player’s levels and assign combat modifiers to their entire forces’ actions or combat results for that turn. Being the low level gamer I prefer the individual effects to be modelled. But that adds yet another layer of rules and time consumption to any game. Then how does that impact the playability of the game? Input an electronic/information/mental warfare phase with it’s attendant requirements? Just ignoring it is not really satisfactory too. Time for a new, revolutionary vision in game design, or model it in a computer assist feature? Or just play WWI with runners carrying messages to the front lines? After all in WWII they had radios with opposing forces able to jam signals, intercept messages, etc. so at some level this information warfare would start there!

    in reply to: Grav #90799
    madman
    Participant

    Great replies. Reminds me of the discussions generated by Traveller in the old Journal of the Traveller’s Aid Society.

    I always wondered about the physics of anti gravity. In my mind that would give a lead on what equipment was capable of. How DOES anti-gravity WORK? The jump in technology to create AG would be a major step or leap. From there would it be just development of technology, manufacturing, etc. which would give improvements in weight, efficiency, volume, and cost. So basically higher technology levels would give gradual improvements. Or would there be differing technologies which would provide steps of capabilities or logarithmic improvements. The poster who considers in their universe anti grav is more akin to repulsor technology has a very good idea as well. I wonder if you ever read the original Buck Rogers novel, Armageddon 2419? I always had an image in my head of using 1930s technology to control atomic reactors providing power to these experimental rays. Think of the scenes in Metropolis with gangs of people turning great dials to keep adjusting critical settings while watching banks of dial indicators (a la Forbidden Planet). The whole image is rather Faustian.

    In either case a specific desired capability would require an amount of energy. The limits imposed above could be overcome by installing greater power sources but at the law of diminishing returns. So rather than limit performance capabilities to tech levels the supporting technology would combine with the level of development of the AG itself to provide the inherent limits. But it would allow for certain niche applications. Think a “low tech” grav APC could only perform at a certain level and still haul all your crew, weapons and armour around. While a rich guy’s equivalent of a Bugatti which only has to haul them, a trophy companion and enough power plant, fuel and enough fuselage to hold it all together at speed could blow the socks off that APC.

    On another note ACVs. I was reading about the brown water navy in Vietnam and came across some interesting revelations on the hovercraft they used. Seems they were very fast and could react and be on station with an infantry squad well before any other unit could BUT they were hellishly loud. No chance of not having the VC knowing they were coming miles away. In my mind this would still be the case in any future or sci fi environment as the cause of the noise, the air cushion being generated and escaping the skirts remains. More so in some of the designs with no skirts as the air spill would be massive and continuous as well as needing constant supply of high pressure air. So forget stealthily invading any thing. Plus in order to provide forward (or other directions) thrust to move or maneuver would require additional sources of thrust or again even more massive diversion of the one source of high pressure air. In summation ACVs are gonna be loud suckas and have poor capabilities where traction would be needed, such as climbing steeper inclines (unless you rush them), pushing through brush, boulder fields, irregular ground, etc.. They would be limited to open waters, marsh with open vegetation, clear fields or roads. So wheeled or tracks should still rule until gravetic technology is quite mature. Instead of mine fields think fields of open grating where the cushion would be lost dropping the ACV onto the grates.

    One other thought, if you don’t agree with my concept of how gravetic technology would evolve how would you explain why lower tech/earlier generation gravetics would be more limited in their capabilities?

    As a disclaimer I come from this with a great love of Traveller and especially Striker which addressed many of the issues and limitations by the inherent build sequences.

    in reply to: Are these buildings from GHQ or ? #87179
    madman
    Participant

    Here is a link to more discussion of these on the GHQ site’s forum. Turns out they were GHQ, or so at least another gamer remembers.

    http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=60018#60018

     

    madman
    Participant

    Tom. From your post earlier up this page. How did you make the hills? This is still my very weak point. I have some thin insulation foam, now to get to it.

    madman
    Participant

    I’ll try dusting with baking soda after sealing the wood with glue and see how that looks (wet glue). From the pictures I have found (Google) the buildings look pretty smooth, especially at our scale.

    madman
    Participant

    Well Lets try this again.

    It has been too quiet on this topic so here is what I have been beavering away at over the holidays so far.

    In the spirit of Ben’s Soldiers site I have been making balsa buildings for Afghanistan. The thicker wood making the bulk of the buildings is 3/8″ which works out to about 10 feet. The thinner material is about 1 mm and smooths out the surfaces of the end cuts and provides material for the compound and roof top walls. I plan on coating the wood with straight or slightly thinned carpenter’s glue to provide a surface suitable for taking paint. I hope to find a light sand spray can.

     

    The first picture is basic building blocks to be assembled into various Afghan compounds.

    Here are some complete compounds based on GC minis designs.

    Here are some 30 year old helis. The Mi-8 with the washer glued to the blades for strength (yet to be painted) is by C in C. The other Hip is Heroics and Ros. The two Hind As are GHQ (no rotors) and H&R.

    These are all H&R. The right side up Hind is on some plastic stand which I have glued a super magnet to to represent low level flight. The inverted Hind shows how I have glued a nut to the bottoms of the helis. They also hold the Hinds level while “landed” as well as work with the stands.

    Finally some Soviet Airborne troops I have gotten around to painting. They are set M7 and include three or four strips of basic troops and two strips of each heavy weapons sets.

    Here is a close up of the troopers.

    Just as a comparison here are some eastern front buildings made from materials acquired decades ago. The unpainted one shows the construction, two lengths of 3/8″ square acrylic capped by a 3/4″ triangle stock. The ends are capped with thin, in this case clear, styrene. The rods are sold in lengths. I do not remember if they were 3, 4, 6 or 8 foot long. I still have a bag of cut lengths and about a dozen and a half made up buildings of various lengths and heights.

    madman
    Participant

    OK what are the limits on pictures downloaded here? I am trying to down load pics smaller both in dimension and total file size than above and being bounced with no explanation, like other sites, as to what the limits are. No where can I find anything about image limits.

    Not good.

    madman
    Participant

    A few sites of interest.

    Alternative method to make hills/mountains;

    http://wargamingmiscellany.blogspot.ca/2010/01/wild-colonial-terrain.html

     

    Large terrain boards if you like fixed terrain. It took me a while searching around to find part one. There are three parts in total.

    Afghan Mountain Boards

     

    I like how he makes Afghan buildings. AND I have a lot of heavy balsa (not so good for planes);

    http://benssoldiers.blogspot.ca/2013/04/6mm-town-revisited.html

    madman
    Participant

    Here is a link to the page on Tiny Metal Men with pics of M07 Soviet Airborne troops.

    https://tinymetalmen.blogspot.ca/2012/05/heroics-and-ros-soviet-airborne.html?showComment=1513044189475#c6193400116598950604

    madman
    Participant

    If anyone is interested in my aircraft flight stands here is a link.

    https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1665443/was-wondering

    Mine are the the second last post, my user name (and AS handle) is Madman.

    madman
    Participant

    Colin.

     

    Great website. I also have the “build your own imagination” publication. I don’t know how you feel but a link (page?) giving a little info on yourself and an email or reply for contact info would be nice.

    If only I could round up some opponents in my area (GTA). Around here the miniatures players hide under rocks and seem to play only one game. I would say 95% play GW or similar stuff only. Us old school and varied interest players are harder to come by. I have found a few and want to get H&S down pat before introducing it (again). I have played it with a couple guys and posted the issues and concerns above. I really hope to give it more tries and see how it goes.

    madman
    Participant

    Decals! Wuss. Back in my time we didn’t need no decals. Also walked up hill to and from school through 6 feet of snow all year round!

    madman
    Participant

    My Gulf War jets were painted up back in the day. Used to play lots of competitive level Air Superiority. Converted it to miniatures using 1/300, 6mm and 1/285 lead and some 1/350 plastic as well as a mix of unknown scale die casts.

     

    madman
    Participant

    Just looking at your paratroops again the tune Raspberry Beret keeps coming into my head. Shades of Bongolesia! I think this was courtesy of The Miniatures Page!

    madman
    Participant

    My human eye used to work that well. When I was a teen I used dead slot car motors for wire and made up turret baskets. Now days, 40+ years on, out comes a 3x power hood style magnifier for painting. I still prefer 6mm, mostly as I have lots. My weak point is terrain. I say as I look to my left at the stash of 1/2″ styrofoam sheet to be made into hills.

    madman
    Participant

    Tom

     

    Thank you. Now I have to add them to my order. I hope I get some cash for Christmas! The berets are going to be great as now I can paint them blue. I see they have gone from being long strips to individual figures like GHQ. I like the long strips as I hot glue gun them to 1″ dowel stock for handling while painting.

    madman
    Participant

    Alan.

    Thank you for the info. I am familiar with H&R and GHQ. Finding pics of H&R figures is hit and miss. Plus when H&R posts pictures, especially of their figures, they are small and obscured by “terrain”. GHQ presents theirs so much better.

    As for buildings I think I will go with roll your own. I have tons of balsa and bass (my other hobby is RC planes and my balsa stash is legendary in these parts) so finding suitable pictures and away I should go. Plus based on reading it seems a lot of Afghan built up areas are more a series of homes linked to common walled courtyards. Sounds like they have been dealing with bandit culture for an awfully long time.

    Out of curiosity does anyone have ideas for mounted afghans? I am finishing up reading Horse Soldiers and the imagery of charging mounted troops firing AKs while hunkering down against their mounts’ necks for cover sounds like an interesting scenario and figure(s). I have never read of such tactics during the Soviet era but wonder if…

    madman
    Participant

    So the Mujahideen figures are the “Taliban” series, from the irregular modern range? Sorry to be pedantic but I am close to ordering and want to make sure the H&R would make a good match. Those look great. For our games so far I have been using very old (30+ years) H&R WWII Germans painted white for winter!

    I have some of the M21 rebel forces which look the part for DRA troops as they have BDU style caps. I have just started painting them and the same vintage M7 Soviet airborne troops. The M7’s head covering is indistinct but I have been conversing with the fellow at Tiny Metal Men blog and figure they have the padded jump helmets on. I would like to find figures suitable for the peaked “smokey bear” bush hats. Out of curiosity do you remember which figures you are using for the Soviet Infantry (specific version)? Also if anyone has some of the new Soviet Paratroops (VDV) figures and could post some it would be appreciated. I will post some pics of my figures, in progress paint wise, if people would like. Thank you for your replies.

    Stephen

    madman
    Participant

    Thank you for the quick reply.

    Are drawn cards to be discarded or shuffled back into the deck? Based on your above and the fact assets can be played during a game and are held I assume they are discarded. This should be noted in the rules, preferably under things needed with the following issue addressed there as well. I didn’t find it. Also it should be clearly stated Aces and Jokers are treated as face cards. As I am not a card player I didn’t know this.

    The video is very small and the angle poor for this but where (what company) are you sourcing your Afghan buildings? I have been collecting Eastern Front terrain so now I have to spend more! Also which figures are you using for Mujahideen, and can you get any close up shots similar to the above please?

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by madman.
    madman
    Participant

    Finished watching the video and made some notes. I will have to look a few things up but here are some first impressions.

    At 29:20 you mention a correction will need to be made to the Mujahideen vs Soviet assets as they don’t agree with respect to types of mines and reactions. Have you reviewed this and if so what is the answer?

    Why can you fire “through” civilians when you can’t do so through friendlies? I would think this would be the same PLUS the restriction on attacking targets within 6″ of civilians IN ADDITION.

    Why have different quality levels of spotting teams? You make no mention that they have to make a quality check in order to “spot” units or am I missing something or was it missed in the rules? I can see making a quality check before attempting to call in an attack. Or is the quality only for survival effects?

    I find having to swap between different dice as well as cards at different points in the game turn awkward and confusing. To access “face cards” for air strikes and helicopter support is an 18 in 58 chance. Close enough to 2 in 6 chance to be easily replaced by a 5+ on a D6 roll. Since morale is checked at the end of a turn then a 2D6 roll is less awkward as ALL units are handled the same way and at one time.

    My initial impression that units are “moraled” to death still holds. However, when played over more turns the snowball effect is more pronounced. Also as we were playing early war scenarios between DRA units and lee-enfield equipped Mujahideen would account for a lot of the limited damage the units took. Still calling close range “lethal” and not “demoralizing” is confusing when the true game effects. Just my $0.02.

     

    Some other thoughts out side of the video.

    You state the size of infantry squads as between 5 and a dozen fighters. Using your carrying capacities of soviet vehicles Soviet infantry squads are clearly 2 (or at most 3) troopers while teams are single individuals or at most two man weapons crews such as lmg teams. Perhaps more clarity in future releases.

    The early Hind A only mounts a single 12.7 in the nose. Treat it as a single DShk.

    The Hind D mounts only a single Yak-B

    The Hind E comes in 2 varieties. The Mi-24V (the most common of all Hinds) is similar to the D, The Mi-24P mounts a Gsh-30K twin barrel cannon fixed to the side of the nose firing directly forward and does not have the Yak-B, I can find no info on how common (numerous) this version was.

    The Hind F (Mi-24VP) mounts a GSh-23L twin barrel gun in a redesigned turret in the nose which replaces the Yak-B. Very few were made and soon withdrawn as the system was unreliable.

    All Hinds can carry 8 passengers and 4 rocket pods while As and Ds can only carry two ATGMs while the Es can carry four ATGMs. They can also carry gun pods and certain types of bombs. I can work up a complete list or interested parties can download the excellent 4+ publications book at;

    http://www.4pluspublications.com/en/publications/3-mi-24-hind

     

    Thank you for the video it showed we were doing most things correctly and how with more capable forces and more time the combat results did build. Please take all the above, like my email questions above, as intended as very interested players looking to help improve the game as well as ensure we were playing it correctly. Thank you.

     

    Stephen

    madman
    Participant

    Played a couple games of this a few months ago now and wish to comment. I emailed and discussed the questions which arose with Tom and made sure he had no issues before I posted my thoughts.

    To be fair here is Tom’s reply followed by my original email;

     

     

    Hi Stephen, thanks for the email, I’ll dive right in;

    What is the turn sequence as to initiative?
    Players take turns working through the turn structure. It is essentially “I Go, U Go”, as in “I take my entire turn, activating all my units, then you take your entire turn, activating all your units”
    pay careful attention to the wording of the Turn Structure section on page 4:
    “Each player’s turn is structured in the following way” (turn structure)
    “After both players have had a turn, 1 game turn has passed”

    So say the soviet player gets the first turn, they will draw cards for artillery/air strikes/etc, then play asset cards if they wish, then all their unit activation, then remove any suppression markers. The Mujahideen will then take any necessary morale checks if their units have taken morale damage.

    Then the Mujahideen will take their first turn: they will roll for any units in ambush to appear, then play asset cards if they wish, then their unit activation, then they will remove any suppression markers. Finally the Soviets will take morale checks for any units that took morale damage.

    After that, 1 game turn has passed.

    Following the turn structure in this way, a unit that is suppressed II will lose all its actions in its turn, and then the suppression will be removed at the end of the turn, so suppression only ever lasts for 1 turn.

    Are mine fields generated by pregame assets marked on the table or hidden? If hidden is there any mechanisms for honesty?
    Mine fields are not “pre game” as they do not have the asterisk next to them. This means they can be played during the asset phase of the turn (so could be withheld unit a player sees fit). All assets are technically ‘pre game’ as the assets are drawn before the game, but only assets specifically marked with the asterisk are considered “pre game” in that they must be player before the game starts. Assets without the asterisk next to their name can be played in any turn during a players asset phase.

    Minefields should be represented by a marker, provided at the end of the rules. Place the marker and measure 6″ from that spot when a unit comes close – any unit that moves through this area will take damage. (note that it should read 6″ radius, not diameter – a somewhat serious typo on my behalf that I’m surprised I didn’t notice until just now!)
    The fact that minefields can turn up halfway through a game makes them hidden to begin with. They can be placed anywhere when they are used so it makes them quite flexible. Often the Mujahideen and Soviets knew roughly where an enemy would be coming through and would mine the right places, often with devastating effects.


    We didn’t see any “area effects” for automatic fire or artillery weapons (ie. mortars). Each of these could only affect one unit so in game terms had no great benefit over (for example) a long range gun.

    That’s correct, there are no area effects except for the Katyusha Strike Mujahideen asset. This is to do with the large ground scale and small size of units (5 – 10 men). No area will have more than 5 or 10 men in it, so most weapons will only be able to damage 1 unit at a time. Katyusha are the only real exception as they really rely on area bombardment.

    The main benefit of mortars are the fact they can fire over terrain, provided a friendly unit somewhere has line of sight to the target. All other weapons require line of sight.

    To attempt to reveal a dispersed unit you only have to be within 12″. We felt you should also have LOS.
    This is a good idea, but I think being close enough would alert you to the fact enemies are close. Units might hear them talking or see them from outside their regular weapons line of sight (by looking around and not just straight ahead). Units already have to spend 1 action and make a quality check in order to reveal dispersed infantry, so I feel that is enough – this could mean sending out a scout over a hill or somesuch, or taking time to clear your flanks.

    On morale table you have the effect of lose one action next turn. Should this be handled and marked as a level 1 suppression?
    Yep this is what we treat it as, and I will change the wording in the update. We just use a “suppressed” marker to show the loss of one action as they are exactly the same thing.

    Also on the morale table we felt being in cover and the effects of unbroken friendly units within X” should be positive modifiers to the table.
    This is a good idea and I will consider it. Although as you mention, its already hard enough as it is to destroy infantry…

    As for assets and the offensive/defensive nature, they are a mixed bag, so it can really depend on what you get given. This reflects the situation for a field commander – often they don’t have the right tools for the job, or have the wrong tools for the job. Some assets that might be seen as defensive like minefields can be used on the offence, to prevent enemies counter-attacking or retreating, or to hem in enemies.

    Essentially you gamble with the assets, if you want to conduct an offensive as the Mujahideen, it might be wise to dedicate your strength more to forces than assets (say 3 assets and 7 forces for a 10 strength game), although you might get lucky and get things like artillery and katyusha strikes which would be very useful for an offensive. Assets like the Civilian Village and Ambush positions are also incredibly useful for Mujahideen offensives, as are Civilians, Overhead cover, Convincing the DRA to desert, Interference, Weapons Caches and Roadside mines. As well as the Prepared firing position, I count 11 assets that could be used on the offensive, which is the majority of the Mujahideen assets. Only the AP mine, Escape Routes and Road block are primarily defensive, although both AP mines and Escape Routes could still be used on the offensive – escape routes in case anything goes wrong, and AP mines to prevent enemies escaping or counter-attacking, or to defend flanks.

    Soviet assets could also be used on the defensive just as well, although their idea of ‘defensive’ would be more of a counter-attack. Certainly AP mines, Pre-Op training, Pre-Op Foot sweeps, KHAD information, Misinformation, Pre-OP recon and Air-blocking elements could all be used on the defensive – if you know an area is going to be blocked by air, you can treat it as a safe zone in defense.

    The assets should be quite flexible, able to be used for attack, defense, counter-attack, endurance and harassment. The only asset that doesn’t really have a use in-game is the Closer Ties with locals, but it can make a difference in campaigns, and also the Reaction (Prevent Escape Routes) can be very powerful.

    The only way to “kill” a unit is to morale effect it do death. Unless we missed something it was impossible to kill infantry in any significant way.
    This is correct and it reflects modern conflict, especially in Afghanistan. Troops often describe taking fire for long periods but only taking a few casualties. Essentially to destroy a unit you need to focus fire on it, or outflank it, or both. This encourages out-flanking and movement and I hope reflects the nature of combat in Afghanistan. Its not until you get really close, surround an enemy unit and throw in grenades that you actually kill them all. Usually they retreat with some casualties or retreat with no losses (as the Mujahideen often did…)

    I would recommend reading “The other side of the mountain” and “The Bear went over the mountain” if you haven’t already, they are great reads (not really ‘books’ as such, but collections of combat reports with maps from field commanders who were really there – both on the soviet and mujahideen side).

    This type of combat I have also seen from video footage of fighting in Afghanistan in the last ~10 years – troops harry each other from range, maybe take some light casualties (or even heavy casualties), but its not until they close with grenades and close range fire that they actually wipe entire enemy units out.

    The weapons ranges given the ground scale seemed excessive.
    We use a ground scale of 1″ = 20m, and have on top of that telescoped most of the longer ranges to be shorter than they actually would be – even at 6mm scale the ranges are far shorter than they should be. Modern ranges are quite long, and I don’t feel comfortable reducing the ranges any more than they already are.

    we feel Afghanistan is so wide open the ground scale should be reduced otherwise an excessive table would have to be employed.
    Afghanistan certainly has areas that are more wide open plains, but this game suits the areas with much more terrain – mountains, dense cities or villages, areas of foliage – a combination of all 3 of these provide good games of Hind & Seek, and I would recommend using quite a bit of terrain in your games. The example terrain set-ups provide the kind of terrain we feel is suitable – at least 10 areas of High Terrain, often with Higher terrain on top, 4 -5 areas of area terrain foliage, areas of village and buildings, etc. You don’t really want units to be able to see the entire table from any area, instead you want a few valleys with firing lines down them on the table, so units could choose to move through one valley to avoid enemies on another, although you want a certain amount or inter-connectivity, so valleys can join up and units aren’t too restricted by all the high terrain. You can see in the two books I mentioned above the maps they show are almost always littered with mountainous areas – they are almost never fighting in open plains. And if there are areas that are more open, they are covered in high crops and foliage where line of sight is less than 10m (known as green zones).

    Hope that answers some of your questions, good to hear from you and I certainly have some ideas and notes for the update (as well as some mistakes and typos I spotted). I hope you guys can try again with a bit more success as it is a really fun and interesting period to game! 🙂

    Cheers,

    Tom

     

    Here is my initial email
    Tom

    Well I didn’t hear back from the guy so here is our observations as interpreted by me.

    We didn’t find the close combat rules until the last turn of our game. Removing terrain defense modifiers seemed odd but treating it as a “net” effect felt OK.
    What is the turn sequence as to initiative? Is it: all units of the winning player go first then the surviving units of the second player all have their turn? Or: One unit of the winning player has its actions, then one unit of the second player, then one unit….?

    Keeping with the above if a unit is suppressed before it has done any actions does it loose it’s actions for the turn or not until next turn?

    Keeping with the above does suppression gained in a turn is removed at the end of the turn or end of next game turn? Two issues. If a unit is suppressed and looses actions that turn we felt it should be removed at the end of the game turn as it has already felt the effects. If a unit is not affected by suppression until the following turn a mechanism for recording which turn it was suppressed on is then needed.
    Are mine fields generated by pregame assets marked on the table or hidden? If hidden is there any mechanisms for honesty?
    We didn’t see any “area effects” for automatic fire or artillery weapons (ie. mortars). Each of these could only affect one unit so in game terms had no great benefit over (for example) a long range gun.
    To attempt to reveal a dispersed unit you only have to be within 12″. We felt you should also have LOS.
    On morale table you have the effect of lose one action next turn. Should this be handled and marked as a level 1 suppression?

    Also on the morale table we felt being in cover and the effects of unbroken friendly units within X” should be positive modifiers to the table.
    Other observations;

    We only played a couple of game turns and found the following issues which we felt needed to be addressed before going any further.

    Mujahideen assets are almost all applicable to a defensive action. Similarly Soviet assets are primarily (heavily) offensive in nature. The scenario we played was Mujahideen attacking a DRA base either days before or just after the Soviets invade. I limited the game to DRA strength and insurgent forces which I felt would be available at that period (line infantry BTRs HMGs and maybe a T54 for the DRA, lee enfields, lmgs, mortars and snipers for the insurgents. It was felt additional assets should be available to cover offensive actions my insurgents and defensive operations by soviet side. Perhaps an extended asset list which is adjusted up or down for attack or defensive posture.

    Our assets turned out to be really dubious. The attacking Mujahideen had mine fields and the DRA had intel so all the units starting not dispersed at the start of the game (all anyways) started not dispersed and hidden ambush positions (none) were forced to be not dispersed!
    All but a couple of the approximately two dozen units on the board were fighting, usually just around the limits of lethal ranges (a little over or under). Only one unit had any morale effect and was not going anywhere (worse) fast. The only way to “kill” a unit is to morale effect it do death. Unless we missed something it was impossible to kill infantry in any significant way.

    The weapons ranges given the ground scale seemed excessive. Basically any units on the about 6′ long table were in range. I thought you mentioned playing on 4′ square tables. If so other than terrain effects most weapons above infantry small arms cover the table. I like the ground scale for my micro armour games but we feel Afghanistan is so wide open the ground scale should be reduced otherwise an excessive table would have to be employed.
    Please take all the above as friendly thoughts and questions from interested blind testers. I am really keen on the game and subject so am very motivated to make it work. Thank you for your efforts.

    Stephen

     

    I am hoping to revisit these rules over the holidays and hoping to see something new I missed. We never played more than 3 game turns as my opponents felt the lack of significant effect on “hit” units was not allowing the game to progress.

     

    I am curious if anyone else has played any games of this? Interest was high when it was announced and first made available. Thank you.

     

    Stephen

     

    in reply to: Austrian Squad/Fire Team Composition? #70475
    madman
    Participant

    Here is a picture on wiki from 2011. It shows the (MG3?) still in use as presumably the squad support weapon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesheer_at_Airpower11_01.jpg

    in reply to: Books On Air Warfare #70110
    madman
    Participant

    What are you looking for?

    Technology, general or specific planes/weapons/power plants/aerodynamics?

    History, units, pilots, planes, designers, campaigns, battles, periods?

    Tactics, overviews, specific weapons, ACM?

    Fiction, which war?

    As stated above it is a big subject. What aspect are you looking for?

    Personal favorites.

    Fiction: The Bandy series by Donald Jacks.
    Technology: Windsock Datafiles
    History: Anything by Peter Kilduff
    Tactics: Fighter Combat tactics and maneuvering, Robert L. Shaw, Naval Institute Press (priceless)

    in reply to: Gweirda's odd POV #70037
    madman
    Participant

    Then they pass by each other and spend the next 5 minutes or so getting back to where one or the other or possibly both can attack again.

    Nope. An aircraft going 100 mph can turn 180-degrees in a 300-ft radius in around 6 seconds (all figures rough, but certainly within the ‘5 minute’ range). This means that a target aircraft is not out of effective range. and is therefore vulnerable to attack/engagement within a few seconds. Of course, an opponent can choose to flee the engagment and get out of range -but the same can be said of a martial artist who chooses to turn and run. Both can be pursued, but both have succeeded in removing themselves from immediate attack.

    I assume roughly equal pilots with roughly equal planes. They are in a knife fight and neither is going to give any edge to their opponent except through mistakes, fatigue or fuel level.

    In your case lets assume one pilot goes on their way happily tripping for home in a straight line. The other pilot immediately reverses at the merge. By the time the turning pilot gets turned around the target is 1000 feet away. Way out of effective range. Again let’s assume the target just flies on straight and level not a care in the world. IF the hunter has a 20 mph speed advantage (say they have a fighter and the target a spotter type plane) it will take a minimum of half a minute to close with the target again. Now they are placed in the ideal position safely tucked away at the target’s six.

    This never happens in reality. The target dives and picks up speed opening the range faster than the maneuvering plane can, all the while firewalling the throttle. The turning plane is only pulling just over 2 G but that still causes drag which slows them down further increasing the range (not much but these things all add up).

    In the case of dueling pilots they will be doing all sorts of maneuvers and tricks hoping to get behind the other guy. All the while the other guy is doing likewise. Even when one gets lined up it takes some time to both reel them in to effective range and deal with all the hijinks in order to get even a hope for shot. They don’t just stand there exchanging shots.

    Probably the closest analogy to what you are describing (again assuming I am understanding your points correctly) is a plane passing through a bomber formation. All the gunners are able to take a shot at the attacker. IF the attacker is coming from the front it is a one time snap shot. Even the tail gunner will only get a fleeting shot as he won’t even be starting tracking until the firer is well past. If the attacker is coming from the rear everyone has some time to exchange shots. That is why they never attacked from the rear. The nose gunner is going to see the fighter a lot closer than the fighter will see the bomber giving them less time to aim.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by madman.
    in reply to: Modern Tanks for Sci fi? #69829
    madman
    Participant

    Using modern (or even other periods) vehicles, weapons, infantry is fine. Lets face it for us it is 90% aesthetics anyways.

    Personally I used to prefer air cushion vehicles (ACVs) for my sci fi armour. Then I read a bit about the brown water navy in Vietnam and the PAC-V (hovercraft). Very fast and could react quickly to bring troops and weapons to bear but… Hellishly loud. No stealth here. Enemy knows you are coming, and what with, long before you get there. So accept grav tanks (anti grav), clunky tread or wheels or announce your presence before you enter the game board.

    in reply to: H&R- 6mm Germans #69717
    madman
    Participant

    I like the H&R figures as well. Which packs are you showing? Can you post larger pictures to gauge detail? Maybe just post a close up of the various strips. I think it would be great if we all got together and posted shots of the minis we have since their web site is so poor. What pictures they do have are small and with the figures based on flocked bases you can’t see a [email protected] thing! Blech!

    in reply to: Gweirda's odd POV #69716
    madman
    Participant

    If you are looking for an operational level game where facing is of less import, then the hexes, or other “area” would have to be say 100 kms or so across. If you are talking a knife fight, any period, facing defines direction and weapons engagement. Any game worth its while also must address altitude and in a reasonable method. In the game of CY6 I played our planes only had about 6 levels of altitude from the dirt to ceiling. No biggie, except flight characteristics change drastically over those differences. Also while the scale of the level flight distances were OK we were able to gain or loose such altitude that I would have to be piloting a space shuttle to climb that fast.

    100 kms takes a WWI fighter about half an hour to cross, WWII say 5 to 10 minutes, modern day fighters take 5 minutes at most. Now the other guy is coming towards you halve these figures.

    OK you want to represent similar mechanics of a dog fight and a kung fu game. Lets check reality. IF you are saying a hand to hand combat by two land bound fighters is no different consider this. In a face to face battle between 2 WWI era fighters they are in range for only one SECOND. Then they pass by each other and spend the next 5 minutes or so getting back to where one or the other or possibly both can attack again. How many actions can a couple of kung fu guys take in 1 second? What if one jumped off the second floor of a building passes the other guy and lands in the basement. This is they type of action you would have to be representing.

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 417 total)