Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 90 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Squad Hammer photos #105607
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    They do. I still can’t decide whether there is a pilot inside or if they’re remotes/AIs.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Mechs in 5-core #105606
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    While not my go to genre, I’d purchase this as well.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: U.S. Colonial Marines (3mm O8 Sci Fi) #97242
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Really looking forward to AARs! I’m not overly familiar with DS2 or SLT, so definitely eager to hear your take.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Action economy in WWII game #94013
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Thanks for the insight, guys. TFL’s Big Men is my favorite part of their games and I wish I new of a fitting way to implement a similar effect into my game, but haven’t hit upon it yet.

    As a bit more explanation, in my rules a point is spent to activate a single team (be it fireteam, gun crew or vehicle) but if a platoon leader team is activated, they can then activate any of their teams in their unit that they have line of sight to. Vehicles with radios do not require LoS, but those without do. Also, teams may only move or shoot when activated, and if shooting, must al target the same enemy team or any within 6″ of that team. So if not every team that a leader activates has LoS to the same targets, they won’t all be able to fire with that same activation point.

    The balance was supposed to come from the fact that hit on enemy were distributed to all enemy teams with 6″ of the target, so you’re incentivized to spread out where you can, which in turn can lead to less effective activations with large units. However, this hasn’t been terribly effective in forcing interesting decisions or reducing effectiveness of large unit’s combine firepower.

    Perhaps another thing to consider in simply reducing the radius of distributed hits to maybe 4″. This would not only make it easier to benefit from spreading out, but also make mass shooting less effective as there will often be fewer  effected targets per shooting action.

    One smallish change I started experimenting with around the same time as my original post, was adjusting the break condition for forces. Originally the break point was the same for both players based on the total number of units brought by all players. I’m playing now where the break total is not only independent per player, where each unit brought adds to the break total needed for the force to route, but also that higher quality units add more points than lower quality ones. This is another way for me to represent number and distribution of quality leaders in a force. You can have a unit of 10 t34’s but depending on the scenario they may be conscripts that only add 1 to your starting break point, but perhaps they’re facing 3 units of 3 panzer IV’s with elite crews, each adding 3 to the german sides break point.

    Anyway, keep me posted on your further thoughts and I’ll let you know how it goes.

    Thanks! 😀

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: AFVs at an angle (not sloped armour) #79379
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Hi RB, Crossfire is actually across the rear of the vehicle. See p19, left column, “Flank/Rear Shots”. 🙂 Both that and the above image are a bit problematic in my opinion; it looks reasonable in the illustration because the tanks are close to each other. I haven’t played FOW, but when the actual distances between, for example, the Sherman firing at the Stug, above, become a couple of feet or more, it seems really unreasonable to be firing at the front.

     

    Tim you are correct about Crossfire, but I bring them both up as they’re  more similar than they are different. You are also correct that it can occasionally create weird situations, especially as the vehicles get farther and farther apart. I simply consider this an abstraction, like any other, and this one is the simplest one I’ve found, that is also one of the least offensive, and is my go-to.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: AFVs at an angle (not sloped armour) #79320
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I’ve always preferred the Crossfire/Flames of War method of drawing the line across the front of the target’s hull. If firing from in front of that, it’s front armor.

     

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Room For Manoeuvre #75418
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    This is why wargamers need tables like this: 

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: 5 Core For Vietnam ? #66496
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I gotcha, Jonathan 🙂

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: 5 Core For Vietnam ? #66491
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    5core Company Command is one of my favorite games bar none. You owe it to yourself to play it regardless 😉

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Assault rules for WWII? #65150
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Yep, again, I’ve never been in battle before (I don’t envy anyone who has) but for my intent with this game, incentivizing the final charge to push the enemy off off their ground (and preparing the variables to best be able to accomplish that) is a big part of the story the game tells.

    The suggested change to the rules, though, would make it less of a different phase and resolve more similar to the normal shooting action, mechanically.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Assault rules for WWII? #65136
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    What’s realistic or necessary for the subject matter is always debatable. All that really matters is the narrative you’re trying to tell. For me, I like the narrative of infantry being nigh-indestructible if in cover at range. Achieving fire superiority and suppression is the goal at a distance, to allow you to close and kill/dislodge the opponent. Find, fix, flank, finish as it were. That’s the narrative I’m going for. “Assault” or “close combat” represents closing the last 30 yards, throwing grenades, and flanking around cover.

    This also makes the game more interesting, as it requires maneuver rather than firing back and forth until one side is removed. It’s a tall order to get across the board to take the defended objective. Lots of decisions to made in order to best achieve it.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Is 30° Too Fiddly? #65099
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    lol, love that

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Assault rules for WWII? #65097
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Hey guys, the assault rules have continued to slowly evolve and improve, but I’ve been thinking there’s a better way to do it or a while

    I have a new idea and curious if you have any surface level feedback. The current version uses a variant of Shaun’s idea, with teams moving into contact, all enemy teams within 8″ getting a “free” defensive fire (no need to spend an order point) and then both sides rolling quality checks, with the side that rolled more inflicting that many hits (usually kills) and the other player inflicting a max of one hit (if any).

    This plays really fast in practice, but there are a lot of little loop holes and exceptions which can pop up, meaning the rules just keep getting longer and longer, and can be difficult to explain to new players. I’d rather have something really clear, with minimal exceptions, even if it means multiple rolls to resolve the fight rather than just the one.

    What I’m thinking is this:

    Teams in base contact activate for free (no order point needed). Teams in contact roll to shoot as normal, but may only hit the team they are in contact with and ignore +1 penalty if concealed. Targets resolve RFPs immediately and as though in the open, even if in hard cover. When in contact, AT is +1 against armor and always against flank. Enemy teams in contact with friendlies can’t be targeted by teams not in contact with them.

    That’s it, those are all the rules (I think…). No more special AT rating when in assault. No more free defensive fire from teams within 8”. No more checking unsurpassed team within 8″.

    So assaulters would move into contact, assaulted teams could shoot back for free, needing 4+’s and resolving RFPs regardless of cover. Ideally they’re suppressed with RFPs on them so that they can’t fight back before you get your first swings. Those defenders may think it wiser to simply move away. Because teams in base to base with enemy activate for free, they’re likely to go back and forth until resolved. Though You can focus elsewhere if you really want.

    If assaulting tanks, they’re likely to just move away from you, which I think is perfectly fair. running down armor trying to assault it sounds ridiculous when you say it out loud.

    Gun teams will continue to fire like normal in their forward 90º arc, so assaulters will want to land on their flank when possible.

    Any thoughts?

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Is 30° Too Fiddly? #64982
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    This. You can easily imagine a 45° arc if looking at any miniature square base, corner to opposite corner. You can’t see 30° so easily, and when your players are a bit tired after a long gaming day I wouldn’t expect them to be very happy to search for it.

    Wouldn’t that be 90º? Speaking only personally, I think asking gamers to estimate anything other than 90 or 180, without the aid of a tool, is too fiddly.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: A probably stupid question about tank destroyers #64799
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Nikolas Lloyd mentions this briefly in his video about muzzle breaks:

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Campaign of 1896 Sudan #64175
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Great models and photos. What rules are you using?

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Hind & Seek – Airborne recon mission #64169
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Just as an aside, “Hind & Seek” is an incredibly bad-ass name. 😉

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    That’s a cracking looking game

    Thanks! “The Table” continues to slowly evolve. 😉 hopefully even more honed and impressive by Historicon.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Sci Fi Fighters – Why? #63746
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Also remember that these ships are going tens of thousands miles per hour. Think about how difficult and how much cooperation it takes for our real space craft to meet each other. Dunno if that helps or hurts the case for fighters, but its an interesting part of “real” space combat depending on how “hard” you’re trying to go.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Uploading photos? #63457
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    imgur.com

    just drop your photo onto the homepage and they give you an image link you cab embed anywhere else. done and done.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: A dice question. Your preference? #62923
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Way too hard to say without understanding how everything else integrates with it.

    I would lean toward 1 die, but it all depends…

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Searching for friendly adversaries #62877
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Virginia, here.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Do you collect terrain in a single scale? #62703
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I try to stick to 15mm… but…

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Topic Tags #62617
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Indeed. I always tag my topics.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Rules recommendations? #62616
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Fivecore

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: More Forums/Sub Forums #62553
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Yes, yes, and YES! Thanks, Mike!

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: More Forums/Sub Forums #62518
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Wait, wasn’t it 10 before? That’s what I counted a couple days ago.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: More Forums/Sub Forums #62512
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Or maybe instead of a list for those on the front page there could be a link that takes you to a page with a detailed list of them like we get in a sub forum? … I think it really will become an issue if the forum grows in popularity as it deserves to.

    This^

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: More Forums/Sub Forums #62507
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I second Victoria’s motion! It’s my number one request, and the main reason I (until recently…) continued to frequent TMP over TWW. If there’s any possibility of adding it in the future, that would be YUUUUGE.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: New Wargame! #62506
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    depending on how good the new versions look, I would be excited to pledge.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Playing with your Partner? #62459
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    My girlfriend plays with me, though I doubt she would play otherwise. She’s very supportive, helping me playtest home-brew games, and helping me at conventions. I’m very lucky.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: New Wargame! #62188
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Hi, Thanks for the feedback, yes we can improve on the quality. We have a local printing specialist who we have had samples off of and they look alot better. The cost is more but worth it.

    That’s great to hear. I’d still wanna see what the better versions will look like before ponying up, but I love the idea. Good luck!!

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: New Wargame! #62124
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I love the idea of the 2d mass armies, however I have to admit I’m disappointed that they are so transparent and desaturated. Is it possible that you’ll be able to improve on this before printing?

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: FOW 4.0 Rules. #59353
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I like all the changes, for the most part. Not sure if its enough to get me back into the “Flames of War community” but its a nice step. For the most part its the same game. same as v2 to v3.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Mental Health Issues #54333
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Works for me.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Christmas post compares two sets of rules #54140
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    awesome, looking forward to it!

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Flames of War Rules 4th Edition. #54095
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    I’m optimistic. Might be enough to get me back into the FoW scene.

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Hail Of Fire – Walkthrough AAR – Part 1 #53647
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Thanks, Norm! It’s a treat to know that other bloggers you’re a fan of enjoyed your post! 😀

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Hail Of Fire – Walkthrough AAR – Part 1 #53591
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    *psshhhh* you’re not trying hard enough! I’ll have the table set up and ready, just let me know when you leave 😉

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

    in reply to: Hail Of Fire – Walkthrough AAR – Part 1 #53586
    Avatar photoRetroboom
    Participant

    Thanks 🙂 Come over and play sometime!

    Richmond, VA. Let's play!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 90 total)