Editor in Chief Bill | 07 Dec 2011 12:33 p.m. PST |
The modern ruleset from Ambush Alley Games places less emphasis on specific weapons, and more emphasis on the skill and training of the combatants:
we assume that all classes of weapons designed to perform the same battlefield task are basically analagous – it is the man using the tool that makes the difference. Do you agree with this approach? |
Angel Barracks | 07 Dec 2011 12:36 p.m. PST |
Kind of, if we assume they are all designed to put down the enemy. If you get hit by any sort of rifle I reckon in games terms which sort is moot if the effect is the same. IE- you are not a threat anymore. Just as a WP grenade will put down as well as a frag grenade, if they go off in your face. But, that does not mean there is no room for flavour. |
Jovian1 | 07 Dec 2011 12:37 p.m. PST |
Well, ancient and most other rule sets use the same things when they develop fire power ratings for units in, calling all arquebus the same, even though they were of different caliber and some of dubious manufacture. So, it is a design choice and if the mechanics are used appropriately, it can work well. Some will disagree, but as the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people, usually using guns. |
MajorB | 07 Dec 2011 12:45 p.m. PST |
Do you agree with this approach? Yes. |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Dec 2011 12:51 p.m. PST |
Yes for the squad level of the game. If it were more vehicle focused then I would disagree. Although it does have vehicle rules, and scenarios with only vehicles in them, I personally think vehicles should be support units only in the system as written. |
Mooseworks8 | 07 Dec 2011 1:05 p.m. PST |
|
Henrix | 07 Dec 2011 1:11 p.m. PST |
|
Lobsterback | 07 Dec 2011 1:15 p.m. PST |
|
Von Ewald | 07 Dec 2011 1:17 p.m. PST |
|
basileus66 | 07 Dec 2011 1:39 p.m. PST |
|
Little Big Wars | 07 Dec 2011 1:56 p.m. PST |
I much prefer this approach. |
Mr Elmo | 07 Dec 2011 2:21 p.m. PST |
Do you agree with this approach? In terms of general classification: Sidearm, Personal Weapon, Squad Weapon, Support Weapon, it works. Lots of rules have "Pistol", "Rifle", etc. so why not. It's a little fuzzy with things like SMGs. It's definitely an "outcomes based wargame" |
Scale Creep Miniatures | 07 Dec 2011 2:29 p.m. PST |
|
Ambush Alley Games | 07 Dec 2011 2:37 p.m. PST |
Process based. Outcome vs. Process design is always good for a few pages of histrionics and puffery from the supporters of both sides (Mr. Elmo is right, the AAG engine leans towards Outcome Based design). - Shawn. |
JRacel | 07 Dec 2011 2:37 p.m. PST |
Works for me. I have systems with pages of individual weapons where the few differences are so minor that you wonder why you bothered. Jeff |
Inari7 | 07 Dec 2011 2:37 p.m. PST |
I think its more realistic, then combat being based around the different weapons being used. It's the training and experience that make the difference not the weapon. I would bet on a well trained and experienced platoon of Marines with WWII weapons over a just trained fresh platoon, using weapons that are issued today. |
Weasel | 07 Dec 2011 2:53 p.m. PST |
It depends on the game, the scale and the period we're gaming. Training and quality is paramount, but weapon differences do make tactical realities. I'd be dubious about a game which treated a Panzer 3e the same as a T34, or a game that rated Iraqi T55 the same as Brit Challengers. |
Dennis0302 | 07 Dec 2011 3:54 p.m. PST |
No.There is a loss of "flavor" and I feel a loss of realism and as Weasel said tactical reality. While training and experience are important,weapons can make far more of a difference than what most gamers, who have little experience in the military and even less with firearms, can imagine. I've done a fair amount of shooting in my day. I fired high expert in the Marines consistantly. One thing I can tell you, I shoot a lot better with an M-4 with an AGOG on it then I do with a beat up SKS. No offense to Shawn, I own all of the Ambush Alley products but processed based or outcome based wargaming eliminates too many critical points. A system that assumes all assault rifles are the same has the same logic as saying that all cars are the same. |
Spooner6 | 07 Dec 2011 4:17 p.m. PST |
Doesn't FoF have different ratings for T55 and Challenger? I haven't used vehicles yet, but did see stat lines in the back. There is one of the FoF scenerio books that allow the ACOG equiped troops to double short range thus creating a shooting advantage. Isn't there an "Outgunned" rule that you could use to simulate a unit with top end AR vs. some dudes with rusted SKS's? I am new to FoF and while I have issues this isn't one of them. Chris |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Dec 2011 4:28 p.m. PST |
> Doesn't FoF have different ratings for T55 and Challenger Yes > Isn't there an "Outgunned" rule Yes, but that really applies to something like semi auto rifles going up against assault rifles. |
leidang | 07 Dec 2011 4:29 p.m. PST |
It is not my cup of tea
. To me with Skirmish gaming the story is more than half the fun. The outcome is secondary to how you get there. When you abstact out the story I think the gaming experience loses quite a bit. |
Ambush Alley Games | 07 Dec 2011 4:34 p.m. PST |
Just so nobody gets the wrong impression: While we don't differentiate between weapons of the same class, we DO differentiate between weapons of different classes. In other words, an assault rifle doesn't perform the same way as a GPMG and a T55 doesn't perform the same way as a Challenger. ;) @Dennis0302: No offense taken. I take your point but I'd point out that the differences between assault rifles (or cars) vary in importance based on the granularity and scope of a given game. In a game focused on the performance of individual soldiers, I think you'd want to differentiate between their individual weapons. In a game focused on fire teams, I think the differences between individual weapons is less critical than the overall tactical ability of the fire team. That's a very subjective opinion, though, and I freely admit that what feels right for me doesn't necessarily feel right to you! Respectfully, Shawn. |
Cerberus0311 | 07 Dec 2011 4:46 p.m. PST |
I wrote this several days ago during a discussion on weapon knock down power. "It is the man and not the weapon. While I have not been in a real life and death firefight I have spent many a day and night in training areas. As a Marine no longer on active duty I volunteer as a "civilian on the battlefield" to assist in training for units working up to deployment. While doing this I have met everyone from line units to the very best of the very best. Against the very best all I have to say is that giving them a slingshot still puts me at a disadvantage. No matter what you would give me short of a large nuke. Against line units using the same or very similar weapons to the best guys, I am shot at alot more and hit alot less. When it is a best unit I know I am getting double tapped and they will be a double chest or chest and head shot. The last time I volunteered it was a line unit and in four hours of sniping and harassing I was hit once, in the leg, and was shot at a good 50 times. It is the man and not the weapon." |
Ron W DuBray | 07 Dec 2011 5:34 p.m. PST |
I have not had any problems with it in games and players have loved the game. |
Barks1 | 07 Dec 2011 5:38 p.m. PST |
|
Dragon Gunner | 07 Dec 2011 6:06 p.m. PST |
Yes If the game was character driven I would be willing to get into the nitty gritty of looking up individual weapon stats and engaging in some number crunching. |
vojvoda | 07 Dec 2011 7:13 p.m. PST |
I can tell you for a fact training and the warrior ethos is what makes the difference. I trained soldiers to be more then than they could be. Give me a soldier who is totally committed to battle any day. I have seen amazing things from the most unassuming individuals. VR James Mattes |
Wartopia | 07 Dec 2011 7:23 p.m. PST |
"The modern ruleset from Ambush Alley Games places less emphasis on specific weapons, and more emphasis on the skill and training of the combatants:" That's not entirely accurate. First, it puts no more and no less emphasis on troop vs weapon quality than most any other rule set. If you look at CD, FoW, etc, you'll see similar differences between low and high quality troops in both skill and morale. For an interesting discussion invite Phil Yates to debatw whether or not skill and morale matter in FoW. ;-) Second, while the text notes indicate there are no weapon lists there are indeed stat lines like other rules, just not in one convenient list. it's as if Battlefront scattered all of its weapon data in a bunch of scenario text. Third, there are actually vehicle lists. Finally, I think this scattered approach only serves to make things less convenient for players. Instead of easily referenced, transparent weapons info collected in a central point you have them scattered in scenario text and even the. Basic functions such as weapon accuracy, range, and damage potential are governed by multiple special rules . It's as if FoW restarted AT and Fire power values at various intervals and then wrapped special rules around those categories. It gets really complicated very quickly. I also feel there's a loss of contrast in weapon role within various classes. 40k does a better job representing the battlefield role of, say, automatic weapons vs light AT weapons. |
Wartopia | 07 Dec 2011 7:27 p.m. PST |
"Outcome vs. Process design is always good for a few pages of histrionics and puffery from the supporters of both sides (Mr. Elmo is right, the AAG engine leans towards Outcome Based design)." I've always thought of FoF as being process heavy compared to other rules. Just look at the shooting process and reaction system. Both are far more complex than other rules. |
Wartopia | 07 Dec 2011 7:35 p.m. PST |
"> Isn't there an "Outgunned" rule Yes, but that really applies to something like semi auto rifles going up against assault rifles." Rather than a special rule other systems build these differences into the data making the imformation convenient and intuitive. For example, FoW models the differences between assault and other rifles with great elegance while making skill and morale just as important. All of this skill bs hardware makes for great marketing fluff but other systems handle the balance just as well and with greater convenience. |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Dec 2011 7:47 p.m. PST |
> For example, FoW models the differences between assault and other rifles with great elegance while making skill and morale just as important. Not to the same extent as FOF. FOW, like many other games, uses the +1 for good troops when fired upon, can generally fire once a turn. (might be special rules in different units – but since you don't like rules acting as stats we can safely ignore that). In FOF higher quality troops most likely will get to fire multiple times, fire first, get initiative (more important then just going first in FOF), and a single level quality difference in FOF is a major advantage, in our first game it seemed like they had death rays and force shields. (we are working on our tactics for that – not sure if I like the system in that regard or not yet) |
basileus66 | 08 Dec 2011 12:58 a.m. PST |
and a single level quality difference in FOF is a major advantage, Yes, and the way to compensate is to overwhelm the better troops with dozens of less-well trained combatants shooting at the same target, at the same time
much like it happens in real combat. |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Dec 2011 3:35 a.m. PST |
Having seen the 'nut behind the buttplate' effect at the naval vessel level, I trust a game where the emphasis is on the training and morale of the troops much more than I trust one where you have a different statline for US troops with ACOG versus EOTech optics. For example, that interesting discussion about what would happen if a late WW2 German platoon got sucked through a time warp and appeared in 2011 Afghanistan, facing a US platoon. It doesn't really matter that the Germans all have StG44s and MG42s while the US has M4s, M203s, SAWs, a couple DMRs, and some M240s. What's going to matter is training and morale. |
CPT Jake | 08 Dec 2011 3:56 a.m. PST |
"The modern ruleset from Ambush Alley Games places less emphasis on specific weapons, and more emphasis on the skill and training of the combatants:"That's not entirely accurate. First, it puts no more and no less emphasis on troop vs weapon quality than most any other rule set. If you look at CD, FoW, etc, you'll see similar differences between low and high quality troops in both skill and morale. For an interesting discussion invite Phil Yates to debatw whether or not skill and morale matter in FoW. ;-) Second, while the text notes indicate there are no weapon lists there are indeed stat lines like other rules, just not in one convenient list. it's as if Battlefront scattered all of its weapon data in a bunch of scenario text. Third, there are actually vehicle lists. Finally, I think this scattered approach only serves to make things less convenient for players. Instead of easily referenced, transparent weapons info collected in a central point you have them scattered in scenario text and even the. Basic functions such as weapon accuracy, range, and damage potential are governed by multiple special rules . It's as if FoW restarted AT and Fire power values at various intervals and then wrapped special rules around those categories. It gets really complicated very quickly. I also feel there's a loss of contrast in weapon role within various classes. 40k does a better job representing the battlefield role of, say, automatic weapons vs light AT weapons.
I'm confused. The question is about Ambush Alley Games, yet it would appear from reading your answer that you are focusing on Flames of War pretty much after your first point. And even your first point doesn't refute the quote you used from the opening post. |
Martin Rapier | 08 Dec 2011 4:38 a.m. PST |
To answer the OP, yes, as long as the broad weapon classifications are sensible – bolt action rifle, battle rifle, assault rifle, LMG, MMG etc. In our tactical rules we found it useful to differentiate between magazine fed and belt fed LMGs but not .30 cal/MG32/42/Minimi/MAG vs Bren/DP/Zb 26/Madsen etc. |
The G Dog | 08 Dec 2011 6:23 a.m. PST |
Yes. I've played Tomorrow's War to model games we used to play with Striker (which has page after page of detailed weapons data). Honestly, I prefer the approach in TW. You are not constantly referencing charts, or measuring ranges. And the net result lines up pretty well with what you'd get from Striker. The emphasis on troop quality and morale in FOF reminds me very much of Command Decision (which was one of CD's strongest points). What I've seen is that there are a lot of players that just flat out LIKE the flavor that having detailed weapon data provides. For them, it is a key part of the game experience that makes gaming enjoyable. |
CPT Jake | 08 Dec 2011 6:55 a.m. PST |
This scene highlights the difference in philosophy: YouTube link |
Wartopia | 08 Dec 2011 8:06 a.m. PST |
"I'm confused. The question is about Ambush Alley Games, yet it would appear from reading your answer that you are focusing on Flames of War pretty much after your first point. And even your first point doesn't refute the quote you used from the opening post." I also referenced other rules too. I think the OP's question is flawed because it presumes that FoF puts greater emphasis on skill/morale than other rules. I know for a fact that statistically there's little difference between the relative shooting capability of FoW's vets vs conscripts and FoF's d6 vs d10s. Both systems show a similar relative capability. So the OP is really referencing a marketing pitch than game design approach. I think the original CD did a great job too with different troops having different staying power. In 40k there's a huge difference between troops with BS4/LDR9 and those with BS2/LDR5. And given that FoF lifts the use of die type to define troop quality from Star Grunt one could argue SG does just as good a job. In fact, I can't think of a commercial rule set that DOESN'T include troop quality as a critical component. Effectively the OP question is like asking, "Ford motor company says wheels are crucial to a car's performance. Do you agree or disagree with Ford Motor Company?" |
CPT Jake | 08 Dec 2011 8:19 a.m. PST |
The OP doesn't make any connection to other rules, it specifies a method/philosophy and asks opinions about it, using FOF as the example. Effectively the OP question is like asking, "Ford motor company says wheels are crucial to a car's performance. Do you agree or disagree that wheels are crucial?"
would be a more accurate translation of the OP. |
Lentulus | 08 Dec 2011 11:57 a.m. PST |
CPT Jake, I think a closer translation would be "Ford says the type of tires are critical to your car's performance driving in a blizzard" I'd still put me driving in a blizzard with all season radials against a Californian who has never seen snow driving in is first blizzard with snow tires. I've not looked at FoF, but I believe it's the same engine as Tomorrows War, where ranges are *very* close. |
DonLeg | 08 Dec 2011 12:06 p.m. PST |
Play what you know, play what you like
try not to be an ass about it. |
Altius | 08 Dec 2011 2:20 p.m. PST |
Yes, fine, whatever, just roll the damned dice. That's my 2 centavos anyway. It's interesting to me that ancient weapons such as arrows, spears and swords went through thousands of years of technological changes in design and materials, yet in game terms they remain simply: arrow, spear and sword. With few exceptions, a 15th Century BC Egyptian bronze khopesh is treated like a Toledo steel sword from the renaissance, for example. It's a sword. And we're ok with that, despite the fact that the hundreds of little tech tweaks it took to turn that khopesh into that steel sword over the years each had a huge impact on combat when they were introduced. What we tend to focus on, in most ancient rulebooks that I'm familiar with, is the quality of the man wielding the weapon to make the difference. So, measuring modern combat with the same yardstick, I'm personally ok with the simple approach. I don't want to speak for the guys at AA, but I think that is the same approach they were going for in FoF. In the FoF world, your training and motivation count for more than your weapon. Plus, I'm just imagining the unwieldiness of having a separate stat line for each weapon, and how are you going to accurately reflect the differences between them using dice ranges that basically go from 1 to 12? I know that there are real differences between the different weapons, but I just don't care. |
vojvoda | 08 Dec 2011 2:42 p.m. PST |
There are HUGH differences between units I would put up an ODA against a line battalion any day. We underestimate the level of training SMUs get. There is a display at Bragg it is 4 feet by 4 feet by 4 feet. It is filled with shell casings the average SOF soldier fires in the course of training in the base course. SOF soldier think different, they fight different, they use the chemical cocktail to their advantage and are switched on in combat. Few line units have that kind of disciple in combat. VR James Mattes |
Justice and Rule | 08 Dec 2011 4:18 p.m. PST |
Yes. I think most of the systems I play are like this. |
CAPTAIN BEEFHEART | 08 Dec 2011 9:08 p.m. PST |
I think Altius pegged it but I would add my own spin. Time tends to reverse telescope weapons into broad but similar qualities. A spear is a spear etc.. Once one has handled several weapons, they tend to take on nuances. Since this set of rules is modern, the tendency to accentuate the nuances could call to some. I disagree. Many fantasy and historical games think a dagger or a .22 bullet cannot deliver serious damage. In the right hands they can be devastating. Put me in the camp of quality vs caliber. As usual, I end the thread. |