"All Quiet on the Martian Front - Steam Tank Review" Topic

All Miniatures Great and Small takes a look at Alien Dungeon's new miniatures. The US Steam Tanks are fun little kits with just enough detail to make them an entertaining build and are fun to paint.

Full review here… link

These kits aren't without a few issues but overall I recommend them.

Great review.

I have to echo that the right side track panels are poorly done. I used the Vallejo pre-boxed olive drab and olive drab weathering system on them, and you do have to compensate to get both sides looking the same.

I like the tanks a lot. My only other minor complaint is that I bought a starter set and two boxes of extra steam tanks, and between the two, there was no clear instruction on how to build each variant. Yes, you can go to the web site(which I did, eventually) and figure it out, but apparently they assume that everybody will buy the separate rulebook(I did not). If there is an updated assembly sheet, it wouldn't hurt to list what goes with what variant.

The right side track panels do not have as clearly a defined grove as shown in the pictures above. But still a very nice model. I have put together 15 of them so far. I did 3 platoons of MK IIs, one platoon of MK IIIs, and then made a company command MK II, and destroyed Mk II. Also made my own version of a Bn Cmd tank, MGs only. They have a PDF on the website with more variants that can be made off the box set.
I plan on an infantry carrier varient for my Assault infantry platoon. removing the main gun and replace with MG turret, then opening up the center crew compartment to hold an infantry team. Inspired by US troops working with the BEF.

Since the right side track panels do not have as clearly a defined grove as the left side, we need a ret-con to explain the problem. Why is the groove less defined?

The machinery requires a smoother inside on one side or the other? The panel is removable on the left side for maintenance? The panels on one side are stronger because the support the boiler or the coal storage and so are constructed differently? The left side can actually slide out for maintenance so the greater definition is because there is greater space between panels to allow the movement?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Thanks all.

@bunkermeister I like your thinking!

Actually, from what I understand, the right side is the correct side and the left side is the one that wasn't molded correctly. IOWs there shouldn't be huge grooved lines in the tank.

Perhaps so, Lava, but mine got their groove back via a small steel ruler and a dentist's scraper.

I noticed the demarcation between the top hatch doors wasn't particularly well defined, either, so that got a similar treatment.

I found my plastic model panel scribe tool today by accident.

If I do another box, I'm definitely deepening the groove. Thanks for the tip about the top hatch doors, Macross.

Historically tanks were introduced as a tactical solution to the trench deadlock of the western front; what's the writers' justification for their presence in this reality?

Horse-drawn artillery and supply, cavalry and infantry were just not mobile enough to rapidly respond to the quick moving Martians. Even when they could mass against them their survivability was limited.

What was needed was a mobile force that could bring enough fire power to bear while standing a good chance of surviving the heat rays.

Given the primitive nature of existing internal combustion engines, the limited existence of oil refining, the danger of exposing volatile liquids to heat rays, the maturity and widespread availability of steam engines (locomotive industry) and with the large coal fields in the East it was decided to develop the steam tank.

That sounds a tad wobbly to me. First generation tanks only did 4mph at best, didn't they? A horse can move a lot faster if necessary. And sending men trapped inside cumbersome, slow-moving metal boxes would merely present the Martians with a bank of conveniently placed ovens, I'd have thought.

That's why to me this game's two-step, move up and attack then retire to cover move sequence concept seems very dodgy. I don't see these primitive, mechanically unreliable, WW1-style tanks as having either the speed or manoeuvrability to escape their inevitable fate once engaged. Their combat life would be very short, rendering them ineffective and a waste of production time and resources.

The game's combat dynamics would be more plausible if its tanks had been primarily Renault/Whippet analogues – and I wonder why they aren't. After all, within the pseudo-historical background narrative more than enough time has passed since the initial deployment of tanks for technological improvements to have occurred.

And invading Martians in Tripods is so much more plausible?

I "rationalize" it this way: The Americans are fighting an enemy that has gobbled-up the heartland, stopped only by the Rockies and the Mississippi (which they have breached in a couple of places). There is little time to experiment on new designs. They have something that works (kinda like the Sherman in WWII) and are slowly building on that.

Check out this thread for pictures of future releases:

TMP link

The picture in the OP is the MK II. The MK III has two cannon-armed sponsons and a copula with a cannon.

The MK IV (not yet released) has a turret with (I think) and 6" gun and six 4" guns. It kinda reminds me of a T-35.

And don't get me started on the rules. When are rule makers going to get rid of IGOUGO. Works for Chess, Checkers and kids games but is useless when trying to reflect combat.

The game is basically like early WWII. The infantry is basically helpless against armor (tripods). Now that the Martian "infantry" are being released you can have more "realistic" infantry battles with maybe a couple of armored units thrown in as support. Or you could have massed armored battles with infantry trying to stay out of the way.

And I really wish they had made it in 6mm or 10mm rather than "heroic" 15mm (18mm).

When your vehicle is 3" long it makes a 30" shooting range look a little short.

And when the US Land Ship "Detroit" comes you couldn't really play it on a 4'x6' table.

Follow the link to see the "Detroit":

link

Who's designing these things, Ferdinand Porsche?

I'll take a stab. They included tanks because guys like me believe that tanks are fun. The more the better. Hub-to-hub if possible.

Model tanks look cool, and steam tanks look even cooler. Also, a model tank is fun to move on the tabletop. It is fun to tip,over when destroyed. It is fun to paint. It is fun to customize.

I bought a game about a second Martiian invasion of Earth. It needed to have great models, and it needed to be fun. There are some shortcomings in the game(the rules in the starter set frankly feel like an incomplete afterthought, and really need to be re-done as a free .pdf)but having large numbers of improbable steam tanks is not one of them.

some of these guys are really going to pop when they see the bigger tanks and land battleships….wow, good thing its only a game.

I've completed more tanks, MK IIb and Mk III. As well as the basic infantry and have now gotten many 1000 point games in.

The IGOUGO isn't too bad and they have in interesting mechanic where you roll initiative every turn so it's possible to get two moves back to back (I know the IGOuGO haters will probably freak over that).

I've got to say I like the game so far but there are some major issues brewing in regards to rules.

For example…

the costing of units, the far inferior MKIIb is costed way more then the excellent MK III steam tank. Reason giving by the Game Developers is that it's a rare tank and should cost more. Not a good precedence IMHO.

More worrisome is the Machine Gun issue. In my limited number of games we are already starting to see the humble MG as the premier weapon in the game. Yes, at a power of +1 it's only Penitrating Assault Tripods 10% of the time however the shear amount of shots that MG units can put out (ROF3) can overwhelm the Martians. Keep in mind that one you damage the Tripod the MG rolls on the same Damage chart as any other gun, with an equal chance of 1 shotting your 200 point Tripod.

The "Martian Killing" 4" gun mounted on all of the US Steam Tanks released so far is only a single shot with +2.

Cheap Heavy Machine Gun platoons and MG Armed tanks are more effective then anything so far released at killing Tripods.

That said I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom but it is something that the developers will need to look at sooner rather than later.

I have played several games so far and agree that the HMGs can be a significant threat to the Martians. A good tactic to use is to have the steamer tanks score some hits and reduce the armor value of a tripod and then have the HMGs conduct their fire. With 9 shots for 3 MG teams firing it is possible to get multiple penatrations, which add a + to your die roll on the effects chart.

So far in all the games we have played the Martians have only had Tripods. With the release of the slavers and drones the next game we play should have significant Martian Infantry available. I have already painted 3 blaster and 3 slicer squads, and will add 6 drone squads and at least 2 slavers. That should keep the MGs tied down trying to fend them off, and allow the Martians to target the MGs with their infantry while the Tripods go after the steamer tanks.

Right now I think the answer may be in adjusting tactics rather than looking at rule changes. It will be interesting to see how the anti-tank guns and artillery effect the battles.

Some interesting events from the game we played Saturday night were on turn two a steamer tank scored a hit on a Scout Tripod, on the Tripod Effects Chart he rolled a 10. There were 2 other Scout Tripods within 6", both were destroyed in the blast. Later in the game (turn 6) the human player launched an all out infantry assault against some Scout Tripods (they needed 1 more kill to break the Martian force). One Scout Tripod took a hit, and once more a 10 was rolled on the effects chart. This time there were 14 infantry stands in the blast area, all but 3 were lost.

If I'm in an Infantry Vs Tripod fight, thankyou, I'll take the Tripod, given their equipped Medium Heat Ray with a Sweep capability. However I do not consider Infantry "helpless" vs the Tripod. The Infantry can roll a "10" on a D10 and find some lucky results. Close Assault is another Infantry trained protocol. Additionally, veteran infantry contain a special assault element notionally known as Forlorn Hope. The game will eventually provide figures climbing a grapnel line flung to the carapace of a Tripod. These figures haul satchel charges and explosives with a fair opportunity for sucess. The down side is that the Forlorn Hope, once used, dissapate as a multiplier. That is they perish in the mission or disperse at the conclusion of their attack.

I would not hope an exposed line of infantry stands could prevent a Tripod from moving over or past them, or still be there after a Heat Ray Sweep attack, but the Infantry in AQotMF have their moments, especially in cover or built up areas.

Agree with earlier post about the HMG's (infantry support).
Each stand rolls three D10's. Lots of HMG stands roll lots of dice looking for 8's, 9's, or 10's.

Additionally Rough Riders with their tripwire grapnels and mounted MG's, really cause the Tripods to stop and deal with them.

Infantry in most systems are not meant to operate alone. Inf alone vs Tripods is not a good look, and destined to lose. Integrated and supporting units have a better chance.

However at Historicon, in my experience with the Battle of Memphis, my zone held and the last zone to my left held, two zones in the open, outside the Memphis Wall, contained the Tripods to our fronts, allbeit with heavy losses. On the far right, outside thw Walls, an Ironclad machine controlled Martians in three zones. Still to my imediate right the Walls of Memphis did not hold, with what seemed massive tank and artillery support. Tripods were running Wild in Memphis with the Science Tripod releasing viral spoors to deflate and eradicate the population of that city. I thought the idea was to hold the Mississippi line.

So stop chewing on the infantry and somebody point a finger at…

The "Forlorn Hope" are out.

There is an FAQ/Errata out. Tripod can now, literally, walk over infantry. When they have completed their move they cannot be on top of the infantry, nor may they stop within 1 inch of the infantry.

Played an 8-player demo game at GenCon. A couple of my friends and I just happened to walk over to a demo with three empty seats just as the GM was starting to explain the rules.

Short review:

WE HAD A BLAST. PEW! PEW!

Slightly longer review:

The game plays very quickly, with rules that are easy to explain.

I do think there's some merit here:

In my limited number of games we are already starting to see the humble MG as the premier weapon in the game. Yes, at a power of +1 it's only Penitrating Assault Tripods 10% of the time however the shear amount of shots that MG units can put out (ROF3) can overwhelm the Martians. Keep in mind that one you damage the Tripod the MG rolls on the same Damage chart as any other gun, with an equal chance of 1 shotting your 200 point Tripod.

Given how few Tripods there are, they are pretty fragile. 1 in 10 doesn't sound like much, but I had two Tripods catastrophically explode, damaging/destroying friendlies around it. So…yeah.

Then again, it's fun and plays quickly enough that I'm not gnashing my teeth over those odds. The remainder of my forces roasted the Earthlings anyway, so no complaints. ;)

Aren't the MGs in question the good old Browning .50cal? Which are quite capable of chewing up lightly armored vehicles even with WW1 vintage ammo, nevermind the more exotic stuff available today.

I know I'd sure be bringing as many .50s as I could get my hands on if I was trying to deal with Martians.

I think they are the water cooled .30 cal but I could be wrong….

Another Infantry asset making them somewhat tougher is the BEF equipped element with the Half Pound Coil gun. The man transportable wep has a Plus Four firing bonus. Every little bit helps.

About the Steam Tanks:

Aren't they supposed to be equipped with a ceramic armor layer that offers some protection against Heat Rays? I recall that being the case with the anti-tripod gun, at least.

That'd certainly give them an advantage in that they could have a chance of surviving a glancing hit with a Heat Ray AND you have a lot of them. Not so for exposed artillery and horses!

In the game before my turn at Historicon, the Tesla gun took out nine tripods in one turn with the energy charge leaping from machine to machine. Gulp.

BTW Grenadier tripods are effective in calming down ground troops. Drop some Black Dust on them and poof…no infantry. HG Wells called the stuff "Black Smoke. In his War of the Worlds.

The point about the MGs is they are better than cannons. A 4" gun has 1 shot +2 damage; an MG has 3 shots +1 damage. Obviously a much better anti-tank weapon

The Martians are supposed to be heavily armored.

(Cannons do have longer range 30" v 20" but this seldom matters).

In addition you can load up tanks with 3 MGs (9 shots at +1). To add insult to injury they MGs are cheaper…

TomT