Navy Fower Wun Seven | 09 May 2016 3:45 a.m. PST |
In the military, when you have completed a high level Inspection or Operational Evaluation, there's always a level of tension as you await the inspecting officer's debrief. However experienced officers or SNCO's know to let out a small sigh of relief if the inspecting officer kicks off with some insignificant piece of piffling or unrealistic criticism – you've just successfully completed a replenishment at sea of incredibly fragile AA missiles in the worst storms in recorded history on the RAS route, but the Admiral is complaining that a seaman who was doing a passable imitation of a busy octopus in the middle of the RAS rig didn't immeadiately stop everything when his helmet was knocked off… Inner monologue: Is that the best you can come up with you shiny arse throbber? Well by the same token Battlefront must be judging the release of Team Yankee as a huge success, despite the missed deadlines. So far as I can see, criticism has been along 2 lines: 1. They didn't include AFVs that weren't in the Team Yankee book (No really, that has been a persistent critique!); 2. They didn't release all the possible AFVs and vehicles in use by all the nations involved in the Cold War in the first release. (For those to young to remember, there were about 19 nations in NATO alone at the time!) (In the latter case, I think we can safely assume that the critics have not themselves released fully comprehensive ranges of models for the War of Jenkin's Ear, let alone a what-if WW3!) Like I say, job well done! |
VonTed | 09 May 2016 4:32 a.m. PST |
<golf clap> Well done sir. |
gunnerphil | 09 May 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
So only people who have released complete lines of miniatures are allowed to comment. I have not done this but since I do buy lots of stuff, I feel I have a right to say what I want to buy. Sorry if that offends you. I am glad they have released stuff for moderns. It was the fact it was based on a work of fiction,which gave an odd feel. Many people would have preferred the M60 rather than M1. Will not waste tme on the whole T70 Stuff. I am a customer I have the right to chose where and what I buy. BF have the right to bring out what they want. Where the two choices match all well and good. Where they do not well they do not get my money. Perhaps the whining as you put it is people simply asking to be given what they want. Hey ho I guess I never drank the cool aid |
GeoffQRF | 09 May 2016 5:27 a.m. PST |
I for one feel vindicated for all the stuff we have released over the last 20 years, even where the ranges may not be quite complete :-) |
Dynaman8789 | 09 May 2016 5:45 a.m. PST |
No one has complained about the lack of opfire yet? |
VonTed | 09 May 2016 6:06 a.m. PST |
No… but sliding ground scale has been raised a few times :) |
GeoffQRF | 09 May 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
sliding ground scale It's a clever mechanic. In theory. It enables you to field artillery pieces with a range of 10-30km on the table (because true 1/100 ground scale means you would actually need a table 300km long). The problem occurs at short ranges where you get the movement and firing ranges overlapping in a strange way. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 09 May 2016 8:27 a.m. PST |
There's a quote attributed to Abe Lincoln that goes: "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time." Replace the word "fool" with "please" in the quote and we see how people invariably feel about any miniature company's release on TMP. |
alex757 | 09 May 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
It enables you to field artillery pieces with a range of 10-30km on the table (because true 1/100 ground scale means you would actually need a table 300km long). I think your math is a bit off on this one… |
GeoffQRF | 09 May 2016 8:48 a.m. PST |
|
Vigilant | 09 May 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
It just begs the question why base the releases on a work of fiction when there are real orders of battle available. But then Battlefront have always been more interested selling miniatures rather than historical accuracy. |
VonTed | 09 May 2016 10:24 a.m. PST |
Or even providing a game <gasp> ;-) I am always intrigued when we get bent out of shape that someone else took the time, money AND effort to create the rules and models we play toy soldiers with. Nothing is perfect, but what they (and everyone else) has done is far superior to the games and models I have released (which =0) |
Mako11 | 09 May 2016 10:26 a.m. PST |
Still bugged by the lack of M60 MGs…….. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 09 May 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
It just begs the question why base the releases on a work of fiction when there are real orders of battle available. But then Battlefront have always been more interested selling miniatures rather than historical accuracy. That's not the correct usage of the phrase, "begs the question." |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 09 May 2016 1:41 p.m. PST |
BF have the right to bring out what they want Couldn't have put it better myself! I for one feel vindicated for all the stuff we have released over the last 20 years, even where the ranges may not be quite complete :-) And so you should Geoff. And take note all you naysayers who have complained that BF didn't bring out all the toys in one big bang – even QRF, who I know for a fact brought out the first ever 'modern' as it still was then, T-72 back in the day, still don't claim to have a full range, nearly a quarter of a century later! (Although its very impressive in its diversity and coverage!) I am always intrigued when we get bent out of shape that someone else took the time, money AND effort to create the rules and models we play toy soldiers with. Nothing is perfect, but what they (and everyone else) has done is far superior to the games and models I have released (which =0) Spot on Mate! |
nsolomon99 | 09 May 2016 5:02 p.m. PST |
Still hanging out for the range of AFV's from the War of Jenkins Ear :) |
Eumerin | 09 May 2016 8:26 p.m. PST |
It just begs the question why base the releases on a work of fiction when there are real orders of battle available. But then Battlefront have always been more interested selling miniatures rather than historical accuracy.
The lists in the rulebook should be based off of real orders of battle – adjusting for thing like the fact that there was no US 25th Armored Division in real life. More importantly, though, borrowing someone else's setting gives Battlefront an out of sorts. People are going to complain. People *are* complaining. And many of the posts are clearly triggered by national biases. For instance, it seems like every few weeks there's a brand new Russian making post after post after post after post complaining about the lack of a T-80U. And then we see the same old counter-arguments posted pointing out that the T-80U was actually in service a year or two after the game started, followed by the Russian in question "helpfully" suggesting that perhaps the game's setting date ought to be advanced a similar number of years. If Battlefront had created their own setting, and their own "history of how it played out", then they'd probably be deluged in complaints from people who were unhappy that "their" side lost. Instead, if someone starts posting page after page of rants complaining that the Warsaw Pact loses in the hypothetical Third World War, then a Battlefront guy can make a quick post blaming it all on Harold Coyle, right before locking the thread.
Works for me.
In any event, the Germans are due out shortly (I'm guessing after the Pacific roll-out finishes up), and the British are expected at the end of the year. So we're already moving beyond the book.
|
Rick Don Burnette | 09 May 2016 8:30 p.m. PST |
So it is all a marketing ploy? Wont be the first time. I wonder if all of the succesive editions, revisions, errata sheets were all based upon the deliberate mismanagement of game desiggn. Perhaps these oversights are human, all too human, reacting to time pressures, amateurism, bias, and customer pressure or just the publishers idea to extend the life of the product Historical realism, even for games supposedly based on nonfiction, becomes irrelevant As stated, it is what BF wants |
Part time gamer | 10 May 2016 2:49 a.m. PST |
Yes the 'model vs ground scale' question is one reason I just 'cant' bring myself to play Warlords Tank War. Just seeing a 1/56 – 28mm tank 6in from another tank and trying to convince myself.. 'its Finally at close range' (seriously??) It I love the models, but that pushes my "just pretend" button too far. Have an idea of using their BA rules and seeing how they run doing 15mm armor. Granted even that wont be 'precise scale, but far more believable to the eye. |
VonTed | 10 May 2016 3:55 a.m. PST |
Sounds like 40k, my tank is 6" away and my shot deviates 12" off to the side. Poor optics in the grim dark future |
gunnerphil | 10 May 2016 4:13 a.m. PST |
A different and perhaps better way of looking at the so called whining. Is people are saying what they want to buy. I have said on other posts BF seem to be poor communicators. I know they are a big company but seems to me to be less of a reason not more. I know several people on here have said what they believe BF will bring out next. But nothing from BF themselves. |
GeoffQRF | 10 May 2016 5:38 a.m. PST |
…people are saying what they want to buy We have been selling a lot of T-64s and T-72s, Bradleys and German and British kit. It's trailing off now. People seem to be moving back into buying WW2. And WW1. |
gunnerphil | 10 May 2016 5:43 a.m. PST |
Geoff, that is why I do not understand their lack of communication. People will go to who had it in stock. |
McWong73 | 10 May 2016 8:17 a.m. PST |
Stow your indignation guys, its just a game based on WW3 fanfic. |
Rick Don Burnette | 10 May 2016 1:52 p.m. PST |
It's only a game I wish all of our historical based miniatures models/simulations/games were Primarly treated as games, yet they aren't from the uniform colors to the weapons data yes even to the commander abilities, all nicely laid out quantified and sent down like the Law. So the indignation and the arguements over all these items and more which is just nuts to the game company and designer but nothing for the serious simulator who knows one or two things that nail our historical stuff for games. And no, I am not whining as at one level I dont care Yet, it would have been nice to have All the data for the stuff possibly used in the 1980s, even w/o the models. We have all seen this before. A rules set where the vehicle data for movement, armor protection, weight, etc is on one page and the vehicle weapon data on another, causing confusion through flipping from one page to the other Or qujck reference charts that are not quick owing to the many rules exceptions and bad chart design And rules written in what passes for clarity yet is not And these things are just as much hobby traditions as the figures themselves After all, anyone an write rules or a painting guide Orange T72 and except on Tuesday rules? |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 10 May 2016 2:06 p.m. PST |
But nothing from BF themselves. Apart from the two 30 minute podcasts, you mean? |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 10 May 2016 2:29 p.m. PST |
I emailed them that their assembly instructions for the Soviet Motor Rifle Company's PKM LMG team says there should be 2 PKM gunners on a base, but the photo of the PKM team on their website clearly shows 3 (one kneeling) on a base. They emailed me back only a few days later to clarify that 2 per base is correct and that the photo shows 3 because it was taken before the instructions were written. So from my experience BF is responsive enough.
|
Part time gamer | 10 May 2016 10:09 p.m. PST |
It's only a game I wish all of our historical based miniatures models/simulations/games were Primarly treated as games,.. Agreed. Having some accurate historical variations in game forces, for whatever period your playing, makes for a more interesting & fun game. However the main reason for gaming is to Relax and have Fun with friends for an hour or so. |
Eumerin | 10 May 2016 10:24 p.m. PST |
I know several people on here have said what they believe BF will bring out next. But nothing from BF themselves.
BF has had issues getting stuff out on time, and as a result has been attacked by the players when things get delayed, or outright cancelled. For instance, parts of the Berlin release came out a couple of months late, which pushed back the Team Yankee release. And some of the vehicles that were supposed to be in the Team Yankee starter boxes had to be pulled from the boxes at the last minute. So I'm guessing that they're being a bit more cautious at this time regarding definitive announcements of stuff too far in advance. They recently announced that they were getting a new, bigger factory up and running, and they expected this to take care of some of the delays that they've had. Hopefully, this will do as they expect, and maybe then they can start giving more notice on release schedules again. |
ScottS | 11 May 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
And rules written in what passes for clarity yet is not …? |
GeoffQRF | 11 May 2016 9:09 a.m. PST |
Think he means they look clear at a first glance, but raise questions when you actually put them to the test |