"Combat Patrol - Firepower Question?" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticlePre-painted models from the World Tank Museum.
Featured Workbench ArticleCan the techniques used for painting giant sci-fi robots be applied to 15mm scale Russian tanks?
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pyrrhic Victory | 07 Sep 2016 7:26 p.m. PST |
I just popped for the PDF on Wargames Vault since they have been getting good reviews here and elsewhere on the net. Mostly I like the ideas presented, but am getting hung up on infantry firepower and how LMGs are portrayed. However, I want to make sure I'm reading it right before I jump to conclusions. Does a Bi-pod mounted MG-42 team of two soldiers have the same number of shots (2) as two guys with bolt action rifles at 0-12" and 24-48"? And one extra shot from 12-24"? Are there some special rules for MGs that help mitigate this that I've missed? Help! Ed |
mghFond | 07 Sep 2016 8:09 p.m. PST |
I have no idea what the answer is but hopefully that weapon has more firepower than a mere two riflemen. :) |
clifblkskull | 07 Sep 2016 9:08 p.m. PST |
Actually if set up on its bipod it shoots as MMG Which I believe is 3-3-3 but I don't have the table right with me Number of shots is just a small part of the system I hope this helps Clif |
Mako11 | 07 Sep 2016 9:09 p.m. PST |
Yea, like perhaps a platoon of guys with bolt action rifles. |
Andy ONeill | 08 Sep 2016 2:42 a.m. PST |
Most riflemen were ineffective beyond short range. To an extent that is usually unacceptable to wargamers. Riflemen are the close combat effectives in a ww2 squad, machineguns are their long ranged weapon. Modern training and weapons changed that somewhat since ww2. |
surdu2005 | 08 Sep 2016 5:16 a.m. PST |
I don't have the rules in front of me, but I will answer fully this evening after work. Buck Surdu |
Pyrrhic Victory | 08 Sep 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
|
surdu2005 | 09 Sep 2016 7:31 a.m. PST |
Factual Answer: The rates of fire (in parentheses) for some weapons in Combat Patrol(TM) are: Weapon Short Medium Long Bolt-action Rifle 12" (1) 24" (1) 48" (1) Magazine-fed LMG 12" (2) 24" (3) 48" (1) Belt-fed LMG 12" (2) 24" (3) 48" (2) Medium MG 15" (3) 30" (3) 60" (3) Heavy MG 20" (4) 40" (4) 80" (4) (Sorry this doesn't get formatted very well on a Web page without the use of tables!) So, Ed, you are right about the rates of fire at short and long ranges. As Clif pointed out, however, if you take an activation to set up your MG-34 onto a tripod, it then fires as an MMG, which gives it significantly higher ROF. Discussion: As Clif pointed out, rate of fire is just part of the overall system and shouldn't be judge in isolation. Rules design is a bit like sculpting. If done right, all the systems together provide the right effects. I would give the rules a try before making a decision. In fact, my general rule of thumb is that I don't form a fixed opinion on a set of rules until I have played it at least three times. Often the nuances that have been baked into a set of rules over several years of development are not obvious on the first or send playing of the game. After you have played a few times, you could easily adjust the rate of fire numbers to suit your desires without impacting on the core mechanics and (I think) elegance of the system of systems that is Combat Patrol(TM). As Andy points out, the rifles are likely over-represented in the game, because at some point you need to provide customers (gamers) what they want. While this is in some respects a religious argument, in this time period a light machine-gun fires the same ammunition as the rifles. While the theoretical rate of fire is higher, you have to balance that against the time to acquire targets and the fact that the theoretical rate of fire is mitigated by the amount of ammunition that a squad can carry. I hope this helps. If not, please join the Yahoo Group where we can have a more in-depth discussion and where a number of other Combat Patrol(TM) gamers lurk. Buck Surdu |
Pyrrhic Victory | 09 Sep 2016 10:03 a.m. PST |
Buck, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I certainly agree that one cannot jugde the quality of a game based on features in isolation and that game design is both impressionistic and holistic in nature. Like I stated in the original post, there is much to like in what you've written. However, this is my problem: "As Andy points out, the rifles are likely over-represented in the game, because at some point you need to provide customers (gamers) what they want". I am a customer that wants to solve the same tactical problems that my historical counterpart did, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I don't think that can be done when the relative strengths of different weapons systems are that far off from historical norms. While the game may be accessible and enjoyable, if it has difficulties replicating historical tactics and the dynamics of historical tactical problems then, at least for me, what's the point? Maybe a set of "Cranking up the realism" optional rules would allow you to broaden your target audience? Otherwise, some house rules are definitely in order (again, at least for me)…. Thanks, Ed |
surdu2005 | 09 Sep 2016 9:00 p.m. PST |
Ed: I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion, having not played the game and having focused on one small aspect of the rules in isolation -- as opposed to a system of systems -- that Combat Patrol (TM) does not enable players to solve the same tactical problems as your historic counterpart. A set of rules cannot enforce good, period-appropriate tactics, but it should reward them. I think when you have a chance to play the game, you will see that all the systems create an environment in which you do face many of the same tactical dilemmas as platoon leaders faced in WWII. I'm not sure why you think the game lacks realism and needs to be cranked up. I am anxious to hear your impressions after you've tried the rules. You can easily adjust the rates of fire to meet your expectations. I worked on the numbers in the rules for many months. I think you will find that changing those rate of fire numbers will cause the game to become unrealistically bloody. If rate of fire is your criteria for realism, I encourage you to experiment with different numbers, join the Yahoo group, and let us know how it goes. I would be interested sincerely to know what numbers you decide upon and how they worked in a number of play tests. Buck P.S. Don't take my response as being defensive or angry. I'm neither. I have had these kinds of conversations many times, where someone focuses on a particular aspect of a set of rules in isolation and forms a fixed opinion. One person wanted to like the cards for resolving combat, but got hung up on the memory property of cards -- preferring the illusion of precision that a fixed probably of success provides. Another person wanted to like the randomized activation but didn't like not being able to have complete control of his units -- as if any leader has complete control during a battle. At the end of the day, it's about personal preference. I fully appreciate that Combat Patrol (TM) will not be everyone's cup of tea. In fact I have been surprised at the generally positive response to the rules, given the unique nature of almost all of its mechanics. I get a bit frustrated when people want to focus on one small aspect of the rules in isolation. I think that is a recipe for missing the forest by focusing on a tree or bush, because rules are a system of systems that ALL must work together to reward period-appropriate tactics. There is a lot of trade space in rules design, and finding the sweet spot is hard. It is only after having played the game that you can tell if the system of systems works. |
|