Switch Theme:

Would a 'Warhammer: Modern Warfare'-style tabletop game work?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The AK bullet hits harder.

But all of that can be quibbled over in Moderns Codices.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Sheffield, UK

If you mean a company level heroic 28mm game based upon the 40k mechanics and sold to kids in GW stores. No, I can't think of anything with a greater potential for fail.

I'd rather see a G.I. Joe license or that X-Factor politics show .

Spain in Flames: Flames of War (Spanish Civil War 1936-39) Flames of War: Czechs and Slovaks (WWI & WWII) Sheffield & Rotherham Wargames Club

"I'm cancelling you, I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf." - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
 
   
Made in us
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Kalamazoo

I dont think GW rules have the fidelity to give any realism to a modern warfare simulation. Weapon quality in particular would be a factor. What stats would you give to a cobbled together afgani AK-47 vs. a precision machined Israeli version? Or vs. a more modern SCAR or M16?

Then there is game balance. A western sniper team with an anti-material rifle could sit off table and own anyone who sticks their head out. Most engagements require the Taliban to outnumber NATO 10:1 and even then they have to flee before air assets show up.

You might be able to model it, but it wouldn't be fun to play.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

@Durandal: You're saying that moderns can't add rules like GW currently does with every codex and practically every unit?

Unreliable: The Afghani AK jams on a 1, place a counter and test vs Ld to unjam before firing again; the Israeli AK doesn't ever jam.

As for force balance, again, like every other game out there, ground scale would have to be reduced to make the game playable, and yeah, we'd be looking at a skirmish game, up to a squad of US soldiers vs the opposition.

   
Made in us
Nimble Dark Rider





Okinawa

JohnHwangDD wrote:Mechanically, 40k is already close to Moderns. All it would take would be Codices and minis.


.......No.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Eilif: WRT ranges, I think you confuse model scale with ground scale - if ground scale were model scale, then range would be effectively unlimited, and you'd just look at to-hit modifiers based on range. Think about it - a M16 has an effective range over a half-click, and a sniper rifle is good over a click. If you assume model scale holds at 70:1, then a M16 model could shoot up to 25 feet, and the sniper model would be 50 feet. That would set the minimum table size to be around 12' x 16'. On a board that big, CC becomes a non-issue.

For Warhammer Moderns, assume a basic statlines kinda like this:
- US Soldier - WS3 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I3 A1 Ld8 Sv4+ w/ M16 R24" S5 AP6 RF
- 3W Military - WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld7 Sv5+
- "Terrorist" - WS3 BS2 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld6 Sv- w/ AK47 R24" S6 AP5 RF
- "Civilian" - WS2 BS1 S2 T2 W1 I3 A1 Ld5 Sv-
A major point of Moderns is that you would need to rescale everything so it made sense.


1. Even in modern combat, CC is not, and should not, be a "non-issue". This is especially true in any scenario that requires one side to occupy terrain held by men from the other. Regardless of weapon ranges, someone is going to eat a hand grenade or take a bayonet to the chest. However, 40k provides an excessive level of detail and granularity with all its WS, S/T, and A rules. Not to mention that "# of attacks" in a realistic close combat situation has little to do with how quickly you can swing your Ka-Bar and more with what firearm you are carrying, which even at ranges of <10 meters will still be your primary means of dropping bad guys. That would require re-working the existing 40k statline by shifting Attacks to the weapons instead of the users.

2. 40K's Initiative system has little relevance beyond hand-to-hand fighting. IRL, initiative is far more significant in determining a soldier's or unit's ability to execute actions, sometimes in the absence of orders, in accordance with the commander's intent. Of course, 40k has no overarching mechanics for passing orders/actions/information up or down the chain of command, and how that affects the activity (or lack thereof) of your individual squads and fire teams. This sort of stuff occasionally crops up in 40k as a Leadership test, which are often more related to overall troop quality/training and morale, which shouldn't be lumped together.

3. The mechanics for determining shooting casualties are off. Barring unusual circumstances like drug use (insurgents tend to use meth-amphetamines, can be covered by a USR), when a round hits you stand a pretty good chance of becoming a casualty, with the chance reduced by wearing armor. First aid reduces the chance of being KIA instead of WIA. When a bullet connects with a human body it really doesn't matter all THAT much whether it's a .22 (S2) or a .338 Lapua (S5), somebody's gonna bleed and need treatment. So in terms of infantry weapons, all those S v T comparisons are unneeded and inaccurate anyway (vs T3, 150% difference between casualties caused by S5 and S2 weapons). The superior performance of more powerful rounds should have a more noticeable effect regarding things like suppression: big rounds whizzing overhead are more likely to make people seek cover, but 40k has no mechanics in place to model that nuance either.

4. On the flip side, the 40k system provides insufficient granularity for handling the effects of heavy/vehicle weapons vs infantry. A 20mm autocannon (S7), a 120mm HE shell (S8), and a JDAM (S10) all have an 83% chance of killing an unarmored human in open terrain, when really the lethality for all of them (and especially the last two) should be closer to 100%. This is partly a limitation of the S v T mechanic, and partly a limitation of using a D6 for everything.

5. 40k is I-Go U-Go. I don't think I really need to elaborate on this point....

Bottom Line: 40K != Moderns. Not even close. One should probably just play Fast and Dirty instead.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/11 04:06:10


WHFB: D.Elves 4000, VC 2000, Empire 2000
Epic: 3250, 5750, 4860
DC:80S+GMB++IPwhfb00-D++A++/wWD191R++T(S)DM++
 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






Richmond, VA

So, if one were to begin writing a 'Modern' Codex for the 40K ruleset what would be the Stat-line/point cost of *spins wheel* Challenger 2?

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The land of cotton.

Could GW make decent minis for such a range? Well, they appear to have a good grip on realistic proportions in the LOTR range. Given the depth of their talent pool I'd be inclined to think so.

As for the rules, I think the important thing to stress is you can abstract a rules set to get the results you want without having to get bogged down in minutia. So we think modern combat revolves around the firefight and there should be little hand to hand? Make the rules reflect that. You just make it so anyone attempting to engage in close combat against a guy with an AK-47 is going to be unsuccessful in most circumstances.
   
Made in ie
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!




Kildare, Ireland

Well its already out there, including the scenario packs, you just need to remove the GW blinkers to see whats already available in the historical market...

http://www.ambushalleygames.com/

Why would you want GW to do it anyway? The rules would be terrible and the figures would have massive M4s...


You can do games like this...

http://www.ambushalleygames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1647

 Strombones wrote:
Battlegroup - Because its tits.
 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw





Buzzard's Knob

I would be more interested in a near-future wargame in 15mm scale, and I don't mean with squads clumped together like FoW. Perhaps something that is platoon-based, but with the ground scale closer to the miniature scale, with forces that represent the sort of things that DARPA currently has in the experimental/development stage like primitive powered armor, autonomous robots, crude genetic enhancements, ground effects hover tanks, that sort of thing. Right on the fuzzy line between what is actually available now and the least speculative sort of science-fiction. You could have scenario guides for potential conflicts like the second Korean War, the second American Civil War, war between the US and a unified communist Latin America, that sort of thing. I do think that GW should have NOTHING to do with it.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi Warpcrafter.
Have a look at Stargrunt II , by GroundZeroGames.It may be the sort of rule set you are after... (Free to down load too!)

TTFN
Lanrak.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Albatross wrote:I think it could be an interesting idea - you would have real-world weaponry and troops, Special Forces, ability to call in airstrikes, etc

It throws up questions like 'what factions would you have?' I'm thinking along the lines of: USA, Britain, China, Russia, generic Terrorists/Narco Terrorists - any others?

Also would there be problems with political correctness? I have a feeling that most parents wouldn't be too pleased about their kids collecting a 'Terrorist Army'...


Just throwing it out there - would it be a good idea?, would you play it ?


What, you mean Like this?-

http://www.moddb.com/mods/battlefield40k

http://www.fileplanet.com/74120/0/0/0/1/section/Mod_Files

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q5VTyB21rY



Get some!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and for the record-

Modern combat is much much worse then the 40K armies could ever hypotheticly be.

We got in a couple of situations like city fight that would make you crap yourself for me even telling you about half of the things that you go through, nevermind what you actually see.

Our weapons are much more ...

Effective, and the damage done is much more destructive. Not to mention we don't have rules out there for set ambushes, IED's or VIED's. Other examples include tactical resupply and service issues, vehicle recovery, close air support, or we don't have a rule for dealing with a hot LZ and getting casualties out of the area. there are a heck of a bunch of other things,,, bobby trapped bodies, bridges and civilian infastructure assets, maybe some issues of working with allies, different armies, and natives, etc.etc, etc.

Just a taste, but you get the idea....



This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/02/11 21:42:00




At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: