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.

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, I just don't get behind the notion of "in real life ___ "... it's a game, not a simulator. Most of the rest was stuff I had picked up on and isn't my personal cuppa. Unless I missed something, your assumption about Mantic supplying the bases is off. I am fairly certain they said a few times they'll not have any for this.

I think there should be a limiter on how much suppression you can stack on (if there isn't, I don't remember one) based on the type of weapon or other situations. I just can't see someone encased in armor capable of withstanding an orbital drop being phased by small arms fire.

Why should a game necessarily be gamey? Sure, there are games that are completely abstract, but if Im playing a miniatures game... Id kind of like a measure of realism when it comes to tactics. Just my opinion ofc.

And re: drop armour: Simple. Theyve got lots of insulation and shock dampeners, but all that bulk necessary to survive the drop limits the amount of actual ballistic armour you can have. Or you got shot in a joint and now youve got a bullet jamming your knee. Take cover to pry it out. Or your sensors got hit, and youre effectively blind until they reboot. Stuff like that. Nothing is completely bulletproof.
(well, nothing that can move around anyway)

 Tyr13 wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, I just don't get behind the notion of "in real life ___ "... it's a game, not a simulator. Most of the rest was stuff I had picked up on and isn't my personal cuppa. Unless I missed something, your assumption about Mantic supplying the bases is off. I am fairly certain they said a few times they'll not have any for this.

I think there should be a limiter on how much suppression you can stack on (if there isn't, I don't remember one) based on the type of weapon or other situations. I just can't see someone encased in armor capable of withstanding an orbital drop being phased by small arms fire.

Why should a game necessarily be gamey? Sure, there are games that are completely abstract, but if Im playing a miniatures game... Id kind of like a measure of realism when it comes to tactics. Just my opinion ofc.

And re: drop armour: Simple. Theyve got lots of insulation and shock dampeners, but all that bulk necessary to survive the drop limits the amount of actual ballistic armour you can have. Or you got shot in a joint and now youve got a bullet jamming your knee. Take cover to pry it out. Or your sensors got hit, and youre effectively blind until they reboot. Stuff like that. Nothing is completely bulletproof.
(well, nothing that can move around anyway)

The guys from the famous Hollywood shootout were heavily armored. Yes, they were missing very important details, like feet.. but they didn't take cover. SEALs who are advancing on a position aren't really armoured up, but are trained to push through whatever it is.. being shot, knicked, whatever. I'm not saying psychology has no place, I'm saying that it's treating highly trained soldiers in cutting edge futuristic equipment as though they are weak-willed civilians in casual attire.
You can argue back and forth on that, but you're not going to convince me that in such a futuristic setting, people are going to be taking cover behind stuff that is weaker than the armor they're wearing and sacrificing their objective. That's not how modern combat works. If you're in the open or in light cover and could make it to your objective then you haul ass with your unit and pray you don't catch a bullet. If you dig in and miss your objective or sacrifice a strategic advantage because you're scared of people shooting in your general area then you are as good as dead. Hollywood has done a poor job teaching people what happens once bullets start flying.


As to gamey-ness. Having a big blob represent your unit is just as gamey and even more abstract.. so I really don't see what you're getting at. Strategy is an element of games. Placement of your game pieces is crucial. The same can be said for your figures. If they are zoned in behind built up cover and providing overwatch, then they would not be swirling around doing interpretive dance. They would be secured in very specific locations covering their sector. EDIT: You say realism, I kinda think you mean the other thing.

 MLaw wrote:
Placement of your game pieces is crucial. The same can be said for your figures. If they are zoned in behind built up cover and providing overwatch, then they would not be swirling around doing interpretive dance. They would be secured in very specific locations covering their sector. EDIT: You say realism, I kinda think you mean the other thing.

For me it boils down to the question: What is the role of the player? For example, in a Company or BN Commander role, frankly the individual placement of fire team members/individual troopers is NOT something I need to deal with. As a company commander knowing where squads are and what sector they are covering is good enough. As a BN Commander, knowing where platoons are and their sectors is good enough. If Warpath is supposed to put the player into the role of a plussed up Company Commander or an understrength Battalion Commander, the player placing fire team or squad 'clusters'/bases is probably good enough IF the mechanisms are done correctly.

Eager to hear more about dz redux campaign.

 CptJake wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
Placement of your game pieces is crucial. The same can be said for your figures. If they are zoned in behind built up cover and providing overwatch, then they would not be swirling around doing interpretive dance. They would be secured in very specific locations covering their sector. EDIT: You say realism, I kinda think you mean the other thing.

For me it boils down to the question: What is the role of the player? For example, in a Company or BN Commander role, frankly the individual placement of fire team members/individual troopers is NOT something I need to deal with. As a company commander knowing where squads are and what sector they are covering is good enough. As a BN Commander, knowing where platoons are and their sectors is good enough. If Warpath is supposed to put the player into the role of a plussed up Company Commander or an understrength Battalion Commander, the player placing fire team or squad 'clusters'/bases is probably good enough IF the mechanisms are done correctly.

While I understand the idea behind this philosophy, it isn't really something I am into. Also, some of the mechanisms are geared to support the scope you mention while others (like suppression) seems like it's more micro level, contrasting with the nature of overview style gaming. I will say that your explanation of your point of view as opposed to some of the dismissals of my own views is refreshing.

By my limited reading of the rules, the situation you describe - orbital elite drop troops, etc, would have a Nerve value higher than their Resilience. So they do not take suppression from Shoot actions and only take suppression from Blaze Away (which is the whole point of area fire that has been in use by militaries for eighty years to suppress an area of terrain that has enemies in it)

Additionally, if you have mega armor guys with De 7 then they cannot even take suppression unless the weapon being fired has at least AP 1

And a unit is only Suppressed if it has as many tokens as it's Nerve

So you could theoretically have a high never, high de unit that is nearly impossible to suppress

Does that address your complaint? Unless I'm misunderstanding something. This is my first real read-through of the 0.2 rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, I just don't get behind the notion of "in real life ___ "... it's a game, not a simulator.

Ah, see, so it may just be personal preference. I've developed a taste over the years for games that can accurately simulate ultramodern combat tactics with a light, elegant ruleset. So a simulator is what I'd like, but one that can accurately simulate warfare without a cumbersome system.

 judgedoug wrote:
By my limited reading of the rules, the situation you describe - orbital elite drop troops, etc, would have a Nerve value higher than their Resilience. So they do not take suppression from Shoot actions and only take suppression from Blaze Away (which is the whole point of area fire that has been in use by militaries for eighty years to suppress an area of terrain that has enemies in it)

Additionally, if you have mega armor guys with De 7 then they cannot even take suppression unless the weapon being fired has at least AP 1

And a unit is only Suppressed if it has as many tokens as it's Nerve

So you could theoretically have a high never, high de unit that is nearly impossible to suppress

Does that address your complaint? Unless I'm misunderstanding something. This is my first real read-through of the 0.2 rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MLaw wrote:
Yeah, I just don't get behind the notion of "in real life ___ "... it's a game, not a simulator.

Ah, see, so it may just be personal preference. I've developed a taste over the years for games that can accurately simulate ultramodern combat tactics with a light, elegant ruleset. So a simulator is what I'd like, but one that can accurately simulate warfare without a cumbersome system.

Yeah, that sounds like they might have factored in what I was looking for. That's good to hear because sometimes it sounds like some aspects of the community want all suppression all the time and from my experience with DZ and a brief glance at one of the previous versions of the WP rules it felt like they might've been heading that direction. While I might not be swayed to WP by this it does give hope for FF.


As to the other bit, I think our ideas of what an accurate simulation of combat would look like might be different. Having been involved in training room clearing techniques, small arms, and other areas of actual modern combat, I think I am looking for very specific things from how combat works in a game.

Hi all, I'm Judgedoug's USMC buddy. If anyone is interested (I know you don't really care), I served for 6 years as an 0311 (Riflemen) before being medically separated. I EAS'd at E-5 AKA Sgt. So that's my background and it has colored my thought process ever since it became that.

One I want to say that the comments were just me and Doug talking over the mechanics on facebook after having done a cursory read. Haven't put mini's down on the table yet to test them out so I couldn't give a full assessment.

Two being intimately familiar with modern warfare, the first thing I look for in a game with semi automatic weaponry, tanks, and HE weapons is how is suppression handled and did the designer bother to understand the difference between point and area targets. This is because I believe suppression is tantamount to having a proper feel for modern combat. It is the fire portion of fire and maneuver. As we use to say movement without fire is death, fire without movement is a waste of ammunition. So the two types of shooting and how they interacted with units is what I focused on during that convo with Doug and what I focused on with my cursory glance of the rules.

I can say at a glance I'm pleased. They've made suppression important, and they've made forcing someone down a terrible thing to occur. However it appears they have maintained some balance. Through the use of Nerve, I.E. you are only suppressed if you have tokens equal to your Nerve and only go to ground if it's double. While gone to ground you get a bunch of negatives, you can't do anything but rally (remove d6+1 suppression tokens is basically your turn) you don't even get to react in an assault, life is generally terrible, much more terrible than simply being suppressed, which just gives you negatives to moving and doing things like shooting effectively. And there's a chance of teams being removed right before you do make that rally test, again that's based on Nerve though. So higher Nerve (better trained guys) will fair better. But these negatives sure do seem to reward you for concentrating a volume of fire onto whatever objective you want to assault. So suppression is important, and forcing a unit to go to ground is even better. I know this may sound insane but the main roll of the machine gun I.E. 240B or similar is not to kill your enemy but to suppress the objective so the maneuver element takes less incoming fire, so I like the effects of suppression for this reason.

So the other thing I looked at was is it too easy to outright put the other side out of the game with suppression tokens. I don't think so and here is why, the early mentioned Nerve is one. Also the two types of fire are another, a shoot action, which is essentially firing at point targets puts very little tokens on an enemy and could possibly put none. The second type is Blaze Away (man do I hate that name), it is essentially firing at an area target, with blaze away you put one suppression token on an enemy for every 6 you roll, this can not be modified in any way under the current rules. So natural 6s only. This means weapons with more dice (higher rates of fire) will be more successful at this role, kinda of like a machine gun. Another thing that doesn't make suppression easy is the actual activation. It's alternating, so I don't get to move every unit and just blast yours off the table, I get to choose one, than you choose one. Did my mortar just put a bunch of suppression tokens on your squad maneuvering on my flank? Well counter battery that thing and try and put it out of action, or better yet hit my machine guns since they haven't gone yet. That way I won't be able to use them as effectively to add even more suppression to your maneuver elements.

Hopefully this less of a loose ramble clarifies my loose ramble I had with Doug over facebook.

I had a discussion with my brother, who is ex-Royal Marine, and he said basically exactly the same thing with regard to what he saw as the most important things in representing modern/near future warfare on the battlefield.

I was putting together a squad based system with these ideas in mind, but both Medge and Warpath seem to be going along the same route, which is great as it will save me work and probably mean I'll have more people to play with!

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Hi all, I'm Judgedoug's USMC buddy. If anyone is interested (I know you don't really care), I served for 6 years as an 0311 (Riflemen) before being medically separated. I EAS'd at E-5 AKA Sgt. So that's my background and it has colored my thought process ever since it became that.

One I want to say that the comments were just me and Doug talking over the mechanics on facebook after having done a cursory read. Haven't put mini's down on the table yet to test them out so I couldn't give a full assessment.

Two being intimately familiar with modern warfare, the first thing I look for in a game with semi automatic weaponry, tanks, and HE weapons is how is suppression handled and did the designer bother to understand the difference between point and area targets. This is because I believe suppression is tantamount to having a proper feel for modern combat. It is the fire portion of fire and maneuver. As we use to say movement without fire is death, fire without movement is a waste of ammunition. So the two types of shooting and how they interacted with units is what I focused on during that convo with Doug and what I focused on with my cursory glance of the rules.

I can say at a glance I'm pleased. They've made suppression important, and they've made forcing someone down a terrible thing to occur. However it appears they have maintained some balance. Through the use of Nerve, I.E. you are only suppressed if you have tokens equal to your Nerve and only go to ground if it's double. While gone to ground you get a bunch of negatives, you can't do anything but rally (remove d6+1 suppression tokens is basically your turn) you don't even get to react in an assault, life is generally terrible, much more terrible than simply being suppressed, which just gives you negatives to moving and doing things like shooting effectively. And there's a chance of teams being removed right before you do make that rally test, again that's based on Nerve though. So higher Nerve (better trained guys) will fair better. But these negatives sure do seem to reward you for concentrating a volume of fire onto whatever objective you want to assault. So suppression is important, and forcing a unit to go to ground is even better. I know this may sound insane but the main roll of the machine gun I.E. 240B or similar is not to kill your enemy but to suppress the objective so the maneuver element takes less incoming fire, so I like the effects of suppression for this reason.

So the other thing I looked at was is it too easy to outright put the other side out of the game with suppression tokens. I don't think so and here is why, the early mentioned Nerve is one. Also the two types of fire are another, a shoot action, which is essentially firing at point targets puts very little tokens on an enemy and could possibly put none. The second type is Blaze Away (man do I hate that name), it is essentially firing at an area target, with blaze away you put one suppression token on an enemy for every 6 you roll, this can not be modified in any way under the current rules. So natural 6s only. This means weapons with more dice (higher rates of fire) will be more successful at this role, kinda of like a machine gun. Another thing that doesn't make suppression easy is the actual activation. It's alternating, so I don't get to move every unit and just blast yours off the table, I get to choose one, than you choose one. Did my mortar just put a bunch of suppression tokens on your squad maneuvering on my flank? Well counter battery that thing and try and put it out of action, or better yet hit my machine guns since they haven't gone yet. That way I won't be able to use them as effectively to add even more suppression to your maneuver elements.

Hopefully this less of a loose ramble clarifies my loose ramble I had with Doug over facebook.

To me, the scope of what WP is supposed to be, is more broad than the level of depth for the various types of suppression you're mentioning. Some people are saying it's an orbital commander type view. If that's the case, then such granularity on psychology does not make sense. In DZ, sure I could see it being that specific, just not in a game that's supposed to be about the big picture.
To me, at such a broad level, suppression should be a delaying action, defensive in nature. If you're sitting in CiC and your teams are taking fire, all you're going to hear is whether or not they're being flanked and whether or not they're moving forward.. and any casualties of course from fire connecting. I fully understand the nature and uses of suppression but in most tabletop games, it's used more like trench warfare than modern combat in built up areas.

All that said, when I mentioned realism, I was referring to positioning. Positioning of fireteam members and how they are formed for specific situations is extremely important. The abstraction to everyone being in a huge cumbersome blob is reductive in nature to the point of turning your 5 man team into essentially one large figure or abstract form, like a multi-wound creature from 40k.

Like I said, I'm holding out for FF. There's specific things I'm looking for and from the philosophy, it's sounds like fireteam level control is being handled through that outlet.

 MLaw wrote:
To me, the scope of what WP is supposed to be, is more broad than the level of depth for the various types of suppression you're mentioning. Some people are saying it's an orbital commander type view. If that's the case, then such granularity on psychology does not make sense. In DZ, sure I could see it being that specific, just not in a game that's supposed to be about the big picture.
To me, at such a broad level, suppression should be a delaying action, defensive in nature. If you're sitting in CiC and your teams are taking fire, all you're going to hear is whether or not they're being flanked and whether or not they're moving forward.. and any casualties of course from fire connecting. I fully understand the nature and uses of suppression but in most tabletop games, it's used more like trench warfare than modern combat in built up areas.

All that said, when I mentioned realism, I was referring to positioning. Positioning of fireteam members and how they are formed for specific situations is extremely important. The abstraction to everyone being in a huge cumbersome blob is reductive in nature to the point of turning your 5 man team into essentially one large figure or abstract form, like a multi-wound creature from 40k.

Like I said, I'm holding out for FF. There's specific things I'm looking for and from the philosophy, it's sounds like fireteam level control is being handled through that outlet.

I dunno... I think at company level, the granularity on psychology is one of the only things that's left, so is pretty much makes sense to me. As in, what state are my units in? We don't need to know the status of individual models, their positioning, etc, at that level; as a company commander, I just need to know if my units are capable of fighting or out of action. (Honestly, I could do with half as many stats - more akin to SG2 and TW in this aspect) . What type of unit is it and can it reliably perform it's duties?

So, you as a player are not controlling individual models - the unit itself should have the rules abstracted in such a way that the unit would perform in-game... roughly the same as if the individuals models were controlled by the player. Your focus has moved away from them, so the rules that govern how they function (abstractly) should reflect their average performance. I'm 100% for that abstraction, element/cloud units, if it's done well (and it's done well in many other rulesets). Having not actually played Warpath 0.2 yet I can't comment on whether it's done well or not. A lot of platoon-to-company-level rulesets touch on element/cloud (random chunks of element/cloud rules from other rulesets include; majority of models in cover then unit in cover, AT-43 style measure from leader to leader for ranged combat, move just leader model when moving and reposition troops around leader)

The idea of a ruleset where positioning within a fireteam matters immensely does sound pretty cool - have you ever checked out a ruleset from about ten years ago called Dogs of War? written by JC McDaniels. It's on the fireteam level. Largest game I played was perhaps two USMC fireteams versus two squads of Iraqi Republican Guard. But, positioning of individual elements within a fireteam is such a zoomed in scope that Warpath (massive) wouldn't make sense to handle any of that.

I have to admit, I first thought the idea of two rulesets was pretty stupid. But now that I see the direction that Warpath (massive) is going, I kind of like it. I had always wanted to a) do Apocalypse games in a reasonable amount of time and b) play Epic using 28mm minis; it seems like Warpath has the potential to play those huge 4x8 or 6x8 or 6x12 games in a reasonable amount of time. So that leaves me cautiously optimistic for Warpath Firefight - will it be just a 40k clone, or will it be realistically granular in the ways you hope (positioning within a fireteam, etc)? Well, I guess good thing it was only $1 pledge to find out, haha.

I don't know how to ask this without coming across like a rube who lacks sophistication, so I'll just ask. Is there a super simple wargame in the same scale where you just move around and shoot at things?

Suppression is cool, but it also sounds like something that would kill the game for my group. Special rules, lots of tokens or book keeping, or any kind of status where your side 'loses a turn' would pretty much stop the game. I'm looking for something at least as simple as Space Hulk, but without a board, and maybe with more rules for varied units, weapons or even vehicles.

My friends and family/gaming group have yet to make it through a single FFG board game, although we've managed a few turns at Descent a couple of times. If there is some fast, high-carnage game out there, please tell me what it is.

If you're just looking to push some models about and roll some dice even 3/4 ed 40k would work ok, wouldn't it? As long as balance and tactical depth are less of a concern it is actually a fairly useable system for rolling a few dice, and if you can avoid the ever-present glaring balance issue by just supplying pre-built lists, I'd say it would work well enough.

If low model count is OK, from what Scarletsquig has been posting from deep, deep inside the rules committee, 2nd edition Deadzone is looking to be real fast, simple, and quite close to what you describe.
Alternatively Mars Attacks is a faster, simpler deadzone-like system AFAIK (never played it, but reports are pretty good) which seems ideally suited to beer 'n pretzels type gaming as well.

(And personally I consider Infinity to be a very fast-paced, elegant system which, IMO, is easy enough to learn - but that last bit is not something many people seem to agree with so it might not really be that suitable. As far as "fast, high-carnage" elegant systems go, though - Infinity does those things like no other!)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't know how to ask this without coming across like a rube who lacks sophistication, so I'll just ask. Is there a super simple wargame in the same scale where you just move around and shoot at things?

Suppression is cool, but it also sounds like something that would kill the game for my group. Special rules, lots of tokens or book keeping, or any kind of status where your side 'loses a turn' would pretty much stop the game. I'm looking for something at least as simple as Space Hulk, but without a board, and maybe with more rules for varied units, weapons or even vehicles.

My friends and family/gaming group have yet to make it through a single FFG board game, although we've managed a few turns at Descent a couple of times. If there is some fast, high-carnage game out there, please tell me what it is.

Hmm, Warhammer Quest would be the first thing I'd say, especially when it comes to high carnage... but, you'd need to invest hundreds of dollars in out of print stuff.

As for generic sci fi blast-em-ups, it's hard to beat Combat Zone.
http://www.em4miniatures.com/acatalog/Combat_Zone_products.html
http://combatzonechronicles.net/
http://anatolisgameroom.blogspot.com/2011/01/combat-zone-how-rules-work-blog-special.html

Thanks for the replies, guys!

I'll take a look at Combat Zone, although I would most likely be using my GW/Mantic/DFG minis for counts as purposes.

I'll also take a look at Mars Attacks. I already have the rules somewhere... From what I remember, ScarletSquig described that as a simpler, faster version of Deadzone, right?

We tried playing 4th edition 40k back in the day and it did not work out. Battlefleet Gothic did, but that has spaceships so it really isn't a fair comparison.

I love Mars Attacks. It might scratch that itch for you Bob. It really is quick and simple, especially compared to DZ.

Then again, for quick and simple I'm always a big fan of Ganesha Games and their line of stuff. Flying Lead might be a good fit for what you want, especially if you want a near future shoot 'em up that you can use any old figure in.

Andrea at Ganesha is supposed to be putting together some new SciFi rules for a 40k equivalent, and he's got some new stuff coming out through Osprey as well that looks like it's going to play more at an Infinity level than at a 40k sized game.

DZ2 sounds like lessons from the speed and simplicity of MA have been incorporated into its design. It's likely still not as simple, but the aesthetic might scratch quite a different itch than MA does (those martians look lovely to me but I can imagine they might be quite the turn-off to that system to some people).

Also, holy feth - BFG worked fine for a group that needs absolute simplicity as priority no.1? That's certainly not how I remember that game (don't get me wrong, awesome game for its day but neither simple nor straightforward are terms I'd use to describe that system - firing arcs are one thing but damage bookkeeping alone, not to mention waves of boarders/torpedoes would make me think twice, then think real hard again before trying to demo that as a quick, high-carnage system!).

I would keep an open mind w.r.t. DZ2 when it comes out if that sort of system wasn't completely out of reach - it certainly will be leaps and bounds faster and simpler than 4th ed 40k and again, you're not stuck with the silly cartoon green alien men look nearly as much

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:

Andrea at Ganesha is supposed to be putting together some new SciFi rules for a 40k equivalent, and he's got some new stuff coming out through Osprey as well that looks like it's going to play more at an Infinity level than at a 40k sized game.

Really?

SoBaH is excellent, I'm looking for a sci-fi equivalent...

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
I love Mars Attacks. It might scratch that itch for you Bob. It really is quick and simple, especially compared to DZ.

Then again, for quick and simple I'm always a big fan of Ganesha Games and their line of stuff. Flying Lead might be a good fit for what you want, especially if you want a near future shoot 'em up that you can use any old figure in.

Andrea at Ganesha is supposed to be putting together some new SciFi rules for a 40k equivalent, and he's got some new stuff coming out through Osprey as well that looks like it's going to play more at an Infinity level than at a 40k sized game.

Beat me to it. I was going to suggest Ganesha's games as well. You might also consider looking into Two Hour Wargames' Chain Reaction. The nice thing about that is that it's designed for small scale gaming and it's totally free.

I'd suggest now taking this topic to a separate thread somewhere else - thanks!

@Bob - For my family, Mars Attacks was the break out hit among all of the Mantic games I've bought into. That's entirely down to how fluidly and easily it plays, while still preserving a light element of tactics and strategy. No one in my family cares about the franchise.

In fact, I think the only reason I haven't taken Mars Attacks fully to heart is the franchise; I'd much rather be playing a game set in Mantic's warpath universe. If Deadzone V.2 is really all that, I've probably found our ideal game. And having learned the lessons of Mars Attacks, it really should be all that, and we know exactly who to blame if it isn't.

But yeah, I'd also recommend Mars Attacks, with the only caveat being that if you think your family / buddies will get tired of playing US Army vs. Martians, there's not much else you can do with that game. (At least the human / Martian sides are large enough that you can vary the force compositions quite a bit.)

Seems Alpharius chimed in while I was typing this. So to bring this back on topic (not just Mantic Sci-Fi, but rumors about new Mantic Sci-Fi, I take it) -

Here's a very light proto-rumor to take with two shovelfulls of salt. I'm hopeful that the idea of doing a sci-fi Dungeon saga has inched just a bit closer to being on Mantic's radar. During the Warpath campaign, I brought up the idea in the comments thread, and a lot of people chimed in to support it, bringing it up again on their own initiative later. I know people have raised the idea before, and I don't know who originated it, so no bragging rights assumed on that point.

Mantic were actively responding to the comments this time, and seemed interested in the idea. And I think it makes a lot of business sense, particularly if conventional wisdom has it that boardgames are the big KS sellers anyway. At any rate, hopefully we made a convincing case that there would be demand for it. But if it sounds like something you'd be interested in, let them know. I don't imagine we'd see anything happen for at least another two years, as they probably have their slate planned out that far. I'm certain, among other things, that we'll see a fantasy Deadzone before we see a sci-fi Dungeon Saga. But once fantasy Deadzone is done, they'll have to move on to something.

If the Mutant Chronicles "Siege of the Citadel" boardgame is getting relaunched, why not Project Pandora?

I still think on such a large scale, suppression should be simple, like reduces movement, restricts actions to defensive, focuses the target on the suppressing unit.. stuff like that. Having suppressive fire directly result in casualties (if I understood correctly) never makes sense to me. I don't want to draw this out as a "I don't like this" "you're wrong" kinda thing because it's still a game and the mechanics of that game are what they are and our ideas and philosophies on it are what they are. Theory-crafting some other possible mechanics is the only thing I could see but that's predicated on the belief that this system isn't great, so it seems like something that would be a one-way convo.

I have not heard of the fireteam game you mention. Specter games has some stuff too but I'm really hoping to steer towards sci-fi with more of a near future or hard sci-fi -video-gamey type of feel (hence my interest).

Bob - I have a pipedream for a game. I've been slowly working on it over the years but it's much more of a boardgame with emphasis on what you're talking about.
HINT might also be your huckleberry whenever it finally ships, or MERCS Recon (sigh). Privateer Press did something as well I think.. but I never really heard much about it.

EDIT:
Alpharius - Sorry, didn't see your post. I'm not sure what we're supposed to stop talking about though.. suppression in WP or boardgames? I'm not being funny, I'm legitimately unsure.

I think we're supposed to stop discussing BobtheInquisitor's question regarding casual gaming systems; an in-depth discussion of the actual mechanics of one of the games this topic covers seems AOK so far

Having suppressive fire directly result in casualties (if I understood correctly) never makes sense to me.

Comparatively few casualties, though, vs direct targeted fire. Seems to me if a (to be) suppressed target does happen to stick his noggin' out of hard cover one would be remiss not to oblige, right? It'll still cause fewer direct casualties than targeted fire intended to specifically pick off such targets would.
In the end though it is just a game, and something like this is likely done in part for balancing purposes, and in part because shooting without a chance to actually put a hole in someone might not feel 'right' to a significant part of the intended customer base.
(I know that to me, at least, it 'feels' like more fun than the mechanic you seem to prefer - and I'm not interested in playing a simulation as much as I'm interested in playing a fun, competitive game that rewards tactical decisions even if they only make sense in the context of that ruleset and not so much in an actual military context - I'm firing a yuuge laser at a giant rat, dammit! )

In case it isn't clear - all sort of games that aren't Mantic SF.

 Bolognesus wrote:
I think we're supposed to stop discussing BobtheInquisitor's question regarding casual gaming systems; an in-depth discussion of the actual mechanics of one of the games this topic covers seems AOK so far

Having suppressive fire directly result in casualties (if I understood correctly) never makes sense to me.

Comparatively few casualties, though, vs direct targeted fire. Seems to me if a (to be) suppressed target does happen to stick his noggin' out of hard cover one would be remiss not to oblige, right? It'll still cause fewer direct casualties than targeted fire intended to specifically pick off such targets would.
In the end though it is just a game, and something like this is likely done in part for balancing purposes, and in part because shooting without a chance to actually put a hole in someone might not feel 'right' to a significant part of the intended customer base.
(I know that to me, at least, it 'feels' like more fun than the mechanic you seem to prefer - and I'm not interested in playing a simulation as much as I'm interested in playing a fun, competitive game that rewards tactical decisions even if they only make sense in the context of that ruleset and not so much in an actual military context - I'm firing a yuuge laser at a giant rat, dammit! )

So.. I am not interested in fun games? Hm.. that's upsetting :(
You've got me wrong.. Suppressing fire has a place. I keep saying that and the fact that I don't like lumping it in keeps getting misconstrued as me saying it doesn't belong period. That's not at all what I'm saying.
Look at X-Com. When you have a heavy and you set him to do suppressing fire, it takes 2 actions and keeps the targets' head down. The target can still move on it's turn but takes a chance of getting nailed. If it sits tight, the only danger it faces is getting flanked or having a grenade land in his lap. Typically if someone is laying down cover fire, they are not aiming specifically so much as firing into an area. If you can see your target you shoot your target. This is what Doug's buddy was talking about. Point fire vs area fire. I'm good with all of that. I think I even indicated (twice now.. or three times counting this post) that what Doug described as the current 0.2 suppression rules sounds like it could work compared to the looser more suppression-happy rules in DZ1.


EDIT: Alpharius thanks for clarifying, I'm feeling particularly dense at the moment and have a massive headache.

 MLaw wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
I think we're supposed to stop discussing BobtheInquisitor's question regarding casual gaming systems; an in-depth discussion of the actual mechanics of one of the games this topic covers seems AOK so far

Having suppressive fire directly result in casualties (if I understood correctly) never makes sense to me.

Comparatively few casualties, though, vs direct targeted fire. Seems to me if a (to be) suppressed target does happen to stick his noggin' out of hard cover one would be remiss not to oblige, right? It'll still cause fewer direct casualties than targeted fire intended to specifically pick off such targets would.
In the end though it is just a game, and something like this is likely done in part for balancing purposes, and in part because shooting without a chance to actually put a hole in someone might not feel 'right' to a significant part of the intended customer base.
(I know that to me, at least, it 'feels' like more fun than the mechanic you seem to prefer - and I'm not interested in playing a simulation as much as I'm interested in playing a fun, competitive game that rewards tactical decisions even if they only make sense in the context of that ruleset and not so much in an actual military context - I'm firing a yuuge laser at a giant rat, dammit! )

So.. I am not interested in fun games? Hm.. that's upsetting :(
You've got me wrong.. Suppressing fire has a place. I keep saying that and the fact that I don't like lumping it in keeps getting misconstrued as me saying it doesn't belong period. That's not at all what I'm saying.
Look at X-Com. When you have a heavy and you set him to do suppressing fire, it takes 2 actions and keeps the targets' head down. The target can still move on it's turn but takes a chance of getting nailed. If it sits tight, the only danger it faces is getting flanked or having a grenade land in his lap. Typically if someone is laying down cover fire, they are not aiming specifically so much as firing into an area. If you can see your target you shoot your target. This is what Doug's buddy was talking about. Point fire vs area fire. I'm good with all of that. I think I even indicated (twice now.. or three times counting this post) that what Doug described as the current 0.2 suppression rules sounds like it could work compared to the looser more suppression-happy rules in DZ1.


EDIT: Alpharius thanks for clarifying, I'm feeling particularly dense at the moment and have a massive headache.

Sorry, not what I'm saying! All I'm saying is that I suspect there's a large group of players who likely won't share some of the concerns you and others in this thread do have. At least, not as much. For example, IMO it doesn't seem unreasonable that, from time to time, suppressive fire actually might take down a target as well, just much less effectively than shooting purely to hit would. Is that so far off the mark? (Honestly, I can't say I've had the need to give it a try. that might be part of the disconnect here )

Are you referring to X-COM the board game or the PC game? I haven't had a chance to play the board game, but I know suppressive fire in the PC game is, IMO, however realistic it might have been implemented, not something that feels like a valid strategy in the context of that ruleset. I pretty much always have better things to do with that turn, and when used against me I'll just take out the fether suppressing my guy with another guy first. Likely nowhere near as clear-cut outside my comfy turn-based make-believe situation, but that doesn't make it any more of a 'fun' option to me. I just don't see SF like that being rewarding on the tabletop (while OTOH the whole pinning system from BA, for example, is something I like very much. However much it might not be the most realistic thing ever)

Some of what Judgedoug mentioned (I think, might have been DrNo172000) about suppression forcing units down in the open rather than forcing them to leg it to cover feels like much more of a disconnect to me. OTOH I'm pretty sure any rule that would force you to make a move to nearest cover, or best cover would be open to horrendous abuse (try debating where that unit should have tried to go halfway through a tournament game, or just imagine how much would balance on precise .1"-closer-to-favourable-position model placement).
In that light, I can see why WP would go with a 'realistic enough' approach that at least doesn't lend itself well to that sort of antics. I see why a historicals/simulators player might vastly prefer that - but it's a very different kind of play from the sort of close-enough but still tactically rewarding, but most of all quick and unambiguous ruleset I would actually like this to be. (Honestly I'm not even saying such a system would not be a fun game - just not to me! again, not looking for a fight here )

Come to think of it, isn't "Typically if someone is laying down cover fire, they are not aiming specifically so much as firing into an area. If you can see your target you shoot your target" mostly the issue? No LoF means no suppression atm, and the distinction which I'm sure works much better on a battlefield that isn't actually as conveniently flat-with-intermittent-terrain-gunk as most wargaming tables will, IMO, struggle on a battlefield devoid of the sort of micro-cover (for lack of a better phrase) that a 'real' setting would provide in much greater amount.
It seems that, just going by what you're saying, the distinction you'd like to see would require another distinction that, IME, tends to be utterly absent from most gaming tables.

All I'm saying is that this likely works 'good enough' if you just shrug and accept the lack of realism (likely easier for me than for some others here, I'll grant you that). Also, SF still does way less damage than targeted fire. Whether that's still too much of an abstraction is a matter of taste, I suppose.

Lastly, when you point out that covering fire is something you do for lack of a more effective option - sorry for horrendously oversimplifying your statement there! - it does sort of sound like the sort of 'meh' option that would simply not be attractive in a wargame which by nature can't quite make some of the distinctions required to give it a proper place. Maybe look at this as a way to balance that out for the more competitive play-oriented customers? Some of us don't particularly care if 'realism' gets trampled six ways to sunday if it makes for a quicker, more competitive system. I know Infinity let's me spend 10 orders (11, even, strictly speaking) on a single model trying to rambo an enemy by its lonesome. Could he realistically do *that* much in that space of time? I rather doubt it. But it makes for a very enjoyable, tactically rewarding game for me - even if there is no relation between tabletop and real-world tactics in sight. If that might not be your cup of tea, I'll be the last person ever to claim you fail to understand 'fun' or somesuch - but I'll gladly defend the mechanic however ludicrous it might be from a 'realism'-based perspective. And in the end a game like WP will always try to cater both to your tastes and mine, and will have to make some accommodations for hilariously-scaled fliers and yuuge laaazors hitting MegaRatz while doing so. Again, please don't take anything in that sort of statement as some sort of personal attack

.... So, any truth behind the rumour that Mantic are/were looking to buy Prodos games?
(Speculated a couple of times in the AVP thread)

Seems unlikely. Mantic have been reasonably successful lately, but not buy-other-companies successful. Maybe a partnerhsip though? Dunno.

Interesting. What actually constitutes Prodos? Is it a number of Ip's and resin production equipment/facility?

Don't quote me, but that's the impression I get.