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.

Well, some weapons do have very limited ranges, even in this scale. Thrown weapons (IE grenades), snub nose pistols, tasers, etc. You literally cannot hit someone with a launched taser dart past 35 feet due to the wire length. And good luck getting a good contact at 35 feet.

OTOH, trying to shoulder a long barrel rifle while a guy charges from the door you just kicked, or the ally next to you is problematic. Minimum ranges are a definite concern with larger, long range weaponry and why you carry a sidearm. It's not that you *can't* do it with the rifle, it's just that it works a lot better if the guy with the assault weapon took care of them first, and, failing that, pistols are more maneuverable and give you more shots.

So it really depends on what you are going for. I think treating close quarter fighting the same as long range sharpshooting is a mistake as they are fundamentally different. The problem is most games just lump all of that as well as machine gun fire, bow and arrows, etc. as "shooting". Which is fine if your system is taking a Hollywood level view, but breaks down if you are trying to reflect the decisions that have to be made quickly in the field based on very different roles and armaments.

Obvious exceptions are obvious.

But you're right. Another good example is sniper rifles. Terrific weapons if you're lying down, in cover, with good support and a target at optimum range. But a rather different beast shot from the hip.

You can spend (waste?) a lot of time tailoring your game with endless weapon tables (Infinity?) and still fail to accommodate the massive variety of potential in missile weapons.

Hence why I encourage moving away from thinking about specific weapons and towards weapon effects. You can then bolt on a mix of effects to customize your weapon to the particular impact you desire (either as the designer, proscriptively, or as the player, prescriptively).

So you might have an "unsteady", "lethal", "sighted" weapon for which you need a steady firing position (can't move and shoot), which delivers a lot of damage if it hits, but gain bonuses if using the optic sight (need to be prone).

This would represent a sniper weapon. Add the "explosive" quality and you get an anti-tank missile. Take away the "unsteady" and "sighted" qualities and get a disposable rocket launcher. Etc.

You can then use the qualities you attach to weapons to structure their rarity or points cost. With just a dozen different effects you can customize thousands of different weapons.

To what extent is muscle-powered weaponry a factor in the game?

Once you move to chemical / energy weapons, range expands dramatically, and limited range becomes the exception, rather than the rule. This is why CC is BtB or 1", whereas lasers and such are unlimited.

If one has a ground scale inflator, then realistically, CC must only be BtB, and thrown weapons should be like 1" or 2".

In some ways, I'm not sure it does. When you're talking about really "hot" battlefield of noise, dust and confusion, the range of a crossbow or longbow isn't meaningfully shorter than that of your average assault rifle. It's more awkward to handle a long bow and takes longer to reload a crossbow. They don't have the penetration of a rifle and, yes, that penetration is reliant at least partially on the strength of the wielder.

If you want to do "grand design" battles of vast regiments or manoeuvring blocs then you might need to account for the range of more primitive weapons, but I generally don't worry about it for more skirmish-y game systems.

thrown weapons, I'm not so happy with - especially grenades. I'm yet to encounter a rules system that does it in such a way that my suspension of disbelief isn't challenged. As I expect to write rules for grenades and smoke as well as more direct thrown weapons like knives for Zero Dark very shortly, you can expect to see my best effort. I suspect it will still fall short of my ambition, though.

I don't agree with croossbows having the same range as modern 'assault' rifles. I doubt you're hitting anything let alone penetrating at 100 meters with most crossbows, for every 'assault' rifle I've fired 100m is a pretty easy shot. Most firefights take place further than 50 meters which is what I am finding as max effective for a crossbow on various hunting forums.

Maybe he's thinking Uzi instead of AK?

I don't know if it's a big deal since you would not expect to find bows and modern combat rifles in the same battlefield. Maybe for a zombie game, but then you are firmly in fiction/cinema land anyway.

Crossbows and bows have much lower velocities than most firearms, so we would expect lower effective ranges. They can, however be used for arcing fire, though usually this is only effective en masse. There are examples of modern archers using bows to hit targets at 300+ yards, and even medieval crossbows could throw bolts at such ranges (though with much diminished force and accuracy, of course).
That being said, there is a reason why crossbows replaced bows and firearms replaced crossbows!

As to knives, that is almost pure Hollywood. Thrown knives are rarely more than a potential distraction, and then only at short range. Much like the shuriken, it's a great tactic to use to slow down pursuit (hurl and run), but terrible to rely on as effective weaponry.

Grenades are a different beast. They are slow, unwieldy, and a great way to get shot if you try to make a solid throw under fire. But they make a nasty burst and can be arced over cover. Since modern weaponry generally forces targets to hug cover, direct fire becomes less reliable. But hunkered forces have reduced visibility, and it is easier to close when they are buttoned down. Suddenly, grenades become super useful- toss them at the pinned targets and they either flee cover (and get shot), or remain and die.

Likewise, a fortified building can become less dangerous once you toss a grenade in the window.

So a short range, AOE weapon seems fine so long as your game has way to force enemies to cover and limit LOS.

One of the ways our pop culture has influenced our ideas about engagement ranges is from the need of movies to have identifiable characters against identifiable threats. Take, for example, Private Jackson in Saving Private Ryan. He's sniping targets and all the kills are shown through his scope as a form of close-up and the tank destroyer that finally destroys his position ends up being so close that it lifts it's gun to nearly 45 degrees to shoot at the tower. Everything needs to be compressed and personal.

Now compare that with some of the current (as in the last few weeks) footage of the fighting in and around Mosul. It's all waiting around and shooting at targets you simply can't see on the camera. Or spotting for artillery on known enemy positions and known IED/Car bomb positions.

Or SPG9 recoiless positions firing into windows of buildings a kilometre away with no human targets visible while infantry fires short bursts at the same buildings from just a short range in front of the SPG9s (apparently with the goal of keeping them engaged until the explosive round can be delivered?).

The only time enemy combatants seem to show up as anything other than tiny specs is when buildings are breached after their exterior sentries have all been taken out and the Iraqi forces have done what they can to get explosives through the walls or windows.

From what I understand, Mosul has a very different layout than Fallujah and the fighting in more tight terrain there might bring the effective firefight range down, just like the differences between say Normany bocage and Kursk steppes.

The more I think about realistic ranges, the more I am thinking the more traditional approach to modern miniature wargaming was on to something. Spotting is a thing.

 jmurph wrote:
I don't know if it's a big deal since you would not expect to find bows and modern combat rifles in the same battlefield.

Seems like an unlikely thing to have to represent.

I wonder to what extent we should be assuming offboard artillery in our games to simulate remote support. That could be a thing.

If it's an actual conflict rather than some spec ops mission, then yeah, there probably should be an assumption of off table artillery.

Even relatively portable medium and light mortars could be off the table firing onto it if you're doing a 1:1:1 figure scale:ground scale:range approach. 500m at 1/100 for 15mm is still 16.5 feet on the table top.

As for your KOG game, it becomes less useful as things are less static. A spotter calls in a firing grid, a ranging shot lands and the spotter calls for fire for effect, but the fast moving vehicle is likely long gone. So a more modern method of calling artillery is probably needed. Something like a high altitude support craft or satellite guided weaponry might me more appropriate. Or some sort of electronic tagging? Although if there's a walker defending a building, I guess there's no reason not to take it out just like using artillery on a known sniper position.

Yeah, KOG light is such a micro scale game, artillery shouldn't be a factor.

But something 40k scaled? Esp. modern 40k with Titans and Fortifications? Probably.

40k has this inconsistent and backwards WW1 in space thing going on where nothing in it necessarily makes sense. You've got things like orbital strikes and manticores and basilisks and even those giant death strike missiles but everything operates like none of that exists most of the time.

I actually think it's more appropriate for things like KOGS, which has a near future setting. It may be that the scope of the game isn't for anything other than some vehicles and infantry fighting, but that doesn't mean off table artillery doesn't make sense as a natural point of expansion. And you get to start thinking about cool things like automated protection systems, automatic counter battery systems and the like. Especially given that the warfare seems pretty symmetrical.

If I expand KOG light, artillery would be part of an upscaling from SpecOps to LIC engagements on a somewhat larger battlefleld, played left to right on a 4' x 6' gameboard (so 5' nominal separation vs 2' separation). In such an environment, off-board artillery-type / CAS-type support, and organic, loitering drone support would be obvious.

However, the other 1:1:1 game that I'm curious to do would be WW1 trench combat on a similarly wide map, where Victory is advancing the line by 6" (or more) on either side...

 CptJake wrote:
I don't agree with croossbows having the same range as modern 'assault' rifles. I doubt you're hitting anything let alone penetrating at 100 meters with most crossbows, for every 'assault' rifle I've fired 100m is a pretty easy shot. Most firefights take place further than 50 meters which is what I am finding as max effective for a crossbow on various hunting forums.

You're mistaking the point. They question isn't how likely they are to hit, but whether hitting is possible. Yes, a rifle is easier to use more accurately and more likely to do meaningful damage, but the isn't about hit ratios or damage, but range and the range of both crossbows and longbows can be measured in hundreds of metres, they are equivalent to a rifle in that respect. When they arrive, yes, they are less likely to hit and less likely to wound, but those are different mechanics.

R.

 precinctomega wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I don't agree with croossbows having the same range as modern 'assault' rifles. I doubt you're hitting anything let alone penetrating at 100 meters with most crossbows, for every 'assault' rifle I've fired 100m is a pretty easy shot. Most firefights take place further than 50 meters which is what I am finding as max effective for a crossbow on various hunting forums.

You're mistaking the point. They question isn't how likely they are to hit, but whether hitting is possible. Yes, a rifle is easier to use more accurately and more likely to do meaningful damage, but the isn't about hit ratios or damage, but range and the range of both crossbows and longbows can be measured in hundreds of metres, they are equivalent to a rifle in that respect. When they arrive, yes, they are less likely to hit and less likely to around, but those are different mechanics.

R.

No, I'm really not mistaking the point. You are not hitting with a crossbow at 100+ meters, just as you are not doing so with my Crossman 760 BB gun. In the 1 in a million scenario you do hit, the victim shrugs it off. A hit with zero effect is effectively a miss.

A hit with zero effect is effectively a miss.

So a rifle will always "miss" the tank in front of it? But that depends on how you define "zero effect".

I think a French knight at Agincourt would have disagreed that the statistical inability of an individual English bowman to harm him meant that he could ignore the hundreds of arrows falling upon the charge line every second, battering their armour, injuring and frightening the horses and causing chaos within the line that was worsened by the terrain conditions and defensive stakes at the English position.

Sure, the sound of a rifle round pinging off your armour may not present a tankie with an immediate "wound", but it is indicative of the proximity of infantry in range: infantry who might carry more dangerous things than ineffective rifles. And this could, itself, have an impact upon the morale of the crew affecting the tank's performance.

Or it might not. But I would argue that it makes the rifle not totally ineffective, even against a target it cannot possibly hope to damage physically. I built this mechanic into Iron Core before that project stalled, to show how even a small squad of infantry can realistically stall the ability of a much larger, armoured target to manoeuvre freely through smart tactics and a little luck.

Massed longbow fire against massed targets =/= modern crossbow against individual targets.

And yeah, as a tanker, a round or two pinging off my armor wouldn't even be noticed unless it hit an optic. The engine and turret hydraulics and electronics coupled with wearing a CVC and having a couple radio nets blasting into your ears drown it out based on experience.

But regardless, again, a crossbow does not have the same range as a rifle. It just does not, not even in combat conditions. Modern data on engagement ranges shows, with zero doubt, the vast majority of firefights take place outside of crossbow range.

I totally agree with you, but we're not talking about reproducing realistic modern engagements. We're talking about miniatures wargaming seeking to capture a sense and flavour of real engagement.

Personally, I wouldn't include crossbows and longbows in a modern or sci-fi setting with any pretension to "realism" for exactly the reasons that you cite: rifles are so much more effective that muscle-powered weapons are irrelevant and pointless. But some settings - like Infinity - want to include them for the rule of cool and, for that reason, we have to build a version of reality in which they have a comparable range and kill power, however unlikely that seems.

Also, muscle-powered ranged weapons must be taken into account for fantasy or historical games where they will fulfil the tactical role of the modern rifle (albeit less so, because otherwise why take swords too?).

Modern rifles have an effective range of up to 600m. But this assumes the effect of a fireteam shooting together, which extends the individual range of about 400m (it's the same effect that made longbows lethal en masse at range, but on a smaller scale). Still, delivering accurate fire at 400m is still bloody difficult under battlefield conditions. Not only do you need to spot the target, but also find a secure fire position from which to engage with confidence that you won't come under counter-fire from an as-yet-unseen enemy position. The Cold War style open-countryside or early Op TELIC open desert engagement lends itself well to this sort of extended, long-range fire. But it also lends itself very badly to an interesting miniatures wargame (unless playing in 6mm or smaller, in which case... Horizon Wars!). It's a similar reason to why I haven't written the modern/sci-fi naval battle my father keeps nagging me to do ("Because over-the-horizon naval engagements at 20km are boring, Dad!"). As a result, the sort of engagements that are interesting tend to be fought at ranges of 300m or less, with the most intense exchanges of fire occurring at less than 100m. In these cases, assault rifles remain obviously superior to muscle-powered weapons with their higher rate of fire and vastly greater stopping and penetrative power.

But if you absolutely, positively have to include bows in your game, then a classic longbow has penetration of light armour at up to 200m, and modern compound recurve bows with carbonfibre shafts and titanium heads are going to be lethally effective for sure at that range. More than a rifle? Hell, no. And even basic ballistic armour will stop it in its tracks. But I still wouldn't stand still and let someone just hit me with one.

R.

Who cares. As designers we must abstract. To abstract shooting weapons are all shooting weapons. Melee weapons are all melee weapons, etc.

For me personally, when it comes to weapon ranges I am trying to balance the ability to manuever vs. the ability to fire. Shorter ranges allow your more ability to move about the tabletop freely, while longer ranges reduce the availability of free manuever but increase the ability to effecthe enemy. All ranges do is allow you a way to balance these effect.

So, instead of agonizing over ranges, you need to determine how much free movement you want where the enemy can not impact you.

 precinctomega wrote:
I totally agree with you, but we're not talking about reproducing realistic modern engagements. We're talking about miniatures wargaming seeking to capture a sense and flavour of real engagement.

Isn't it up to the individual designer to decide what they want to represent? To decide just what constitutes that "sense and flavour" for their game?

I definitely see an application for thinking about real effective ranges of both rifles (in this case single shot breach loaders and simple repeaters) and bows for colonial wargaming. I've read loads of accounts where European forces were attacked with bows, spears or javelins. Early machine guns (including the deadly maxim) start showing up as well. Even then, when arrows start dropping around you, it's time to fix your bayonet as it means they are close and you might see hand to hand combat. Doubly so for javelins and spears. Not sure I ever saw an account of an officer ordering the fixing of bayonets in response to rifle fire in the same way. Usually the response to that is to take cover and shoot back.

As an aside, it was actually kind of amazing how the lessons of colonial warfare were totally forgotten for the opening months of WW1. In the colonies they're hugging cover, building emplacements and trenches, digging rifle pits and machinegun pits, but in northern France they do massed assaults over open ground. The effectiveness of the Krupp guns in the Franco Prussian War was still in living memory for some of the senior generals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Who cares. As designers we must abstract. To abstract shooting weapons are all shooting weapons. Melee weapons are all melee weapons, etc.

Well... not universally. Any time you have a situation where you want to represent the effectiveness of weapons at different ranges you can no longer lump them all together. Even at 1:1:1 in 15mm, I wouldn't lump in submachine guns and squad LMGs as being the same thing. Even if I had some sort of special exception for SMGs, I'd still have some sort of differentiation in the rules. If a bunch of soviet tank riders attacking a german position end up at different distances from the enemy position, the fact they don't have any rifles is going to really matter.

For me personally, when it comes to weapon ranges I am trying to balance the ability to manuever vs. the ability to fire. Shorter ranges allow your more ability to move about the tabletop freely, while longer ranges reduce the availability of free manuever but increase the ability to effecthe enemy. All ranges do is allow you a way to balance these effect.

So, instead of agonizing over ranges, you need to determine how much free movement you want where the enemy can not impact you.

So why assume that issue isn't already solved for a given design project? Why downplay discussing one aspect of design by assuming another hasn't been done yet?

1) jump off points representing the most forward areas of impact free movement
2) unlimited movement rates when not under enemy fire
3) separate movement rates based on how cautious/cover hugging the infantry in question are advancing
4) a mandate for a certain level of terrain to block line of sight

Those are all examples of different approaches from existing games. Some of which have unlimited range for firearms which are not SMGs or pistols.

Even then, there's no reason one question necessarily has to be answered first. Given weapon ranges X, Y, Z, what other design work needs to be done to get the game you want? No reason to say "stop agonizing over ranges" when it comes time to discuss what X, Y or Z are.

 Easy E wrote:
Who cares.

Very fair question and one I was just asking myself.

 Easy E wrote:
For me personally...

Indeed. A lot of design decisions are about personal preference, which is why some games suit some people and not others. The closer your vision of a great game is to the designer's the more you'll like it. This is veering into the larger realm of design philosophy and away from the OP, but it's interesting to wonder whether a game a designer writes purely to please him or herself is going to be more or less popular than one written to please a diverse community. The popularity of games like 40k, Warmachine and Infinity is impossible to deny, but how much of that is based on good design and how much on aesthetic factors, I wonder?

 Easy E wrote:
you need to determine how much free movement you want where the enemy can not impact you.

Totally excellent point, well made. My perspective is that freedom from threat (in a modern/SF game) should arise from tactical manoeuvre (use of cover and suppressive fire to limit enemy fire arcs) not from factors outside your control (like the fixed range limits of enemy weapons), but YMMV.

 precinctomega wrote:

Indeed. A lot of design decisions are about personal preference, which is why some games suit some people and not others. The closer your vision of a great game is to the designer's the more you'll like it. This is veering into the larger realm of design philosophy and away from the OP, but it's interesting to wonder whether a game a designer writes purely to please him or herself is going to be more or less popular than one written to please a diverse community. The popularity of games like 40k, Warmachine and Infinity is impossible to deny, but how much of that is based on good design and how much on aesthetic factors, I wonder?

I think the majority of the game design work done in miniature gaming is actually not for commercial purposes but for individual preferences and very local and limited adoption. Maybe people will talk about their rules (or modifications of an existing game) or share a PDF outlining them, but I think a lot of the design work that happens is never done with the goal to be popular.

My designs are for games I run at local conventions and at gaming dinner parties that I host. Full stop. I never expand them beyond point form and certainly don't write anything like a rulebook. I'll be there to run them. And if someone really wants to run something I wrote, usually they've played it or we've talked about it enough that point form reminders are enough.

So of course I design to please myself because I'm designing for games that I plan on playing. Doing otherwise would be really dumb. It's like different situations and goals require different approaches.

 precinctomega wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Who cares.

Very fair question and one I was just asking myself.

Anyone who wants to represent something to do with weapon ranges in their rules or anyone who wants to play in a game where weapons might have different ranges? If I'm picking a spot to dig in a unit in a rifle pit, I probably don't want to do it within bow or javelin range of a ridge line or copse of trees/jungle. Or if I've got a SMG armed unit of soviet infantry, I may have to consider how I'm going to advance given the longer ranges of the weapons the germans have. I might make some sort of decision in a game about that, so it's probably worth thinking and talking about in terms of design work.

Prior to reading CptJake's posts, I too assumed that bows and crossbows were lethal out to a longer range than they are. I did some googling and think he's on to something. So given that I already do colonial wargaming, so I may have to consider this new information in terms of individual arrows fired at range. That said, if I'm going for a hollywood feel, I may have to specifically disregard it and make bow fire even more effective instead. A bunch of overconfident colonial infantry getting massacred by brave native forces with simpler weapons is definitely a trope worth thinking about in a more action movie oriented game. Similarly if I did get into zombies gaming again, I'd definitely give bows and crossbows some thought.

Sometimes these little "actually..." moments about weapons and armour and whatnot can spark something pretty cool. My early gaming history includes things like D&D where a shield gives a pretty minor bonus to protection against missile fire. In reality, a shield is extremely effective against missile fire. Apparently in many ancient conflicts, javelineers with small shields would drive off skimishing archers despite being out ranged by them. As a result, I've changed some of my ancient skirmishing rules and things have gotten much more interesting.

 precinctomega wrote:
The popularity of games like 40k, Warmachine and Infinity is impossible to deny, but how much of that is based on good design and how much on aesthetic factors, I wonder?

I would submit that the enduring popularity of Warhammer Fantasy, 40k, Warmahordes and Flames is overwhelmingly on inertia and model aesthetics, then marketing, leaving "good design" in rules mechanics is far, far down on the list of relevant factors. It takes an exceedingly poor set of rules to prevent a good-looking game from getting traction. As Frozenwastes might confirm, in my experience, only DP9's Heavy Gear has managed to produce a series of rules so awful that they overcame the inherent attractiveness of the Heavy Gear minis.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 precinctomega wrote:
I

For me personally, when it comes to weapon ranges I am trying to balance the ability to manuever vs. the ability to fire. Shorter ranges allow your more ability to move about the tabletop freely, while longer ranges reduce the availability of free manuever but increase the ability to effecthe enemy. All ranges do is allow you a way to balance these effect.

So, instead of agonizing over ranges, you need to determine how much free movement you want where the enemy can not impact you.

So why assume that issue isn't already solved for a given design project? Why downplay discussing one aspect of design by assuming another hasn't been done yet?

1) jump off points representing the most forward areas of impact free movement
2) unlimited movement rates when not under enemy fire
3) separate movement rates based on how cautious/cover hugging the infantry in question are advancing
4) a mandate for a certain level of terrain to block line of sight

Those are all examples of different approaches from existing games. Some of which have unlimited range for firearms which are not SMGs or pistols.

Even then, there's no reason one question necessarily has to be answered first. Given weapon ranges X, Y, Z, what other design work needs to be done to get the game you want? No reason to say "stop agonizing over ranges" when it comes time to discuss what X, Y or Z are.

Of course most of this is YMMV territory, but it is more fun to lay down an absolute and argue for it whether I believe it or not.

All of the examples you post above deal with movement so they support my supposition that the true question isn't about proper range, but instead about the relationship between the ability to move unimpeded vs. the ability to be taken under fire in the game. Any discussion of range is actual a discussion of movement or lack thereof in your game.

Sorry, but I thought your post was very dismissive of the discussion of effective crossbow ranges itself (eg "who cares" and "stop agonizing over ranges") so I responded assuming you meant that dismissal.

If you are going to do a 1:1:1 approach then proper range matters. Should it? Should you do such an approach? Depends on the design goals of the game in question.

For myself, I want movement decisions to be that which emerges from the fruitful void. I want to design simple movement rules, set my weapon ranges (whether it's a 1:1:1 game or not) and my turn structure and have maneuver be the thing you figure out based on the implications of multiple rules elements interacting.

In some situations the lay out of the terrain and the ranges of the weapons will make for a very fluid game with lots of movement and others it will get more static. Just like how warfare in one sci-fi novel might differ from another. Or how warfare in one historical period (or even individual battle) might differ from another.

That said, I think the movement not impacted by fire and movement under fire is a very useful tool for thinking about how all the rules elements interact. I think a rules set designed from the get go to represent that might be very interesting and could totally see how in such a top down approach you'd want to limit ranges as part of defining these maneuver modes. As opposed to a more bottom up approach where questions of scale and proper ranges produce their implications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 precinctomega wrote:
The popularity of games like 40k, Warmachine and Infinity is impossible to deny, but how much of that is based on good design and how much on aesthetic factors, I wonder?

I would submit that the enduring popularity of Warhammer Fantasy, 40k, Warmahordes and Flames is overwhelmingly on inertia and model aesthetics, then marketing, leaving "good design" in rules mechanics is far, far down on the list of relevant factors. It takes an exceedingly poor set of rules to prevent a good-looking game from getting traction. As Frozenwastes might confirm, in my experience, only DP9's Heavy Gear has managed to produce a series of rules so awful that they overcame the inherent attractiveness of the Heavy Gear minis.

LOL

I tend to agree. A company that wants their miniature range to be popular is probably better off putting money into marketing and model design rather than game design. For those publishers that sell only rules, the rules will mostly have to stand on their own merit, though marketing will play a huge roll. Like the amount of people who see and buy a given game because of the publisher's reach into the market compared to selling the same rules on your own website. It's also possible that social media might be a better use of one's time than game design if the goal is popularity. Or video production explaining the game with beautiful miniatures and terrain.

It takes a special kind of game to have a publisher with good reach (Wayland's distribution of DP9 stuff across Europe) and a decent social media/video presentation (Beasts of War promoting the hell out of the game), totally beautiful miniatures (the HG minis themselves) and still have it flop to the point that the company has to change hands.

Exalted the Heavy Gear joke!

I LOLed.

So reading through this thread, I had an idea about determining line of sight. I personally like the volume approach for pure simplicity, but like in Malifaux, even models on a 30mm base can have different heights. Would it be dumb just for consistency to assume that all human sized models are the same height... say 1.5". But than during their movement they can crouch and their height changes after you place a "Crouching" token next to them to 3/4", or they can go prone after you place a "Prone" token next to them and their height becomes 1/4".

If your going with realistic weapon ranges, wouldn't it be realistic to assume that a soldier is always in motion. You aren't going to see a modern infantryman in the army scuttle across a street kneeling just because that was the position he started his day in. So I think it would be dumb to say that since my miniature is kneeling, it is physically incapable of ever standing up during a firefight or ever changing it's position besides where it's weapon faces.

I would say 'crouch' would be the default and you wouldn't need the token.

Yeah, for states, I would assume that actors are always trying to minimize their profile. However, that may better reflected in making more experienced actors harder to "hit". I would suggest that if at any point during a move an actor is visible, an aware shooter should be able to take a shot (not necessarily a particularly accurate one), maybe with a test based on the shooter's quality to see if they react in time if the mover ends out of sight.

Lying prone should be handled separately from the normal movement state as it affects several factors- while it is a much smaller silhouette, it is also functionally stationary and extremely vulnerable if flanked or assaulted. In any encounter where the enemy can reach a prone actor with a bayonet/knife/tomahawk/etc. they are almost certainly a casualty.

only DP9's Heavy Gear has managed to produce a series of rules so awful that they overcame the inherent attractiveness of the Heavy Gear minis.

Quoting for truth and lols. That was actually a contributory factor to the game that eventually became HW! However, it was also true of the first edition of Infinity from which I recoiled in horror at both the rules and the poor translation.