25 replies to this topic

[Dan Lewis]

Hi Kenny, 

 

I looked at the Egyptian Troop Quality Table for 1956 and first off since 'most' of the Egyptians are 'Regular' rather than Veteran, they get no bonus shot. BUT according to the chart, even if they are Veteran, there is no bonus shot listed for Egyptian. 

 

 

AMX13 doesn't get a veteran bonus shot because they have an AutoLoader.....ok, that makes sense and I'll apply that. Curious in the world of modern tanks if AutoLoaders is a common thing or not.....

[Kenny Noe]

Dan,

 

You are correct Untrained, Green, and Regular troops are not officially (see below) eligible for the Bonus ROF.  "Most" is not all inclusive.  There are "some" Egyptian Regular Military that are "Veteran".

 

According to what chart does it show that Egyptian Regular Military Veterans receive no bonus shot?  I'd like to see and maybe I've goofed somewhere.

 

Per the rules Direct Fire Chapter p.7.5 Section Troop Quality and Bonus Shots section explains in detail this rule for Elite and Veteran troops.

 

It is up to the Game Master when creating the scenario whether to 1) have veteran troops in their scenario and 2) whether to give them the Bonus shot.  If the GM wants to give a +1 ROF bonus shot to regular troops then that's ok.  I've read military histories where regular troops fought inspired battles where a +1 ROF could be conceivable.  But this is an exception not the norm.  

 

I've ran scenarios with Veteran troops where the bonus shot was too much.  I took it out when running the scenario again.  As with all MP rules the GM has the FINAL say as to which rules (official or House) are applied to their game.

 

ODGW is NOT static nor do we demand the strict adherence to our rules including the BPV system (ahem, GW).  Our rules are meant for people to have fun on a table top.  If something doesn't work in your game be it balance or stat derived then feel free to modify. 

 

This is what the ODGW forums are about, like minded folks discussing our passion with games / rules / stats / OOB / mil history / etc.  We can discuss what works and what doesn't.

 

 

 

Autoloaders are in most Russian MBT designs [starting with the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 families]  Not the T-54/55 (family) nor the T-62 (family).

 

Western designed MBTs still use human loaders [M60 (family), M1 (family), Chieftain / Challenger, Leopard (family), AMX-30].

 

The French LeClerc is the only modern MBT in the west that has an autoloader, that I can recall.  (I may be wrong....  )

 

However, in MP if a vehicle has an autoloader then officially it cannot receive a +1 ROF for a Veteran or Elite Troop Quality.  But again if the GM believes the AFV deserves the Veteran +1 ROF then they are free to make it so.   However there are other stats that can be applied to Veteran troops like higher TQ, better Moral and Recovery stats, bonuses to FP, HTH and Command Distances.  So that's Six (6) stats (minus the ROF) that give Elite and Veteran Troops an edge over lesser troops.

 

 

<soap box off>

Apologies for the rant...

[Dan Lewis]

Hello Kenny, 

 

Yes, for 1956 Egyptian troop quality bonus shot column for Veteran says 0. For 1948, the Israeli, Iraqi, Egyptian, Syrian Veterans get no bonus shot but the Jordanians and British Veterans do have a bonus shot .

 

Also for 1956, the Morale and Recovery value for the Egyptians is Abysmal! Not saying it's wrong, just shows that you don't need as many Israelies as you might think to make the game a challenge for both sides. 

 

As I'm absorbing the rules (which is not easy), I'm trying to apply them as written. Don't have enough experience to say "no I'm not going to use bonus shots" if I've never tried it. But it ends up being really tricky on creating a scenario or even using a historical scenario as it might make the game too unbalanced and then people don't have fun. 

 

It is possible to create objectives such that the side with the large advantage must acheive a certain result otherwise it's considered a victory for the side that was defeated. Example might be a rear guard action> if the rear guard can inflict x-causualties by end of game it's a victor for the defender. Or if the attacker can't get x number of units to exit on a given road by turn x then it's a victory for the rear guard. 

 

But more than likely I'd have to play test that to make sure it works before actually putting it on the table for the group. 

[Kenny Noe]

Hello Kenny, 

 

Yes, for 1956 Egyptian troop quality bonus shot column for Veteran says 0. For 1948, the Israeli, Iraqi, Egyptian, Syrian Veterans get no bonus shot but the Jordanians and British Veterans do have a bonus shot .

 

OK That's a typo and will be fixed.

[Peter M. Skaar]

This thread has sort of evolved from rate of fire for overwatch into a larger issue of game balancing.  Most games are not perfectly balanced but have degrees of being unbalanced. Even chess, where White gets the first move is not perfectly balanced but very close.

One way to achieve balance is a points system where everything costs points and each side has a point limit to how many points are available to spend.  I am not a fan of points based games.

I prefer to balance my own games to a reasonable degree.  I do this by trying to figure out reasonable force levels for both sides depending on the scenario.  Some match-ups are pretty even and some not quite so even.

As an example in two of my fairly recent introductory games, In "Cruisin for a Bruisin"  the Crusader II actually matches pretty well statistically with the Panzer IIIs it will be facing.  If both sides have almost the same number of vehicles, it then comes down to who better uses their forces AND of course "The Dice gods".

In my "Stemming the Tide" scenario the vehicle match-ups are not that even.  Comparing the T-34 M1943 to the Panzer IIIL or M, the T-34 in Mein Panzer is clearly superior in armament, armor, and speed.  The Panzer IVG or H does match the T-34 more closely but not exactly where the T-34 still has the advantage in 2 out of 3 of the categories I mentioned.  The Panzer IV does have superior armament but has the same speed and only very slightly better frontal armor than the Panzer III.  

In order to try to balance this scenario, I took into account that German tankers at this stage of the war were generally better than their Russian counterparts overall.  The Russians were improving little by little however.  Making the Germans Veteran vs Regulars for the Russians seemed to be a way to address this.  There are some other benefits being Veteran status such as a larger command range making the unit more flexible.

I also decided to let the Germans move first to at least get on the board a bit ahead of the Russians.  

Finally the victory conditions were designed to put the onus of attacking mostly on the Russians.

If doing a historical scenario with historical forces and the historical situation just accept that it might not be balanced.  If you are able to do better than your historical counterpart, then consider it a win and maybe even adjust the victory conditions to reflect that.



 

[Mark 1]

I might offer the following two observations:

 

First, my readings of the histories (many of which were first hand accounts) of the 1967 and 1973 Arab Israeli Wars align with what has been described here as the way the rules play. I give high marks for rules that give results that generally align with history.  I understand that it may make for challenges when arranging a game or creating scenarios, but if you just want balance at game time, I have a chess set I can offer you. For me, I want to get a sense, a feeling, for how historical combat happened the way it did, and insight into why the commanders in historical battles made the decisions they made.

Second, I observe the same issues in early WW2 battles.  One side has better skills, and oh boy does that make a difference in the combat. One of my tests of any WW2 wargaming ruleset is running a 1941 or 1942 battle of with Pz IIIs against T-34s. Do these rules tell me how the Wehrmacht consistently out-fought the Red Army, when Russian tanks were faster, had thicker armor, and more powerful guns?  Some rulesets I've played just waive their arms over the issue and say German tanks get "better firepower" or "better combat rating" or some such, ignoring the fact that the Russian 76.2mm gun was more powerful than the German 37mm and short 50mm, and was a reasonably match in penetration to the long 50mm (but with more destructive impact).  I remember my first wargame with these tanks, PanzerBlitz (a board game, but my first use for GHQ microarmor was using it to replace the cardboard chits in PanzerBlitz).  The part that made me CRAZY was all my readings telling me how much the Germans feared the T-34, finding in the rules that it was rated almost evenly balanced to the Pz IV, and only marginally better than the Pz III, and then reading that the German chits represented PLATOONS while the Russian chits represented COMPANIES. 

 

But with Mein Panzer I have taken T-34s into combat against Pz IIIs and been shot to pieces, not because the Pz III was magically over-rated, but because the crews were better quality. Yeah, their shots bounced more often, but they shot more often and they hit more often and so as many hits as bounced, they still shot the T-34s to pieces unless I did a very good job of concentrating my T-34s in space AND time.  That was like a moment of actual insight from the game experience. And I also experienced French tanks vs. German tanks with similar results. 

 

When it comes to making it interesting at game time, sometimes I do that by balancing the forces (knowing that one side needs more than the other to balance the game play) and sometimes I do that by balancing the victory conditions. Maybe I give one side 5 victory points for every enemy tank they destroy, while the other side only gets 2 victory points for the same.  Or sometimes I give one side victory points for every unit that survives to the end of the game. For me, at least, I have never bothered considering vehicle points values in setting up my scenarios.  I think in terms of force sizes and historical appropriateness (ie: German units after 1943 should never much above 1/2 strength), and mission, with victory conditions to mitigate the imbalances that result. So Italians in Tunisia are always going to feel they get the short end of the stick vs. Americans. But French in Tunisia may feel the same way even if they're facing Italians.  On my game table, if you want to play Germans anywhere after mid-1943 (Eastern Front, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, France...), you had better be comfortable trying to pull some useful result out of a losing situation most of the time.

 

I suggest considering force size and victory conditions as methods of balancing specific scenarios. But at least on my game table I absolutely cherish the feeling of imbalance that comes from troop quality advantages.

 

Your tankage may vary,

 

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)