Skip to toolbar

There is no place for (armoured) vehicles and fliers in a 28mm skirmish game?

Home Forums News, Rumours & General Discussion There is no place for (armoured) vehicles and fliers in a 28mm skirmish game?

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 58 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  limburger 1 month, 1 week ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)
  • Author
  • #1640130

    Cult of Games Member

    i would just have the vehicle but as part of the game terrain, the jagdtiger can’t move so you only have 1 or 2 MG’s and maybe 1 or 2 rounds for the gun, therefore you won’t just shoot every turn.  Even if you limit MG ammo it becomes alot more tactical.

    Also, have the vehicle be under repair, a roll every turn to have it fixed ,no power means manual traverse so you can move the gun say 30 or 45 degrees a turn and shoot with modifier or no traverse and no modifier, problem could be electrical, motor, track, limited ammo, crewmember dead or wounded or only 2 crew, say driver and commander so he does all, if driver goes into fighting compartment, no movement.   Time to use imagination to make a non traditional game.



    Cult of Games Member

    @tacticalgenius such modifications shouldn’t feel like a burden to the players though.
    And I’d be in favour of using the rules that already exist within a system to create the scenario.

    Warlord do that in the ‘Son Bridge’ scenario within the ‘Market Garden’ campaign reference where there is at least one ’88 flak gun on the table …



    @onlyonepinman At the moment the all vehicle thing for 40k is actually a bit of a double edged sword. I think (though I’m by no means a competitive 40k player) the meta with 9th is massed fire always wins. The more dice you roll the kills you make, so in that sense an all vehicle army against a horde of guardsmen may actually just get mauled by Lasguns because they CAN wound a vehicle now and they roll enough dice. My brother and I were going to try it at one point with my Custodes against his Imperial Knights (armies neither of us tend to play much because they are a bit silly) just to see who would win. Our assumption was based on how many the Knights can kill before the Custodes can close will determine the game. In a weird way, that’s sort of accurate to ‘reality’.

    I deff agree with @limburger that rules should not be overly complicated, and by and large I think the rules for games like BA and 40k work quite nicely for simplicity in rules. At the end of the day, though, army building rules are designed for competitive play and not scenario play and that’s a good line to draw. Even beyond scenarios, though, a friendly game can always come with some caveats if both players agree. Nothing over a Light Tank for BA, for example, or nothing except basic APC units in 40k. On the flip side if both player want to they could say ONLY Super Heavy things in a game…but at that point you should think of the game system’s limitations to scale. 😛


    Cult of Games Member

    I think its fine to have both types of games.

    One is for playing a more historic sort of game, where a well used mortar, or bunker point would be a big focus for a platoon fighting each other.


    But also in the reinforced platoon arena, aren’t there those who like games that have scope for both like that in the same game.

    Rogue One, AT-ATs, X-Wings and Tie-fighters, air lift drop off with running skirmish fights.

    Climax battle of Saving Private Ryan has both.

    Defence of the Bridge by Frost and his boys in ‘A Bridge too Far’

    I think it’s generally refered to a Hollywood Wargaming and plenty of peeps like doing that.


    Cult of Games Member

    @admiralandy I don’t care what it is called … but you’re right.
    Of course there’s room for both.
    It would help to be aware of what ‘style’ (for lack of a better word) you’re getting when looking at a game.


    Cult of Games Member

    On balance I agree,… but thats a whole tricksy mine field unfortunately.

    Anybody new looking at it wouldn’t get the difference and in the UK anyway with the Osprey wargames in WHSmiths and larger book shops its not just the 40k route these days. So Plenty pick up the rules as an entry and then find like minded friends, and by the time they are sticking with it and get any difference theres the but I’ve invested so much into this rule now…

    And unless its a distinctive hook to encourage players, like yes this is sifi wargame but its hard sifi. Then your not going to get publishers saying, this is a WW2 themed rulest but its not really representative of what actually happened – as that might discourage a sale.

    Lets be honest when we started wargaming with our ‘research’ consisting of ye olde hollywood movies, most of us wouldn’t have got the difference, and plenty of us don’t care by the time we do.


    Maybe we should view that as part of the barrier to entry and why so many simples wargames are the entry for so many players, its the historicly lose and implausible setups that newbies are more used too, and without coercing simply highlight the alternate choices.


    If we consider the title of this post and a newbie has picked up the Bolt Action Band of Brothers starter – well hey thats just like Saving Private Ryan and the Series of the same name, and in half of those there are fights with armour.


    Also what do you class as ‘armour’, would that include a half track, which would be a common enough feature for games where troops are being transported in for a fight.


    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  admiralandy.
    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  admiralandy.

    Cult of Games Member

    Yeah the amount of investment one has in a system may explain the rather ‘angry’ sounding comments one encounters when daring to suggest that system X is flawed and/or not suited for a given scenario … (which is why I love the OTT community as we can discuss things without flamewars and cursing 😀 )

    As for the ‘armour’ classicifaction … I’d say anything that requires specialist weapons/skills that are not used by the standard troops.
    A half-track could qualify if the enemy had improvised weapons bows and arrows …

    There’s always a chance to game the system if you can throw enough dice at a problem, but I’d argue that you wouldn’t be playing by the intent/spirit of the system.

    40k is kind of a special case, because they are dealing with a gigantic legacy and a fan base that is resistant to change. I’d also argue that GW isn’t interested in designing a clean system either as their motivation is more like “new shiny sells”. We got lucky with 8th edition, but within months after launch it became clear that there was no plan to keep it balanced in any shape or form. With 9th we were back to the need to keep the game ‘visible’ as opposed to actually fixing stuff ( … ).

    Companies like Warlord, Battlefront and Corvus Belli tend to have better motivation as to why changes in their respective rules happen (streamlining, fixing flaws, making stuff easier to use, etc). Maybe they are better at communicating these changes, because they need to be ?

    Anyways …

    It’s always important for players/buyers to be aware of the intent / design principles of the system they pick.
    It makes it easier to deal with flaws if you know that you’re effectively doing stuff that the designers didn’t consider … (like fielding a couple of Jagdtigers by min/maxing your armylist).

    Then again … emergent gameplay can create interesting results too.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  limburger.

    Cult of Games Member

    @limeburger Again I agree, even though I’m rather on the side of wargaming with awesome as Warzan says, so where it can fit in tanks, planes and BFguns and probably not unrelated to mostly 40k influence in my early days this has been a good little chat and made me think about the subject in a more rational way than I normally might.

    I think how the subject is raised makes a difference too, how different a tone this chat might have had if the opening title didn’t have the question mark. All too often the approach is thats  a wrong way to play, which gets into attacking peoples passion which take personally and respond defensively. Never ends well 🙁

    Much better to raise as a question or demo the alternate, that way you can learn to enjoy it both ways 🙂

    Investment is definately a factor in people looking at something new, part of this is 40k steals elements of historic wargaming like WW2 and Space knights with there heraldry. Why look elsewhere we’ve still got that hook, evil mind tricks.

    But after x years it gets a little flat, where it doesn’t have any real friction. Seeing two players for a 40k game take an hour to setup, roll off for first and the guy going second immediately conceding…. because they’ve won or lost in the list building is a failed system imo.

    If I do 40k again, it’ll probably either be 2nd ed, cause its fun even with its flaws if can avoid a herohammer game, or the 8th ed launch, with the indexs launched at the start with it, agai you watch youtube after youtube of the 8th ed launch edition and its about the fun of the game.


    Lastly, I think your point to paraphrase a little about who you game with is a difference too. We’ve all heard/seen that guy stroll up with the King Tiger and his elite SS Troop and crush his oppenent, once. Because he will be unable to get a game with that opponent again, which in the long run makes that sort of guy a bit of a loser and probably not one who will stick with the hobby for too long.


    The main thing I would say to anybody on either side of the viewpoint, is if you’ve got oppurtunity to try a new system that might be quite different to your usual game but you can have some fun doing it give it a go. Other than you might miss out on some fun you’ve not much to lose after all.*


    *I take no responsibility for any new obsessions this may engendar or an even bigger unpainted pile of minis and a decreased bank balance 😉



    Cult of Games Member

    @limburger I suspect all systems are flawed and those flaws will be different depending on what you personally enjoy. You basically choose the rules with the flaws that offend you the least.  I stayed away from Kings of War for quite a long time because there was a  rule I absolutely hated.

    I also fully support the rule of cool – if it’s cool, then play it.  However I also accept that what is cool is entirely subjective, for some people it’s the stuff of  Hollywood and the silver screen, for others it’s accuracy.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  onlyonepinman.

    Cult of Games Member

    @admiralandy I suspect that the guy with the King Tiger and elite troops was either a jerk or the rest of the people playing where not used to being beaten that they hated him … Lack of sportsmanship tends to make scenarios like that unplayable and unfun by default.

    @onlyonepinman I’d argue that all systems are flawed … we just tend to like the ones that have the least amount of flaws that annoy us or adopt our style of play in a way that mitigates those flaws.

    ie : if one doesn’t like the vehicle rules in a game like Bolt-action (or 40k or any other rule/game combo) then there are two options :
    (a) play scenarios/games without vehicles (thus avoiding the perceived flaw)
    (b) introduce house rules to ‘fix’ that aspect

    Of course there’s always the option to not play or to change systems, but that’s not always realistic.

    The only real ‘problem’ / challenge occurs when you’re going to a tournament … but then that is a different beast altogether, because the competitive nature tends to bring out the worst in people (at least does for me).


    Cult of Games Member

    If you’re going to a tournament then the question of whether there is a place for something becomes largely irrelevant – you’re playing under a different set of assumptions.  If it’s in the rules there’s a place for it, regardless of how realistic or not something might be


    Cult of Games Member

    @onlyonepinman yeah I agree, but then the things that can and can not be done are usually documented (and failing that interpreted by whoever acts as a ‘neutral’ referee).

    With ‘non competitive play’ this can be tricky if the people at the club are not used to their ideas/interpretations of the rules being questioned by new players and/or guests.
    Anyways … that’s a different topic too.

    I think we can consider this topic closed, unless there’s new ideas ?



    I think all Armored  “tanks” should be treated  more like terrain, then an actual game piece.  Granted, it should be able to move, but it shouldn’t be able to move as fast as infantry.  It should be slower, not because its slow… but because its more methodical in its movement.  Has to have more situational awareness.   Slow and steady.

    Also armored vehicles should be more about mobile weapon/defense support.  It should offer cover, and LOS blocking.  There should be a reason for it to lock down in a position and hold.  There by supporting the Infantry in that area.  All modern or futuristic wargames should always be played in a terrain heavy table, in my opinion.   Vehicles should never be able to effectively and routinely be able to use those long ranges.  So their weapons shouldn’t be the primary reason to take them.

    I’ve also always thought about action economy in concerns to tanks.  Like should they really be able to act every time infantry acts, or even when infantry act.   Maybe they should have to wait till the end of the turn order to fire their weapons.  Or have to move first if they are going to move.  That way everything on the battle field can react to them, which is what I feel infantry would do.   And/or maybe they only should be allowed “half actions”, as in  move or shoot each turn.

    I think the biggest problem in most wargames, is the same problem D&D has with all vehicles.  That is to say is wargames just treat vehicles as tougher infantry with big bags of HPs.   That is it.  Vehicles shouldn’t just work exactly like any infantry model.  They need their own in game mechanics that make them play differently.


    Cult of Games Member

    @slayerofworlds :
    what is the point of having long ranged weapons if you can’t ever use them ?
    Some players might understand the tactical value of a thing that only works as a threat, but doesn’t get to kill anything.
    The average player wants their big shiny toy to kill stuff … and not die in a single turn because their opponent had either the perfect tool or enough dice to throw at the target.
    Likewise you don’t want to be the guy who can’t defend against the big shiny toy of your opponent …

    I think the only ‘problem’ with vehicles/large monstrous units is that the systems rarely take into account the terrain needed to make the system fun & playable for all.
    Which is kind of why I think scenario design is as much part of the game balance equation as the rules and army list building mechanics are.

    And as I’ve said … there is the question of who (or what) should be the focus of the game ?
    Is the tank supporting the infantry or are infantry supporting the tank ?
    This sounds like a subtle difference, but it is more important than you’d think.
    As long as both players have the same answer to that question the game will be fun for both as their expectations will align.

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)