Post by atelierdunwargamer on Sept 8, 2019 20:12:46 GMT
I played my first game of gdf today and realy enjoyed it ! Battle brothers vs. TAO coalition
I know every one is a critic and this must have been thought about but I am rather surprised that a pistol can damage a tank. This was avoided in FUBAR by separating light and heavy weapons, only heavy weapons being able to damage vehicles. I wondered why or if it was possible to have vehicles with a +1 save? That way only AP can damage it. This obviously changes the balance but seems more realistic.
The level of armour vs armour penetration thing is something I've been pondering too. Not too big an issue just yet, as our games are mostly infantry vs infantry at the moment (couple of "tank drones" from Sedition Wars, but that's it)... however we're printing up a tank this week on the new FDM printer and it's been bugging me that my horde of zombies can not only stop that tank in it's tracks, but can actually weaken it by flailing at it with their fists.
Whilst it might take a single pistol 216 shots to completely destroy a tank, the thing about OPR is that you're not shooting with just the pistols, you shooting with pistols, assault rifles, and then perhaps a grenade launcher or three. Now, intuitively speaking, the pistols and rifles are useless wastes of time against a tank. In OPR though, the small amounts of damage they do actually can make the difference between a team of grenade launchers taking the tank out or it surviving for another round of damage dealing (which, given the punishment these tanks can do, is not an insignificant tactic).
I've been tossing up the idea of a house-ruled Impervious(X) special ability which has a dual effect - it removes X levels of Armour Piercing (AP) or if X is greater than a weapon's AP, it ignores the weapon's hits entirely. Costing it is the difficult issue because being able to ignore a unit's weapons entirely because they have no AP is pretty powerful, but it accurately reflects the differential between steel plate armour and somebody shooting at it with a hand gun.
FWIW, though, I haven't yet had a game where pistols against armoured targets have made a difference. I'm a theory-crafter by habit and so the above might be a completely unnecessary complication in games 5 rounds long.
Hello, the game is not meant to be realistic, it is meant to be fun. Also, you CAN and MUST separate the mechanic and the description of what is happening: - The guys shooting the pistols may just have successfully landed a grenade into the tank trakks/exposed engine for example. - One specific soldier had some sort of special anti tank ammo wating for that momment, just some sort of rare high tech ammo carried for emergencies. - Maybe, at that exact momment, one of the tank drivers had to look trough the hatch and took a bullet in the head. - Maybe some anti-tank weapon used in the same volley (a grenade?) destroyed some ablative plating, exposing something importante but fragile.
Dont forget most of the weapons used by our "toy soldiers" are a lot more destructive than the best weapons we have available today.
The idea of one page rules is to keep it simple. If you want vehicle to be immune to small arms fire, give it 1+ armor save. Will make it too good for the points cost imo but if both sides have such machines that's fine i guess.
Post by atelierdunwargamer on Sept 9, 2019 11:08:08 GMT
Well funily enough I agree with all that was said, it Can be argued both ways (in my opinion). I was sure I'd get shot down for the use of the word realistic because I also tend to argue that scifi wargaming is unrealistic with my wargaming budies and therefor post points of view are valid. I realy just wanted to share my thorts ans see if any one else agreed and I like the Idea of the ''impervious'' rule, certanly for tanks and heavy vehiculs.
Shorry this was sent from my work phone and everything keeps getting autocorected to french....
Firstly, tanks (& all similar vehicles) are already 2+ DEF (which is as good as it's allowed to get by rules). So the cost is already there.
Secondly, I'm aware of mechanical abstraction making some things more or less nonsensical in tabletop games (especially as simple as OPR). That said, OPR rules came about through such discussions as this. At one point there was no such thing as Poison or Rending as well. Discussion such as this allows us to invent such cool rules.
Post by atelierdunwargamer on Feb 4, 2020 20:19:06 GMT
I've since played a couple more games and have a better feel for the balance, and I understand better the very quick pace of the game the need for units to not be too hard to kill. I understand that every one wants their perfect game that's tailored to them personally and that that's impossible. I just wanted to share a system for vehicle penetration I developed for my own wargame system that was based very loosely on FUBAR. I used a similar system to AP in GdF but like the old 40k one where AP neutralizes an equal or higher armour rating (example: AP5 disregards armour saves of 5+ and 6+). Where the anti vehicle part comes in is an extra dice roll to test for armor penetration when firing on a vehicle (example: AP4 needs a roll of 4+ to penatrate) then vehicles have their normal armour save, this means slightly lower armour values for vehicles of course. So in this way you keep the AP system for infantry but add a more tactical feel to vehicle armour.
I hope you all dont mind me bringing this thread back to life.
I really like the way Mantic Warpath handles vehicles. If it has a defence of 9 and you have a d6 you don't have a chance if damaging it unless you have at least an AP4 weapon. But Warpath uses a roll to damage rather than a roll to save mechanich which I really, really like.