|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:I love Coc New thread title pls. EDIT: MOAR COC for the new page. 1. If I have multiple teams within 4" I must split my fire. If a team is split across cover types, I can choose to focus my fire on those less protected. Does this imply if I'm shooting at multiple teams, only half of one is in open ground - I can focus fire entirely on that? 2. Do smoke grenades deviate at all, or is a successful roll of 2D6 >= target distance a direct 'hit'? 3. Can a SL flip-flop between teams per activation in order to remove shock/avoid being routed if he's in range of more than one? 4. How would you represent trucks in an ambush scenario? I'm thinking three trucks as soft skins, not voluntarily moving. The Winter Storm scenario suggests using a train with the objective to destroy the train - but then doesn't provide any stats or whatever. I guess one would consider it an open-top halftrack for damage/etc. ? Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Feb 22, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
I only love historically accurate CoC, which requires houserules.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:4. How would you represent trucks in an ambush scenario? I'm thinking three trucks as soft skins, not voluntarily moving. The Winter Storm scenario suggests using a train with the objective to destroy the train - but then doesn't provide any stats or whatever. I guess one would consider it an open-top halftrack for damage/etc. ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Please explain BF is radically changing FoW in the new set of rules coming out. Personally I haven't seen anything in rules to give me pause but what they are doing with the force structures seems questionable. The chicken little reaction is that infantry are now useless and tank swarms will rule the game. Time will tell, they said the same of TY but right now spam lists seem to be on their way out as the options advailable to players expand with new releases. It is however worrying enough that my group (FoW diehards to a man) are considering our options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Numlock posted:BF is radically changing FoW in the new set of rules coming out. Personally I haven't seen anything in rules to give me pause but what they are doing with the force structures seems questionable. The chicken little reaction is that infantry are now useless and tank swarms will rule the game. Time will tell, they said the same of TY but right now spam lists seem to be on their way out as the options advailable to players expand with new releases. My "wait, what?" is that if your arty template is over terrain (not aiming point!) you have +1 to range in. But, yeah, same story. Everyone seems to be pretty ready to pack up and move on. It's one of the main reasons I'm going back to painting Infinity stuff. Never did get a good chance to demo CoC 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:My "wait, what?" is that if your arty template is over terrain (not aiming point!) you have +1 to range in. Wait what? That can't be right. I'll have my first look at the new rule book (in hand and not leaked stuff) tonight so I'll defiantly look that up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I doubt my FLGS will even get the books in, but it'd be flick through one just to see what's changed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
I'm most looking forward to FoW4 as the third edition that I'll never actually get to play. E: is the rulebook actually out (or leaked) yet? moths fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
My FLGS has a demo copy of it so I'm planning on flipping through it tonight when I get off work. Other than that there is some blurry photos on 4chan and the stuff BF staff have said in podcasts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
I suspect - based on what I've seen in Wargames Illustrated - it'll be very much like Team Yankee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
It is, the core of it's TY with some differences. Off the top of my head artillery changed dramatically from FoW and a bit from TY (nothing has AT higher than 3 anymore for starters). Everyone gets mike target and if you range in with dice to spare you can roll them to range in with other batteries instead. The conversion guide massively changes most units but doesn't adjust their points so I have no idea why you'd ever take soviet artillery over 160mm mortars know, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:New thread title pls. 2. Smoke grenades don't deviate. They either hit and do the right thing, or miss and are ignored. 3. In order to remove shock, a SL must me "in contact" with a team/section that is broken and still in LOS of an enemy. That means there's no way to "flip-flop" - you're either considered "attached" to a unit (in which case you can rally Shock from it) or you aren't in which case you can't. You [u]can[/i] allocate your CIs to multiple teams/sections in your command radius, however; so you can rally Shock off a broken team to which you're attached with 2 CI, then command a different section to fire with the third. In practice, any time a SL moves to within 4" of any team, he is assumed to be "attached." If he's within 4" of more than one, you typically specify which one he's attached to. 4. This is something that you'll need to house-rule. A mechanic that I like is having a demo team in contact with the objective at the end of a Turn (meaning you can get a team there and spend a CoC die to represent them planting/wiring the charges).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
So FoW4 sounds pretty ok then? I've only heard good stuff about TY, and never actually got to play any of the other editions. It looks like the "default" is midwar, so where should I be looking for a Soviet Guards list? The Barbarossa supplement or Eastern Front seem like obvious choices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
I bet it'll still have stupid rules for Soviets, regardless of how the rest holds up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Ugh, of course they'll still be going by debriefed Nazis' regurgitated propaganda. Because now that's the army's character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The conversion guide massively changes most units but doesn't adjust their points so I have no idea why you'd ever take soviet artillery over 160mm mortars know, among other things. Why on earth would anyone who is making a game where points are supposed to be a balancing tool do this
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I guess my recent investment into BA was good choice
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
moths posted:So FoW4 sounds pretty ok then? I've only heard good stuff about TY, and never actually got to play any of the other editions. Okay, so: I do generally prefer TY. We tended to get in a game of V3 per night, with TY it tends to be 2, or at least a load of time for chatting after. I like how deployment zones shift and the increased focus on mobility. I think it's got a load of really wonky balancing, and the morale rules are kind of a massive pain. Veteran infantry became obnoxiously hard to dig out, too, though this is partly the soviet's abysmal assault and the significant weakening of weight of numbers in assaults. Eastern Front is probably not coming very soon for V4 MW, and Eastern Front isn't getting a translation guide like the early and late war books are. Barbarossa's got a translation guide, since it's early war, but then you have the usual issue with the V4 update: Everything has changed but it's all the same points, still. In some cases, the change probably is negligible (Four brit shermans are probably the same as they've always been), in others it's enormous (artillery was already overcosted, generally, and the fact you usually had to take light arty to get heavy arty meant you had to sink a ton of points into it, and now it's been nerfed hugely. This is massive and every army is affected and it's baffling Phil says it's all still going to be balanced). Where that leaves you I dunno. Might be worth trying, might not be, but there's a lot of reason to be antsy. Oh, and yeah, the rules are going to be full of asiatic hordes "charging into machineguns" type stuff. A couple of weeks ago Phil was on record as saying the cold war soviet army didn't have recon "like the west would recognise" because their recon troops didn't use cover and just drove directly into strongpoints so the commander could see where the guns were coming from, and hence none of them should get the scouts special rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Jesus christ Somebody fire that rear end in a top hat and put someone in whose red some soviet combat tactics
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Having flipped through the rules they seem fine to me (I like TY a lot) but I'm kind of burned out at this point. I sold off about half my FoW stuff to pay for TY and I'll think I'll continue to downsize, just focusing on mid war Germans, midwar strelk and TY (best and worst Germans).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
So I started assembling some of my 28mm soviets and I had a dire realization I actually don't know the composition of Soviet squads/platoons/companies in the late war Research time
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:So I started assembling some of my 28mm soviets and I had a dire realization How late are we talking?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Dreamforge is having a big sale today, for those of us to whom they ship. where do they ship to? I'm not getting a reply from them about shipping
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Oh, and yeah, the rules are going to be full of asiatic hordes "charging into machineguns" type stuff. A couple of weeks ago Phil was on record as saying the cold war soviet army didn't have recon "like the west would recognise" because their recon troops didn't use cover and just drove directly into strongpoints so the commander could see where the guns were coming from, and hence none of them should get the scouts special rule. Ugh, gently caress that guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Oh, and yeah, the rules are going to be full of asiatic hordes "charging into machineguns" type stuff. A couple of weeks ago Phil was on record as saying the cold war soviet army didn't have recon "like the west would recognise" because their recon troops didn't use cover and just drove directly into strongpoints so the commander could see where the guns were coming from, and hence none of them should get the scouts special rule. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
I like that in CoC the soviets have a special rule naming their scouts even better☺
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
xutech posted:where do they ship to? I'm not getting a reply from them about shipping Not Ireland, I guess? I'm in the US. They ship to me just fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
In his (rather weak) defence, he was assuming this is in a WW3 scenario where the soviets are conducting a dash for the rhine, and that cautious reconnaissance is too slow. OTOH the germans kept* all their scout units in Blitzkrieg/Barbarossa, so. Likewise, the justification for why soviet skill ratings are 5+ seems plausible; weak NCO corps. Okay, fair; conscript armies have trouble retaining highly skilled personnel. But then west germany's also conscript and gets 3+, better than the US and same as the British. The trend is always to take the most pessimistic estimates for soviet stuff and really generous ones for NATO. Did I ever mention that the Chieftain's base armour, minus Stillbrew, is better than the T-72A's? *to be clear, this is units with the "scout" special rule representing cautious movement, that allows you to keep gone-to-ground status in terrain while moving, not "spearhead", that lets you deploy further out of your deployment zone. NATO's recon has Scout, and it appears not to be a special rule that is counted for points given that the Luchs is the same cost as the BRDM. spectralent fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:How late are we talking? Bagration and after
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Speaking of 'horde armies being propaganda', I was re-listening to the Dan Carlin King of Kings Episodes (and it's plain he's a historical wargamer) and he mentions that the numbers thrown about by greek sources are clearly false (i.e. million-man armies) - but that if you interpret the numbers downwards, the static numbers we DO know (he gives an example of the Immortals being around 10-12k) become higher proportionally and represent the armies being big, but much more than just hordes of untrained peasants. Of course MUH NARRATIVE. Anyway, speaking of Soviets I did a quick colour test for my mid-war Soviet platoons, I'm leaning towards the right hand side (Vallejo Game Colour Opaque Heavy Grey):  I would appreciate any pointers! I also painted my T34/85 in a kind of middle green that I'm not super excited about  I don't suppose I can somehow jerry rig the KV-1 and ISU-152 having different schemes somehow can I?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Managed to get a friend hooked on Tanks, and he's gone hard on russians, and has now bought every single tank expansion for them. I've also somehow ended up adding a box of British rifles and and a royal artillery field battery, that'll form the core of my british army. once i'm done with my US airborne. oh god so much 15mm tiny mans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
spectralent posted:TY stuff I've talked with former playtesters and others (unsurpringly the people interested in historical war games tend to be knowledgeable on history) and while abstractions for stuff like skill are enternally debatable it does seem that BF is increasingly designing their new games (or just cargo cutting it like Tanks!) the way they personally want them and selectivly using history to rationalize their design decisions. In other words they are getting way too "Hollywood" even for guys like me who would favor that approach over anything more groggy. I'm going to advance the idea of our group coming up with our own force structures and unit stats, this seems to be the main place BF is really loving up as the rules seem fine for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
If 50 to 70 percent of your kills aren't from artillery, you aren't groggy enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I've talked with former playtesters I frequently read playtesters (or people claiming to be) saying that the kinds of issues that crop up in game are ones they ID'd and weren't acted on; how accurate is that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Pretty much accurate. BF will send stuff out for play testing with the idea that it's more or less finished and when play testers raise issues they will dismiss them with "MAybe in your meta ps your dumb herp derp".
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I've talked with former playtesters and others (unsurpringly the people interested in historical war games tend to be knowledgeable on history) and while abstractions for stuff like skill are enternally debatable it does seem that BF is increasingly designing their new games (or just cargo cutting it like Tanks!) the way they personally want them and selectivly using history to rationalize their design decisions. I think BF doesn't really want to do anything other than a one-size-fits-all solution to recon units because how they conducted and organized recon units was very different between the nations and they evolved over time, from armored car patrols to foot patrols to mixed-arms groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Pretty much accurate. Well, that makes all the "Just stop trying to exploit the game and play in the spirit of the rules!" commentary even more infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
FORGE THE NARRATIVE
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
If anybody has any resources, historical or gameplay wise for CoC/BA regarding composition of Soviets from squad to above I'd appreciate it
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:29 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:If anybody has any resources, historical or gameplay wise for CoC/BA regarding composition of Soviets from squad to above I'd appreciate it I might be able to shake something up tomorrow or over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 22:38
|
|