|
I'm shocked at how many of you think SPGs are field guns  SHOCKED I say. MikeCrotch posted:How do you feel about muzzle brakes
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Mine was more for the cool muzzle brakes than anything else. Edit: Its hard to have a field gun (Specifically) look good   
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Feb 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Finnish 155 K 98 Argentinian L45 CALA 30  Arquinsiel posted:I'm shocked at how many of you think SPGs are field guns Field gun go fast  For when you absolutely, positively have to shoot a 175mm explosive projectile at a dude 30km away then gently caress off at a rate of 80KPH Punkinhead fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Feb 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Not quite what you asked for, but the French Pluton looks like anti-Kaiju defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Byzantine Romans are really growing on me - quite a different vibe to the red/cream/purple Marian/Imperial Romans: These aren't mine, they are Old Glory 10mm
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Those are some sci-fi looking guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:Soundtrack for this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJBdR3cHWA&t=81s These look fantastic, I find it really difficult to make convincing looking regular, modern clothing and you nailed it. Great job on the camo too, very clean and natural looking. Where are all the models from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Pb and Jellyfish posted:These look fantastic, I find it really difficult to make convincing looking regular, modern clothing and you nailed it. Great job on the camo too, very clean and natural looking. Where are all the models from? A few are from Gripping Beast, and I just got a few from Spectre that I haven't painted yet, but most are 3D printed from this guy's War in Iraq kickstarter: https://www.myminifactory.com/users/Quartermaster3D?show=store I'm also trying to hide some repurposed Mexican Cartel gang members in there, which are actually kinda conspicuous if you're looking for them, but I need a ton of models to give the Americans a challenge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Which ruleset do you go for, CW?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 08:10
|
|
|
Class Warcraft posted:A few are from Gripping Beast, and I just got a few from Spectre that I haven't painted yet, but most are 3D printed from this guy's War in Iraq kickstarter: https://www.myminifactory.com/users/Quartermaster3D?show=store Eureka makes Somalis. Link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Tias posted:Which ruleset do you go for, CW? The plan is to try to use Force on Force if I can figure out how the gently caress to play it. Cessna posted:Eureka makes Somalis. Link. Thanks for the link!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
Force on Force is fun and most of the scenarios in the Somalia book are great. Except the one where Delta Force are trying to find the downed pilots in the dark. That one is no fun for either side. Don't play it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
It looks fun, but as fortified niche mentioned in their podcast, the rulebook layout is super confusing. Also trying to figure out how reactions chain together makes my brain hurt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Yeah part of the skill of the game is acting in such a way that you don't cause too many reactions and knowing when not to react with a unit. It makes way more sense when you sit down and actually follow the process with a concrete example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
I played another game of Lasalle 2nd Ed. to try to get into the groove and I feel like I just don't get it - there's a flurry of activations and interruptions, particularly as one is manoeuvring to charge, firing, etc. but you have to keep track of all the orders each unit has been given so you don't accidentally double-up on something? Maybe this is an issue with small-ish armies (three brigades) and a profusion of momentum to use up? The disruption process seems really variable - converting hits to disruption which can just be rallied off. The skirmish "phase" seems to be completely vestigial with handfuls of dice rolling for either a) going first in a turn or b) getting one extra momentum. Basically, my games so far have been a complete nothing-sandwich with lots of tracking of orders and state, some completely ineffectual shooting until one or two lucky dice rolls effectively wins the battle. What am I doing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 22:08
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I played another game of Lasalle 2nd Ed. to try to get into the groove and I feel like I just don't get it - there's a flurry of activations and interruptions, particularly as one is manoeuvring to charge, firing, etc. but you have to keep track of all the orders each unit has been given so you don't accidentally double-up on something? Maybe this is an issue with small-ish armies (three brigades) and a profusion of momentum to use up? I think playing it as a single player might make it harder to keep track. Basically your units can't move more than once and you can't shoot more than once per turn. That's hardly an unusual thing in a wargame. The main difference is that there are more back-and-forth, instead of a clear "IGoUGo" turn order. When you alternate as two players it's maybe easier to keep track of if your brigade has fired already this turn or not. Otherwise, simply putting down a smoke marker when firing will help you keep track of who has fired already this turn. Again, shooting and moving is the main thing to keep track off. There are alternative rules for skirmishers, but we've found that you really notice even with the vanilla rules when you start fielding armies with big differences in skirmishing power. When my French meets Russians I almost always win the skirmishing, and sometimes with a lot, and constantly having the initiative and getting a little bit more of momentum becomes noticable over a game. I think this might also be a partly psychological thing, it gives you a certain edge on your opponent to constantly win that roll-off. Disruption is indeed a bit random compared to many games. I like it. It plays out more like how I read Napoleonic battle depictions: some units just fold like wet paper, while others will withstand fire and grip on to that grainhouse with tooth and nail. And it's not always how you expect it: sometimes a volunteer battalion would fight like lions, while guard regiments would decide that there were more pressing places to be than in the gunsmoke. By making it less predicable how your enemy will withstand shock, you are less likely to calculate exact results when planning. So you need to do more historical things, like sending three battalions to do a job two battalions should be able to do if you REALLY need them to succeed. I think our games are waaaay bloodier than yours. With the French you get a lot of reasons to get into close combat fast. We also found cavalry to be extremely deadly. As a cavalry fan, I surprised myself when one of my few doubts with the game being just how lethal cavalry can be. I've had entire brigades eaten up by cossacks. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
So I must preface this by saying I don't DISLIKE the rules for Lasalle 2 and as a solo war-gamer I'm probably experiencing it differently to others, as you have alluded to. After reflection, I have some further thoughts: Causing and Taking Damage Lasalle has systems for tracking unit health and its corresponding effectiveness in combat, but I feel this is married to combat mechanics which are too swingy. The potential swing is in theory a D6 + [-3 to +8] depending on the relative unit strengths and tactical factors, but typically just +/- 1 point. A combat result of anything less than a 2 point victory is pyrrhic at best, and above that is an automatic crushing victory. So, despite all the modifiers about unit type and relative strength there is really not much middle ground - unless combat is overwhelming, both sides are likely to take similar amounts of very small damage until one attacker's lucky dice roll flattens the other. Shooting is a similar story of mundane slap fighting - if we had two infantry battalions volleying away at each other for an entire 8-turn game they would on average only inflict 6 disruption, of which three would likely be rallied away: not even remotely enough to take each other out despite being engaged for the entire battle.  There is an argument here that tactical and strategic innovation is required to break these stalemates, but I feel there is an obvious counterpoint - if that is what we are working with, why do we need such low level unit distinctions? Let me contrast with One Hour War-games: OHW only needs to differentiate between troop types, rather than between them, i.e. Guards Cavalry and Cossacks are essentially the same unit. At first glance this seems ridiculous, but in a game with ~12 units per side, where we have already admitted that there is a need for tactical nuance to avoid a slap-fight, is it really necessary to denote that Guards Cavalry has on average 1/16 better combat rolls and can take 1/7 more damage than Hussars? Or that Lancers have 1/12 greater chance of inflicting a hit upon a square than Cuirassiers? These are real differentiators offered by Lasalle which I'm sure add flavour, but every single extra rule, bonus and re-roll is adding cognitive load to an area we've already admitted is not as important as the overall tactical and strategic picture.  Turn Sequence / Interruption I found myself in a situation where two brigades of infantry were essentially facing off. One Russian battalion moved into a town - interruption! The opposing infantry who were now close to the enemy changed formation from march to line - interruption! - the Russian garrison changed formation to garrison the town - interruption! - the French infantry move forward - interruption - the Russian garrison volley - interruption! I get that there's a back and forth. It seemed quite excessive. I found myself figuring out moves which would allow me to do the most before generating an interruption, but all choices were equally bad so I didn't feel like I was a tactical genius and there was no interesting choice, particularly. With two brigades and some artillery I had a surplus momentum points I couldn't use, which maybe lent itself to the aggressive interruptions. Maybe there is more clarity to who has done what when you're facing an opponent, but after my third or fourth interrupt I couldn't remember if a given battalion had already moved or volleyed in this turn, or whether it was in the previous turn.  Command and Control / Momentum I think the bones of C&C in Lasalle are really good: PIP/CAP/MO are generated each turn by the state of the army and then typically +D3 for the general. Art De La Guerre also uses this method of a (relatively) static base number +D3, and I think this evens out the most egregious problems with traditional D6 PIP/CAP rolls, where one or two bad rolls will foretell a win or loss regardless of the tactical or strategic genius. You can watch various Tony Aguilar DBA games on Youtube, the chap who wrote DBA-RRR, and see a game completely fall apart because of the command rolls - and that doesn't feel very fun! As I mentioned, the skirmish phase seems completely vestigial - count an extra stat on each infantry brigade used only for this purpose, add them together, roll a number of dice equal to that value and count the 6's - if you score higher than your opponent then you go first that turn. For pair of 6's you roll more than your opponent you also get a command point. I get that there is a statistical variability from rolling dice, but is this entire system worthwhile for such a small benefit? Why not D6+command points for first turn? Or 'more infantry units' gives an extra command point? Overall, generating momentum, frequent turn interruptions and mostly ineffective shooting and combat had me feeling like I was just slogging away. OHW sometimes has the opposite effect, where a game is over in 20 minutes because all the dice rolled high - but given two unenjoyable games I'd prefer the one that was shorter...  Playing again - how can I make this experience better? - I definitely need a set of rally/volley/change formation/move tokens to distribute, as I got to the weeds of each turn I found it very hard to keep track. - I need to either decrease the momentum available, or increase the army sizes significantly - the sample introductory battle suggested on the Lasalle/Honour website suggests opposing forces at least double the size of my armies. I'm most cautious about this, because the only reason I'm using the basing standards that I am is to be compatible with Lasalle, but if I need to sort out another £40+ worth of miniatures to validate whether I want to continue with it, that feels like a big ask when other basing standards have more obvious appeal. Any thoughts or opinions gladly taken, as I've had this game on my to-play list for literally years, and I'm coming away from it quite bittersweet...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 12:39
|
|
|
Haven't played Lasalle 2 but from a historical perspective two regiments exchanging fire for a long time and not accomplishing very much seems quite correct. Fire at that period is really about pinning and disruption so that you can set up a flank attack (infantry or cavalry), bring up artillery to really cut them apart, or to soften them up before the decisive assault (which should be done at something like 3:1 local superiority to get anything actually decisive). Two equal units just trading musket fire really should be an extended exercise of inconclusive miserable nothingness most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
"Two equal units trading <fight> is a stalemate" is pretty much applicable to all periods anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
Aaaaaaaaaaages ago I had a conversation with goonhammer historicals people (lots here too) about abstracting out stalemates - so if a unit gets locked into trading fire with another equal unit, or locked in melee or whatever, they just become a blob that doesn’t do anything in and of itself. Two musket armed units just sit and trade fire ineffectually, two pike units mangle each other, wheeling cavalry skirmish etc. That block becomes interactable/playable only with outside intervention - maybe skirmishers pick some people off or cavalry mass for a charge etc something that represents that mono task focus in an interesting way and represents stalemates as a tactical challenge
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
I think Absolute Emperor has that kind of mechanic, Cavalry once unleashed will continue to charge and pursue, gaining exhaustion until you spend Elan to stop them. In the same way, infantry regiments will continue to volley fire until one unit wins. Re: Lasalle specifically, I have ordered some funky chits designed for "For King and Parliament" which I should be able to use for move/shoot/rally/formation markers and cut out half of the problem I have with the rules. Rather than reducing my momentum (a surplus of which i think is the other part of the problem), I am looking to grow my armies to match the expected threshold using some blank bases (initially). There are no rules for how big armies should be in non-historic scenarios but about 10-12 seems average for a small but respectable game, so my armies are doubled and each force in the army effectively has half the momentum to spend. I am having to resist very hard to not order a bunch of Napoleonic 10mm to go along with those empty bases, though: they have a nice French 1809 bundle which yields about the same points value as my 2mm French army, but I think another couple of games with the miniatures and bases I've got to really firm up what I want to be doing is in order. Pendraken have also delivered my last English Civil War dollies, so my Royalist force is basically complete but for painting. Leon (who seems to run Pendraken?) is very happy for substitutions, which is handy because I've made up a couple of shortfalls. I've ordered the Parliamentarian adversaries and done some swaps so I can get some more different units involved - Pistoliers to Cuirassiers, and Light to Heavy Guns - this combined with the 'normal Royalist army pack should yield any combination of units for two opposing OHW Pike and Shot-era armies. The cost effectiveness of 10mm combined with the relatively low unit count of OHW is a real nice combination. Both armies were less than £50 and IMO look quite lovely. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Feb 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
EDIT: Double post
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Feb 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
FIW Sharp Practice at the club today. French marines supported by Coureures de Bois, Canadian Militia, and Abenakis failed in an assault on a Provincial and militia held blockhouse. The settlers inside the blockhouse were the MVPs       
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
Ok I'll try my best to not sounds like a complete Mustafa stan, but here goes:Southern Heel posted:So I must preface this by saying I don't DISLIKE the rules for Lasalle 2 and as a solo war-gamer I'm probably experiencing it differently to others, as you have alluded to. After reflection, I have some further thoughts: I find it really interesting that you experienced this, as one of the guys involved in our Renaissance hack (who has not played the "vanilla game") really pushed for our hack to use D10's to resolve combat instead of D6's. Basically to get more space to differentiate units, and make the combat MORE swingy. As it is, having a strength of 7 instead of 6 is actually a lot when you look at probabilties of winning a close combat, for example. So he wanted more swingyness and less predictability of the combat, so putting a larger emphasis on the dice, as the differences between two D10's are likely to be bigger than between two D6's. The unit strength being BOTH how fighty the unit is and how many "hit points" it has, and the number being adjusted by just one D6, means that each point is actually worth A LOT. That said, you do use the adjusted strength when fighting combats right? I found we rarely have very long volley exchanges as at some point, one side will get some disruption, and suddenly your odds of beating the opponent by three or more becomes much better when you have, say, strength 6 against 4 and especially if you can charge in with two attack columns. Especially when you can use artillery to try to squeeze in a disruption here or there. Most units can only rally strength on a 4+, and for each failed roll that point of strength is gone permanently, no more chance to rally it. I think the value of making the troops distinct, for me, is that it makes it more fun to collect armies. For example, I field most of my French as veterans, but I have painted up a nice unit of Vistula legion. I field them as elite. Everything else is equal, but they have a 5+ resolve instead of 4+. And that has carried them through to victory several times now. I think it is neat that the guys I spent time and effort painting up differently with a different flag has an actual thing they do differently. I think it is partially Napoleonics Brain Worms, but also as an extra tactical thing to consider while playing. But on the whole I agree - it's mostly flavour, rather than essential to make the game work. quote:
What you want to do is get into positions where your opponent does not have momentum enough to counter several threats, but you have enough momentum to wreck things where the opponent didn't have time to prepare. It's easier said than done. I think you're explaining how to play it like Blood Bowl, where you should always avoid anything that could force a turnover. But that's not always the best thing, because a turnover is not permanent. Sometimes it can even be a good thing to let your opponent spend some momentum, as unspent momentum is potential bad things for you. That adds an extra layer. I really do think that momentum economy is the core game, and everything else is just decoration sprinkled on top. quote:
I think playing with three brigades instead of two will make things click more. I'd give it a shot with some bare bases just to get a feel for it until you have the minis. I think playing with volley and move tokens will help. I don't think you need rally or change formation tokens, as the rally is basically a one-shot thing (I've rarely wanted to be able to rally twice in a turn) and same goes with change formation. I think you should make slightly different brigades. Say, one with a few conscript units. Or one with a few elites. Grab those unnecessary toppings and see if you like the taste. Try another scenario. I think the best game we got this far was with scenario 2, having almost enough troops for the small army points. With only 8 turns in total you need to fight very aggressively to not get a draw. So you're not as likely to be tempted into low-stakes, even volley exchanges - you need to push forward and play more risky. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Feb 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
Alg that looks amazing, how does it handle the earlier period? liljonas, thank you for the spirited discussion - your thoughts and tips are most appreciated. I am absolutely willing to give it another try, and writing it down has highlighted the two main issues (the balance of few brigades/surplus of momentum, and the lack of order tracking) that I am attempting to resolve. Regarding shooting and combat, I can appreciate broadly equal combats being indecisive until there's a breaking point, but I so far I'm finding it all-or-nothing regardless of unit strength or disruption until one side gets a lucky roll. Clearly I'm playing both sides of the battle so effective tactics and strategy is limited by my understanding of the how the game works, which is slowly growing. Your point about the use of momentum for the French/Russian town garrisoning competition being a drain from elsewhere is prudent and maybe a reflection on the small armies participating. The strategy of spending momentum there or elsewhere is something I'm going to have to learn over time. My plan for expanding both armies is broadly as in the following roster highlighted in red. The French gain an infantry brigade, the Russians gain larger brigades and some Opolchenie - both sides get more artillery. I wonder how hard it is to put together an army builder, because I find this kind of roster far easier to grok than the unit cards:  I have not been completely idle on the modelling front, and finally finished the last two units of musketeers for my Royalist army, with an officer sneaking on in the background: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 08:27
|
|
|
Amazing pace, Heel! When will your ECW thread go up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
On the one hand I need to stop planning out Age of Invasions saga armies when I'm still halfway through two Age of Vikings armies. On the other huh could I make Warlord Games Sarmatian horse archers work for Goths somehow
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:On the one hand I need to stop planning out Age of Invasions saga armies when I'm still halfway through two Age of Vikings armies. On the other huh could I make Warlord Games Sarmatian horse archers work for Goths somehow The Goths absorbed a lot of peoples around the area referred to by Romans and Greeks as ‘Scythia’ and I’d say it’s reasonable to assume that included some horse-archery dudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
Endman posted:The Goths absorbed a lot of peoples around the area referred to by Romans and Greeks as ‘Scythia’ and I’d say it’s reasonable to assume that included some horse-archery dudes. Yeah definitely, my concerns are a) the particular models seem to be based on late republic/early imperial era and idk if there were major enough changes b) I'd like to include some of their horse archers models but Goths don't have access to composite bows (except maybe mercs? I don't have the book yet), idk if mixing a few in with light lancers would be acceptable. In general it seems like there's a lot more armored than unarmored options for Goth cavalry
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yeah definitely, my concerns are a) the particular models seem to be based on late republic/early imperial era and idk if there were major enough changes b) I'd like to include some of their horse archers models but Goths don't have access to composite bows (except maybe mercs? I don't have the book yet), idk if mixing a few in with light lancers would be acceptable. In general it seems like there's a lot more armored than unarmored options for Goth cavalry Yeah that was my immediate thought. I’m no scholar on the topic but Goths feel like I’d expect maybe at least some mire helmets and stuff. A head swap might do if you want to make them look different? I mean, quite often the helmet design evolutions is what we have evidence of, as clothes are less likely to be preserved other than in (sometimes not so detailed) depictions by settled nations when it comes to nomadic tribes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 08:30
|
|
|
If the NWO promises they'll enforce scale standartization so that only 6mm, 15mm and 28mm remain, I'll accept the Mark of the Beast https://www.victrixlimited.com/en-nl/products/soviet-infantry-and-heavy-weapons?variant=40164356653155 These look super tight, but why 12mm?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 10:59
|
|
|
JcDent posted:If the NWO promises they'll enforce scale standartization so that only 6mm, 15mm and 28mm remain, I'll accept the Mark of the Beast
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
JcDent posted:If the NWO promises they'll enforce scale standartization so that only 6mm, 15mm and 28mm remain, I'll accept the Mark of the Beast Forgetting 1/6000, 1/2400, and 1/1200 for WW2, WW1, and Ironclad/Age of Sail naval miniatures smdh
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 12:35
|
|
|
JcDent posted:If the NWO promises they'll enforce scale standartization so that only 6mm, 15mm and 28mm remain, I'll accept the Mark of the Beast
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
The true galaxy brain 3d prints all their models but scales one random axis on each model up by 5% for maximum psychic damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
This hurt me to make
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:This hurt me to make 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Count Thrashula posted:This hurt me to make lmfao
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Forgetting 1/6000, 1/2400, and 1/1200 for WW2, WW1, and Ironclad/Age of Sail naval miniatures smdh This 1/4800 erase will not stand ! That's actually a great scale for WW1/2/Modern. The models are still very detailed, more like a small 1/2400 instead of a big 1/6000.  I have some from this shop, https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinythingamajigs
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
mllaneza posted:This 1/4800 erase will not stand ! great models but insanely expensive. i messaged the dude to ask if he sells stls but i suspect he won't as the margin from the printing is probably a not insignificant part of his profit. worth a try anyway. anyone else got a big repository of ww2 ships and aircraft? 1/2400 is what i'm looking at but 1/1200 too. interested in playing sam mustafa's new game, Nimitz, when it drops
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2023 22:06
|
|