View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:30 pm




Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Main Battle Tankless Meta? 
Author Message
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 832
Our second TY League concluded with BMP horde and T55 hordes being seen as best lists, with Leo 1 also a player. US players took as few M1s as they could by the end as well.

Does anyone else see this issue? We've experimented with a fix, but wondering if there is interest.


Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:54 am
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
Play scenarios with doctrinaly correct forces. It's a shame that BF doesn't allow/require you to use mixed T72/BMP units. It would be more realistic if most BMP units had a T72 tax. As for the T55 hordes, well there were T55 hordes. :o


Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:18 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 832
That's not the fix I'm looking for, and no one is whinging about force make up of the winners.

The frustration is time to play, parking lot, and desire to have competitive lists with the iconic MBTs.

Given the parameters, the solution we are testing is to reduce MBTs in cost by about a fifth, and reduce the points to 85. Doesn't actually make a difference in red-blue balance, but makes a marginal difference in time and parking lot. You can still play the TY force Phil says he designed as the benchmark.

Most importantly, M1s become playable, and T72s become desirable too.


Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:47 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.


Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:47 am
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 832
At 80 points you can already fill the table, but you will avoid the worst.

Still, I tried to solve the underlying issues since our experience is a good BMP2 horde gets better at lower points while MBTs get worse.

Getting the ratio right has many more advantages.

As for force changes, I'm curious, but we already experienced what can happen when ratios are wrong, but the force limits the problem - eventually the hidden problem blows up on you because you change the orgs or special rules or whatever. (See V3).


Last edited by UndergroundWarren on Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:56 am
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
Shortreengage wrote:
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.
That can kill the west German MBT.


Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:08 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
Shortreengage wrote:
Good luck! I think a good solution is to limit the game to 10 points/foot of table. That and an improved Force Organization.
That can kill the west German MBT.


No, just the Leo2 Tank Company. The Marder Mech Heavy Team is just fine.



Marder Panzergrenadier Kompanie HQ (p.25) - 1x G3 Rifle, 1x Marder (1 pts)

Marder Panzergrenadier Zug (p.26) - 3x G3 Rifle with Panzerfaust 44 anti-tank rocket, 2x Milan missile, 3x Marder (7 pts)

Leopard 2 Panzer Zug (p.22) - 3x Leopard 2 (33 pts)

Marder Panzergrenadier Zug (p.26) - 3x G3 Rifle with Panzerfaust 44 anti-tank rocket, 2x Milan missile, 3x Marder (7 pts)

M113 Panzermorser Zug (p.27) - 3x M113 Panzermorser (3 pts)

Jaguar 2 Jagdpanzer Zug (p.27) - 2x Jaguar 2 (3 pts)

Luchs Spah Trupp (p.30) - 2x Luchs (1 pts)

Gepard Flakpanzer Batterie (p.32) - 2x Gepard (5 pts)


60 Points


Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:56 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
@@Main Battle Tankless Meta?

@@No, just the Leo2 Tank Company.

So your answer is reaffirming the title?

Isn't this thread about the lack of MBTs? Isn't your answer in collusion with the problem?


Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:00 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@Main Battle Tankless Meta

Isn't this thread about the lack of MBTs? Isn't your answer in collusion with the problem?


No, my answer @ 60pts includes 3 Leo2 MBTs. 3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.


Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:43 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
@@3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.

A plethora would be a full company of 13 or 14 tanks.

A minimum size company is 7 tanks. 3 tanks is still fairly tankless.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:00 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@3 is not a lack of, it is just not a plethora.

A plethora would be a full company of 13 or 14 tanks.

A minimum size company is 7 tanks. 3 tanks is still fairly tankless.


It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:12 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
@@It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.

Really? Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985. They were not specialized and were designed and priced to be in all units eventually. Both countries were well on their way to make that happen. Yet there is a lack of those tanks in TY. Those tanks are what made the book very readable. King Tigers were never meant to be in every unit. They were a specialized AFV to be used in certain situations.


Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:42 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
SECfootball wrote:
@@It's the same as not being able to run a company of King Tigers in FOW.

Really? Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985. They were not specialized and were designed and priced to be in all units eventually. Both countries were well on their way to make that happen. Yet there is a lack of those tanks in TY. Those tanks are what made the book very readable. King Tigers were never meant to be in every unit. They were a specialized AFV to be used in certain situations.



I'm talking about points, not battlefield roles. You can't run a company of KTs at 1515 , just like a Leo2 Company at 60 points.

"Leo2s and Abrams where the MBTs of 1985". Not all Panzer Battalions were equipped with Leo2s in 1985 and only about 2/3s of US forces in country fielded the M1. 1AD and I suspect a large portion of 8ID(M) (Crazy Eights chime in if you have any info please) still had M60A3TTS. I'm glad you liked the book. It was okay. He was weak on Soviet Org and Doctrine. Sword Point and Bright Star were much better.

You focused on my 10pts/foot suggestion. You did not comment on my force org suggestion. Force org is the real problem. The elephant in the room is the fact that like the author, BF screwed the pooch(or just wanted to sell a metric crapton of BMPs) on Soviet force org and doctrine. BMP and BTR MRCs very rarely operate without attached tanks. BF should have required most MRCs to have 3-4 T72s in a mixed unit. It's how they fight. Your full strength BMP2 company goes from 24 to 41 points with a full 4 tank platoon. You could do under strength or FSE minus the CRP at about 30 points. Lots of other problems with the Soviets but, I'll leave that another day. Something does need to be done because as it stands in 15mm, it looks like Warhammer 2K on the table.


Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:26 am
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Fortress Knox
Hey! My force for Historicon will have 13 BMPs, 19 T-72s, and 6 2S1's kind of like an Advanced Guard! How'd I do Shortreengage? ;)


Shortreengage is right about much of the Soviet TOEs in TY being off. Complete formations are completely missing, like Combat Reconnaissance Patrol (CRP) which would be a recon unit with three BMPs and a single Tank.

Also, BRDM-2s would already be long gone before the game even started. They would have moved deeper into the NATO rear areas or they'd be burning wrecks by the time the main battle lines closed in on each other. That's being said, I have BRDM-2s in my Historicon force...because cheap recon. I feel so dirty! :oops:


Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:08 am
Profile WWW
Private First Class

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:47 am
Posts: 54
Location: Stafford, VA
Looks good. Advanced Guard Main Body or Forward Detachment! Maybe the BRDMs are the Chemical Recon Platoon. :lol:


Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:53 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Fortress Knox
I guess BOTH combined? The force has two Battalions one Mech and one Tank. I wish we could form up a proper FWD DET along with proper CRPs.

I finally won a game today with the force. Played West German Leopard 2s that got screwed by Deep Reserves. The game, Hold the Line, was over at the start of turn 3. The spearhead rules in TY really let you get in very close. I kind of wish it stayed that way for V4.


Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:07 pm
Profile WWW
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 832
I'm going to post my points mod. If anyone wants to try it. I'd appreciate feed back. Hope to hold a themed event in August.

MBT Day

Here are some notes on my cure for MBT rarity. The plan is to have an 85 point event using these point cost changes. Phil used the TY company from the book as his 100 point benchmark. It had 10 M1s for 80 points. My idea is to fit that force into 85 points by discounting only the MBTs. Then, apply the same proportion across all MBTs.

10 M1's at 80 points needs to be 10 at 65 or 6.5 each (a 19% decrease)

I realize this may adversely affect the medium tanks, but their cost changes will get tested next.

Please see the changes and tell me what you think? Would you like to do some testing?


M1 HQ
1x M1 costs 6 Points
2x M1 costs 13 Points

M1 Platoon
2x M1 costs 13 Points
3x M1 costs 19 Points
4x M1 costs 26 Points

Leo 2 HQ
1x Leo 2 costs 9 points

Leo 2 Zug
2x Leo 2 costs 18 points
3x Leo 2 costs 27points

Chieftain HQ
1x Chieftain costs 5 points
2x Chieftain costs 10 points
Upgrade ALL tanks to Chieftain Stillbrew for 1 Point.

Chieftain Platoon
2x Chieftain costs 10 points
3x Chieftain costs 15 pointsl
Upgrade ALL tanks to Chieftain Stillbrew for 2 Points

Red Banner Tankovy
HQ
1x T-72 costs 4 Points

10x T-72 costs 39 Points
9x T-72 costs 34 Points
8x T-72 costs 30 Points
7x T-72 costs 26 Points
6x T-72 costs 22 Points
5x T-72 costs 18 Points
4x T-72 costs 14 Points
3x T-72 costs 11 Points

Volksarmee Panzer
HQ
1xT72M costs 2 Points

10x T72M costs 29 Points
9x T72M costs 25 Points
8x T72M costs 22 Points
7x T72M costs 19 Points
6x T72M costs 15 Points
5x T72M costs 12 Points
4x T72M costs 9 Points
3x T72M costs 6 Points


Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:07 pm
Profile
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
Quote:
Leo 2 Zug
2x Leo 2 costs 18 points
3x Leo 2 costs 27 points


Phil stated that both the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 platoon should be allowed to have a 4th tank. That might be something to consider.

I see no Leopard 1, I assume that is still priced right?

I am interested in testing, but I doubt I can find another live opponent.


Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:32 pm
Profile
Technical Sergeant

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:23 am
Posts: 832
I heard something about some units supposed to be having 4, but I can't recall the particulars. I'm not a big TO&E guy.

If there is enough interest and testing, the medium tanks might get an adjustment, but i really want to settle the MBT points first. Also, if nobody cares, then I'll likely quit bothering.

It's really funny how everyone cries for fixes, but if you don't work for BF, they aren't interested. I'm pretty sure if enough guys took this seriously, I could get a relook from BF on their points.

Lastly, I'm sure as hell not going to try to fix V4 if nobody will even look at a points variant, you know what I mean?


Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:15 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 626
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Iron-Tom wrote:
I guess BOTH combined? The force has two Battalions one Mech and one Tank. I wish we could form up a proper FWD DET along with proper CRPs.

I finally won a game today with the force. Played West German Leopard 2s that got screwed by Deep Reserves. The game, Hold the Line, was over at the start of turn 3. The spearhead rules in TY really let you get in very close. I kind of wish it stayed that way for V4.


You still shouldn't get closer than half table in hold the line (No retreat), what do you mean about very close?

_________________
My little blog of Fow


Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:39 am
Profile WWW
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:04 pm
Posts: 2191
Location: NoVa
UndergroundWarren wrote:
I heard something about some units supposed to be having 4, but I can't recall the particulars. I'm not a big TO&E guy.

If there is enough interest and testing, the medium tanks might get an adjustment, but i really want to settle the MBT points first. Also, if nobody cares, then I'll likely quit bothering.

It's really funny how everyone cries for fixes, but if you don't work for BF, they aren't interested. I'm pretty sure if enough guys took this seriously, I could get a relook from BF on their points.

Lastly, I'm sure as hell not going to try to fix V4 if nobody will even look at a points variant, you know what I mean?


I agree with you and support your endeavor.


Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:16 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Fortress Knox
Vonrichthofen wrote:
Iron-Tom wrote:
I guess BOTH combined? The force has two Battalions one Mech and one Tank. I wish we could form up a proper FWD DET along with proper CRPs.

I finally won a game today with the force. Played West German Leopard 2s that got screwed by Deep Reserves. The game, Hold the Line, was over at the start of turn 3. The spearhead rules in TY really let you get in very close. I kind of wish it stayed that way for V4.


You still shouldn't get closer than half table in hold the line (No retreat), what do you mean about very close?


In V4 cannot get to within 16" of the enemy deployment zone, objective, or enemy team in the open. TY does not include the deployment zone and objective limitations, so if your opponent deploys poorly, you can get a lot closer than you do in V4. That's what happened in my last game.


Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:43 pm
Profile WWW
Private First Class

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:19 pm
Posts: 61
Pretty sure it does. "Treat enemy deployment area and all objectives outside your deployment area as enemy teams..."

Page 71.

The only difference between Spearhead in V4 and TY is that you can daisy-chain the spearheads in TY.

_________________
Image


Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:36 pm
Profile
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Fortress Knox
Ok! Thanks for squaring me away! Especially before I play in the US Nationals next week. Would much prefer to learn this here than there!


Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:20 pm
Profile WWW
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:45 pm
Posts: 4153
Location: Fortress Knox
Igorio wrote:
Pretty sure it does. "Treat enemy deployment area and all objectives outside your deployment area as enemy teams..."

Page 71.

The only difference between Spearhead in V4 and TY is that you can daisy-chain the spearheads in TY.

It seems that in TY you can use Spearhead to get within 8" of an enemy team (or deployment zone or objective) so long as the spearhead team is concealed. In V4 its no closer 16" to any of those regardless of concealment/LOS. Is this correct?


Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:41 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

36,881,707 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y