Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: Sarmor on 28 January 2013, 10:28:02 AM
-
Yesterday, Assault Publishing released a teaser trailer for their new miniature game:
http://www.youtube.com/v/VcJKyC1T2Nc
It's a "true company" size, 1:1 scale game for 15-28mm miniatures.
The basic rules are quite simple, and the main focus of the ruleset is campaign, where players create and develop their own private military companies. In addition to PvP games, there are also solo/coop scenarios.
The rulebook should be available in March/April.
-
Very cool... been looking forward to this.
-
Nice artwork, but it doesn't really say anything about the rules themselves unfortunately.
-
That's what teasers do (or rather don't). :P
More details should be released soon.
-
Some more details: http://assaultpublishing.com/?page_id=856
-
Nice artwork, but it doesn't really say anything about the rules themselves unfortunately.
Well produced advertisement that says nothing specific.
I will wait guardedly.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
"has many interesting features which make it unique and very enjoyable." We will see...
"‘true company scale’ wargame, which means that it runs smoothly both with a few as well as a few dozen units on the battlefield. " Okay, now we know the intended niche - somewhere between StarGrunt II and Dirtside II. That would be interesting possibly.
"limiting the number of counters" That might be good even if the "counters" are D6 (I would suggest mini-terrain like markers instead.)
" compact and elegant, written in simple, “international” English, leaving no place for vagueness and multiple interpretations. " This Holy Grail moment brought to you by... Hell, they might actually come close. Let me wait and see...
"The classic alternate activation (with small balancing modifications) makes the game fast and addictive." This I really like. YMMV.
"Rifle team is a rifle team, whether they use assault rifles, lasers, neutron blasters or any other similar weapon. There are only two requirements: they units have to be Recognizable and Cool-Looking! " Now this does fill me with dread but I suppose it might work and still be "Science Fiction"
"... But support them with heavy weapons teams who will pin down the defenders... " Combined arms, could be well done possibly.
" not feature a typical point value system. Instead, all units are grouped into Tiers " Sounds like scarlet versus crimson but might be really elegant alternative to <spit> point systems.
"... smart, but simple morale system... troops under fire get suppression points..." If done right, yes...
"... Terrain pieces are not just decorative dioramas... " Not sure I know rules where that happens...
"... campaign system... " I would want to see this because it sounds like it could be a plus...
"... allows for solitaire and cooperative games! " Okay, that might be very useful.
"... PMC 2640 is designed for scales between 15mm an 28mm, with 15mm as the default one. However, there is a possibility of using smaller scales (like 6mm, 10mm) using minor modifications included at the end of the book." Well, that is better than being ignored.
May is not too far away. Reviews and AARs cannot be far behind.
Gracias,
Glenn
Essentially a skeptic today.
-
Judging by their advertising spleen, the only thing that really sets this apart is that they offer a campaign system out-of-the-box. Which might barely make this interesting enough to try out.
-
"limiting the number of counters" That might be good even if the "counters" are D6 (I would suggest mini-terrain like markers instead.)
The counters are mostly, if not only, used to mark Suppression/Damage Points. A unit can have up to 12 of these, so dice are the best solution IMO.
"The classic alternate activation (with small balancing modifications) makes the game fast and addictive." This I really like. YMMV.
All games by Assault Publishing use alternate activation, and all of them are fast to play - this one's no exception.
"Rifle team is a rifle team, whether they use assault rifles, lasers, neutron blasters or any other similar weapon. There are only two requirements: they units have to be Recognizable and Cool-Looking! " Now this does fill me with dread but I suppose it might work and still be "Science Fiction"
What's so dreadful? It's an alternative to WYSIWYG - unit entries are quite general and list no equipment (as there's none in the game), so the players decide on the appearance of their units. Anything is ok as long as they're not too similar.
" not feature a typical point value system. Instead, all units are grouped into Tiers " Sounds like scarlet versus crimson but might be really elegant alternative to <spit> point systems.
Uhm... The Tiers do work a bit similarly to points... Though apart from the points limit, you also have a Tier limit when composing your army.
"... PMC 2640 is designed for scales between 15mm an 28mm, with 15mm as the default one. However, there is a possibility of using smaller scales (like 6mm, 10mm) using minor modifications included at the end of the book." Well, that is better than being ignored.
Actually, it's not a matter of scale. If you have single-based minis, than the only thing you might want to adjust are the ranges. If your minis are group-based, then you need some way to mark the casualties (dice, markers, whatever). These are the only modifications.
-
Its like putting an 80 year old hooker with boobs down to her kneecaps on all the advertising at a knocking shop.
Aaaaarrggghhh, incoming visual....
o_o
-
wait and see...
Don't see something very original that cannot be made by everyone (take a fantastic SF generic ruleset like NoLimit and create a "future mercenaries universe"...and you got the same...that's what I am doing at the moment lol)
the difference could be in the system campaign which allows you to manage your mercenary forces...will have a look with interest
-
Its like putting an 80 year old hooker with boobs down to her kneecaps on all the advertising at a knocking shop.
Saw one in Amsterdam the only time I went there. An 80 year old in white lingerie in a window. Easter Monday, at around 11am. Smoking a cigarette.
There's not enough mind-bleach to take that image away.
Oh, I agree on the video too. Could be a LOT better.
-
I'm genuinely intrigued, especially by the campaign and unit progression system but don't quite get the 'no equipment list' approach to weapons.
A big part of sci-fi for me is that units are different because of their weapons, equipment and technology.
Some AAR's and reports from play-testers would help us understand better.
Good luck with this project!
-
Well, I've been playtesting it for some time, sadly I don't have any AARs... And if I had, they would have to be text-only, as we used any miniatures we had, resulting in space nazis fighting space soviets driving space Shermans. lol
I hope the author will publish some official AARs. As of now, I only know there's a text about choosing your miniatures to be published soon.
don't quite get the 'no equipment list' approach to weapons.
Each unit is described by 7 parameters and special rules (if it has any), while weapons don't have separate descriptions. This makes the game run very smoothly and fast, as you don't have to remember additional stat lines or check several tables - all you need is a roster sheet with short unit entries. The units get more diverse during the campaign, but their entries don't get much longer (some changes in the stats, some new rules and experience and "trauma" points).
Of course support troops have their main weapons stated - you've got units with mortars, MGs, ATGMs, MANPADS. Plus unit descriptions state the most popular weapons, sidearms, armor, uniforms, gadgets - but these are only suggestions for choosing your minis and for your imagination.
Similarly, the vehicles are divided into general types: recon, tanks, APCs, SPGs, etc. But whether your SPAAG is armed with autocannons, laser guns or missiles and whether it is tracked, wheeled or hovering is up to you (though there are optional rules for differentiating between the propulsions).
For some this makes the game less sci-fi, but I personally like how it turned out - easy to learn and fast to play.
I wonder if I haven't told too much. ;)
-
About equipment Sarmor told nearly everything which is needed. Making gear list is senseless, as it's not possible to predict what players have in their collection or what they like. The rulebook is main product for me, not the product to boost the sale of the minis.
To finish the teaser off-top...
I dont get it, You people (meaning the industry as a whole)...
Me, not us. Please do not generalize. I'm one of these crazy independed authors/publishers who decided to make the games on their own in their spare time. It's rather far from the "industry", especially that I've got many help from the volunteers.
...spend a shit ton on quality minis...
Yap, I have similar number of minis to other gamers. I buy them in amounts needed for me and playtests of my games.
...and expert painters to paint them,...
Never hire someone to paint my minis, neither for me or Assault Publishing.
...nice websites...
I did website personally.
and all the other things...
See no other things. :P The only "extra" thing in Assault Publishing is huge company stamp - the best company fetish :D
Althought in this project first time I was able to hire the illustration and pro proof-reader. But generally I have to make everything on my own including cover designs, layout and book composition from the beginning to sending to printing.
yet when it comes to the very first thing people see about a new product particularly on KS it is some shithouse motion graphics in a teaser that looks like a 7 year old did it on imovie.
Never use KS. It's my project and I believe in it enought to risk my money and reputation. But fully profesional teaser would cost so much that another KS campaign would be needed to do it. :P
In fact I challenge anyone to present a quality teaser vid for minis. You will not find it.
At least I'm not alone. :D I did the teaser to relax in one beautiful Saturday evening. So it's not bad as for the amateur in video. Anyway I found a lot of people how like it. De gustibus non est disputandum.
About music background - easy to say. Try to find good music free for commercial use. Or pay next pile of money (cost of recording the 3 min music by amateur rock band is ~250-1000 EUR).
To summarize: making professional teaser costs a lot time and money, with I may use better. I prefer to make the fine game with amateur teaser than bad game with good teaser.
Regards,
Marcin
Assault Publishing
PS. Next teaser is ready for one month and indeed it's quicker with nice metal background.
-
I wonder if I haven't told too much. ;)
Nope. That's exactly the sort of bait that works for me as a teaser. Keep it up; we need to see under the hood.
-
<snip>
Each unit is described by 7 parameters and special rules (if it has any), while weapons don't have separate descriptions. <snip>
Similarly, the vehicles are divided into general types: recon, tanks, APCs, SPGs, etc. But whether your SPAAG is armed with autocannons, laser guns or missiles and whether it is tracked, wheeled or hovering is up to you (though there are optional rules for differentiating between the propulsions).
For some this makes the game less sci-fi, but I personally like how it turned out - easy to learn and fast to play.
<snip>
Interesting view.
Even Baccus' Command Horizon (see https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/products/sf/chrules.php for desciption) which plays at the Battalion Commander level differentiates between broad weapon types. This set of rules is aimed at a lower level - "It's a "true company" size, 1:1 scale game for 15-28mm miniatures."
In Command Horizon there is still a difference at the more corporate level of play/command, which seems appropriate.
From the link above:
"Weapons and Equipment
The basic tripartite division of long range offensive weapons includes the current options of projectile firing guns and missile systems, along with that staple of SF gaming and literature, a ‘ray gun’. In this edition of Command Horizon, you will find that there is no real differentiation between the effect of Guns and Beams. This is purely a temporary state as future developments will see both being more closely defined with their own strengths and weaknesses.Launchers have the great advantage of not having their firing affected by blocked line of sight, but are subject to greater interference from ECM."
There may be no need to differentiate between Blaster Pistol, Blaster carbine, and Blaster Rifle like the old FGU Space Marine Rules (which was a small skirmish to skirmish level game system) did but I do believe the differences between weapons at the level this rules are aimed is doable without excessive detail.
Removing any differentiation between weapons systems seems like saying that there is no difference between an AK-47 and a musket.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
The counters are mostly, if not only, used to mark Suppression/Damage Points. A unit can have up to 12 of these, so dice are the best solution IMO.
<snip>
So, twelve points of damage/suppression means... is there a practical or significant difference between the impact of 1 pip or two pips? 6 and 7? 10 and 11? How does this compare to "steady/disordered/disrupted/shaken/routed" system? Does a unit capability degrade as points collect or is it a case of you perform as usual until a 'tipping' point is reached then 'catastrophic effects' are incurred or somewhere inbetween?
Gracias,
Glenn
-
So let's say you have Rifle squads: they can have assault rifles, laser rifles, neutron rifles, pulse rifles and so on. We consider that they have similar Firepower (which in-game is the combination of accuracy, stopping power, rate of fire as similar factors) and Range. Anyway something which looks like the rifles and works like the rifles on the future battlefield.
You have assault squads - the units intended for attacking enemy positions at close range - they may have SMGs, shotguns, carbines, flamethrowers, microwave pistols and other weapons for "close encounters" (or mix od them).
Of course, there is the difference in weapons but from the point of view of the whole team. Weapons differ in Firepower, Range and Special rules which clearly shows the unit character. We simply do not play in individual soldiers gear, need not to look with model to remove and guess it this weapon is plasma rifle, laser rifle of cool-looking Sci-Fi musket (especially "interesting" in 15mm or lower scale). Also it allows to use multi-figure bases using simple, optional rule.
Remember that all parameters are given for the whole team, not individual soldiers with all respects later in the rules (e.g. one soldier see the target - whole team see it, one have the range all have the range - bullets rather not disappear because fly a few metres more, aren't they?).
I know that not everybody will like this approach, but you cannot make the game for everyone. I love it so I included it in the game. Despite the simplifity of the system you really feel the difference between the units types.
12 suppression points are enought to break the harderst guys :)
The system is simple: unit gets more than it's morale (waring normally from 3 to 5) it's suppressed, more than twice it's broken and more trice it out of action. Of course the troops rally, but losses lower the morale, so decimated troops has little combat value.
To summarize: PMC 2640 is the game for real men! It's like a strong coffee, rare steak or glass of pure, frozen vodka. Sophisticated special rules, long rule paragraph, multiplication of entities and similar frills are for sissies! ;)
-
If anyone's interested, you can already preorder the rulebook: http://assaultpublishing.com/?p=982
-
How much will the .pdf cost?
-
Just old school rulebook on the sale.
-
How much will the .pdf cost?
No official statement, but the rulebook will soon be released as a pdf, costing 66PLN (about 21$ / 13£).
-
That's good news, thank you. We definitely want to give this a try, without first overloading the groaning bookshelves at home.
-
And here it is: http://assaultpublishing.com/?p=1216
-
Thank you! Ordered!
-
Thank you. I hope you like 8)
-
Hi,
DEMO and Mini-Expansion for free:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx4Zk-KqxaMoVllzNGZHN0xjZlk/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx4Zk-KqxaMoVllzNGZHN0xjZlk/edit)
Anyone played this game several times and can say something about it?
Greetings,
Jan
-
As a play-tester, I can say they are easy to grasp and play really smoothly. With the broad range of units, it appears there are many possible army builds, though I personally haven't tested them all (but don't worry, it doesn't mean they weren't tested at all ;) ).
Shooting is superior to close combat, so you should be careful when composing your army - a bunch of short-ranged units, no matter how powerful, will usually be shot up before they have a chance to shoot/fight, so either mount them in transports or use only for a specific scenario (e.g. Invasion, where your units land from the orbit). And you definitely need more LoS-blocking terrain than in Wh40k.
Furthermore, there are some units which might seem a bit too powerful (snipers, 'tank destroyers' - though actually they are just easy to use thanks to their long shooting range), but you just have to find a way to deal with them (artillery, quick assaults, air units).
What the game lacks is a more complicated command mechanism (think Chain of Command), but it's just a matter of taste - either you prefer to have total control over your units (that's the case with PMC 2640) or a more random game.
Solo scenarios and campaign rules make a really nice and interesting addition, and I'd love to play a campaign - but for that I'll have to convince my two usual opponents, which might be tricky (one will probably try to make a sci-fi version of CoC, the other has recently bought Victory Decision: Future Combat, which is... different).
-
the other has recently bought Victory Decision: Future Combat, which is... different).
That'd be me.
As for PMC 2640 (I played 2 beta games and one after release. (all with Sarmor)) it's a simple little game and if simplicity is your thing you might give it a try. Unfortunately the game has a rather big flaw for me. Unit balance - there is no points system, you get X units of Tier Y (read the demo to find out more).
Some units are better than others, WAY better actually (like those damn snipers,mortars,TDs,flying stuff). So scenarios have to be build with great care.
Yes even with point systems you can min-max a more optimal list but trust me you can really screw yourself in this system. Our last battle reminded me of my first tabletop game ever (AFAIR) - WFB (O&G + Chaos (both mostly infantry) vs HE + Dwarfs (stand and shoot) on a 48"x72" table. For reasons last to time we decided to play it lengthwise (after the battle we concluded that that was not the best idea lol). Only one of our units made it to the "end" (C&C) Chosen Warriors of Khorne ;D though they managed to overrun one unit and kill the other the battle ended)
As for the campaign rules and sp games: haven't read them.
I would still recommend to give the demo (it's free after all) a try, you might like it.
-
I'm not so sure if the units mentioned by Dargoth are "way better" - they definitely do benefit from their long range and heavy firepower, but snipers are quite fragile, mortars are fragile and usually need a spotter, TDs are terrible in close combat (as all vehicles are) and have minimum AA capability (and I haven't played with air units yet). If you manage to get close to those units, they shouldn't be such a threat (meaning that transport vehicles are almost a must, especially flying ones). Plus they can be countered by each other.
Nevertheless, their presence means that your standard rifle infantry and similar units are not that useful - which AFAIR was the author's intention. But if you would like to use more balanced forces with standard infantry units as their cores, you might want to introduce some restrictions on support units (in the basic rules, only vehicles are restricted).
-
That'd be me.
As for PMC 2640 (I played 2 beta games and one after release. (all with Sarmor)) it's a simple little game and if simplicity is your thing you might give it a try. Unfortunately the game has a rather big flaw for me. Unit balance - there is no points system, you get X units of Tier Y (read the demo to find out more).
Some units are better than others, WAY better actually (like those damn snipers,mortars,TDs,flying stuff).
I guess you judge the game too quickly. You played three skirmishes, with limited units, first using the very early beta rules and the last one using wrong stats and custom scenario which favours a defender a lot.
The game is not simple. It has simple rules, but becoming a good player takes some time and requires time. Even me, as the author, quite often lose the game, as my opponent suprised me which some tactic.
And this "lack of balance" is the key to balance the whole game. You will not find the unit which is good at everything. All have some pros and cons. E.g. snipers may massacre infantry on the open field, but they are easy prey to the aircraft or vehicles. Destroyer vehicles may rip the best tank into the pieces, but cannot move and fire and shoot only forward arc (flanked TD=dead TD). They have little usage in attack, unless you play with the dumb opponent who try static defence against them. Simple rifle troops have poor firepower and average range, but are tought, numerous and have high morale. LMGs has longer range and firepower, but are more fragile and softer. Aircraft are fast, but tend to be little effective against heavy vehicles or defended infantry and they may be shoot down with concentated fire quite easily and AA systems are really deadly for them. Etc. etc. etc.
Composing the army is the first challenge as you never know what your army will have to do as the scanario is generated randomly! E.g. you perfectly planned defence with TDs and Snipers will be hard to use if you need to make the planetary landing in the middle of enemy troops!
To summarize: it's a game of using you advantages (of your units, objectives, terrain and so on) and maximalizing the enemy flaws. If you will not do it you are on the opponents mercy unless Lady Luck really favours you this day.
So scenarios have to be build with great care.
There are 6 generic scenarios in the game, every one very well tested and polished. You should start from them. Attacker-defender ones are made in the same way like a units. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages (e.g. defender has better ground, but attacker can attack from different directions or have initial numerical superiority).
Yes even with point systems you can min-max a more optimal list but trust me you can really screw yourself in this system.
Sorry, there is no optimal list. There are lists more or less suitable for situation and good and bad used.
I would still recommend to give the demo (it's free after all) a try, you might like it.
It's the best solution. You can see all this things I wrote even in Echidna.
BTW. IHMO complicated point systems quite often sux unless are not supported by a lot of random or hidden things in the game. There are a lot of options, but quite often the armies look the same, as there it's much easier to find the most profitable ones.
-
I guess you judge the game too quickly. You played three skirmishes, with limited units, first using the very early beta rules and the last one using wrong stats and custom scenario which favours a defender a lot.
Drinking lead-based paint will seem a much better idea when the brain damage kicks in. ;)
The scenario didn't play any role it was the problem of long range army vs close range.
Early beta - The core rules haven't changed that much (vehicles mostly)
The game is not simple. It has simple rules, but becoming a good player takes some time and requires time. Even me, as the author, quite often lose the game, as my opponent suprised me which some tactic.
Game is it's rules. I didn't write simplistic. The level of your opponent has nothing to do with it.
You will not find the unit which is good at everything. All have some pros and cons
Sure I agree with that. Just after 10 years of playing wargames I have a knack for finding those that have more pros than cons.
Composing the army is the first challenge as you never know what your army will have to do as the scanario is generated randomly! E.g. you perfectly planned defence with TDs and Snipers will be hard to use if you need to make the planetary landing in the middle of enemy troops!
Snipers still have a ridiculous FP at close range. It just means that the enemy can shoot back. Doesn't mean he won't be hurt by them. But let's leave the snipers for a second. You roughly say "Unit X is not OP because in circumstance Z it's fraked" which can be said about any unit.
The question is: which of those Z will happen more often?
There are 6 generic scenarios in the game, every one very well tested and polished.
Only the last game had custom scenario. In which we tried to offset some problems with previous games. (Even more terrain than by the book) But the problem was not the scenario but imbalanced army lists
Sorry, there is no optimal list. There are lists more or less suitable for situation and good and bad used.
Well I disagree. I prefer to take a unit that will be better 9/10 times than the one that is better 1/10. It's simple math.
-
The scenario didn't play any role it was the problem of long range army vs close range.
(snip)
But the problem was not the scenario but imbalanced army lists
They were not "universally" unbalanced - the attacker's army was ill-suited for the scenario. And the difference in ranges became a problem because the scenario required one army to advance towards the other along the whole battlefield, and that army lacked speed and long-ranged weaponry.
Originally, the attacker's forces were meant to be dropped closer to the defender (and we really should've played that scenario - the new one was improvised which turned out to be a big mistake). Furthermore, the attacker originally had a long-ranged vehicle (which one of the players forgot to bring) - I'm pretty sure even that single vehicle would drastically change the outcome of the game.
Oh, and Dargoth, the attacker, managed to destroy 2 out of 4 objectives, so I'm not quite sure he was so thoroughly defeated.
-
Hey, I might be wrong (though I don't think so ( obviously ;)))
That's why I'm saying "try the demo, it's free". Some people might enjoy PMC 2640, so far I haven't.
-
I hope we'll finally play a satisfying battle (I'm curious about the campaign, especially that you start with really basic units and getting a lot of those "unbalanced" ones might not be that easy).
I wonder what impression those who haven't yet played will have after reading the discussion above. :D