PMC 2640 - new sci-fi ruleset

[Sarmor]

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).

[MKG]

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.

[Dargoth]

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.

[Sarmor]

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.

[Dargoth]

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.

[Sarmor]

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.