Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Open Discussion => Topic started by: ImperialGlory on September 20, 2005, 09:06:54 AM
-
Does anyone else wish they could see tanks in Warzone on the Horizon? Not the little buggies we already have, mind you, but nice big tanks, a la that other Imperial Army from that other Miniatures Game I'm not mentioning. I think it would add a great new dynamic to Warzone, and I'd love to see the Bauhaus Bully as a Miniature, or at least have official rules so I could make a kitbash out of a model kit for a WWII Panzerjager.
-
You know a lot of people I tried to convert to Warzone lamented the lack of AFV's. I personally hate seeing large artillery shucking vehicles at 28mm scale. They seem a bit too much in comparison to the suggested size of a UWZ battle. I know I'm in the minority on that but I keep my AFV's for 15mm WWII rather than at the larger scales. An 8' X 4' table just doesn't seem to handle the big boys that well.
-
If you're in the minority Two Gun then it is a minority of at least two because I am in total agreement with your views on tanks in Warzone.
-
Tanks?
YOU'RE WELCOME!
> badum-ching <
and I agree, while APC's and light light vehicles of the ilk are acceptable and not over powering, the Huge rolling fortresses are usually outta scope for a game that revolves mostly around infantry.
-
Now, you give me Warzone in 6mm, 10mm, or 15mm and I'll be first in line for tanks, artillery, air strikes, oribital bombardments. I know UWZ has all that with the firemissions but they are incredibly toned down for balance reasons. I mean, I'd love to see an armored column heading for a Dark Legion citadel but just not in 28mm. 28mm is the infantry man's game.
Dear Thom,
If you make a large scale warfare game for Warzone in 10mm I will buy it.
Love,
TwoGunBob
-
Feels like a Vulcan mind meld - your thoughts are my thoughts : :)
-
I dunno about you guys...
I want stats for my Grizzly, Jackal, Cobra and Black Window...
Pretty pretty please?
-
On our terrain tables there would be no way you could drive a tank farther than 5" before it was bogged down by a building or wall. Warzone really does fit the skirmish idea and allowing larger vehicles would bog it down.
Now, big tanks as terrain. That is a different story. :D
And, I have to say, you make a 15mm version and tanks would be very cool.
Rorik
-
While I feel that MBT's have no place in a skirmish level game, for scenario play they could work rather well. and they are really fun models
-PFC joe
-
For those who like tanks I hope you get some stats - I just hope those stats don't change the balance of the game. Most games I have tried in 28 mm that have tanks usually end up with multple tanks being a necessity to keep from getting slaughtered. I would hate for that to happen to Warzone.
-
Don't forget, most conflicts in the UWZ universe are Corporation vs Corporation over some sort of terrain or military/economic objective. Other than full scale War, ie against the DL, the escalation level required to necessitate MBT's is just not present.
-PFC joe
-
Well, just because they could be added to the game doesn't mean they should unbalance it. Realistically, an AFV in extremely tight terrain is just an armored box waiting to be taken advantage of, but I'd like to see them included because it would be interesting and it would flesh out the universe, as well as introduce new tactical options.
-
Ving -
You play battles of 3000 per side on a regular basis? I own between 2 and 3 thousand in most of my armies but rarely play more than 1250 - 1500 points and usually only between 500 and 750. I'd like to see some pix and a report of one of those monster-fests
-
honestly, if you were fielding 3000+ points, i wouldn't mind having armor at all and there was that gigantic Chronopia game with thousands of points per side....
if UWZ proves to be that scalable, then sure go ahead and toss in a grizzley or two.
-PFC joe
-
I really love tanks as far as appearance goes - the problem is that on a typical WZ table they are really "out of scale". They are already effectively at point blank range and as has been noted are restricted in their meneuverability.
I like APCs, Bikes, Walkers and light vehicles - I'd even like to see more. I only really see using large MBTs as part of a scenario etc.
For example - I wrote up a mission where a Grizzly had broken down and the crew with a few supporting units had to reach the objective (a factory building) and get the parts they needed to repair it. The defenders had to stop them from getting the parts back to the tank...
It was fun - a lot of close in building to building fighting....but if they actually got the tank running....well it was a Bauhaus victory. If they were killed and the vehicle captured...then it was a win for the defenders.
-
Well I'll start out by saying that I own 2 Grizzly tanks..
While they have no place in a tournament setting, BA Vehicles can be useful for terrain objectives and special scenarios.
-
If you add tanks to UWZ, besides stats you also have to add a new set rules for tanks. ie. tankshock(morale purposes), can tanks run over models, treaded vehicle restrictions, 360 degree firing arch? It opens a huge can of worms(rules) to be added. Then players are going to ask for more antitank weapons, which could spawn a new expansion for the game. If tanks were to be added I don't see it happening anytime soon. :-[
-
I think that they should concentrate on bringing out all the infantry troops first.
Then light recon venchiles, then armoured personell carriers and then light tanks.
After all if the Dork legion can have biogigants and those big red things I don't remember the name of right now the corps can have tanks.
-
Pretorian Behemoth. And tanks are still slightly outta scope. AFV's are at least much more vulnerable to small arms fire than tanks, which would again require all too much rebalancing of force lists to the point that it just devolves into GW style tit-for-tat.
-PFC joe
-
I gotta sign aboard with the new minority. I think tanks would be fantastic. That said I think it would have to be some sort of mutual agreement or at least prior warning.
I would love to have a Grizzly or Black Widow (know any sellers?). I scratch-built a Capitol Desert Fox years ago. It needs some minor repair work but she's functional (mostly).
APC's are fine for regular play as long as they live up to being light skinned with a machine gun and not fifty billion heat-seeking death machine add-ons that all seem to be available in a universe where no one knows how to turn on a light switch without castign some sort of auger.
-
APC's are fine for regular play as long as they live up to being light skinned with a machine gun and not fifty billion heat-seeking death machine add-ons that all seem to be available in a universe where no one knows how to turn on a light switch without castign some sort of auger.
;D ROTFLMAO ;D
-
I, too, am of the treadheaded minority. Give me Grizzlies, Bauhaus Bullies and Montanas anytime. 8) And how about Tatsu Gigameks...? ::) ;D
That said, I do think they would need their own supplement where a complete range of AT weapons & stuff for each corporation would also be listed. That way the whole package could be used or left out by players as desired.
-
There have been some engagements where it's been just a small force that's gone up against a tank before. I'm not saying load the game up with Gulf-War style tank battles but I wouldn't mind at least one APV/faction ('cept maybe the ToE), maybe even a lighter non-transport tank (I'm not very good with military terminology). The biggest problem would be with toughness, as most weapons in UWZ are LMGs HMGs and while I may not be that fluent in the specifics of ground combat I don't recall hearing about an LMG or HMG penetrating the hull of a tank. So they should either be jacked up in points or not included at all. Argument came full circle? That's 'cause I'm tired and have been arguing at school all day.
-
small arms fire can not defeat a tank.
small arms fire can defeat optics and sensors, exposed engine access, treads and tracks, crew egress points and unbuttoned commanders/drivers.
But damned if i would want to be the poor SoB that has to do that with anything shoulder fired
-PFC joe
-
Maybe it's good I'm not in any army.
"Kay, guys I'm gonna get that...Not so transport-ish tank!"
"Rabbit are you nuts? All you have is an LMG and a replica of the one ring around your neck!"
"yah, I was thinkin' with the ring I'd be invisible..."
-
Steel Rabbit, I don't completely understand what you mean. What should be jacked up in points or not included? AT weapons? ???
And you are entirely correct that small arms do NOT penetrate the armor of a serious armored fighting vehicle.
PFC_joe is right in that there are vulnerable parts even in Main Battle Tanks and I'd add comms equipment (i.e. antennas) to the list. Also, smoke grenades & such stuff can blind tanks. However, can small arms _really_ hurt tracks? I can see that a lucky bullet wedged between two track links could, in theory, break a treadbolt (or whatever the official term is) and thus cut the track but it would be one lucky shot.
-
most modern MBT's have optics that effectively nullify smoke and debris and good luck shootin antenna's off, though you might be able to nail the commo cluster. it's not so much damagin the tracks as damaging the wheel/gear assemblies, moving parts don't take too kindly to sudden kinetic force much like my gf learned when she wouldn't stop talking through Lost's season premiere.
-PFC joe
note: no girlfriends were harmed during the posturing in this post
note addendum: we were actually at a concert during Lost, i'm downloading it now
-
There are "special" smokescreens out there which can defeat thermal imaging & such things.
As for the antennas, I agree that HE rounds, cluster weapons and stuff like that have the best chance of eliminating them. It would be hard to do with a machinegun. But the optics too are hard to hit and the prisms are somewhat more durable than average glass. ;)
But the wheels of tanks are designed to withstand amall arms fire so I wish equally good luck trying to shoot 'em off with an assault rifle. ;D
However, one thing any tank rules should take into account is the limited visibility from a tank when it is buttoned. Even with the modern gadgets a buttoned tank has a hard time in dense terrain.
-
Well i hope there wont be any Tanks come out soon ;)
I still dont understand the reason for having tanks in an infantry skimish game other than to totaly debalance the whole system. I play WZ since 8 years and never had the feeling that tanks would improve my games and scenarios :)
-
I could try to explain, but it wouldn't help any as it is a matter of taste. Either you have "it" or you don't. :)
Me, I hope armorcast DOES make tanks in the not too distant future.
-
On my side, I love the addition of heavy vehicles in an army, even for Warzone where some people frown to the idea of heavier machinery. I know that this might make the game needed to be furtherly modified for balance purposes, but I do not mind for it.
I would love the idea of a Mishiman Army based on Power Armoured Samurai, Meka Pilots and Heavy Battle Walkers, supported by few Ashigaru units as Light Infantry support. I'd definately get such an army. ;D
How about those Crusader Main Battle Tanks of the Brotherhood Military? :D
Capitol, Imperial or Bauhauss Armoured Cavalry Units, I just love these ideas.
Count me in for the Tanks thing.
-
Guys, no tanks, please. If you want to have a tank at this scale - well, some of the fire missions have effects similar to those a tank main gun shot would have in this scale (as opposed to, say, bombs - which would obliberate half of the battlefield...), so just change the names of FMs. I'd say, that APCs, giant suits of armor, battlewalkers and other such light armored vehicles are the biggest and baddest units that may be supported by UWZ. Even that support is not that great - it is far too easy to kill such stuff with rifles, and the anti-tank weapons (like DLDs and standard rockets) is not always the best choice for hunting the big game (as they're expensive, inaccurate and do not deal much more damage than - say - HMG). It is an infantry game after all. Adding APCs and other light vehicles to armies that do not have them may be a good idea (although an APC-equipped Mishima force would be scary), but as for the heavy stuff: Just Say No.
As for a separate tank combat game: I think that EE is already doing so many different things, that starting development of yet another miniature system would not be a wise move. If you want to play such system, I'd advise you to take a look at either Mein Panzer or Modern Micro Armor - both have excellent game mechanics, well support infantry and mechanised units, and allow you to design your own hardware (as the necessary formulas were made public). Converting Warzone unverse units to either system should not be difficult, and both system work well with 1/300 miniatures - so it is easy to play HUGE battles with them (and there are many 1/300 scale minis on the market)
-
I am well aware of the existence of such games. In fact, I happen to own Spearhead, Modern Spearhead, Panzer Marsch and IABSM to name a few. But they are not the same thing.
I also have WWII skirmish games Battleground:WWII and Face of Battle. Both of which have rules for vehicles... ;)
I am also aware that Excelsior should first get all the groundpounders out and I am sure the guys at Excelsior know that too.
Let me ask: if all the worldbooks and infantry minis were out, why would it hurt to have a separate armor supplement, with vehicle rules & AT weapons? It would be a completely separate plugin to be used, if wanted, or to be left out. It's always easier NOT to use something which exists than try to use something which does not exist.
-
I am well aware of the existence of such games. In fact, I happen to own Spearhead, Modern Spearhead, Panzer Marsch and IABSM to name a few. But they are not the same thing.
I also have WWII skirmish games Battleground:WWII and Face of Battle. Both of which have rules for vehicles... ;)
I am also aware that Excelsior should first get all the groundpounders out and I am sure the guys at Excelsior know that too.
Let me ask: if all the worldbooks and infantry minis were out, why would it hurt to have a separate armor supplement, with vehicle rules & AT weapons? It would be a completely separate plugin to be used, if wanted, or to be left out. It's always easier NOT to use something which exists than try to use something which does not exist.
After reading the posts on this both here and on the previous forums I had to reply. If you want tanks and armored vehicles...Come up with the rules yourself!!!! EE has done a great job of getting the game up and running and being incredible people who are supporting and refining a great game. WHy is is that people are never satified with what they have. IF you like the idea so much.. create units for each army<not just YOUR favorite army> playtest them, make sure they are balanced for gameplay, design and create the models for such pieces, answer any an all questions about gameplay-no matter how obvious the answer might be-, support an entire website with order capability, forums, pictures etc, go to just about every gaming convention to represent your "new" ideas etc. Oh wait a min thats aleardy being done by EE for a great SQUAD based skirmish game called UWZ.
I like the ideas of tanks and heavy weapons just like anyone else BUT this isnt the game for that. If you want to use those items find another game. Dont beg the folks at EE to indulge your "I want a game to be EVERYTHING at the same time" fantasies. UWZ is an incredibly detailed, fun to play, well balanced, simple to learn and play game. WHy make more work for guys that are busting their humps to get this going.
I apologise if that sounded like a rant but I just had to get that off my chest. Basically what Im saying is play and enjoy the game as it was meant to be played and lets not keep trying to" fix" it.
-
Let me ask: if all the worldbooks and infantry minis were out, why would it hurt to have a separate armor supplement,
Oh.. at that moment... no problem for me - I won't live THAT long (no offence meant EE guys ;-) , I know that you're a small company).
It's always easier NOT to use something which exists than try to use something which does not exist.
I'm not sure about that - try to convince anybody not to use his best stuff IF he bought and painted it.
-
My impression is that some of us think of tanks and vehicles as something that would be "nice to have" not a "must have". Others don't like tanks and have voiced their opinion very well without attacking the people with a different opinion. All opinions are just that..opinions.
@PhillySniper- Why choose to attack the people, on top of debating their opinions that you don't agree with? It's bad form.
-
That's the thing, everyone wants something different out of a wargame. Some people are more treadheads than others same as some people love a system that lavishes on detail and others prefer more abstract systems. It's all about taste and Warzone can accomadate it sooner or later.
-
For my part, we plan on the following.
As for larger vehicles, we are going to release some APC's. Barring those, we plan to focus most of our efforts on mortars, small attack crafts as in the book and larger field munitions. Of course Mekas, and walkers are included in that.
The larger tanks are not planned at this time, though they would make for get displays....
-
There already exists rules that will work for tanks. There is really no need to create a whole new system or any kind of major rebalancing either. Plus there are plenty of examples of potential light tanks, the bio-gaint for one. Heck the guns for the DL Ironclad already exist in game, Nazgaroth's and Hellblaster. Give something for the Blitzers to fight. They already have Anti-tank mines. just add another specialist to the grunt squads that can carry an anti-tank weapon and boom no more worries.
People keep refering to warzone like it was designed to be played like necromunda. It may be squad based but you definitely play with more than one squad, and thus a tank could be squad. It may be a skirmish game but if Fire missions and artillery already exist in game why not a few tanks. If this game was an infantry only based game then more than half the support units and some elite units wouldn't be available.
Its always nice to have something official to play with. Thats why house rules stay in the house. It would be no more difficult to come up with tanks than it would be to come up with a new infantry unit that was different from the hundred others.
-
Well obviously Excelsior sees no need for MBT's dominating the battlefield ::)
Using APC's and smaller Crafts as E.Prime mentioned is a different (and the right) aproach and will most likly improve the game.
There is a diffrence between enhancing game mechanics and breaking it and it looks like UWZ will go the right path ;D
-
My impression is that some of us think of tanks and vehicles as something that would be "nice to have" not a "must have". Others don't like tanks and have voiced their opinion very well without attacking the people with a different opinion. All opinions are just that..opinions.
@PhillySniper- Why choose to attack the people, on top of debating their opinions that you don't agree with? It's bad form.
How is it bad form to venture my opinion as other have on things they believe in? I wasnt "attacking" the people that desire tanks. I was voicing my displeasure with the people that think that EE should stop everthing else and get "tanks" into the game. I truely feel that if you want something bad enough, do something about it. I was also stating that people dont realise the work that is required to install "new" units into a game such as UWZ.
Opinions are just that, opinions, I have mine and you have yours. My problem with the whole "tanks" situation is the people that say" EE can you do this? I just HAVE to ahve it or my gaming experience isnt complete and BTW when is this model gonna be out I HAVE to have that too. I respect the work and time put into the game as well as the game itself. If you took that as me attacking others for their opinions, then I apologise but as others did I stated my feelings and tried to come up with a solution. Isnt that what the forum is for?? I didnt call anyone stupid or anything insulting. I felt I was stating an "opinion". House rules are there for people that want to tinker with the game and make it more to their liking. If you want tanks in a game give us some ideas of how house rules work so others can try it but I dont think making it a permanate part of the game would make UWZ any better or worse as a system.
Again this is my opinion, which I am intitled to.
BTW how is what I did any different than what you just did GOLD by voicing your displeasure with how I phrased my opinion? Just curious
Philly
-
After reading the posts on this both here and on the previous forums I had to reply. If you want tanks and armored vehicles...Come up with the rules yourself!!!! EE has done a great job of getting the game up and running and being incredible people who are supporting and refining a great game. WHy is is that people are never satified with what they have. IF you like the idea so much.. create units for each army<not just YOUR favorite army> playtest them, make sure they are balanced for gameplay, design and create the models for such pieces, answer any an all questions about gameplay-no matter how obvious the answer might be-, support an entire website with order capability, forums, pictures etc, go to just about every gaming convention to represent your "new" ideas etc. Oh wait a min thats aleardy being done by EE for a great SQUAD based skirmish game called UWZ.
I like the ideas of tanks and heavy weapons just like anyone else BUT this isnt the game for that. If you want to use those items find another game. Dont beg the folks at EE to indulge your "I want a game to be EVERYTHING at the same time" fantasies. UWZ is an incredibly detailed, fun to play, well balanced, simple to learn and play game. WHy make more work for guys that are busting their humps to get this going.
I apologise if that sounded like a rant but I just had to get that off my chest. Basically what Im saying is play and enjoy the game as it was meant to be played and lets not keep trying to" fix" it.
PhillySniper, My observation on the sum of what you had written earlier (quoted above) is you're saying/insinuating that people who would like to see tanks in Warzone are whiners bugging EE, don't respect the amount of work it takes EE to produce the game and should go make their own game. Your word choice, use of punctuation and caps gives me that impression. That is different than sharing your opinion that the game is not well suited for vehicles because of X, Y, and Z game mechanics. You of course are entitled to your opinion of people but it is really a separate issue from the discussion of tanks or other vehicles in the game. I'm going to leave it at that. Aside from our exchange this topic on vehicles has been an interesting discussion and I don't wish to unravel the dialogue.
-
Tanks....I love em! I want one. A Panzer 4G would be nice. I could put it in my backyard, and threaten the neighbors!
(Bet they would keep that yapping mutt indoors, too!)
However, tanks in UWZ would probably be a huge imbalance. The scale of even an 8x8 table would not do justice to the weaponry of a tank.
As for large battles....It has been my experience that UWZ breaks down when one side has a larger number of units than the other side. The unit imbalance seems to lead to "activation explits". In a nutshell, one side moves units well out of the field of fire, and the side with fewer units is "forced" to activate units. After which, the side with more units can activate the units that were in the field of fire.
I like 500 to 750 point battles, and I think tanks would look great, but unbalance the game.
I promised Thom I would design a 10MM Warzone rules system....I better start writing! :D
MadBrad
-
I agree that a big tank would be difficult to balance in a rock paper scissors way while still keeping some semblance of balance in a tournament style game where the other player's force and terrain are not factored in.
I think the best use of large tanks in Warzone is for scenario play.
Take the Bauhaus Grizzly. Most of its weapons are squad killers. However just like a WWII or modern tank is vulnerable in some environments, so too the Grizzly tank. Imagine a Grizzly used in an urban battle as a mobile bunker/siege mortar. A force is infiltrated across enemy lines to take out this weapon before it reduces the defenders fortifications to rubble. Imagine a night time battle and a small detachment of hussars and dragoons guarding the Grizzly as it fires all night long from its hull down position behind or in a ruined factory. The infiltrators have surprise and the reduced crew on night shift are not immediately manning the anti-personnel turrets. The main guns and mortars would be unable to fire in such close range and it would take time to get the tank moving, time the crew doesn't have when the enemy are in the darkness and potentially everywhere. The vehicle also has many blindspots and spotting is difficult. So the infiltrating force must fight through a small number of external guards, stay out of the way of or destroy the turret mounted HMGs and then set charges to destroy the vehicle from outside or close assault the crew to sabotage the main guns from the inside.
-
In To Hell And Back Audie Murphy related the time a Panzer lost a track and blocked a key road. The fields were muddy so Murphy and his guys had to keep the Germans from replacing the tread under cover of darkness. Failure meant the 3rd Division would get rolled over b the Germans at first light. Definately grounds for a good scenario.
-
My impression is that some of us think of tanks and vehicles as something that would be "nice to have" not a "must have". Others don't like tanks and have voiced their opinion very well without attacking the people with a different opinion. All opinions are just that..opinions.
@PhillySniper- Why choose to attack the people, on top of debating their opinions that you don't agree with? It's bad form.
How is it bad form to venture my opinion as other have on things they believe in? I wasnt "attacking" the people that desire tanks. I was voicing my displeasure with the people that think that EE should stop everthing else and get "tanks" into the game. I truely feel that if you want something bad enough, do something about it. I was also stating that people dont realise the work that is required to install "new" units into a game such as UWZ.
Specifically, you quoted MY post fully and THEN used the word "you", which considering the context (i.e. the quoted post) didn't sound like a plural.
Now let's see what I said about "EE stopping everything" so a stupid and selfish tank junkie like me could get my fix: Let me ask: if all the worldbooks and infantry minis were out, why would it hurt to have a separate armor supplement, with vehicle rules & AT weapons?
That doesn't, at least to me, quite sound like ordering EE to "stop everything" and start hacking up some tanks.
Opinions are just that, opinions, I have mine and you have yours. My problem with the whole "tanks" situation is the people that say" EE can you do this? I just HAVE to ahve it or my gaming experience isnt complete and BTW when is this model gonna be out I HAVE to have that too. I respect the work and time put into the game as well as the game itself. If you took that as me attacking others for their opinions, then I apologise but as others did I stated my feelings and tried to come up with a solution. Isnt that what the forum is for?? I didnt call anyone stupid or anything insulting.
Uh-huh, reading your post your opinion seemed to be:
1) Those who want tanks in general and me in particular are ungrateful [deleted for security reasons] who just slap EE and are never satisfied.
2) Those who want tanks in general and me in particular just want to imbalance the game and have the latest Über unit to cheese the tabletop with its presence.
3) Those who want tanks in general and me in particular are just selfish should go away and not spoil YOUR fine gaming experience with our whining.
That is what I interpret your post to mean in a nutshell. If I'm mistook you're welcome to correct me. But please watch your tone.
I felt I was stating an "opinion". House rules are there for people that want to tinker with the game and make it more to their liking. If you want tanks in a game give us some ideas of how house rules work so others can try it but I dont think making it a permanate part of the game would make UWZ any better or worse as a system.
Again this is my opinion, which I am intitled to.
BTW how is what I did any different than what you just did GOLD by voicing your displeasure with how I phrased my opinion? Just curious
Philly
See above.
As it is obvious this subject stirs up some hot (not to mention hard) feelings I'm now going to let it drop. If you want me I'll be wallowing in my selfish and stupid tank fantasies drooling over some übertanks. ;D
-
[Snip]
I promised Thom I would design a 10MM Warzone rules system....I better start writing! :D
MadBrad
If you need any help let me know. ;)
-
Greetings,
I have no objection against small recon vehicles and APCs. MBTs should be reserved for special scenarios... Warzone is more on the infantry skirmish side IMHO.
Greetings,
Catinator
-
I agree with PhillySniper's notion of creating your own units. I think the main problem with post 80s TTGs is that people rely too much on 'official wording'. This could be due to the internet and most game companies being able to yeay or nay everything faster, but I think something's lost. Too many games are being streamlined for tournament play and people are forgetting that TTGs weren't invented for competitave play but instead invented to be played in some blokes garage, beer in hand, using a set of rules as guidelines.
Now, I'm not saying we should regress to the chaos that was TTGing in the 80s, but I work in a game shop and see, every day people wanting official ruling on something. If you want to use tanks in a game it would be wicked if your favorite game company would put a stamp on it for your favorite set of rules but there's nothing stopping you from buying a cheap tank set from your local hobby shop and converting it to look like something a megacorp shareholder would be proud of, and smashing your opponent with it. Just remember that if you want Gundam-esque battle suits and Tanks, don't expect to bring your brainchild unit to a tourney.
-
Now, I'm not saying we should regress to the chaos that was TTGing in the 80s, but I work in a game shop and see, every day people wanting official ruling on something. If you want to use tanks in a game it would be wicked if your favorite game company would put a stamp on it for your favorite set of rules but there's nothing stopping you from buying a cheap tank set from your local hobby shop and converting it to look like something a megacorp shareholder would be proud of, and smashing your opponent with it. Just remember that if you want Gundam-esque battle suits and Tanks, don't expect to bring your brainchild unit to a tourney.
The only problem I foresee with people designing their own units is that too many people forget that every unit has both strengths and weaknesses. Even in a friendly game, uberstrong units cause an imbalance that results in either escalation by opponents making uber-uber units or in peolple refusing to play the guy with the uber unit and possibly leaving the game in frustration. Getting beat by someone's home rule monster is never fun, especially if it is obviously unbalanced. I've been in games with people that have done min/max armies or uber-powered homerule items and i usually just smile and walk away from the table. If they want to win that bad they can have it. That being said a balanced home rule unit or vehicle is always fun to go up against. It provides you with an opportunity to expand your ability and think outside the box tactics-wise.
-
House rules vs. Official rules aside...
I bought some Panzer IV F1 (short barrel) and Pz IV F2 (long barrel) 1/36 scale plastic tanks just for the display of it with my growing Bauhaus force. I haven't painted them yet but plan too soon as this discussion has me interested in painting up more Bauhaus I have lying around and the tanks too. Oversized tanks but they do look SHARP.
The tanks cost all of $10 each, the turret rotates and gun moves. And it's pre-assembled! ;D
Besides, I'm not a fan of Bauhaus using WWI style equipment. They're smart enough to at least get up to WWII technology.
I should take some pictures of them with my painted Bauhaus I guess. Just for fun.
-
As it is obvious this subject stirs up some hot (not to mention hard) feelings I'm now going to let it drop. If you want me I'll be wallowing in my selfish and stupid tank fantasies drooling over some übertanks. ;D
Ok for all of you that want to BASH and run. If you have a problem with something I expressed you can message me or email me and discuss your dislike of my comments. Instead you want to post it on the forum and keep the topic going. So in that spirit...
I stand by what I said earlier. I dont like the fact that people will post about percieved wrongs or deficiecies with the UWZ system. Tanks as they have been discussed dont have a place in UWZ as it stands. I dont see any of the proponents of tanks posting battle reports of the regular games but I do see them asking for more new and improved and much more badder troops. You want to attack me then fine. Maybe you dont like the way I phrased my opinion but I still am intitled to it. Maybe the points hit a little close to home for some people but If the shoe fits wear it. I like the game as is. I also like tanks. But in all honesty if I wanted to play a game that revolved around tanks UWZ wouldnt be the first game that came to mind. Again all im saying is why mess with a good thing? Why cant we be happy with an infantry based squad level game such as it is now? I saw a couple of scenario ideas including tanks that were great! Id even be willing to try them out for a change. I wouldnt want to have to worry about them everytime I played. Thats not what drew me to UWZ.
And for the record I never called you stupid or selfish those are your words. Before you go bashing me for the way I state something you better read other supposed well written and non attacking posts. I took offense to a few , being a non uber tank wanting just not getting it kind of guy.
But im not going to carry this thing on forever. Design and bring your tanks give me a point total and lets do what this was intended to do, solve our differences on the field of battle. Im in the Philly area Im not hard to find for gaming
-
you folks should grow a bigger skin ::)
Its just a game 8)
-
The only problem I foresee with people designing their own units is that too many people forget that every unit has both strengths and weaknesses.
Very true, I just came from the assumption that ones game group where one would be trying out their house rules would be a supportive group and would work together to design a fun unit (or at least the group should be close enought that the other members can tell the cheese-monkey off when he designes the uber-unit ;)).
-
There are tanks in 1st edition. Just need updated stats...
Granted, those models are hard to come by but they are worth it.
Check'em out @ http://www.timewarpcomics.com/GAMESITE/warzone/index.htm under vehichle section.
-
I aplaud the healthy debate on this matter. People create "house rules" all the time. You know where I stand on this but by no means does this conclude your discussion. For the record, I didn't feel bashed, at least not now.
-
I have played in a couple games with 4000+ per side and they tend to run very long. AFVs could be worked into WZ without changing the dynamics overly dramatically. The main change would be leaving enough open terrrain for them to maneuver, which runs contrary to my preferred cluttered battlefields. Personally, I prefer to top out at Vulcans, Orcas, Hurricanes, Eradicators and the DL big nasties. Mishima could possibly use a little beef-up on the Mecha and or Dragon Bike, but that starts to push them a bit away from the fluff.
Then again, a 10mm version featuring the big stuff plus some armor has an appeal all of it's own. Maybe it's time to put together a rules drafting committee? ;)
-
PhillySniper
Here is the problem with such blanket statements. I like tanks, I have asked about minis of the units in the books like Machinator MkII HMG specialists, Survieler, etc. I have been looking for the Expansions because they were originaly reported to be out a few months after UMZ, and I have been asking about the RPG for years. Does that sound like a power gamer? As for preceived wrongs, just wait untill you try to use things like camoflage level 1.
I am not angry just a little disapointed that after playing this game for ten years I get labeled a power gamer. You are entitled to your opinions but once you open your mouth and spew them forth you had better be ready for someone to show you how well your feet fit in your cake hole.
PMP Ving
Vingthor
Power gamer? Now you are putting words in my mouth. I was talking about the people that ask for more and more and more without touting the benefits of the game as is. If the creators had wanted MBTs they would have included them. They are trying to get all the squad pieces out so we can have all our figs for our chosen armies. As far as showing me how well my feet fit in my cakehole Im still waiting for that. All I have heard is people complaining about me voicing my opinion while doing the same thing they are accusing me of. Attacking people for their beliefs. As I said, If the show fits, wear it. If you took offensee to my statements without me mentioning your name, then maybe you need to check your own motives and actions before stepping to me. So make sure you know what you are talking about before you respond.
You can take your feet out of YOUR cakehole now!
-
PhillySniper and Vingthor I suggest you both cool down so that I do not have to lock this thread down.
/Andreas
Forum Moderator
-
As far as im concerned things like hurricane walkers ARE giant tanks....i mean really! all i got is a red-flyer wagon with a hmg mounted on the front and a statue of an angel sitting in the back seat inviting people to shoot at it......
I don't really mind playing the army with the least big stuff; it's never in cover and you can always shoot at it- plus big stuff tends to have low leaderships.
But hey, thats just my opinion and maybe i'd buy a size 6 if BH had it, but I don't feel empty or remorseful without it.
Personally, im not going to be home brewing any more units either. Brings back dark memories of a time when Warzone was homeless and the scary things that cropped up to try and fill the void. Infact, one of these homebrewn force books (a mishima one built in the hopes of rivaling the captiol/bahuas expansions) we dumped a bunch of wood stainer on, along with a tributery mini and some of our less favorite terrain, and lit the whole thing up in an attempt to give the whole miserable incident closure. From that point on we only played original force book units and never looked back. Instead we found crazy scenario ideas like "Wall battles" (like it implies, the whole battle took place on a wall and it was really really fun)
-
You seemed to be insinuating that we (the people that like tanks) are ungrateful children looking for the next big unit to come out. Is that a general summation of what you had to say?
PMP Ving
Would it be so horrible to use my Blitzers for what they were intended, to suicidaly launch themselves at a near unbeatable tank for some good old hand to tank action?
I am not insinuating anything. I didnt see anywhere in your post where you asked EE to come up with ideas for MBTs to input into the game. I like tanks as stated b4. The people I was talking about are the ones that forget the main purpose of the game. I personally cant wait to see all the squad figs out and painted and being played in a full scale scenario.There is nothing wrong with being a gamer and looking to have a better gaming experience. Thats how other games take off. Besides I dont wanna see tanks because then Id have to bring more Bauhaus snipers into the game just to shoot at the antenna and gunners and officers and treads and take them out.. not too selfish a reason I suppose ;D
-
Philly,
No one is talking about tournaments (750 points) we are talking about friendly games amongst friends. Fire missions aren't available in tournaments so why would tanks. A tank that can destroy whole platoons/companies and can only be scratched by things like rockets and mortars would cost say 1000 points. But then again a main battle tank would have difficulty targeting a lone soldier, especialy one that is hidden by conver & concealment.
In friendly games people agree upon what will be played. You can just refuse to play with tanks.
PMP Ving
Ok I dont know why you targeted me with that particular statement but Oh well. Using your statement to back mine up, if you cant use Tanks in a tournament, why would you want EE to create the models and the rules for them to be used. If they are going to be used for friendly house rules games then why cant you take information that available to design your own tanks to use in the game? I think EE is correct in focusing on things that can help spead the popularity of UWZ via cons and gaming realms. I never said that they have no place in the game on friendly terms or with house rules. I just think EE has too much other stuff to focus on right now to add tanks and the like to the game. If rules exist <which I gather from comments that they do> then tweak them for your own pleasure and Tank war away. Thats just not my preference at this time for UWZ.
-
Can we just declare this a draw?
-
WOW.
I forgot that EE was only in it for the tournaments. ???
I don't enter tournaments, I play for fun. I guess I'll take my minis and go.
PMP Ving
P.S. I've been told. :D
You have an incredible nack for reading what you want and taking what you want from a statement. I was talking about tourneys as a way to draw new people into the game. And the whole tourney topic was brought up by YOU!!
You seem to want to keep this going and want to make it personal. Just PM me and we can continue our discussion.. and we can keep this moving, Which is the purpose of the forums after all.
-
*SOB* It's like watching my parents' divorce all over again! :'(
-
PhillySniper and Vingthor I told both of you to cool it, but obviously you cannot.
Thread closed!
/Andreas
Forum Moderator