|
Post by sendrid3 on Jun 23, 2014 19:08:56 GMT -5
Wondering if anyone has used this system for a Weird War II or World War II style game?
How about a Steam Punk or Diesel Punk game?
Would anyone be interested in such a game?
Thanks Pete
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Jun 23, 2014 19:24:54 GMT -5
Steam Punk might be fun. As would a Pulp/Colonial game. I always thought a Magic Door game would be fun where your character bounced from genre to genre.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyd on Jun 23, 2014 22:08:54 GMT -5
One of the players in my LOTS campaign is writing some adaptations to a steam punk world. I really like the genre. I also have a collection of 1930's pulp figures that would be cool to use for an LAW mod. I'll start to think about it.
-jimmyd
|
|
|
Post by sendrid3 on Jun 24, 2014 22:01:46 GMT -5
Steam Punk might be fun. As would a Pulp/Colonial game. I always thought a Magic Door game would be fun where your character bounced from genre to genre. That would be a blast. I once saw a write up in a different system for a Stargate 1889 campaign. That sounded like it would be fun.
|
|
|
Post by ednote on Jun 25, 2014 16:41:18 GMT -5
While we're adding genres, Cyber Punk is also fun. The cyberspace part would be more like magic rules but without Fatigue. It isn't that we're trying to drive our friends at DCG insane, it's just that there are so many cans of worms on the shelf and can-openers are easy to use... Regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 3, 2014 21:43:07 GMT -5
I did playtest a WW2 adaption of our rules about 5 or 6 years ago - I put some notes on our old boards, as I recall. I used to play a lot of Advanced Squad Leader, so it is an interest of mine. If you check out the playtest credits for the new Festung Budapest Historical Module, my name is in there.
I'll have to see if any version of those notes on WW2 LAW survives my various computer crashes...
|
|
|
Post by athos3 on Aug 4, 2014 14:43:17 GMT -5
I did playtest a WW2 adaption of our rules about 5 or 6 years ago - I put some notes on our old boards, as I recall. I used to play a lot of Advanced Squad Leader, so it is an interest of mine. If you check out the playtest credits for the new Festung Budapest Historical Module, my name is in there. I'll have to see if any version of those notes on WW2 LAW survives my various computer crashes... It would be great if you could find any of that. I'll try and post what ever I can come up with. Pete
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 5, 2014 2:22:53 GMT -5
Hey, Pete,
Welcome to the boards, amigo! Heh!
Anyway, it is all gone, but from memory, here is the biggest stuff:
Morale: You take a Morale Check at the beginning of your turn in order to act, and whenever you wounded, or a few other times. Based on IQ - modified by your squad/platoon leader's Leadership modifier. In high school, I read some S. L. A. Marshall, and his research immediately after WW2 indicated that on average, about 10% of troops were effective in battle. Noiw there were various things that factored into this (ie, not all troops could be at the decisive point of a battle), but mostly it boiled down to training and experience of the individual soldier, and the quality of leadership.
We don't do morale in any other LAW genre, but it is a must for squad level combat. So each soldier of a player must pass a morale check to act. Start with leaders, because their skill level can affect the roll (if they pass themselves). Leaders who pass their morale checks can try to Rally broken dudes (who cam then attempt to act).
Failing a morale check by 1 or 2 means you are Pinned, and cannot act, or React in the enemy's turn. Failing by 3 or 4 was broken/panicked, and could not act until Rallied. Soldiers who fail morale checks by 5 or more attempt to flee the field. They can be Rallied at -4.
You could React with a rifle/smg/pistol if someone moved into your line of sight, and you pass a morale check.
Grenades: I thought about changing the 5 feet per hex to a larger scale for the effect of grenades, so they wouldn't dominate the game. I remember SPI's Sniper, which I don't own anymore and haven't played since the 80's, that you suppressed your enemy with fire and finished them off with grenades. But that wasn't what usually happened in the literature, though it was not rare. And I wanted to keep the 5 foot hex. So you roll to hit a hex with your grenade; a miss is placed in a random d6 direction, by the margin in hexes that you missed your check.
4d6 damage in that hex, -1d6 for each hex out from the blast hex, and an automatic morale check. So a dude 2 hexes away takes 2d6; 4 hexes away is unaffected.
Not sure it is totally realistic, but it is simple and playable, I thought.
Weapons: M1's messed people up - 3d6. Other nations' rifles 3d6-1. SMG's - 2d6, may attempt 3 shots in up to 3 hexes apart. LMG - 2d6+1, 4 shots up to 4 hexes apart; MMG 3d6/5, HMG 4d6/6; 50cal 4d6+1/6.
Smoke grenades, covered a circular 7 hex area and -2DX for each hex fired through.
Cover - 4d6/DX and 5/DX to hit.
Tactical Objectives to acheive, rather than just fight to the last man.
Alright,there was other stuff but that is what I remember at 3 in the morning.
Bret
|
|
|
Post by ednote on Aug 5, 2014 13:57:01 GMT -5
Bret, I like what you have done. You might add a stun result for grenades. Save 4d vs strength if you are within 3 hexes and not protected by a wall, foxhole, etc... The save would be 3d vs strength within hexes. This means that characters might be stunned even if they take no hits. Characters in a deep foxhole might save on 2d vs strength. Foxholes were popular with infantry for a reason, although you don't want to share one with a live grenade. Please understand that these ideas are merely my thoughts. I like what you have posted and I would like to see the game come to fruition.
Regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by sendrid3 on Aug 5, 2014 14:21:26 GMT -5
I like your ideas. Especially the morale rules based on IQ. I had similar thoughts myself including the possibility of having a skill that was simply "Training" or "Discipline" that would give troops a boost to there morale checks. Squad leaders could take a "Leadership" skill to give a morale boost or rally roll for those troopers that had failed their moral check. Like you I am influenced by Advanced Squad Leader. I found this article very interesting as far as equipment goes. I've attached a pdf of it. Hi Tech TFTRevised HiTech TFT.pdf (195.07 KB) Thanks Pete
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 5, 2014 20:03:04 GMT -5
Hey, thanks for the kind words, guys, glad you like the ideas.
Ed - a good thought on Stun and grenades (and perhaps other damage). The Pinned-Broken-Routing progression is based on ASL. I think Stunned would not really fit on that continuity, but it was a real physical/mental state so it should find its way in. Maybe a ST check is the way to go, though I hate to do too many rolls. But on the pther hand, one more roll might not be too many...maybe you should take Stun Check as well as a Morale check in certain situations...
Right on about foxholes - they would be a 4/DX defense from fire if you are in one. Have to think about how they would work with grenades....
Pete - I had similar thoughts on morale "classes." Like Green (-1 MC), Line (+0 MC), Veteran (+1 MC) and Elite (+2 MC), but thought maybe you could do the same thing with simply applying xp toward your IQ to perform better in battle. I was a bit ambivalent about it, but maybe buying it as a skill makes sense. If it costs 10xp, it makes more sense to increase your IQ to 10 and a few points beyond...to take Vet (or even Elite) as a starting skill would be tempting but powerful, but that would depend on your unit (like Airborne) and character background (a GI being created who had fought through Sicily and up Italy could justify taking it). Hmmmm....
Thanks for the link, I have not seen that before!
Bret
|
|
|
Post by sendrid3 on Aug 6, 2014 13:23:58 GMT -5
I just wanted to throw out another idea that I've used/played with a bit. Green or conscript troops would have only 30 pts. St 8 Dx 8 IQ 6 with 6 pts to distribute. They would have either 2 or 3 skills.
Trained or 1st Line 32 pts and 4 skills Veteran troops 34 pts and 5 skills Elite troops 36 pts and 6 or 7 skills depending on weather they are combat engineers/pioneers (demolitions, mine clearing, flamethrower), or paratroopers (it would be useful if they knew how to use parachutes), frogmen, etc.
Pete
|
|
|
Post by ednote on Aug 6, 2014 14:20:14 GMT -5
Bret, I intended Stun checks to be performed as a part of combat, not morale. I think that morale class modifiers might be applicable because a Veteran is more likely to effectively void the concussion than a Green soldier, but if Stunned then he is still fully subject to any penalties. Skill and experience only take one so far against physics and biology. I agree that Strength checks are the way to handle it.
You might also wish to consider cover & concealment vs. soft cover vs. hard cover. I think that cover and concealment protect against be spotted and therefore targeted but that area effect weapons (possibly including bursts of machinegun fire) would have full effect. Soft cover would offer protection against being hit and probably some reduction in damage. A bullet can go through a brick wall but will probably lose some energy and it would be harder to hit the person behind it. Hard cover would make it harder to hit the target (4d vs. Dex?) but, ironically NOT reduce damage. The bullet is either turned or it hits. All of this is greatly simplified. A British .303 Enfield is actually a weaker round than a .308 Winchester/7.52x51 NATO 30 caliber round. A .30-06 Springfield with steel core, armor piercing bullets would treat 6" of concrete as soft cover. So a balance between ease of play and simplicity must be struck with realistic simulation. I think DCG games go for ease of play and I applaud that. There are plenty of complex, skirmish level wargames available.
Regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by sendrid3 on Aug 6, 2014 14:56:03 GMT -5
Bret, I intended Stun checks to be performed as a part of combat, not morale. I think that morale class modifiers might be applicable because a Veteran is more likely to effectively void the concussion than a Green soldier, but if Stunned then he is still fully subject to any penalties. Skill and experience only take one so far against physics and biology. I agree that Strength checks are the way to handle it. That makes sense. The concussion from an explosion will affect people physically as well as emotionally. You might also wish to consider cover & concealment vs. soft cover vs. hard cover. I think that cover and concealment protect against be spotted and therefore targeted but that area effect weapons (possibly including bursts of machinegun fire) would have full effect. Soft cover would offer protection against being hit and probably some reduction in damage. A bullet can go through a brick wall but will probably lose some energy and it would be harder to hit the person behind it. Hard cover would make it harder to hit the target (4d vs. Dex?) but, ironically NOT reduce damage. The bullet is either turned or it hits. All of this is greatly simplified. A British .303 Enfield is actually a weaker round than a .308 Winchester/7.52x51 NATO 30 caliber round. A .30-06 Springfield with steel core, armor piercing bullets would treat 6" of concrete as soft cover. So a balance between ease of play and simplicity must be struck with realistic simulation. I think DCG games go for ease of play and I applaud that. There are plenty of complex, skirmish level wargames available. Regards, Ed This also makes sense and we would get into a slippery slope of complexity. Especially when a machine gun or even a M1 Garand could have mixed ammunition types in a single belt/clip. How many characters could be reasonably handled in a single skirmish with people having to make a couple of rolls per character per round? I think the biggest battle I've ever handled with this system was 15 to 20 with two players and a GM.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Aug 6, 2014 20:46:27 GMT -5
OK, Pete, you were seeing Conscript/Line/Vet/Elite as point/skill levels, applicable mostly at soldier creation, rather than delineated, game-effecting classifications? That might fit in more with my original thought that it was all experience points anyway.
Yeah, Ed you are absolutely right physical effects like Stun are different from Morale. You propse a modifier based on the morale class to Stun Checks, as well as (I assume) morale checks.
Maybe merge these two concepts; anyone at a certain point/skill threshold, whether at creation or through gaining xp, attains that morale class and the benefits to the IQ check for Morale and the ST check for Stun. Maybe that is what you guys were thinking all along!
Ed your point about concealment vs physical cover is spot on, that is what I kinda alluded to with the Smoke grenades. As Pete can attest, there are a lot of modifiers in ASL to attacks based on visual hindrances and effects, not just smoke but lighting and rain and other stuff as well.
As far as effects of physical objects, I see what you mean about penetration, but I am mostly thinking that if you hit someone in a foxhole or behind stone, it is not the penetration of the round but the fact that you actually hit them in the small space available. That is what we set out in the Space line from the beginning with the objects providing 4/DX or 5?DX cover.
Maybe that is the wrong way to go?
On the other hand, you could take your division of soft cover (say hiding behind a bush or in a wheatfield) as providing 1/0 or 3/0 max or whatever armor, and hard cover providing the full protection unless the opponent hits on 4/DX for foxhole/wooden wall, 5/DX Stone Wall, and 6/DX Pillbox, or something similar.
Would that make sense, as well as balancing playability/realism? With a full squad of 12 men on each side?*
OK, that is an American squad, others had less or more - but for the sake of arguement, say a dozen or so a side.
|
|