SW Allocation in R F

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
505
Reaction score
18
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Really?

The German Rifle have no HMG but the Russian Gds Rifle do ( not to mention not 1 not 2 but 3 LMG, and lets hear it for 2 Atr, and 2 50mm)

Needless to say there is no compensation for the German anywhere. It is also widely reported that all games in this module are pro- Russian or strongly pro Russian. With that SW allocation you certainly achieved your aim of some sort of counterfeit battle..

I would love to hear how the designers came up with this rubbish that flies in the face of just about everything
written about this battl
e.


I'm waiting ! :(

I mean just try and find a pic that a German HMG is not hanging out the window. Utter crap.
 

Honosbinda

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
468
Reaction score
74
Location
Eastbourne Sussex UK
Country
ll
Really?

The German Rifle have no HMG but the Russian Gds Rifle do ( not to mention not 1 not 2 but 3 LMG, and lets hear it for 2 Atr, and 2 50mm)

Needless to say there is no compensation for the German anywhere. It is also widely reported that all games in this module are pro- Russian or strongly pro Russian. With that SW allocation you certainly achieved your aim of some sort of counterfeit battle..

I would love to hear how the designers came up with this rubbish that flies in the face of just about everything
written about this battl
e.


I'm waiting ! :(

I mean just try and find a pic that a German HMG is not hanging out the window. Utter crap.

I'm interested in this allegation because I haven't popped open the wallet for this module.

After paying a ton for Hakkaa Päälle (bloated; I have to agree with Pitcavage) and Forgotten War (great components but some poorly vetted scenarios, e.g. 206 'Hey that Ain't ROK ), I'm now leery that these 'resurrection' modules suffer from scenarios that have been sitting around for too long and rely too much on playtesting reports that are two decades old.

[For alternative Korean module scenarios, I highly recommend Rally Point Volume 15: Special Study I of the Korean War. ]

I hear what you are saying about the HMGs, just from the perspective that the Germans could easily convert their MGs from LMG MMG to HMG and vice versa. Are you saying the Germans can't even buy them in a special weapons platoon?

As for the comment about 'widely reported' pro-Russian bias, there is no evidence of this on ROAR. Yes, it does look like RO2, RO3 and RO7 are suspect, but there are no finished CG reported at all.

So your observations smack of dissatisfaction bias....

Since counterfeit means 'fraudulent imitation' does that mean you feel ripped off?
 
Last edited:

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,553
Reaction score
1,012
Country
llLithuania
WTF are you talking about? I'm looking at the SW charts from RF (Page O28) and a German 1st line Infantry Coy gets 1xHMG, 1xMMG, etc.....
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,811
Reaction score
5,011
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
WTF are you talking about? I'm looking at the SW charts from RF (Page O28) and a German 1st line Infantry Coy gets 1xHMG, 1xMMG, etc.....
The German Rifle Coy gets "1/–" HMG, where "numbers to the left of the slash are used for RB CGs; numbers to the right are used for RO CGs" [RF11.6202]. So a German Rifle Coy gets one HMG in a Red Barricades CG but none in a Red October CG. The allocation of HMGs for the Soviet Gds Rifle Coy and the Soviet Rifle Coy is the same, i.e. "1/–" HMG.

The total number of MGs remains the same for each three company, as the number of LMGs increases in RO. My guess is that this is in response to the tendency to HMG "death stars" in RB. Because MGs tend to accumulate after a while there are an awful lot of HMGs around. Combined with a negative leader, stacks of these tend to dominate the battlescape. But that's just my guess as to why the change was made

I would have been tempted to have made a different design choice myself. Rather than removing the HMGs I would have been tempted to create a SSR that for any single attack only one HMG per Location can participate in the firegroup [EXC: TPBF]. That would encourage the HMGs to spread out and make it more difficult to form large FGs directed by negative leaders. You might even do the same thing for MMGs. But perhaps that is too fiddly a SSR.

JR
 
Last edited:

Jazz

Inactive
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Messages
10,553
Reaction score
1,012
Country
llLithuania
The German Rifle Coy gets "1/–" HMG, where "numbers to the left of the slash are used for RB CGs; numbers to the right are used for RO CGs" [RF11.6202]. So a German Rifle Coy gets one HMG in a Red Barricades CG but none in a Red October CG. The allocation of HMGs for the Soviet Gds Rifle Coy and the Soviet Rifle Coy is the same, i.e. "1/–" HMG.

The total number of MGs remains the same for each three company, as the number of LMGs increases in RO. My guess is that this is in response to the tendency to HMG "death stars" in RB. Because MGs tend to accumulate after a while there are an awful lot of HMGs around. Combined with a negative leader, stacks of these tend to dominate the battlescape. But that's just my guess as to why the change was made

I would have been tempted to have made a different design choice myself. Rather than removing the HMGs I would have been tempted to create a SSR that for any single attack only one HMG per Location can participate in the firegroup [EXC: TPBF]. That would encourage the HMGs to spread out and make it more difficult to form large FGs directed by negative leaders. You might even do the same thing for MMGs. But perhaps that is too fiddly a SSR.

JR
I stand corrected....but would also draw attention (as JR does) to the fact that the Russian 1st line Rifle Coys get the same allocations and the German 1st line Rifle Coys.

Which gets me bck to my original question....WTF is this disparity that you are talking about?
 

RandyT0001

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
421
Reaction score
285
Location
Memphis, TN
First name
Cary
Country
llUnited States
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
505
Reaction score
18
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
The disparity is this, the Germans' get a TOTAL of 6 HMG in X Men.

Or did I miss something.

Sure be interested if so....
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
505
Reaction score
18
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I'm interested in this allegation because I haven't popped open the wallet for this module.


I hear what you are saying about the HMGs, just from the perspective that the Germans could easily convert their MGs from LMG MMG to HMG and vice versa. Are you saying the Germans can't even buy them in a special weapons platoon?

As for the comment about 'widely reported' pro-Russian bias, there is no evidence of this on ROAR. Yes, it does look like RO2, RO3 and RO7 are suspect, but there are no finished CG reported at all.

So your observations smack of dissatisfaction bias....

Since counterfeit means 'fraudulent imitation' does that mean you feel ripped off?
After a 20 year wait for the extension of RB one would expect am absolutely stellar product, with given the amount of available data on this would not be too hard. To the last point first, the game is new so the win/ loss etc is not really known as yet. Also one has to take account of how experienced both players are in any game.

The map itself is so far the best part of it and if the ASL part was as good as that it would be something else.

I played Men of Steel and this was IMHO and not so much a game as a "design that had to be". By this I mean there were preconceived notions about what this battle was going to be about. As a result the game was not fun and the design did not represent any historic battle. How does one come to the notion that the external factory walls became( as in this games SSR) fortified locations.

To the point at hand SW allocation. There may be ways to limit somewhat HMG allocation, but to make a scenario with a LIMIT of 6 HMG for a CG ( X Men) is another example of reverse engineering a game.

While the Russians get similar small amounts it plays into the Russian hands because the German will NOT be able to use what are normally given to them.

Lastly, and once again an example of reverse engineering the German's do not get any HT in RF. Why?

One thing I do like is that it looks like it may be possible to "run out of men" the endless reinforcements in RB are not mirrored here.

I would also be very interested to talk to any play testers that did so while the game was designed.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
505
Reaction score
18
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
The German Rifle Coy gets "1/–" HMG, where "numbers to the left of the slash are used for RB CGs; numbers to the right are used for RO CGs" [RF11.6202]. So a German Rifle Coy gets one HMG in a Red Barricades CG but none in a Red October CG. The allocation of HMGs for the Soviet Gds Rifle Coy and the Soviet Rifle Coy is the same, i.e. "1/–" HMG.

The total number of MGs remains the same for each three company, as the number of LMGs increases in RO. My guess is that this is in response to the tendency to HMG "death stars" in RB. Because MGs tend to accumulate after a while there are an awful lot of HMGs around. Combined with a negative leader, stacks of these tend to dominate the battlescape. But that's just my guess as to why the change was made

I would have been tempted to have made a different design choice myself. Rather than removing the HMGs I would have been tempted to create a SSR that for any single attack only one HMG per Location can participate in the firegroup [EXC: TPBF]. That would encourage the HMGs to spread out and make it more difficult to form large FGs directed by negative leaders. You might even do the same thing for MMGs. But perhaps that is too fiddly a SSR.

JR
Or add a new inf group.

HW 1: RB

HW 2: RB minus the 81mm and only available ( every X day)

While removing the HMG from the Ger Rifle Pl and reducing the HW 1 by Y amount.

That way HMG get fed into the battle as semi independent units. The other idea is to make B# 11 if MMG and HMG are not manned by dedicated crews.

This thus reduces HMG within a game.
 

xenovin

Elder Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
826
Location
Skynet
First name
Vincent
Country
llUnited States
I know nothing of RF development but I do know a criticism of RB was that after a few days the Germans would have kill stacks of HMGs with 10-2 leaders and players thought it was unrealistic and slight unbalanced. So they may have cut back on HMGs for play balance and not historical reasons.
 

Eagle4ty

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
3,735
Reaction score
1,389
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
RB/RO are your games, if you'd rather substitute RB type units to the RO CG, go right ahead as long as it's OK with your opponent. As Xenovin has stated though, I believe this was more of a design choice than an Historical one. My buddies and I have even played the RB CGs using the VotG company strengths just to see how they worked out and felt. It's your game!
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
916
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I know nothing of RF development but I do know a criticism of RB was that after a few days the Germans would have kill stacks of HMGs with 10-2 leaders and players thought it was unrealistic and slight unbalanced. So they may have cut back on HMGs for play balance and not historical reasons.
This
 

STAVKA

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
337
Reaction score
131
Location
East Front
Country
llFinland
I know nothing of RF development but I do know a criticism of RB was that after a few days the Germans would have kill stacks of HMGs with 10-2 leaders and players thought it was unrealistic and slight unbalanced. So they may have cut back on HMGs for play balance and not historical reasons.
The change is due to unrealistic/historical reasons and also the play fun reason, the balance issue is measured thereafter.
 
Top