Hi

I am putting together some stat cards, a la Felkor's design (hope that is OK Felkor), for conventional WW2 vehicles and infantry plus a few other weird war minis I've got for Dust Warfare, but as i don't have the rule book yet (seems to be taking ages to get here to the Antipodes ) I am struggling a little with coming up with comparative stat lines for regular troops, I am taking the general line that conventional versions of weapons (e.g. .50 cals, .30 victory MGs) are 1 level down on the stats of their super versions, so if a "modern" .50 cal is 4/1, 3/1, 2/1, 1/1 vs infantry then I am making the conventional version of a .50 cal 3/1, 2/1, 1/1 -.

Does this sound like a reasonable approach?

Armour is easy for Infantry, all conventional infantry are armour 1. I am going with tanks having comparable armour to their rough walker equivalents,but similarly downgrading their weaponry as with the infantry weapons, I am rationalisng that by taking the view that the more modern versions of weapons have better technology in their manufacture, ammunition (e.g. vk infused alloys for shells etc..) whereas existing tanks have the orignial versions of weapons tech. Fast and loose I know

In terms of infantry miniature scale issues (am using Bolt Action and Artisan minis for conventional troops) I get around that by treating Dust infantry minis as being elites who had some kind kind of super soldier treatment applied to them, hence their bigger stature (shameless rip-off from Captain America).

Can't wait to play my regular brit commando troop discovering and infiltrating a secret Blutkreutz lab and fighting a few dust "super soldiers" scenario

I am unsure how to approach the AP side of things tho for conventional troops, at this stage I am just going with a number that feels right, does anyone have a more scientific way of calcualting AP for conventionals?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Hubminator

Hubminator said:

Haha! Since my cards are 90% cut and paste from the rulebook, I don't think I can claim any copyright on them or their design. :-)

This is cool but some of this has been done for tactics so this might help

http://twc-dust-tactics.blogspot.com/

Jolly good, thanks for that will have a squizz

As for 'conventional' weapons, I don't think much has been done with their penetration and ammo; an M2 .50 cal looks just the same as always. I think that the VK tech has largely been used only for super-weapons and armor, making the latter lighter and stronger than normal steel. Also, the alien tech seems to have been used for power generators. So I'd leave the weapons the same on the 'conventionals.'

As for armor, 1 is for unarmored vehicles, 2 is for light stuff that's barely armored - halftracks, scout cars, etc. - 3 would be for up-rated tanks such as the Sherman, the Chaffee, the Pz IV, and even the basic T34/76. Armor 4 would apply to such things as the Panther, the T34/85, and the Tiger I. Armor 6, believe it or not, applies to the King Tiger, the JS II, the IS 122, the Jagdtiger, the Jagdpanther, and the Pershing. Armor 7 is right out, and should be the property of the super-heavy VK walkers and the Ferdinand, aka the Elefant.

I do like the idea that 'normal' vehicles might be coming into play. It just doesn't make sense, if VK tech and the VK material is so rare, to completely supplant this resource with VK-based rarities. Particularly if you're Josef Stalin, a man who was never ham-strung with the sort of attention-deficit "what's cool right now" impulsiveness of Adolf Hitler. Unkle Yo knew that he had tens of thousands of 'conventional' tanks, and he used them. I don't see why this universe would be any different. Sure, normal stuff isn't as light, can't be deployed as swiftly, and isn't as fast, but it can sure make up for those characteristics with volume, particularly during more set-piece engagements.

(It would be nice to see tank-bearing cannons that have HE with them. The auto-loaded walker cannons - Ludwig and Pounder - obviously are only packing AP, since they're practically useless against infantry, relying on their machineguns instead.)

(Oh, and please don't make the mistake the Dust Wars comic did, including M5 Stuarts in the picture as active tanks, years after their demobbing and replacement by M24 Chaffes.)

I'd like to see some form or cost based unit builder for conventional tanks…

ie you want a tank that's armour 5, base 25pts.

you want an flamethrower on it, 10 pts

2 MG's 4 pts

etc etc

This would let folks build custom tanks based off real designs without having to list every tank that ever existed.

It would also most likely make them cost a little more than the walkers, keeping the preference to fielding cheaper walkers… but having the option to field other stuff

I've played with a few "real" units, but I typically don't like the TWC cards linked above. I've used a tank rule in tactics were a unit gets an additional -/1 when firing on its flanks and an additional -/2 when firing on its rear. It still has to be able to hurt the tanks original armor level, but it stands a good shot of crippling damage if you roll any hits. I also make tanks have to pay a movement point to change facing in tactics, while walkers can do so for free

Hmm. Ever seen a tracked vehicle change its facing? Sure, it's a pain on a wheeled vehicle, but tracks pivot quite nicely. And, as a matter of fact, walkers do not (try it yourself; you're a walker! Not just a hip swivel, but a full facing change, in place. And on that, don't some walker models have the body of the walker on a swivel themselves, making most of the German walkers technically capable of 'turret' movement?).

While the idea of the make-your-own-vehicle is interesting, it is also subject to some abuse. However, that could be nullified by insistance on using real-world models. On that subject, Warlord models in the UK does make 28mm WWII models at a reasonable price (when compared to the other 28mm model maker, GW).

You might also have a look at 1/50 and 1/48 scale die cast companys you might find a assmbled and painted model to use if your not to keen on the modleing side of gaming some love it others not so much. its nice to have both options….

As a pretty frequent visitor to the armor school at Ft Knox and owning a pretty solid library on armored warfare, I would actually take the opposite opinion on tanks being able to turn easier on the spot. Wheeled vehicles often have to go point to point in order to flip around, but this is often pretty quick. Tracked vehicles can rotate in place but they typically would do this from a full stop, and IMO this isn't nearly as quick as something like a walker would be able to pull of because it can twist and contort like a person who is walking around without putting pressure on its treads or destroying the terrain underneath(an understated hazard!). People very often overstate the speed that a tracked vehicle can do this. Do it too fast, and you can easily throw a track and essentially remove your vehicle from the fight and leave you in a very vulnerable position.

I would however think that a tank would have advantages in straight line speed, overall size/silhouette, and frontal armor/survivability. Walkers main advantage would be multiterrain capability and overall agility (great for dense terrain like city streets, crags, or thick forests). Always an intersting discussion!

My first sentence sounds like I'm in the military or was, and I did not want that to come across that way. I merely lived relatively near the armor school when it was at Knox (I think it has since moved, along with the Patton museum ) and went several times to see cool things. One of my internet "pet peeves" is people who claim to be in the military to gain some sort of cache or respect, and I despise that. I do love buying books and watching demonstrations though

Yes, indeed, track turning on the move is not sanguine. I was actually thinking of a stationary pivot, really. And as for the maneuverability of Dust walkers? Pathetic. You see, the maneuverability we usually associate with walking comes from swivel-hipped humans; with said pelvic flexibility, adding in the counter-weight of the mobile arms, turning is something of an on-a-dime proposition (with some surprisingly massive blokes managing awesome maneuverability - running backs in particular). Maybe Gundam-style Mobile Suits, possibly Battletech Battlemechs, but not Dust walkers. I'm afraid the best model for their maneuvering extant is the AT-ST from Return of the Jedi. Watch it again, and you'll see what I mean.

I'm glad to hear that walkers like these would have maneuverability limitations. When I first read the vehicle rules for moevment and firing arcs, I thought, "Why these restrictions? They're walkers, not tanks!" Good to haer the restrictions actually make some sense.

OK, good call on conventional weapons like the .50 cals being the same stat line, and tank armour will adjust my cards accordingly, I am trying to contrast the standard dust assault rifle (stg 44, M1 Assault rifle) with their conventional usage equivalents M1 Garand, Lee Enfield etc…, so am dropping by one level their efficacy vs targets.

I have not seen the rule book yet but understand there are rules for tracked and wheeled locomotion for vehicles, so I am hoping for conventional tanks etc… I can just apply these rules and not have to make up any of my own. Will post the cards up when they are done if anyone is keen. I am quite keen to see how the rocket launcher on the Sturm Tiger functions in a urban game, have given it the demolition characteristic

Thanks for the suggestions!

If I might make a suggestion related to an arms quibble: The .50 cal machinegun. Whoever came up with the basic stats showed a lack of respect for this shell, and heavy machinegun shells in general, that borders on the flagrantly insulting. Sure, against lightly armored infantry, it's only about as good as a normal .30 cal or so. Against infantry behind hard cover, now…you need a classic Squad Leader stone building to weather someone saying "Come to Christ" with a Ma Deuce. Same with the Russian DhSK 12.7mm, and that goes double for the KPV 14.5mm anti-tank rifle round!

My point being that heavy machineguns (maybe even a German 13mm - they used them on their fighter planes, mounted atop the nose) should do 3/1 against Armor 3 infantry, and at least 2/1 against Armor 4 infantry. They can even damage Armor 3 vehicles, for Pete's sake! (Particularly the KPV and its anti-tank rifle sniper counterparts - yes, the Russians employed these in 6-man, 3-gun squads, and went shooting at German tank vision slits. No lie.) I can't see personal heavy armor being more incredibly damage-resistant than the armor on a light walker.

Nice to see I am not the only one who think the .50 Cal and .30 Cal should not be so similar. I also agree with Jowinus that there's thing I dislike about the linked cards. I hate tanks having the reload skill, a tank loader can load very fast especially with the smaller shells used during the time period. As for the tank pivot, newer MBTs can do it pretty quick, but WW2 tanks would be reduced by there track and shifting of gears. Another big thing is that tanks are still in major use and still beat Walkers, in the Dust Tactics Zvergrad book, the SSU beat the Axis in an open field engagement, both vehicle types offer different benefits, they just need testing to determine their cost, but the a ks and half tracks shouldn't be costed more, having to find a acceptable model will often stop the average player from fielding them. The Bolt Action stuff is nice and they have a good assortment of vehicles to choose from half tracks to armored cars to tanks. I also agree with Warboss Krags armor values maybe jump the medium tanks to 4 and the Panther to 5 to represent Armor advances they incorporated across the board.

The impression I get of VK armor is similar to that of the "transparent aluminum" metal actually made in China a few years back (you take molten steel and superfreeze it, causing the molecules to align. It gives a steel that is 5 times stronger than normal high-grade steel, millimeter for millimeter, making it give the same protection with 1/5 the thickness and resultant mass. The only problem is, it's really overly expensive to make. The team that cracked the process is cracking the whip to refine that process to make it much cheaper. Oh, and the stuff really is transparent, like glass! Reality is often stranger than fiction). It's not unreal, it's just better. Without something really light-weight that provides equivalent protection, walkers would suck. So an armor 4 walker probably only weighs about 15-20 tons at the outside (stats provided by anyone Japanese notwithstanding; I have yet to see anything anime or anime-like where any sort of even quasi-realistic masses are listed. Mobile Suit Gundam, RX-78, is so large that the air inside it, at sea level, probably masses more than the entire fantasy is said to weigh), not 23-30 tons, like WWII tanks (Pz IV, Sherman, T34). So an armor 5 walker (Mk III) would probably mass about 25-30 tons, not 45 like the Panther.

That being said, I'd rate a Bradley IFV at Armor 4, and an Abrahms at 8+.

I know something else that needs to be done is also to make Warfare point values for units on dust models, but if we make a good system for that it will make costing conventional vehicles easier.

SGTManuel said:

Dont forget along with smaller shells those tanks also had very small turrets, we get alot of details about tanks and thier crews from the Flames of War game some tanks turrets were so smal you could only do one of three things , load the main gun, fire the turret MG or sight for the driver…pick one…crazy huh?

What tanks have reload ? if you list them I might be able to give a few details about the real ones and how they performed if thier listed in some of my books.

The 50 & the 30 cal are not very much alike at all….thats weird!

One of the set of cards that someone made for tactics they gave every conventional tank reload, and in warfare the .30 cal and .50 cal are very similar. M2s are vastly superior I know they did it for balance, just hate how weak they made them, standard body armor is no help from .50 Cal fire.

Ah, the old cry of "game balance!" Poppycock, pure poppycock. Rather than degrading capabilities, particularly capabilities of things with known qualities, the answer, in a point-based system, is to raise the points of the unit that possesses the superior capabilities. I, for one, would have cheerfully raised the price of units armed with .50 MGs by about 5 points just for superior infantyr armor penetration (meaning 3/1 against armor 3, and 2/1 against armor 4). The cry "game balance" is a pseudonym for "no-one should be better than anyone else," and is sort of a mantra of timid designers who are afraid to admit that reality is often unbalanced on its own…

On a separate thread, the idea is raised about powered armor 3 carrying bigger weapons. Wouldn't it have been nice to see a US armor 3 team carrying nothing but Ma Deuces?

New England AT-43! (Alternate Timeline 1943) said:

I would give most of the tanks reload too due to the walkers all having automatic hi-tech reload systems and/or twin guns, walkers also need to be better somehow than tanks, or why bother with walkers in the first place? A pair of legs done not make an AFV better than a low profile, stable tank.

Actually, the advantage of walkers is already in the game! (Thinking ahead; how nice.) Take a look at the 'tracks' and 'wheels' listings in the unit modifiers section. Walkers have huge advantages for traversing terrain, which is the only real reason to have one of the silly things (high silhouette, exposed and vulnerble motive gear, really complex machinery, small crew compartment, etc.).