Share
Go down
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:39 am
nickdives wrote:No recce landrovers in BAOR, only UK based.

I was with the Recce Sqn in 1982 mixed Troops of Scimitar and Scorpion and a Boot Troop with Spartan, BV 202 and ZB498

By the 80s the ferret was used for liaison, SSM ride and possibly still for Engr Recce.

Thanks Nick. I'll whip the recce gunship and Ferrets out of the BAOR Armoured Div list.

Richard
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:00 am
FASCAM and DIPCM definitely weren’t in before 1985 after that I’m not sure, I’ll see if I can find an entry date.

For the off route mine could it be applied the same way as a claymore ? Just an idea.

The mine field mix is right and yes it would be laid before a battle

No rovers or ferrets were used in recce sqns as recce in BAOR other arms may of used them

CETs I believe were permanently amphibious (but could be wrong)
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:52 pm
Hi RichardC

pretty new to this system as I'm making the move over from TY. just have a quick question about Scimitars/scorpions and to a lesser extent strikers.

Is there a reason that these vehicles are not fielded in troops? Im not entirely sure how they were exactly fielded but i doubted that they would operate individually, i always assumed theyd at least operate in pairs or trios.

is it just for internal balance reasons or is it a source stating they operated individually?

cheers
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:32 am
Hi Hated

You are dead right - they would have operated in pairs and I tend to buy two of them to do just that. I was just trying to follow the standard way Battlegroup lists recce forces - where they are singular. Our games tend to start with just our scouts on the board, then our main force starts to come on and our scouts either disappear into cover or they get blasted by MBTs etc. Mine tend to skulk around on the fringes, calling in mortar fire or sniping at the unwary, and then try and take objectives if required. I've also had games where the British recce elements have put up such a fight that the slowed the Soviet advance completely.

There is certainly nothing to stop you purchasing two Scimitars for instance as part of your army list. Listing them singularly gives you all the flexibiliy to design your recce force however you want it.

In fact sometimes we play games where all the choices must come from the Recce part of the list. Typically we've done this to play out a quick small game as a lead in to a bigger main force type game.

Hope this help a little

Richard
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:59 pm
Hi Richard thank for getting back to me

I see so its done this way as its how it was done in the original rules.
However in your opinion is there any reason we couldnt make them a troop of 1-2 in NORTHAG adding an extra vehicle for 20-25 points but still have them count as a single recce choice for the purpose of out scouting, Battlerating ect?

Would it be particularly unbalancing to do something like that? as although i could take 2 of them individually and have them operate in pairs, recce slots are competing with other support elements ect and in smaller games it could be a struggle to field more than a single recce vehicle.

cheers

EDIT: just as an aside from curiosity, did royal marine sections operate as 9 men as opposed to 8 like the army or is that a typo?

EDIT 2: also should Royal Marines not have the ability to select lynxs as transport helicopters? as they had 4-6 of them replace their westland scouts just after the falklands, (im unsure whether these were just to be used as TOW helos though so maby its correct to not have them as a trasport option, just curios whether any one knows about it)
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:09 am
Hated wrote:I see so its done this way as its how it was done in the original rules.
However in your opinion is there any reason we couldnt make them a troop of 1-2 in NORTHAG adding an extra vehicle for 20-25 points but still have them count as a single recce choice for the purpose of out scouting, Battlerating ect?

Would it be particularly unbalancing to do something like that? as although i could take 2 of them individually and have them operate in pairs, recce slots are competing with other support elements ect and in smaller games it could be a struggle to field more than a single recce vehicle.

Hi Hated

I have thought about this over time and right now I don't think it's necessary to change the way it works as it works - if you know what I mean. If you get a Mechanised Infantry Platoon and a Tank Troop that gives you 8 support slots to fill - generally more than enough to choose some recce etc. In a standard game, recce should be just a small part of the force so I don't see it as an issue.

In the future I might get round to putting together a Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment list, but really if you want to do that you can do it with the current list anyway. Just put your own restrictions in. We do that all the time.

Don't forget this is just a playtest version of the rules - who knows how it might work in the final version of BG:NORTHAG

Hated wrote:EDIT: just as an aside from curiosity, did royal marine sections operate as 9 men as opposed to 8 like the army or is that a typo?

EDIT 2: also should Royal Marines not have the ability to select lynxs as transport helicopters? as they had 4-6 of them replace their westland scouts just after the falklands, (im unsure whether these were just to be used as TOW helos though so maby its correct to not have them as a trasport option, just curios whether any one knows about it)

Re the nine men I'd have to go back and look at my sources but I'm reasonably confident that this was supported by what I read.

Re Lynx I'm not sure. All I read about was the use of Sea King and Wessex in terms of troop transport. I imagine Lynx would have been used in other specialist roles rather than as transports. You'd need a few of them just to lift a platoon and I think that might have been a waste of limited resources.

Richard
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:21 pm
RichardC wrote:If you get a Mechanised Infantry Platoon and a Tank Troop that gives you 8 support slots to fill - generally more than enough to choose some recce etc.


ah i see, i guess we had misinterperated the rules. I read it as though an infantry platoon would give you access to 1 support choice, rather than an infantry platoon giving you a support choice for each section and command. thanks for clearing that up for me that solves any qualms i had with it.

cheers

Nath
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 99
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Hated wrote:
RichardC wrote:If you get a Mechanised Infantry Platoon and a Tank Troop that gives you 8 support slots to fill - generally more than enough to choose some recce etc.

ah i see, i guess we had misinterpreted the rules. I read it as though an infantry platoon would give you access to 1 support choice, rather than an infantry platoon giving you a support choice for each section and command. thanks for clearing that up for me that solves any qualms i had with it.

Me too. No wonder I was struggling to get any scouts Smile
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:04 pm
Hated wrote:ah i see, i guess we had misinterperated the rules. I read it as though an infantry platoon would give you access to 1 support choice, rather than an infantry platoon giving you a support choice for each section and command. thanks for clearing that up for me that solves any qualms i had with it.

Fitz wrote:Me too. No wonder I was struggling to get any scouts Smile

Hi Gents

If you look at pretty much any army list in the infantry section you should see something like this.



Note the "For each Platoon you may choose 4 Support units" - In this case it means choices from Reconnaissance, Engineers or Specialist units.

This is different to this at the bottom of each Infantry Platoon section:



This is referring to the options immediately listed below this entry. So in the case of a British Mechanised Infantry platoon this would be - Combat Medic, Sustained Fire GPMG Team, Self-Propelled Medium Mortar Team, Milan ATGM Team and Self-Propelled ATGM Launcher (Spartan MCT). So in addition to the 4 choices from Recon, Engineers and Specialist sections of the list you can also take 4 options from the Platoon Support list.

In some of our games - particularly our BG WW2 games - we make a rule that you have to take the max number of options in the Platoon Support list before you can purchase anything else from the army list. It helps force you to take a more "historical" list rathr than just choosing all the goodies you want!

Hope that helps

R
avatar
Fitz
Posts : 99
Join date : 2018-02-12
Age : 56
Location : Christchurch, New Zealand
http://mojobob.com

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:22 am
It does help.

BUT!

This situation underlines a repeating issue in the BG rules, and that is ambiguity of nomenclature. For example, the term "unit" is used for different things in different situations, which may be fine if you're talking in general terms, but when a term is used definitionally it's important that the term be unique for each and every unique usage. If a squadron of tanks is being bought as a unit, but then each individual tank is treated as a unit for the purposes of orders and the like, confusion reigns.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using "unit" as an identifier as long as a "unit" is unambiguous under the rules.

I would recommend the addition of the term "element" to define individual vehicles, guns, and what-not.
Gun-Pit Paul
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-19

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:27 pm
Rich

Have noticed something odd......
In the 'Armd Div' list, the Milan team is 25 pts, and have a FV432 for transport for free, and can add a 2nd team for 20 pts extra, and are regular.
In the 'Inf Div' list, the Milan team is 25 pts, and for transport, have to add a Land Rover for +5 pts. Adding a 2nd team for 25 pts, and a Land Rover for +5 pts. They are also inexperienced.
In other words, 'Armd Div' is 45 pts, whilst 'Inf Div' is 60 pts.

Paul


avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:30 pm
Hi Paul

Gun-Pit Paul wrote:Have noticed something odd......
In the 'Armd Div' list, the Milan team is 25 pts, and have a FV432 for transport for free, and can add a 2nd team for 20 pts extra, and are regular.
In the 'Inf Div' list, the Milan team is 25 pts, and for transport, have to add a Land Rover for +5 pts. Adding a 2nd team for 25 pts, and a Land Rover for +5 pts. They are also inexperienced.
In other words, 'Armd Div' is 45 pts, whilst 'Inf Div' is 60 pts.

Another good pick up. This needs to be fixed. Considering I was just smashed by Milan's over the weekend I think their price in the Armou/Mech list might need to go up a tad while the cost in the Infantry list obviously needs to come down a bit.

Thanks

Richard
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:50 am
Hi Richard, couple of questions that got raised today in a game

Are laws one use only? I know in real life they are and there is a brief descriptive mention that they are in the rules but we didn't notice a concrete ruling on it and we had a few thoughts

Either they're unlimited use, representing the extras that may have been carried in transports or lugged around by other members of the section

Or that they are realistic and single use, in which case we thought that they may be quite expensive in comparison to other nato/pact options such as Pzf's/rpgs ect

What is the actual rule on this? Cause we could see it going either way.

And then some random questions to bother you with sorry
Regarding the royal marines recce land rover, is it intentional that it can only have a single gpmg? Where as the inf division can purchase an extra?

Are there any plans to add special forces units to other lists than the royal marines? I understand that realistically they'd generally wouldn't be partaking in engagements like we see in this game. However they are a fun/interesting opportunity for unique units So could be cool to see them in other lists/other NATO lists in general.

Cheers


avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:20 am
Hated wrote:Are laws one use only? I know in real life they are and there is a brief descriptive mention that they are in the rules but we didn't notice a concrete ruling on it and we had a few thoughts

Either they're unlimited use, representing the extras that may have been carried in transports or lugged around by other members of the section

Or that they are realistic and single use, in which case we thought that they may be quite expensive in comparison to other nato/pact options such as Pzf's/rpgs ect

What is the actual rule on this? Cause we could see it going either way.

Hi Nath

LAWs are like panzerfausts in standard Battlegroup.  Definitely one use only.

Hated wrote:Regarding the royal marines recce land rover, is it intentional that it can only have a single gpmg? Where as the inf division can purchase an extra?

I think it could go either way on this one.  The RM Recce Gunship unit has a lot more options than the Infantry Division one, including a MAW – so it is pretty potent.  I guess I could allow the RM unit to mount their additional GPMG (once they have paid for it) onto the Landie for an additional 5 points.

Hated wrote:Are there any plans to add special forces units to other lists than the royal marines? I understand that realistically they'd generally wouldn't be partaking in engagements like we see in this game. However they are a fun/interesting opportunity for unique units So could be cool to see them in other lists/other NATO lists in general.

There are Special Forces in some of the other lists:

  • Danish Home Guard Special Intelligence Patrol
  • Norwegian Home Guard Patrol (semi-SF)
  • USMC Force Recon Patrol
  • Soviet Motor Rifle Div – Spetsnaz LRRP
  • Soviet Tank Div – Spetsnaz LRRP
  • VDV Desant – Spetsnaz LRRP
  • Leningrad District Motor Rifle Div – Spetsnaz LRRP
  • Soviet Naval Infantry – Naval Spetsnaz LRRP


As you can see they are primarily in the Soviet lists.  I tried to think of SF roles and where they might fit into a front-line battle.  I could see the Spetsnaz units operating as part of the very far forward recce elements and linking up with mainstream army units operating on the offensive.

I could also see Royal Marine, USMC Force Recon and Norwegian/Danish Home Guard special units operating with their mainstream counterparts as the intensity of the warfare on the northern front could be quite different to that in Central Europe and you could play out raiding type forces more easily.

I’m not sure you’d find a Delta or SAS force operating on the front-line with a standard mech infantry unit defending the line.  It’s not their kind of battle and despite their training etc, I wouldn’t want to take my Pink Panther up against a horde of T-80s!  So at the moment I don't have plans for SAS or Green Berets or Delta to join the British or American lists for example.

Thanks

Richard
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:28 am
The main role of British SF (Including the HAC) during a Soviet Offencive in the 80s was as stay behind OPs. They would also attack HVT of opportunity, especially C3 nodes.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:37 pm
Thanks Nick - Exactly, which is why they don't appear in the list. No idea what role Delta would have (if any) but I also imagine that standard US SF (Green Berets) may have been dropped into Poland (for instance) to stir up resistance movements etc.

Richard
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:33 pm
That makes sense and is pretty much what I expected, was just looking for a modelling opportunity to be honest.

It makes sense that laws are single use only, I just thought that they may in turn be a bit expensive(especially the law 80 at 10 points for a single use), when compared to the carl gustav that was pointed at 15points in the Royal Marine list (gunship), is better and unlimited use.

A new question I have is regarding British anti air, unlike several other nations we dont really have a dual purpose anti air unit, as in we dont have things like shilkas/vads/gepards that can be used for air defence but also able to attack ground targets, and as such British players in the group arent taking anti air defences at all as theyre generally quite expensive and very situational, as if you opponent has brought no aircraft or doesnt draw an aircraft chit its simply dead points.
The blowpipe,javelin and rapier(and later the starstreak) however due to their design/targeting system (SACLOS) were able to attack ground targets unlike some of their nato counterparts

Theres examples of the mujahedin using the blowpipes against groundtargets, and apparently there was a test where the rapier was used against an fv432 target to test its potential against ground targets, the results of which where supposed to be quite impressive.

While i understand it would not be as good at the task as a dedicated ATGM(as in I very much doubt theyd be able to touch an mbt but soft targets and apcs would be possible), I would like to know your thoughts on whether you think this could be included into the rules as it was certainly possible in real life, and in game balance terms may allow Brits to take AA and it not just be dead points if there is no enemy aircraft.

cheers
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:39 am
Hated wrote:A new question I have is regarding British anti air, unlike several other nations we dont really have a dual purpose anti air unit, as in we dont have things like shilkas/vads/gepards that can be used for air defence but also able to attack ground targets, and as such British players in the group arent taking anti air defences at all as theyre generally quite expensive and very situational, as if you opponent has brought no aircraft or doesnt draw an aircraft chit its simply dead points.
The blowpipe,javelin and rapier(and later the starstreak) however due to their design/targeting system (SACLOS) were able to attack ground targets unlike some of their nato counterparts

Theres examples of the mujahedin using the blowpipes against groundtargets, and apparently there was a test where the rapier was used against an fv432 target to test its potential against ground targets, the results of which where supposed to be quite impressive.

While i understand it would not be as good at the task as a dedicated ATGM(as in I very much doubt theyd be able to touch an mbt but soft targets and apcs would be possible), I would like to know your thoughts on whether you think this could be included into the rules as it was certainly possible in real life, and in game balance terms may allow Brits to take AA and it not just be dead points if there is no enemy aircraft.

Hi Hated

I'm afraid I don't think it's a good idea to have special rules for some SAM systems to be able to engage ground targets. I think that air defence units were there for air defence - weapons were optimised for air defence and the troops trained for air defence. This doesn't mean that in some situation someone hasn't tried to use a blowpipe or rapier in a ground role but this would be pretty far from standard operating procedure I would imagine and the game can't cover every possibility.

I think the game is designed to cover SOP. We don't want a situation with people regularly rolling their Tracked Rapiers forward to engage BMPs - I kind of think that if that's the situation the Brits have already lost the game! You'd roll the Tracked Rapier off the table and and save it for another day like a real commander would.

I know it means the Brits have no dual-usage ADA assets - but that's the reality of the weapons mix the British Army had at the time and there's nothing we can do about it. It probably explains why the RAF Regiment permanently borrowed a bunch of Argentine Oerlikon cannons and took them home to defend airfields.

I played a game a while back where I was running West German Fallschirmjager defending against a Soviet Forward Security Element. I had a 20mm armed KraKa and a chap with a Stinger who had just moved onto the table. The 20mm was on Ambush Fire so I decided to move the chap with the Stinger into a better position. In the Soviet players turn a Timed Air Strike arrived and of course the 20mm AAA missed. My sole SAM was not ready to fire and the MiG-23 dropped a bunch of cluster bombs perfectly on the centre of my defences and pretty much wiped out a sizeable portion of my force. That sort of thing only has to happen once and then getting a SAM team onto the board and on Ambush Fire is now pretty much a given for me.

I don't see that as dead points if no aircraft turn up. I see it as a wise, historical investment. When I take Shilka's they pretty much sit up the back of the board waiting for the plane to arrive until I get a SAM system onto the board and on AMbush Fire - then I might move the Shilka forward.

Sorry for the long reply - but I hope you get where I'm coming from.

Richard
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:02 pm
Hi Richard, I appreciate the reply, Id much rather have a long reply with an explanation to your reasoning than you just say no and leave it at that haha.

As an aside then, do you not perhaps think that the British blowpipes and Javelins are a bit over priced?

As for the price of a British MANPAD team with a javelin the Americans/West Germans get a stingers for the same cost which are much better being advanced and having a higher attack modifier.

or could it be that stingers are too cheap?

cheers

Nath
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon May 07, 2018 4:07 am
Hey Nath

That's certainly something to consider as you can see my MANPADS SAM costs are fairly similar regardless of their attack modifier which is way too simplistic.

Richard
alicks
Posts : 21
Join date : 2018-04-03
Location : UK

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Fri May 25, 2018 9:18 am
Hi Richard

Just looking through the British Armoured list and noticed that the Armoured Platoon in warriors do not have and anti tank launchers as standard.

Should they not come with a LAW80 in each section like the Motor infantry have the MAW in each section, as i understood the MAW was phased out in favour of the LAW80.

I feel that no anti tank launchers as standard and then have to buy them for 10pts each, this makes a very costly unit.

cheers

Alex
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 187
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sun May 27, 2018 2:25 am
alicks wrote:Just looking through the British Armoured list and noticed that the Armoured Platoon in warriors do not have and anti tank launchers as standard.

Should they not come with a LAW80 in each section like the Motor infantry have the MAW in each section, as i understood the MAW was phased out in favour of the LAW80.

I feel that no anti tank launchers as standard and then have to buy them for 10pts each, this makes a very costly unit.

Hi Alex

I don't believe someone in the section carried the LAW80 as his specific weapon. I believe it was issued more like a M72 LAW.

Your suggestion however is something worth thinking about.

R
Gun-Pit Paul
Posts : 46
Join date : 2018-02-19

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:26 am
Hi Rich
Me again

In the Inf Div list (pg. 2), the Motorised Infantry Section is list as '15pts 2-r BR'
Should be '15pts 2-i BR'

On the look out for more

Paul
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:32 pm
There were LAW80’s in every section, it was a cheaper option compared to the Charlie G it also at the time was said to be able to penetrate any tanks armour (don’t know how true it actually was)
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

on Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:26 am
If i recall, LAW80 appeared late 80s early 90s.
Sponsored content

Re: Feedback/Comments/Questions on British Lists

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum