Now THIS is realistic game combat:

http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/

paradiddlebob said:

pfft, thats still twice as fun as ARMA

thejughead said:

I'm guessing that a unit fires, and the target reacts steping back out of range and therefore can't be shot, effectively moving faster than a speeding bullet..

Warboss Krag said:

Major Mishap said:

Well when do they reload their weapons?  Again there is a level of abstraction for reloading the rifles, so there should be one for action/reaction.

Major Mishap said:

It is a tun based game, not a physics simulator. It's an abstracted action/reaction mechanic, not superhuman speed.

The unit that is reacting, moving out of range in this case, has watched an enemy unit approach their position and knows, based on how war works, that they are in danger of taking fire. They decide to start moving back to prepare for the ensuing engagement.  

They are not moving faster than a speeding bullet, they are reacting to the situation on the ground in front of them. 

 Maybe so in this one particular situation, but if they saw enemy moving towards them they would react when the enemy moves forward and not AFTER they start shooting, it's a bit to late then.  Diving for cover is one thing, but not stepping back because you know you are out of range as all the bullets suddenly stop and drop to your feet.

 A reaction move is only 6" so I think of it more as displacing away, in a bounding Overwatch, covering fire method, making them much more difficult to hit as they attempt to get out of effective range. Logic problem solved.  

PS I've experienced displacement under fire from both sides of the equation. Hitting a moving target that is returning suppressive fire on the two-way range is truly an heroic feat, which usually buys you a hit back. 

 Terrain is abstract in this game… it uses TLOS for obstruction but firing through any "area terrain" results in a cover save. Vehicles also gain cover if your firing through terrain as well. So stand your Med walker behind a felt forest with one tree and it still gets soft cover as long as you cant draw a line from the firing units base to the vehicles base. pg 42 has a nice pic and explanation of vehicles, los and cover. 

KevinBakon said:

I continue posting simply to keep the discussion going about various issues the fan boys don't want to think or talk about.  Without negative feedback, a discussion about game issues becomes irrelevant.

Discussing negative issues only undermines a game if the company involved takes no action to address those issues, and the fan base becomes disillusioned because of it.

I don't know what FFG will do to address the issues with Warfare, but they need people willing to point out things playtesters obviously missed if they want to know about issues.

A reaction move is only 6" so I think of it more as displacing away, in a bounding Overwatch, covering fire method, making them much more difficult to hit as they attempt to get out of effective range. Logic problem solved.

PS I've experienced displacement under fire from both sides of the equation. Hitting a moving target that is returning suppressive fire on the two-way range is truly an heroic feat, which usually buys you a hit back.

I do consider displacement a valid option when under fire.  Allowing a reactive move once an attack is declared, but before any effect rolls are made, however, is the equivalent of having a unit able to move after taking fire without the fire having any chance of effect.

The attacking unit is locked into its declared action, but somehow the target unit is able to move out of range or line of sight without the attacking unit able to do anything except fire at their previous, and now obviously vacant, position.

Terrain is abstract in this game… it uses TLOS for obstruction but firing through any "area terrain" results in a cover save. Vehicles also gain cover if your firing through terrain as well. So stand your Med walker behind a felt forest with one tree and it still gets soft cover as long as you cant draw a line from the firing units base to the vehicles base. pg 42 has a nice pic and explanation of vehicles, los and cover.

If they were using true line of sight, with a simple cover save for abstract area terrain, it would be less of an issue.  Area terrain, however, gets the proviso that it becomes open terrain for a unit's fire so long as the unit leader is in contact with the area terrain.  A forest of any width disappears for purposes of fire, and walkers, classed as area terrain, also become invisible so long as the unit leader is in contact.

Abstraction, I have no issue with.  I've been wargaming with abstractions for decades.  Impossible physics I have issue with, because it creates highly ridiculous game situations.

 If my disagreeing with you makes me a fan boy, so be it. I get sick of people coming on various game "fan" sites, and calling people who are fans of the game, "fan boys" in a derogatory way. I'm sick of the interwebs leet peeps only being cool and knowledgeable if they are haters, where liking said game makes one a naive fan boy. I've tried to remain civil, and even called someone who wasn't on them not being civil, but complaining to fans what's wrong (from your perspective) with a game, when they don't real you are right, is not only inflammatory, but highly ineffectual in my experience. I know, I've tried it elsewhere. If you have legitimate concerns, I recommend you take them up with FFG directly at this point.

As far as the unit committing to fire on the now vacant position once held by the enemy, that happens all the time irl!!!  Bad intel, or slow maneuver has wasted a lot of ammo.  We spent years looking for WMDs which were never located. They were either never there, or moved out just before being found. Which it was no longer matters, as an entire war was fought over an unattainable objective!

And in game terms, just as in real life, you need to pin the enemy down, or maneuver in such a way as to make it so they can't displace as you start to fire. If it helps, think of it as, they left a token rearguard to keep heads down, or they vacated just as the fire order came about. Some of he best displacement is right when the enemy finishes their move, and is taking up firing positions. Time to bug out if it looks like their fire is going to be effectual!  Most soldiers are not suicidal. In a simulated, "high noon draw" the fighter who draws while remaining stationary will be hit nearly every time, even if he wins the draw. The smart fighter, who side-steps as part of his draw, is nearly always missed, even if he draws second, or his opponent, "had the drop on him." I've had a fair number of encounters where I just missed the enemy, and realized as we were about to fire, the tangos were no longer there. I'm equally sure I've escaped a few, where the enemy held fire, as they knew we were gone. People slink away after moved upon, but just before the shots are fired too. It's not impossible physics. Hell, it's not even being ninja'd. It's just smart warfare to not be where the bullets are coming down range, and if you recognize at the last minute you are, you bug out!  This game allows you to move out if the enemy moves close, but sometimes, you might think they don't know you're there. You're ready to move, but don't want to unless you have to. Once they start pointing their weapons at you, it's a safe bet they do know you're there, and it's a good idea to displace off "the threat" of fire, and or the first few shots, rather than remain in an untenable position and take their full volley. But hey, I'm just a naive fan-boy who spent 3 years training operators in CQB in the early 90s, and am in my second decade of Law Enforcement as Marshal and as a firearms instructor, and I've only been playing miniature games since 1978. What do I know?

Gimp said:

What your calling impossible physics seems to me to be more stubborn imagination.

A model is placed behind a pile of rubble and gets cover, but he can shoot without penalty =  Impossible Physics!

No, the model represents an intelligent person who knows how to use cover. They squat, kneel, or go prone for cover, then they lean out of cover to fire, then duck back in. The model in the cover knows how to use the cover.

In a forest, they use the trees to get cover. Then they lean out, aim, fire, lean back into cover. The forest doesn't disappear.

A walker, or any vehicle, used for cover. They use the mass of a vehicle as cover, lean out, fire, get back behind the mass of the vehicle. The model doesn't move, but the imaginary army man does.

These aren't examples of impossible physics, these are the abstraction of little plastic models moving and fighting a battle. The action does not only happen at the roll of a die, the action is happening simultaneously, over a period of time only perceivable to the plastic army men. Fire from both sides might be exchanged constantly but the only fire that matters is what you roll dice for. 

I don't mean this as an attack, but I am tired of the crying foul over abstract game concepts.

even taking into account "real world" abilities to get out of a line of fire, the simple fact is that with pre-measuring in this game, players often state they are moving "as close as possible without being close enough to cause a reaction". The fact is that reaction movement is less about avoiding a bad movement and more about the dance between combats and cover.

Dear Thread,

Please go away….

Regards,

Happy with DUST Warfare 1.0.

 I think people are getting way to personal in this thread, and way to mean spirited. My understanding of the genesis of this thread was that someone asked Gimp to post his thoughts as a long time wargamer and someone who has played a lot of different wargamers over his 30 plus years in what is for most of us a pleasurable pursuit. Gimp did that. He had issues with a wide variety of different rules or factors which he enunciated pretty clearly in his inital post.  Others have done the same thing in other posts and in other threads. My guess is that there are a lot of others who post on this forum who have as many years invested in wargaming as Gimp. I know I do, I hate to admit it, but I have actually been wargaming for over 4 decades. I just happened to start at a very young age, 12, and played with guys who were almost all over 40. The funny, or maybe not so funny thing is, that despite all the rhetoric here everyone that I have played Dust Warfare with so far, have all had similar problems with the rules. I've traveled a good deal, so as to play with different groups and meet new people that share my interest in wargaming and where ever I've gone, the mere mention of various rules causes eyeballs to roll. I've also noticed that where ever the game is being played or demoed that people watching play have similar reactions.

 The big knock on this game as I see it, is that it bills itself as World War II but with a twist. Whether it's in the art work, the comics, the fluff generated by the stories creator and his team, the names of things or the histories, everything tells us this was our WW II with just the discovery of an alien ship leading to new technologies as the only variating point. So many people who have followed Dust's long and rocky road as I have (I bought and still have the original 1/20th scale playsets and comics) were expecting just that, a WW II game with new cool technologies added to existing weapons. In other words a Grenadier actually has grenades as novel as that may seem. Weapons that have the exact same name as a real WW II era weapon actually do what the real weapon did, i.e… an antitank rifle is an antitank rifle not a sniper rifle; an obstacle clearing short range mortar is just that and not a long range combat weapon etc…, and they fire at the same effective ranges, with the same rates of fire doing the same kind of damage as they really did. Weapons that are fictional successors of real WW II weapons i.e… fictional Stg 47 vs. actual StG44 have somewhat improved stats, and weapons based on the story twist i.e. phasers, lasers, zombies, trained apes, carbonite armor, and walkers well with them anything goes. Unfortunately the people who expected that have been disappointed. Those who have watched the games I've played hoping for such a game will most likely never buy a Dust product.

 Some responders ask why post those views here? A lot of people have already posted those same views to varying degrees both here and in different threads. There are actually a few reasons, besides being asked to as Gimp initially was. My guess is that most of the people posting do so because they have a hope that FFG will make changes to the game that will bring it back into alignment with the Dust story and fluff and make this an even better game than it currently is. I don't see those posts as bashing the game I see them as constructive criticism and I would hope that anyone from FFG looking at this forum take them that way. Some others responding in this thread ask repeatedly, why play the game if you don't like it? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I happen to love, love, love the mini's, and they came long before the warfare rules did. So now that I have an almost completed German and allied army what do I do with them if the game fails to meet my expectations. I can sell everything Dust related in a fit of anger and wash my hands of Dust for good, I can take the rules as published and modify them into something that more closely fits what I was hoping for and find people of like mind to play them with, I can use the mini's in perhaps another game by modifying those rules, or I can post in this forum and maybe write FFG with constructive criticisms and maybe sway them in some small way that leads to their improving the game

 I think most of the people who have posted here expressing their views, concerns and problems with small sections of the rules have done so in the hopes of doing just that and any name calling or personal criticisms are completely unwarranted.