Schuetzen and DAK Kradschuetzen feedback

Home Forums Historical Bolt Action Schuetzen and DAK Kradschuetzen feedback

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #161181
    Felix
    Participant

    ok, lol, maybe lets take about 2000 steps back here, if we may.

    Bolt Action, for me, is a fiction game with a WW2 backdrop. And that is totally cool. There is plenty of other games (CoC eg) that have much more focus on realism – BA is an action game, not a realism simulator.

    This thread, again, is and only ever really was about game mechanics. not history.
    My concern is from this kind of rule-writing that the NON-campaign/historical scene may be heading for unit/book of the month.

    As IO and others have stated, yes, the France book, RB, German book and DAK books were not written by the same people. That is a fact but not an explanation (imo) for power-creep. I feel the authors of new rules should consider the Meta – not just a bit, but very carefully, as to not make several other similar/identical entries redundant in the process and ‘fluffy’ entries at best.

    And this seems to have become a somewhat heated discussion about who is more right in historical details – totally deluding the actual content of this post. I posted this to offer up some (hopefully productive/constructive) criticism and fan feedback about newly introduced additions to a game I care about.

    Again: if motorbikes actually shot on the move or didn’t, or whether you can shoot a KAR89 or an MP40 while running backwards in diving flippers doesn’t matter.

    What matters, in this post, is that there is two entries for the same unit(s), which describe the very same unit, but one is for no apparent reason far better than the other.

    #161213
    Brin
    Participant

    Hi IO,

    Interesting, I have various Mausers but was never a great fan if honest – they are good hunting rifles. I like the action on Enfields when service rifle shooting, but much prefer the Mosin for distance work even though limited with the PU at only x3.5.

    The photo album mentioned above was a private one and contained a number of images of both Soviet and German dead from the action – so doubt if staged.

    Sleeping in barracks – think I only slept in barracks as group messing was during basic training, or when deployed. Now retired and getting to do all the things I wanted to do but unable to when serving… However, on occasion seeing re-enactors covering the modern periods I was involved with leaves one with an unusual mix of feelings. Remembering the motto – “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, and if it works use it..” I just smile and walk on by when I hear the ‘…they did this in accordance with the manual..’

    #161219
    Dr Dave
    Participant

    Can German engineers built ramps so that the MC combos can Jump over obstacles as well? Now that would be cool!

    #161229
    akaean
    Participant

    I agree that the free LMG for Schuetzen is an excessive addition. From a gameplay perspective, there is always an incentive to ‘min-max’ squads, as specialized squads are better at performing their role than a generalist squad. So for a fire support unit, you want two lmgs to maximize your ability to shoot from range. for a cqc unit you want close range weapons and abilities, like smgs.

    Compared to other armies, both Germans and Russians are very capable at specializing squads due to the incredibly flexible weapon loadouts, and if you look at the armies people are fielding at tournaments, specialized squad loadouts are omnipresent in both Soviet and German lists.

    Schuetzen are a really bad design decision because they get one of those lmgs for free, and they can take two lmgs in the squad. This is a unit that is designed to abuse the game system and actively reward players for min max list building. Their closest comparison would be to a Soviet lmg squad or a Soviet guard squad. Regulars, the option to take lmgs, but unlike the Soviets the Schuetzen are 20 points cheaper for the same squad and have superior lmgs due to buzz saw. And yes, you can make cross army comparisons because BA is so homogenized. A regular with a rifle is 10 points whether you are playing Americans, Germany, or Japan.

    I don’t even think anyone would bat an eye, if Schuetzen had to, god forbid, pay for both lmgs that they are fielding like every other squad who has access to lmgs. This isn’t an upgrade necessary to bring Germans “up to speed” either. Before and after the Western Desert Book, Germans are almost always one of the top performing armies at any tournament. They don’t always win, but they typically make up a far larger % of the upper brackets than allies do and if a tournament declares an overall winner between axis and allies, every tournament I have attended the axis win (and its not typically the Japanese armies that are skewing it). This is because their ability to specialize squads for a particular role, and how oppressive Tiger Fear is in practice. Schuetzen are completely unnecessary as a crutch to bring Germans up to speed. I’m not saying Germans were overpowered before Schuetzen either. I’m simply saying that they naturally draw competitive players due to the ability to build min maxed lists, and that Germans have not been struggling at the highest levels of competitive play in the slightest.

    I agree 100% with @Felix. The direction Warlord appears to be going with the inclusion of Schuetzen scares me. I don’t care what theater selector we are talking about, units should not be getting access to free war gear. 6 Regulars with 2 LMGs should cost 100 points whether you are playing Germans, French, Soviets, Americans, whatever. And no army should have auto take units in any given theater selector. Part of the draw of Bolt Action is that I can build my Americans as Marines, or Airborne and while the choices are different one isn’t immediately better than the other, and one isn’t showered with free options that make them better in all choices. I feel bad for German players who want to take regular units from other selectors because in the back of their mind they will have NO tabletop justification for not playing “counts-as” DAK.

    Anyway, I would not be surprised if many major events “close the loophole” going forwards. Adepticon already frequently house rules things to encourage balance. I would not be surprised if events start requiring Schuetzen to actually pay for their LMGs, and its a house rule that I feel is justified.

    #161230
    invisible officer
    Participant

    True and untrue. True in the gaming world. Everything has to be fair so pts must be on same level.

    Say those that use points.;-)

    For example K.St.N.1114 (1.11.1941) for Panzergrendiere on Kfz 70 lorry has 2 LMG in a Gruppe of 12 men. 7x Karabiner, 4x Pistol, 1x SMG 2x LMG But in BA games they are point expensive for the game value.

    I met many comments about LMG and those that want to drop them at all from their German army.

    I GUESS the authors wanted to counter that. The first has to be paid and only MG number 2 is free.

    #161235
    akaean
    Participant

    @invisible officer, like you said. Bolt Action is a game. “Historical Accuracy” kind of gets thrown out the window every single time we put a Howitzer or Mortar team on the front lines. Sure you can argue, maybe this is an enemy force penetrating into the back lines to raid an artillery barrage. But… they also have mortars and howitzers usually… also on the front lines… so never mind.

    Why do the rules let us take mortars and howitzers in a normal game? Because eschewing that particular bit of realism opens up a much larger cast of weapons and units to play with in our game of toy soldiers, and adds depth to the game play experience.

    I bring this up because Bolt Action is a game, and like any game what is effective under the dice based rules of Bolt Action does not necessarily line up 1 to 1 with the laws of physics based rules armies in WW2 operated under.

    As a game, Bolt Action needs to be balanced. Which is what points are for. If the problem is with LMGs, then their cost should be adjusted globally, not by introducing a unit that gets them at a steep discount that is only available to one army in a few theater selectors.

    And anyway, we are not having a discussion about whether “lmgs are worth it”. We are having a specific discussion about the only unit in the game that gets one free. I have never heard my German opponents complain about the cost of their Veteran infantry squads with 2 lmgs before. I have never complained about my Soviet regulars with 2 lmgs either. But that is neither here nor there.

    If you don’t use points, more power to you, but the game needs to be balanced around points to function as a fair game. And I don’t want to end up in a W40K esque world where every single infantry choice has their own unique special rules. We already have army wide special rules and Warlord has a tough enough job balancing those.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by akaean.
    #161244
    invisible officer
    Participant

    But it has effect only to other units in THAT campaign book. Not in others.

    ———–

    Artillery was used in front line as my own father had to regret at Bobruisk. FO in a 10,5 cm lFh battery. All guns destroyed at close quarters. He survived with a lot of soviet steel in his body for rest of his life. Airport security: Beeeeeep. There was a reason why German field artillery guns up to 17 cm had special direct fire AT amo. And a 0 setting at HE. Shotgun like. (And each battery had an LMG)

    The problem in 28 mm is that few are willing to field a real sized battery with models. A bit expensive.

    #161270
    akaean
    Participant

    Look. If you are primarily a narrative gamer, especially if you are a narrative gamer who puts historical unit compositions against each other to recreate historical battles without points. You don’t have a horse in this race. The discussion of whether Schuetzen are too good balance wise compared to other units is a balance question that really only comes to play when doing pick up games at a local club (where you will seldom have a historical match up), or attending tournaments of various sizes and flavors (where typically players are matched based on Swiss pairings as opposed to recreating battles).

    I am honestly surprised at the amount of historical gas lighting that is going on in this thread about game balance and the direction of the game from a rules perspective. From a historical perspective it matters absolutely nothing how many imaginary points are paid for an lmg. It matters a lot when you are getting ready to attend a local tournament.

    If you are in favor of Schuetzen getting a free lmg, than address it from a gameplay perspective. Why is this healthy for the game? How does this not obsolete (from a gameplay perspective) other German regular infantry sections?

    Posters like myself and Felix have laid out our reasoning behind why we feel that Schuetzen are a poor addition from a balance perspective. What are the balance arguments in favor for why Schuetzen are not a problem from a balance perspective?

    EDIT: As to the argument that Schuetzen are balanced compared to other WD selectors, which WD allied selectors are over performing? If there are issues with those allied selectors they should be brought up and addressed separately. At the end of the day, most tournaments allow people to bring lists from any selector they choose. So all selectors need to be somewhat balanced against each other, regardless of book.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by akaean.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by akaean.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by akaean. Reason: Grammer, etc
    #161293
    invisible officer
    Participant

    Hmm “healthy”? If it makes the game more historical and less fantasy OOB based? Hip hip …….

    The firepower of a German Gruppe was much better. That’s one of the reasons why the war lasted so long.

    “Narrative” gamers are no second class BA Gamers. I know many Gamers that do not care for point ballance. That never attend a competition.
    And many that play competitive. Some of them using streamlined units with best cost / effect ratio. Using any loophole they find.

    That LMG rule is in one campaign book. Not in the base rules. The newer Budapest Campaign book p. 108 has 2 LMG but at 20pts each.
    There is no “Warhammer Effect”.

    In fact it is the historical Background that prevents it. No option to invent a super SS man with wings and Orc teeth in historical BA. They can tinker with the points but no miniature will go out of the game because a “race” is no longer in the Basic rules.

    Hmmmm. some game campaign book scenarios have one side with more points. To make it historical. Should they be omitted?
    šŸ˜‰

    Surely not. They are options. Like the SchĆ¼tzen unit.

    If the game partners are unable to discuss these options……

    #161320
    akaean
    Participant

    ā€œNarrativeā€ gamers are no second class BA Gamers. I know many Gamers that do not care for point ballance. That never attend a competition.

    I agree with you 100%. Narrative games are an excellent way to play Bolt Action, and i actually have a lot of envy for people in communities with the collections to set up actual historical scenarios and recreate moments from history to game with.

    Classes of gamers has nothing to do with what I was talking about at all though. A narrative game has a different set of parameters, which are generally different from the parameters of a regular pick up game or a large or small tournament. My point was that if you are creating a narrative game, points don’t matter. So a discussion about how many points something should cost shouldn’t have an impact for narrative gamers.

    The German Fire Power advantage is represented by the Buzzsaw rule, and its represented by the superior weapon load outs (including the ability to take two lmgs in any capacity) available to Germans. Having a single unit in a single selector get free LMGs does a very poor job representing this.

    As to your point about Budapest paying full price for lmgs, I ask you this. If you were attending a GT, why would you take regular infantry with 2 LMGs from the Budapest selector over the WD Selector? Remember, generally speaking most tournaments allow players to build a list from any selector in any of the campaign books. So it doesn’t matter if its just in one selector. I suppose we will have to see if it infects tournament lists, or if tournaments start restricting people to generic reinforced platoons as a result of abuse. But that isn’t something I want to see as one of the fun things about attending tournaments is seeing people’s unique and themed armies.

    Finally, to your last point, “Scenarios” are different from “Selectors”. That goes without saying. A Scenario might call for a point disparity and different objectives for both sides. But the underlying selector is what creates the rules for army books. Competitive games have scenarios too, albiet those are scenarios designed for armies of equal points.

    I apologize if you felt that I was insinuating that narrative gamers are second class in anyway. That is obviously not true. What I am saying is that in a thread about whether a certain choice is over centralizing and will have a negative effect on the GT meta… isn’t really a concern that narrative players generally have. Points are inherently not narrative anyway. They are arbitrary numbers picked designed to balance armies so players can more easily eyeball what will be “fair” from a game perspective. Points thus need to be set based on making sure the games are fair, and points imbalances should be fixed because they make the game less even between players when they are abused.

    I may not play as many narrative games as I would like, but I don’t understand why people use narrative arguments to justify points imbalances that make it difficult to balance games for people who play primarily pick up games.

    EDIT:
    On the point of discussion between players. You cannot assume you will always have a chance to discuss things with your opponent. You show up at a local tournament and your opponent is bringing 5 squads of Shutzen to get access to 5 free lmgs? You can *try* talking to him about it, he will show you the rule, say tough beans, and you play your game. No negotiation, either you are right or your opponent is right and its up to the TO / rulebook to determine. This is why non narrative gamers care about points costs and things. You can’t just discuss whether something is sporting or not with your opponent before a game in certain settings. You prepare for the worst, but that doesn’t mean you don’t care if something is unhealthy for the game that you love.

    Its also hard to have those conversations with somebody you have just met. You may be blessed with an amazing community of people with a wealth of armies and a passion for creating fun scenarios. But many people are not blessed with a vibrant local community, and some have to travel quite far to get a game in with somebody they have just met. If that person doesn’t want to take a different choice, or (quite justifiably I might add) argues that their totally rules legal army is fine. You may be in a take it or leave it situation. There is an old saying that ‘beggars cannot be choosers’ and for people with very limited options on when and where they can play, they are quite frequently at the mercy of others. Playing by the rules is the only consistent they can guarantee. Players without a stable community aren’t second class either. “It doesn’t matter if its not balanced, just discuss it with your opponent” is a non answer that only applies to a certain type of game and inadvertently leaves people without the freedom to find ideal opponents who fit their own mantras in a really bad place. If its not balanced, then the points should be fixed is really the solution that is best for everyone.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by akaean.
    #161614
    Felix
    Participant

    Yipp, nothing wrong with historical’esque game-styles. never said anything to that end neither. But akaean makes a very fair point:

    If you disagree with my assessment, but don’t play with points to begin with, you in fact have no horse in this discussion. Do I have a problem with infantry being called schuetzen? nope, I even think that would’ve been a more accurate description for german pre-42 infantry period – but again – not the point.

    it all boils down to a new boxed set & book being published, alongside overpowered unit rules.
    hence the Warhammer reference.
    And they may be from a campaign book, but since those generally are legal in events and these units are NOT locked to certain theatre selectors (which are NOT legal) they are fair game for competitive-whatever-you-want-play.

    So back to what akaean said: if you don’t play competitive or with points in fact, this thread is 100% irrelevant to you. you can play regular infantry and just give them 2 LMGs, 3 or 10 if you feel the scenario would allow that. also call them whatever you want, right? Also not saying anything bout second tier players, not at all – to each their own, but this is clearly marked as criticism from a gamer pov looking at game mechanics.
    I too don’t see how historical background has any weight in this particular discussion.

    Call them unit A and unit B and strip history from the models, now they are game pieces:

    you can take 6 pieces rolling 5 dice to achieve X
    OR
    you can take 6 pieces rolling 10 dice to achieve X

    speak in chess, you can take a regular tower, or you can take a tower that moves like a queen. up to you, no difference, but picking the handicap is your decision. well, and you kinda got to buy the new box just published…

    not sure how or what were all talking about anymore tbh.

    PS: maybe in the future just tie up OP units in specific theatre selectors, which are generally prohibited in events anyhow. there is many options here, I pre-ordered the new France and Normandy books, will check them out and see if the those units were one-offs or if this is continued in newer publishings (crossing fingers)

    #161616
    invisible officer
    Participant

    Hmmm,
    I guess there are free units in other books. Raw Soviet foot or British observers?
    For “Flavor”

    So why should one care for a free second German LMG in squad in ONE book added for flavor?

    You ask for an explanation for the difference. Claiming that different authors are not enough.
    But for me it is.
    The authors are no workers of Warlord. Some teams write not even on same continent.
    Hmmm, may be that the difference was not even intended by the Warlord gods. Not easy to proof read many books.

    There is no hint that the free LMG has any effect on units in future books. Not in the ones by Mark or Bryan.

    Again: Bryan took the second LMG possible but have to be paid way in the very new Budapest book.

    For me that free LMG rule discussion is like the nagging about bad TV programs. As long as there is a power switch and something to paint……..

    If you dislike that book for that rule, play another campaign without it. I hope you are not forced to play against these SchĆ¼tzen by the soft cushion inquisition.
    šŸ˜‰

    The boxes, they are filled with single miniatures. If you dislike the composition, drop some or buy more.

    The great thing compared to Fantasy is that rule changes have much less effect. There is no historical way for a squad Panzerfaust in France 1940 or two LMG in a 1939 Gruppe.
    So better not strip history from the rules.

    Oh, I wrote: “I know many Gamers that do not care for point ballance.”
    Ballance. Not points at all. They use the points as a Guideline to do armies. But in fun games, who care if the “enemy” has some edvantages? Friends that use the points by the thumb and laugh at lost but funny games.

    Well, there are those that game with strangers to win win win. Competition. And think a lost game is a lost evening. A type of persons I avoid to meet as much as possible.

    #161652
    akaean
    Participant

    @Felix

    PS: maybe in the future just tie up OP units in specific theatre selectors, which are generally prohibited in events anyhow. there is many options here, I pre-ordered the new France and Normandy books, will check them out and see if the those units were one-offs or if this is continued in newer publishings (crossing fingers)

    I’m not sure where you play primarily, but at least Stateside, I have already noticed the competitive community starting to heavily house rule Bolt Action. This includes various rules modifications, and restrictions placed on list building.

    Adepticon 2019 in Chicago for instance, the Nationals tournament rules were as follows:
    1000 points, Max two reinforced platoons, no tank platoons, no special characters, max 18 order dice, no planes, no theater selectors

    Origins GT 2019 in Columbus Ohio;
    1000 points, infantry platoons, no theater lists, no vehicle flame throwers, 14 dice max.

    I am not sure if this is an increasing trend across the globe, but on the whole, I have noticed that the United States competitive community is moving away from Theater Selectors in their largest events. With a sharp move away from theater selectors after Western Desert was released. I have a suspicion that people were already getting fed up with overpowered theater selectors thanks to Soviet players abusing the Stalingrad selector, and Shuetzen were the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

    That said there are still “narrative” tournaments, that provide bonus points for building an army to a certain time period. And those generally seem to allow “pre-approved” theater selectors from the time period they are representing.

    The only thing that bothers me is that its relatively few theater selectors that are broken, but those have ruined it for the rest of us. I have been working on a Free French Western Desert army, which is generally fine for the most part. And I just need to accept that it will be competitively illegal in the vast majority of tournaments I can attend in the US.

    Anyway, has anybody else noticed an uptick of competitive house rules and restrictions recently?

    #161707
    Dr Dave
    Participant

    So thereā€™s no consistency across the lists in different theatre books right?

    Thatā€™s because each book has a different author and thereā€™s no cross checking from one to the next, since no one imagined cross-theatre games?

    #161723
    invisible officer
    Participant

    I must confess that I play no games that mix eras / Areas. Fantasy style. No 1944 Panzergrenadiere against 1940 French. No Japanese against Polish.

    So I have no problem with the campaign books not being 100 %consistent.

    That the competitive community increases house ruling is no proof that there is something wrong with the campaign rules.
    Trying to make working events for armies 1939 – 45 ……

    They could go to the base rules and not allow any units from the campaign books. But they want the best from all worlds.
    šŸ˜‰

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.