Questions, Comments, Suggestions and Answers

[Håkan Lundgren]

There are 3 dice rolled for each action if during the right circumstances the red die is higher the explosion creates a fire.

So there is actually a 25% risk of a fire starting then? What are the effects of a fire?

I know I'm nagging but would you say that KN will have a release date in 2016 or is it further into the future?

Anyway, nice with that small update. Would it be feasible for you to write these kinds of small game system tidbits (teasers) on a regular basis?
It would really serve as catalyst to come up with fun home made scenarios.


Thx

 

[Steve Overton]

I have no idea when the game series will be released. I thought it would have been long ago. But things happen.

Dave will have a much better idea of when that will occur than I do.

I was doing the updates on a daily basis but health issues don't allow for that and to be honest there is just so much I can write about the game rules.

AAR's would be much better but I was waiting on the in game graphics to continue with those. I may start those again while we wait.

Good Hunting.

 

[David Heath]

Hey Guys,

Yes, we are behind BUT I am going to have one of our top artists do the maps. We tried a few others out and the work was very nice but not what I wanted. We are going to do this right.

David

 

[Håkan Lundgren]

Hi David,

So, would you dare to guess on a release date/quarter/year?

Longing...

 

[Håkan Lundgren]

So, Steve, what about the terrain, what types are provided for in the rules? Will there be rules for dessert terrain so we could do combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and such?
Also, how will the weather affect the gameplay? Shorter LOS, negative DRMs etc?

Edit:
Will there be rules for dessert terrain so we could do combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and such?
Never mind, just saw the Iraqi screenshot over at CSW...


Best wishes
/Håkan

 

[Steve Overton]

The list of terrain for the series includes the following:





Some of these like "Dragon's Teeth" will get changed. Unless, we do a fantasy version where there are dragons!

Desert settings? Yes.
Sand? Yes. Soft Sand? Yes Rough? Yes..
Jungle settings? Yes. Jungle villages? Yes.
Rice Paddies? Yes. Rice Paddies in both the wet and dry seasons? Yes.
Urban settings? Yes.
Mountainous settings? Yes.
Village settings? Yes.
Streams and rivers? Yes.

Terrain for anywhere that has had small unit combat since 7 July 1937? Yes.


Good Hunting.

 

[Steve Overton]

As is normal in tactical games the vehicles in KN have a 'facing' on the map that determines what their firing arc and armor defensive values are. Most games have used designs to make movement easier and in my opinion undermined the most important part of the scale by making the combat resolution out of scale.

Now, just exactly what does that mean? Is that a lot of mumbling to say that I don't want KN to look like other games that are tactical?

Not in the least. If there is a reason something should be done a certain way then that's fine with me. As long as it makes logical sense and can be implemented without pages of rules.

So, here then is why KN has it's vehicles facing a hex side instead of a hex spine, like most other games do. In my opinion combat is more important than ease of movement during game play. Especially when you can have both without a tremendous difference in play.






Because a vehicle is roughly twice as long as it is wide, vehicle facing, should in my opinion have vehicles show twice as much of their side/flank aspect as they do either the front or rear.

In games were they consider ease of movement more important they have the counter aligned with a hex vortex, where 3 hexides come together, and the vehicle can make moves without worrying about changing facing as often and having to work out the more involved movement costs. Having driven tanks and APC's I can tell you that if you change the facing of an AFV even a little you have to make that happen. Very much of a change of direction requires a speed and control adjustment as well.

Put both those factors together and you have the reason that KN vehicles face a hex side and not a hex vortex.

Good Hunting.

 

[Steve Overton]

The heart of KN is the infantry model. In the game series all infantry comes in three flavors.

Green - soldiers with a minimum of training.
Regular - soldiers that have learned the basic skills and are proficient at them.
Veteran - soldiers that have mastered the skills of staying alive on the battlefield.

The Squads, Fire Teams and Crews, no matter whether they are conscripts, or elite units they all have these three experience levels.







Good Hunting.

 

[Steve Overton]

The factors on the right hand side of the infantry Squad, Fire Team and Crew counters are from top to bottom

Experience and Morale Number - Infantry Firepower Value - Infantry Firepower Range - Movement Allowance.

Each of the values may change from one unit to the next. In this case the Assault Rifle (ASR) Fire Teams have one less Morale Number than their equivalent Combat Engineer Fire Teams at the same experience level. The values often change from the 'Good Morale' side to their 'Broken Side'. in some cases broken morale units may actually have a higher morale than good morale units.

In most cases Green units have the lowest firepower at the shortest range. While Veteran units have more firepower at a greater range and when broken have a higher movement factor than broken units of other experience levels.




Good Hunting.

 

[Håkan Lundgren]

Hello again Mr Overton,

I hope this message finds you well!

I really hope that work on this game is going forward. I just wanted to check in on any progress of this future best-seller and also ask a couple of Q's regarding fan support.
I guess I'm a little like you when it comes to games; it's sometimes more fun to tinker around and add home-made stuff rather than play (as I'm limited to solo play). What is your stand on fan support and is it possible that you'll ever disclose your formulas (for armour, ATGMs, guns, fire power, weapon ranges and movement factors etc) so that we could develop our own units, or are they a trade secret guarded like that Coke recipe?

The reason I ask is that I'd love to add all those Swedish units so that one could create what-if (albeit very likely) scenarios of a Soviet invasion in the northern part of Sweden (because thats where I live )...


PS. Regarding my earlier terrain question; what about train tracks or bogs/quagmires? Northern Sweden is full of 'em... DS

 

[Steve Overton]

My apologies for taking so long to respond, with the convention and vacation seasons now coming to an end there is more time for us to continue to respond and to move the game forward. It seems like the progress is slow, especially me to because I'm used to getting games published in a computer format, but the truth is it's going much faster than what I see happen with companies that run P500 or pre-order lists. Once this game makes the pre-order list here I would expect for you to see it shortly afterwards. I would rather not make projections that are constantly revised. I've been on the receiving end of plenty of those myself before and it's always a let down when they don't meet their publication dates.

As to the magic of the vehicles in the Modern series for KN, a lot of the factors are subjective. Very little hard information is given about modern equipment because the nations involved are very stingy with their hard data points. I use a formula that converts all the variables to a steel variable, check the angle and go with that. The game itself takes into account that I may be a bit off. It's not a simple comparison of factors but there is a pretty wide range of variable result possible.

That was intentional for several reasons.

1. No weapons system or armor works as advertised all the time. There are flaws, imperfections, weather conditions, angle of impact, etc. to consider on every single shot fired that impacts on a vehicle. You may well hit a jeep with a tank cannon. And just because you managed to hit the tail gate doesn't mean the jeep was destroyed. Most games take the extremely low percentages of hit/kill out and just go for those that will kill it. They let the To Hit take care of the lower range results. To me that doesn't hold up. You can hit the vehicle and not destroy it. no matter how big or small.

2. The position of the vehicle makes a tremendous difference to the damage done. We don't model every single inch of ground in the game. That means that a vehicle could be in a slight dip or rise, giving a different protection aspect for where the round impacts. It depends on how experienced the driver and vehicle commander are.

3. The addition of pseudo armor such as shurtzen, bed springs, track links, zimmerit, concrete, etc can also add some protection value.

4. The round can strike a spot that is vulnerable, vision slits, turret rings, gun barrels, gun sights, etc. and have the vehicle become combat ineffective. This doesn't mean the crew was killed only that the vehicle stops being effective for the duration of this particular battle.



In regards to the vehicles of the world, David Heath and I have discussed expansion pacts and one of those is an Arctic Circle Expansion. That would include Finland, Sweden and Norway armed forces and scenarios. So, you're not alone with the desire to see combat in that part of the world. I've been in Southern Sweden, very southern (Lund), and so have interest in that part of the world too.

The terrain set for the series will include all the different types of terrain that I can identify around the world simply because the series is designed to simulate combat between forces anywhere on the planet from 7 July 1937 through the year 2025 and possibly beyond.

Good Hunting.

 

[Steve Overton]

Time for a more detailed explanation of the vehicle armor ratings.

I take several points on the vehicles and convert those to a 'steel rating'. The highest defensive value for that area is what I use for the entire area. I believe that Murphy's Law makes that happen more times than not anyway. The ratings are done in mm.

Example:

Side armor protection for the body of a tank may be 25, 20, 37, 42 and 34. The value I would use for that vehicle would be 42. That may be rounded up or down depending on some variables such as the angle of the armor, if it's rounded, if it forms a shot trap, etc.

Good Hunting.

 

[Håkan Lundgren]

...expansion pacts and one of those is an Arctic Circle Expansion. That would include Finland, Sweden and Norway armed forces and scenarios.

Just a thought about the vehicle cards you´re making. Since the Swedish S-Tank (Strv 103A/B/C) had two drivers seats - one forward and one backwards - it shouldn't be as penalised as other vehicles/tanks when in reverse. Is this accounted for in the rules or will you allow certain notes on the vehicle cards to remind players of small features like this?

I've been in Southern Sweden, very southern (Lund), and so have interest in that part of the world too.

Yes, the plains of Skåne would have certainly been a battle ground in a potential WWIII although I feel the northern parts would be more interesting (could the fact that I live there have anything to do with it ) game-wise as the sheer amount of defensive preparations such as the mountain forts, the hidden guns and artillery sites, the mined roads and bridges as well as the fairly difficult terrain.

Be well

 

[Steve Overton]

There are lots of vehicles that are 'odd'. I like the Swedish "S" tank. It was a unique answer to an issue the world was having to deal with. The Viggen was, and still is one of my favorite fighter aircraft as well. Sweden wasn't above trying to get different solutions to the problems.

German Armored Cars in WW2 also had driving positions front and back and should be able to reverse direction quickly. So, this is a feature that would affect multiple vehicles throughout history.


Now about the terrain and battleground potential. Northern Sweden would, IMO see little combat for the very reasons you mention. Too restrictive terrain, too easily defensible from land attack, too easily outflanked by Marine units on the eastern coast and from Norway, few strategic locations worth fighting for, most major cities and government seats of power are all in the south, etc....

Having said that I would expect to see plenty of amphibious, airmobile and airborne actions along both the eastern and western borders of the country. The northern part of Sweden would hold few good reasons for the Soviets to lose a lot of troops. If the Soviets learned anything fighting Finland in 1940 they should have learned to skip the steamroller against the Nordic countries. About the only place I can see the Soviets avoiding like the plague would be Northern Sweden. Just my humble opinion after having played a lot of GDW's Third World War series....


Sweden would have been a very tough nut to crack by anyone's estimation.

Good Hunting.

 

[Håkan Lundgren]

Now about the terrain and battleground potential. Northern Sweden would, IMO see little combat for the very reasons you mention.

Hi,
I've managed to collect quite a few books regarding a possible Soviet invasion in the northern parts of Sweden.

...few strategic locations worth fighting for, most major cities and government seats of power are all in the south, etc...

Mainly they're just passing through in order to get to Norway and the North Atlantic as fast as possible. Maybe its just horrid wishful thinking and a way for us to feel important in the world politics arena. You may, though, very well be correct in your assumption that it would be all too costly (both time and resource-wise) to try to get through these parts. Nevertheless they would be some fun scenarios to play, I might have to create my own campaign, after all these are all what-if's anyway.

There are lots of vehicles that are 'odd'. I like the Swedish "S" tank. It was a unique answer to an issue the world was having to deal with.

Yes, the S-Tank was truly unique and innovative but probably wouldn't fit anywhere else in the world if purely defensive tactics wasn't the only option.

Sweden would have been a very tough nut to crack by anyone's estimation.

Well, we had alot of alarmists back then that where of a different opinion.
Actually, they're still here and they have begun to raise their voices again.
I hope you are right...

 

[Steve Overton]

Håkan,

The whole issue would be as you point out a defensive action. Northern Sweden could be outflanked by Soviet Marines, Airmobile and Airborne forces. They could simply vertically envelope whatever defensive positions that were put in front of them today. A static defense line on the ground has little value unless it can be supported vertically. Lots of MANPADS, AAA and reserves in depth.

The main objectives I can see in Northern Sweden are as you say, routes to other places. Because there is a seeming lack of strategic objectives may be a reason the Soviets could choose that as a route to other places. If they thought the area was lightly defended they could move through it just for that reason alone. Think Ardennes 40/44 here.

As you say, it could make for some interesting scenarios.

Good Hunting.

 

[Steve Overton]

I just saw a post on a game thread that commented how there was an 'art' to activating units in a particular game. I thought about that where KN's FTRE is concerned since it uses unit activation as well.

Each Command Point allows you to give a single order. That order can be anything you like. There is no 'art' to activating your units in FTRE. It's what you want to do the most as the leader in charge. You want to move - then move. You want to fire - then fire. You want to move and fire - then give a tactical movement order.

It's all up to you. There is no delicate way you should handle your forces. It's just like in real life...do what's most important to you and what makes the most sense to you.

Good Hunting.

 

[Bibu]

First let me say, that everything looks great and that I am very interested in this game.

But I have to major complaints so far.

(1) Infantry attacks: Automatic success with enough FP?

Do I understand the rules for infantry attacks right, that if attackers in Red Eclipse (so I imply that the white and black dice will count) have a TAV of at least 11 higher than the defender's TDV, there would be an automatic hit (excluding tripples, because they will happen so rarely (2,78%) that one can shrugg them off)?

For example, two US fireteams (FP7 each), one equipped with a M249 (FP8) and a leader (Ledership 2) attack a Soviet fireteam (M7) in woods (-2/+2). The TAV is 7*2+8+2-2=22. The TDV is 7+2=9. If the US player rolls 2 (the minimum) and the Soviet player rolls 12 (the maximum), then the US player gets 22+2=24 and the Soviet player gets 9+12=21. That would be a broken result for the Soviet fireteam. So, that would be an automatic hit with at least (!) a broken result every time.

In my opinion there should be no such thing like an automatic success when attacking. That makes no sense. It seems You only have to get enough firepower in this game to get automatic hits and that's not okay.

I think, either there has to be something like an automatic failure system (but please not the tripple rule, because 2,78% is way too less) or there has to be a cap for TAV and TDV.


(2) Terrain modifier for both, attacker and defender?

Why does the terrain mod of the defender have to be subtracted by the attacker AND added by the defender? This ruling seems to be uncalled-for. It is unneccessary math during the game. You could rule that i.e. for woods the defender gets +4 instead of the attacker getting a -2 and the defender getting a +2. And if there are circumstances in the rules, where only the attacker would get the -2 or only the defender would get the +2, then You could rule the half of the +4 for the defender. It is a lot easier to do that (half of the mod for the defender in those circumstances - if there are any), than to calculate the mod for both sides in every (!) attack.

 

[Steve Overton]

Very good questions. Thanks for asking them.

First let me say, that everything looks great and that I am very interested in this game.

But I have to major complaints so far.

(1) Infantry attacks: Automatic success with enough FP?

Do I understand the rules for infantry attacks right, that if attackers in Red Eclipse (so I imply that the white and black dice will count) have a TAV of at least 11 higher than the defender's TDV, there would be an automatic hit (excluding tripples, because they will happen so rarely (2,78%) that one can shrugg them off)?

For example, two US fireteams (FP7 each), one equipped with a M249 (FP8) and a leader (Ledership 2) attack a Soviet fireteam (M7) in woods (-2/+2). The TAV is 7*2+8+2-2=22. The TDV is 7+2=9. If the US player rolls 2 (the minimum) and the Soviet player rolls 12 (the maximum), then the US player gets 22+2=24 and the Soviet player gets 9+12=21. That would be a broken result for the Soviet fireteam. So, that would be an automatic hit with at least (!) a broken result every time.

The fact of the matter is that enough firepower will pin down a unit for at least a few minutes. That is shown in the series. If you put enough firepower on a location you can at least pin them down - which is shown in their being broken, disrupted or both.

In my opinion there should be no such thing like an automatic success when attacking. That makes no sense. It seems You only have to get enough firepower in this game to get automatic hits and that's not okay.

I think, either there has to be something like an automatic failure system (but please not the tripple rule, because 2,78% is way too less) or there has to be a cap for TAV and TDV.

Nothing in KN is automatic.

This is true under normal circumstances yes. But this is far from an automatic result. You have discounted the Tactical Event Cards completely. Which can do everything from stopping the attack completely - with no result at all, to having the firepower of the attacker reduced, having the defenders getting morale bonus - one card increases their morale level by 3, more than one card can be played on a single event.

I'm sorry that you don't like triple die roll results but add those to the Tactical Event Cards and the percentages go far higher than the 2.78% that you list.

One thing you seem to discount is that an automatic failure as you call it is a unit that stops fighting for a few minutes per impulse that they are either broken or disrupted. If they are removed from play they are combat ineffective. That doesn't necessarily mean killed or wounded. It can simply mean that the unit stops actively taking part in the firefight for the remainder of the game. If they were removed on the very first impulse of the game that would normally mean about 30 minutes.

It's been my personal experience that it's a normal thing for units to stop participating. It takes well trained/disciplined troops to fight for long. Shortage of ammunition, exhaustion, lack of leadership all plays a part in that. This game series isn't just an exercise in adding up the numbers. It's very much an exercise in the morale, training and experience of the soldiers involved.



Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Bibu]

I totally agree that in a game with tactical combat a unit should be pinned down relatively easy, when enough firepower is directed at the unit. A soldier will duck his head when he will be attacked. But I think a unit does not get out of the fight completely only due to attacking it with enough firepower.

If I get the rules right, in my example from above, if the attacker breaks the target unit (and that is automatically when not rolling a triple and no event card comes into play) and the player draws another activation chit, he can do the same attack again which automatically (again when not rolling a triple and no event card comes into play) breaks the target unit again, what means, that the target unit is out of the game. For me, it doesn't matter here, whether the soldiers of the target unit are killed-in-action, incapacitated, wounded, fled, etc. "in-game". "Game-wise" the unit counter will be put from the game board and cannot be used further during the scenario. The hex is empty and the attacker can enter it, etc. So in fact it is like a killed-in-action result.

Of course I don't include the playing of the tactical event cards in my analysis. I cannot say, if the possibility for a defending player to play such cards is enough to keep the attacking player from just sum up enough firepower to wipe the defender's untis out. How many of these cards does a player get? Was it four cards per turn? Is that really enough to prevent a simple tactic I described?

I didn't say that I don't like the triple rule. I wanted to say that it will not come into play very often. It is 2,78% of all dice rolls. That is a very low chance. Maybe it would be better to rule, that a double with any of the three dice would trigger something special.

You didn't answer to my second question about the ruling to add AND subtract terrain modifiers instead of doing only one of both.