Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Nuklear Winter '68» Forums » General

Subject: New Units? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
SIMON WRAY
Bermuda
Devonshire
Devonshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I realise that the game has only just been released... But I can't help but think about potential new unit suggestions.

I've been a big fan of Relic's Company of Heroes PC game since 2005, and am primarily a fan of the small unit and combined arms playstyles. As a result I'd like to see more infantry varieties and supporting units added into NW '68.

In part this has been as a result of the poll about infantry laying mines, smoke and entrenching.

So I got to thinking - infantry mortars would be nice to see, and could lay indirect smoke. Then remove the smoke ability from general infantry.

Similarly, engineers/pioneers could introduce flame-throwers (to counter the domination of infantry in urban hexes) & demolition capabilities (to destroy or even rebuild bridges) but also they could lay & clear mines. Again removing that capability from general infantry.

I feel this would better balance the infantry and lead to more interesting tactics.

What I am less keen on is heavy vehicles/tanks. But stuff like bridging vehicles, the German funkwagen, pillboxes, variations on the US/British 'funnies' tank designs, etc, all add interesting options for gameplay.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
flag msg tools
Yes to all that.

A mine clearing rule would be a plus. But I would like to see the regular infantry capable of doing this in some way.

When playing scenario 3, I used a rule suggested on the consimworld NW 68 forum. When entering a mine hex, for each extra movement point an infantry unit expends beyond those required to do so, increase the moving foot units DV by 1. This allows for units carefully moving through such hexes.

It reduces the power of mines somewhat and also simulates the other quality of a minefield ... time penalty.

Of course such fiddling is purely for personel experimentation. Though the scenario balance was little affected I think.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Sperling
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Revenant wrote:

So I got to thinking - infantry mortars would be nice to see, and could lay indirect smoke. Then remove the smoke ability from general infantry.

Mortars are a great idea. Would be doable in form of an additional Support Weapon counter.

Revenant wrote:

Similarly, engineers/pioneers could introduce flame-throwers (to counter the domination of infantry in urban hexes) & demolition capabilities (to destroy or even rebuild bridges) but also they could lay & clear mines. Again removing that capability from general infantry.

Also a great idea. Flamethrowers could be added as additional support weapon too.

Revenant wrote:

What I am less keen on is heavy vehicles/tanks. But stuff like bridging vehicles, the German funkwagen, pillboxes, variations on the US/British 'funnies' tank designs, etc, all add interesting options for gameplay.

I would love to see the german super tank "Ratte". This way it would be possible to play some Ogre-like scenarios.
The Ratte tank can shoot nuclear artillery strikes, of course.
Mechas would be cool also.
Zombies!
Maybe some Mercenaries and/or Hero characters. "Stalkers" roaming the Zone.
The game has Crop Fields near the towns, this implies that there are still humans alive. Degenerated, mutated humans?

mark heywood wrote:
Yes to all that.
A mine clearing rule would be a plus. But I would like to see the regular infantry capable of doing this in some way.

You could use the rule that Infantry can "attack" minefields. Using their AP firepower when adjacent to a Minefield and the AP firepower of the Mine as DV. They need to "kill" the mine completely, which means that an Inf with a AP of 6 need to roll a 8 or more on 2d6 (probability of 41,67%). Spetsnaz would need a 7 or more (58,33%).
Sole action during activation. Infantry who fails become Shaken.

mark heywood wrote:

When playing scenario 3, I used a rule suggested on the consimworld NW 68 forum. When entering a mine hex, for each extra movement point an infantry unit expends beyond those required to do so, increase the moving foot units DV by 1. This allows for units carefully moving through such hexes.

It reduces the power of mines somewhat and also simulates the other quality of a minefield ... time penalty.

Cool idea.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petre Tutunea
Romania
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
All good points and ideas but, unfortunately, I cannot comment without giving away my plans for the expansion, its units and game mechanics. Besides, I want to see what the general feel is about infantry mine and smoke placement before deciding on anything. Sorry about that :)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Sperling
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malvictis wrote:
All good points and ideas but, unfortunately, I cannot comment without giving away my plans for the expansion, its units and game mechanics. Besides, I want to see what the general feel is about infantry mine and smoke placement before deciding on anything. Sorry about that

No problem. That you deal with the Mine and Smoke rules just shows me that you actually care about the gamers and your game.thumbsup
Btw: The Stalkers are already geared up.:-)

But they could need some improvements...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
flag msg tools
Malvictis wrote:
All good points and ideas but, unfortunately, I cannot comment without giving away my plans for the expansion, its units and game mechanics. Besides, I want to see what the general feel is about infantry mine and smoke placement before deciding on anything. Sorry about that


Will look forward to that Petre.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
flag msg tools
konsum24 wrote:
Btw: The Stalkers are already geared up.:-)



Christian, pray tell, what are stalkers? Navy Seals? Green Berets? SAS?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Brent Ward
United States
Glendale
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mark heywood wrote:
konsum24 wrote:
Btw: The Stalkers are already geared up.:-)



Christian, pray tell, what are stalkers? Navy Seals? Green Berets? SAS?


Based on a video game.

http://www.stalker-game.com/
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Sperling
Germany
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mark heywood wrote:

Christian, pray tell, what are stalkers? Navy Seals? Green Berets? SAS?

Actually they are based on the book Roadside Picnic. The video game and movie are based on the book also.
Roadside Picnic was an inspiration for NW68, too.
Basically in the book, Stalkers are thieves going into the Zones to get artifacts.
In the videogame it's an acronym and stands for Scavengers, Trespassers, Adventurers, Loners, Killers, Explorers, and Robbers.
I think they can be compared, to a lesser extend, to some kind of Special Forces.
In the books I've read, based on the videogame, they are basically Scouts who have in-depth knowledge of the Zone and their dangers.
For now I gave them all the advantages of other Infantry: The AP firepower from the Spetsnaz, the HE Firepower from the SS Infantry, the movement from the Rangers and the defence value from the Fallschirmjägers.
But according to the other medias (books, videogame etc) they shouldn't get a very high AP Firepower. They are basically armed with light equipment.
So a high HE FP, high defence (they are pretty good at concealing themselfs) and high movement allowance would represent them best and maybe some special rules: Recon, can move through radiated hexes...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.