v4 Rules & Mechanics Discussion

[mpipes]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Not to mention the water isn't deep enough where they've put it, and it's well within range of shore fire from a very hostile populace.
The stupid burns.
Not to mention the ship they've chosen didn't even get it's crew until a few months earlier - nowhere near enough time for everyone to learn their jobs properly and start acting as an actual team.
Oh, and then there's that little fact that the Baltic Sea is basically the Soviets playground, ringed on the east and south with loads of naval facilities and shore based aircraft that would just LOVE to have a go at sinking a US carrier.
Shall we talk about reinforcements now? How easy would it be to block any NATO ships with a few sea mines and a diesel powered sub or two....
Did I mention how stupid the idea is?
...and then you find out that originally FL were going to have the carrier totally undamaged and in 100% fighting condition, yet still without all it's supporting ships...
How stupid would you have to be as a commander to think putting an untested capital ship in the middle of a Soviet kill zone would somehow be a good thing?

It is just silly. Which makes one wonder exactly what "military consultants" did they use? No one, and I mean NO ONE, that has any real expertise in military capabilities of the military forces at issue would dream of a US supercarrier in the Baltic Sea. Now, it is OK to go against military orthodoxy to make a good story, but that needs to be set up in a realistic manner, such as supporting a MEU performing amphibious ops. However, as written a US nuclear carrier in the Baltic is ridiculous. The fact that there are other things that are just as ridiculous tells you just how amateurish FL's efforts truly are in coming up with a believable background. As much as I cringe over elements of T2K's GDW written background, overall it makes enough sense to be believable. FL's effort wildly misses that mark on both the background and the mechanics. While the mechanics have sorta simplistic, "beer and pretzel" feel to them, I find them horribly unintuitive and clunky. V1 and V2.2 frankly look like elegant genius in comparison to me. The best I can say about FL's Alpha is that it gives me a far better appreciation at just how good GDW's game mechanics were.

Which brings me back to the burning question I still have. Exactly what "military consultant" did they use? Whoever they used must be a fake, because what they present as background wildly fails to match up with any scenario for a NATO conflict envisioned by either NATO or PACT military theorists - it just does not. I just cannot see anyone familiar with NATO, PACT, or Soviet doctrine and plans (or even a somewhat knowledgeable wargamer for crying out loud) signing off on what was presented. Even the weapon ratings seem horribly whacked out to me. You'ld think that FL's weapon ratings at least looked realistic, but I don't see those as even being accurate at this point.