Battlefield Evolution: Combat Dissected

What's the appeal of Battlefield Evolution: Modern Combat; even at 99p, beyond that car crash, rubber necking element. Was it worth all the hype and subsequent hoo-haa when the pre-painted plastics went down in flames?

I mean, BevoComMod represents combat ripped from our TV screens, 24 hours a day. High-Tech weaponry vs low-tech tactics in urbanised terrain. Balanced force compositions (by point value) for variety of cutting edge militaries and insurgent factions. Surely a winner?

And it could have been. having had a chance to look through the game, I feel that it wasn't just oversold but wrongly marketed and that Stalingradlike denial turned it into a mockery. But that's all water under Mongoose's bridge.

As a dyed in the wool, "I want to be down in the trenches and bleeding with my miniatures" type of  C20th gamer - Battlefield Evolution should be the complete antithesis of what makes me tick. But what I have found is a slick' game system with just enough chrome in the right amounts that could have given Mongoose, Warhammer Moderns on a plate.....could have.

So, what I am saying is that Battlefield Evolution is a very useful addition to your gaming arsenal. It's easy to learn, relatively slick to use and encourages play. For instance, movement is unfettered by short, described elsewhere as "retardedly short", weapon ranges. All too often other games, including those I've personally sat in, become bogged down by long range fire, or rather, the fear of long range fire. This encourages a 'Panzerbush' mentality with clumps of figures hiding behind hills and trees, maybe taking the odd potshot trying to get that lucky hit. The effect is similar to the scene in THE HURT LOCKER, where the IED team come across an SAS patrol and both have to take cover in a wadi where a long drawn out sniper dual takes place. Realistic - possibly yes, an enjoyable game on the tabletop after a hard day at work - no.

Maff and I were discussing a new (for us) gaming concept recently. Instead of spending hours maneuvering across a table, we started the action at the crucial point of decision and then moved straight to the next point of decision - we called it 'pizza base' gaming. More anon if you are interested. Battlefield Evolution has you moving fast across the table in order bring you into face to to face combat and thus create decision points quickly.

There's no morale. Now be honest. Have you NEVER played a game where you've dropped the morale rules to speed up the game - or perhaps made decisions about morale based on your experience of what is likely to have been the outcome? Battlefield Evolution is about playing and having fun in a way that reminds me strikingly of playing Ghost Recon, GRAW and Call or Duty: Modern Warfare on the XBox. It's the adrenalin rush, the action. Are these console games any less enjoyable because there's no morale check?

There's an inherent honesty about Battlefield Evolution as a game system that promotes play. It's not for everybody. It's not for every gaming situation. Does it have a place in Winter of '79? It doesn't fit my vision as such, but I'm prepared to give it a go, especially for larger urban games.

Cheers
Mark

Cold War: 1983 ......A Tabletop Review

 .

Cold War: 1983
Modern Skirmish Wargames Rules
 
by Matthew Hartley, Michael Baumann & Steve Blease
 
From: Wessex Games
Price £5
 





THE BOOK:

 24 pages, A5 booklet, including:

• TO&Es for US Mech Infantry, BAOR Mech Infantry and Soviet Motor Rifle platoons circa 1983.
• Stats for 20 different types of small arms
• Stats for 18 vehicle mounted weapons
• Stats for 33 vehicles from civilian sedans to pickups, jeeps and Challenger MBT.

SCOPE: 

Modern 1-to-1 skirmish rules primarily designed for section and platoon level combat during the Cold War.

ARMY SIZE:
8-40  individual miniatures and 1-3 vehicles/AFVs per side.

This is NOT an armour vs armour game. Vehicles and AFVs play a supporting role so the rules subsequently reflect this.

SCALES:

 None really, all move distances and ranges are in cm's.

The rules are notionally designed for 28mm figures but can easily be used for any miniature scale.

GAME LENGTH: 

1-4 hours realtime depending on number of sections in play and complexity of scenario.

PLAYING AIDS REQUIRED:
Normal 6 sided dice (the more the merrier)
A tape measure
Markers/dice for denoting current 'Bottle' rating, 'suppression' etc

UNIT STATS:
All figures in the game start with a predetermined 'Bottle' rating which reflects the sum of their training, skill, experience and motivation.

Bottle can be set for a whole platoon or varied between sections/squads or even individual miniatures to reflect the differences between individual characters and give the game more depth.

The Bottle rating ebbs and flows throughout the game and can be adversely effected by combat results.

Skills are optional, but again be assigned to individual miniatures to create characters and provide a greater level of sophistication in your scenarios. 

 
THOUGHTS:

The focus of Cold War: 1983 is on the motivations and training of the individual soldier and the 'friction' that occurs in combat. This is reflected in the 'Bottle' rating. The whole game is slick and plays fast once you understand Bottle and the Critical Success/Failure system. In fact it allows you to easily expand the game to suit yourself and any scenario you can come up with by creating your own ad hoc Critical Success/Failure table.

Basically, the degree of success or failure of any combat action is determined by a dice roll against a figure's Bottle rating. I've been playing this system for many years and love it. The other aspects of these rules I particularly like is how fire combat is classified as Single Shot, Controlled Burst, Burst, Machine-gun Burst etc each with their own Critical Success/Failure table; and how terrain is classified by 'Clutter' value.

No set of rules survives first contact untouched in this household. I've expanded the Leadership section and changed the movement from pre-defined distances, to a Crit Success/Failure system I originally used with Crossfire. The player nominates the figure/figures to move, then rolls against the Bottle of the individual or the lowest Bottle within a group of miniatures.  In brief:

• Critical Success - they make it to destination unscaved.
• Success - they make it only if they are not caught in the enemy's LOS. Enemy gets opportunity for reactive fire, before moving unit can complete the move.
• Failure - they don't budge. Perhaps some rounds richoched off the brickwork above them before they moved.
• Critical Failure - only move the score on the dice and move/initiative ceases (might leave them caught in the open)

The simplicity in design provides infinite possibility for innovation through tweaking the Critical Success/Failure tables or even adding your own to enhance the core game system to meet scenario needs or your own personal gaming requirements. 

To sum up, what you have with Cold War:1983 is a dynamic, fluid game with enough granularity to satisfy the modern enthusiast. The rules are easy to read, very much pick up and play. Recommended, especially for the casual Modern skirmish gamer.

Cheers

Mark

.