History in Gaming -- Does a Leman Russ Make Any Sense?

Posted by Ranillon on 31. August 2009 00:44

The short answer is “not really.”

(Ah, that was an easy article!)



This is not to say that it wouldn’t work.  It pretty much is guaranteed to do so as the basic design and technology has been tried before.  There isn’t anything inherently impossible about the Leman Russ design (assuming lascannons and plasma weapons are ultimately possible – a good bet).  What is a problem is that the design isn’t very effective.  It has a number of serious deficiencies that one shouldn’t find in a design that is supposedly tried and true over very long periods of time.

The most readily apparent example on the Leman Russ is its tracks.  They extend all the way around the outside much like an early Mark I/V World War One British tank.  In fact, the Leman Russ design pays more than a slight homage to this historical vehicle.  For that reason alone it’s not hard to believe the Russ would actually be able to move around, yet there is a reason why the Mark V tread design did not serve as the model for what came later.  For one thing the tracks are needlessly exposed, making them comparative easy targets.  The treads on a tank are perhaps the most vulnerable part of the war machine.  One good shot by even a moderately powerful weapon and suddenly the tank is going nowhere.  That’s why it makes sense to hide the tracks as much as possible behind armor plates or even just from the sight of the enemy.  No point in making the bad guy’s task any simpler.

Yet, there is an even deeper issue with the tracks on a Leman Russ – or, more specifically, how the treads attach to the rest of the vehicle.  Namely, they do so directly without the presence of any suspension.  That is a big, big problem.
Suspensions are, among other things, used on all modern vehicles to aid in smoothing out the ride and improving handling.  Without one both are going to suffer.  Control is going to be an issue as every possible uneven surface that might lift or lower one side of the machine will tend to pull it in other directions than perhaps the tankers would prefer.  It also makes it more likely they might get stuck or even if they aren’t careful tip over.  More subtly, when they go over obstacles without a suspension the tank will tend to rise up or lean at high angles.  This in turn exposes the less well armored portions of the tank thereby leaving it vulnerable to a wider range of weapons.

Even worse than this is how the absence of a suspension means that every last bump or crash will be transmitted directly to the rest of the tank.  Remember that among other traits tanks are meant to be cross-country vehicles, country that tends to be rather bumpy.  Without a suspension in-between to mitigate the effects of all that rough terrain both the tank and the people inside are going to have a hard time enduring the trip.

When people talk about tanks they tend to concentrate on how well they do in face-to-face combat.  How thick is the armor or how big is the main gun?  What tends to be missed is that while combat may be the most exciting bit, it’s also only a comparatively tiny amount of the total time the tank and its crew spend together.  Livability is in its own way just as important as potency on the battlefield.



A British Mark I/V tank was in its own way a revolutionary invention.  It certainly aided the Allies in winning the war.  However, it was in some ways as much a menace to those that manned it as the Germans it faced.  The engine was in the same compartment as the crew while there was inadequate ventilation and certainly no air conditioning.  That made for a burning, carbon monoxide filled hell.  Likewise, men had to dress up in heavy cloths and wear chainmail masks to avoid injury from metal flakes and rivets that would fly about when small arms fire hit the tank.  Finally, the gas tanks were placed above the crew thus meaning that a well-placed shot might burst them and cause everyone inside to be incinerated!  Even if the tankers survived their ordeal they might easily take days or weeks to recover enough to give it another go. 

It doesn’t matter how amazing your tank may be if you don’t have trained crews to use it!  And, make no mistake – trained tankers are a vital resource.  Yes, the Imperium wastes life on a whim, but a skilled crewman is too valuable a tool even for it to expend needlessly.

Another real-life historical example is the venerable United States M4 Sherman.  In retrospect it has gained a reputation for being a death trap when facing later German tanks (the Germans didn’t call them “Tommy Cookers” for nothing) such as the Panther and Tiger.  Yet, what this forgets is that for everything else the Sherman was clearly superior.  It was far more dependable and rugged while also being a comparative joy to live in.  When Soviet tankers received some via Lend Lease they were amazed – it came with spectacular luxuries such as power steering that made the Sherman quite popular.  This is really saying something given that contemporary Soviet tanks such as the famous T-34 or KV-1 were clearly superior in a battle situation.

Back to the Leman Russ – another limitation of the Russ design are the sponson mounted weapons.  They may look impressive, but in real life they’d probably be more trouble than they’d be worth.  One reason is that those extra weapons require extra amounts of machinery and ammunition.  They also need extra gunners.  All that added space and weight means less of each that can be used for things like armor.  It also puts greater strain on the engine making the tank slower and more prone to breakdowns. 

So many different weapons and people using them also plays havoc on basic command and control.  In a comparable WW1 or 2 tanks you have a commander who barks orders to the crew around him.  It’s tough enough to get the tank going where you want and a single gun on target.  Add in another three major weapons and using them effectively is going to be nigh impossible.  Who is supposed to fire at what?  Did he mean me or Bob manning the lascannon?  The interior of a tank in battle is a loud, smelly place where communication is difficult at best.  In such circumstances the practical thing to do is lessen complexity, not increase it with lots of extra systems for everyone to deal with.

There is also another factor, one that applies to battleships as much as tanks – bigger really is better.  A single large cannon is more effective than a set of smaller ones even if the latter add up to greater throw weight.  The larger the shot the better able it is to puncture armor at greater distances.  What does it matter if your tank is festooned with a hundred guns if all their shots just patter uselessly off the other guy’s tank?  Why waste all that extra weight on smaller weapons when you can combine it all into one giant cannon?  The only real weapons you need on a tank are those meant for different roles.  For example, a main battle cannon isn’t very efficient when it comes to taking out infantry, so load up on a few machine guns to take care of them.  Otherwise, simpler is better.

It is true that a multi-turreted Leman Russ is more fun to play with which is no doubt why Games Workshop went with that than something closer to modern real life.  And, to be fair, the Leman Russ would work – technically.  Still, if I had to be a tanker I think I’d prefer a modern Abrams over the more primitively designed Leman Russ. 

What I Want to See in the New Tyranid Codex

Posted by Ranillon on 29. August 2009 00:25

The latest rumors are that we can expect a new bug codex sometime in the first quarter of next year.  Since I am a ‘Nid player with a 200+ model army this obviously interests me.  As the Tyranid codex is commonly thought to be one of the weaker army lists nowadays a redesign is certainly welcome. Question is just what alterations is GW planning? 

I don’t know, but here is what I hope to see.

1)  Deal with the Nidzilla Armies One Way or Another:  I personally don’t like the “Nidzilla” armies – bug forces made up from as many big creatures as possible – very much.  One, they don’t strike me as being very colorful, and; two, they require a cheesy design strategy, namely taking a few token troop choices that usually hide on one side of the board while their big brothers take care of the enemy.  So, I would like to see the new codex either put in limitations meant to make such designs impractical or, better yet, add in rules to make them more colorful.  For example, make it worth the player’s while to take real troop choices.  Maybe if you take a certain character Tyranid you can take Carnifexes as troops (yes, that’s what I said), but troop carnies have strict limitations as to number of wounds and toughness.  Dealing with this won’t be easy and would require a lot of play testing to achieve the proper balance, but it would be better than what we have now.



2) Rebalance the Genestealers:  With the arrival of 5th edition and the lessening of Rending genestealers went from must-buys to maybe-buys.  To balance things out they need to be lowered a bit in price or given more abilities.  For instance, maybe give them a base 4+ armor with access to 3+ for a high price (this is not as bad as it sounds as it’s already insane not to get ‘stealers without the armor upgrade).  Another alternative is to make them better able to get at the enemy – more infiltrate or deep strike abilities at a proper cost.  Either way, something must be done as right now they are sort of like Space Marines with a glass jaw and no ranged weapon.

3) Make Gaunts Worth it:  Admittedly gaunts are meant to be cannon fodder, but right now they are far more “fodder” than “cannon”.  As you would expect they die in droves, but they also have a hard time actually being threatening to anything more burly than an imperial guardsman – even when outnumbering their opponents by wide margins.  So, come up with a way to make a horde of the buggers actually scary.  Perhaps up their close-combat effectiveness a bit or increase the range of their weapons.  A more fluffy tactic would be to add in a sort of “synergy” bonus to their numbers – above 10 they receive a +d6 attacks as a whole, above 20 +2d6, and so forth.  Regardless, there is already a practical disincentive for people to use them since they require a lot of money to buy and a lot of effort to paint.  Making gaunts appealing in game terms is therefore the best way to encourage horde armies, which is what I think the typical Tyranid force should be.

4) Expand the Range of Possible Basic Bug Army Designs:  Right now there are really just three possible designs for Tyranid forces, namely Nidzilla, genestealer cadre, or horde.  The first tends to be a bit over-powered (since unless you know what you are facing you tend not to bring enough anti-monstrous creature weapons) while the last two are somewhat under-powered.  I’ve already talked about balancing the units themselves, but I’d also like to see more choices for basic design.  For instance, what about a viable flying bug force where gargoyles can be taken as troops (perhaps only by taking a winged Tyrant)?  Likewise, they could expand the ranges within each of the basic types so that they aren’t all clones – a Nidzilla, horde, or genestealer force is pretty much going to have the same stuff every time no matter who is playing.  A wider range of variation is not only more fun to play or play against, but it also encourages people to round out their miniature collections.

5) Bring in Some New Units:  Let’s face it – one of the appeals of any updated codex is all the juicy new units that will inevitably come with it (after all, GW wants to sell more models).  Here are some random ideas for what I’d like to see.

• A Transport Option:  Most every other army has one, so why not some way for Nid’s to get around in style (or, at least, more speed)?  A variation on this would be to take a cue from the Zerg (or, did the Zerg take a cue from the Tyranids?) and have a stationary unit that can allow units to deep strike (e.g. they go in the tunnel entrance and come out someplace else).



• A Big Gun:  Yes, a Gunfex fills this niche (sort of), but something with a bigger bang would be nice.  It’s not like Biovores are used all that often.  Come on, haven’t the bugs realized the handiness of heavy artillery?



• A Power Armor Killer:  Not a unit per se, but it would be nice to have something that can penetrate power armor beyond monstrous claws at point-blank distances.  Again, the ‘Nids haven’t discovered the usefulness of a ranged can opener?

I realize that apparently a plastic Trygon is in the works as an official Games Workshop (rather than Forge World) model, but I expect it to be a strictly Apocalypse unit.  Would be nice if I was wrong, though.

So, what are the rest of you hoping for? 

History in Gaming -- An Introduction

Posted by Ranillon on 24. August 2009 22:40

I would like to introduce a new series of irregular posts dealing with history and its relationship to gaming.  I happen to have a degree in the subject and all periods interest me, although I have a particular love of military history.  That fits gaming, especially Games Workshop games, since much of it deals with military concepts.  Heck, both 40K and Fantasy borrow liberally from own our history -- for instance, Bretonnia is just 14th century France and the Empire 16th century Germany, just with the names changed.  History, technology, and even science go together with Games Workshop quite naturally.  That's why I call this "Hstory in Gaming."  That is, the history and knowledge you find when you look more deeply into GW settings and systems.

I think if you give this new series a chance you'll like it.  After all, a big part of the appeal for games like Fantasy and 40K is their respective settings.  I plan on pointing out the relationship between what's gone before here on Earth and what's going on in the make-believe worlds of GW.  Likewise, you can learn something of the associated technology and customs, how the compare to our own.  It will give you a different perspective on these games we enjoy and in turn perhaps provide surprises you didn't see coming.

Here's an example of what I mean, although it doesn't pertain directly to GW.  Remember the movie The Hunt for Red October?  Great film, but it is in fact based on a false premise.  No, not just that the events it shows never actually occurred, but that in fact that they never could.  Part of the suspense of the film is the question of whether Captain Ramius is a would-be defector or a lunatic wanting to start World War III.  To demonstrate that characters within the movie worry that his plan is to come close enough to the United States to launch his sub's missiles.  It is that threat that the Soviets use in an attempt to trick the Americans into hunting down Ramius for them.

Only one little problem with this when compared to real life -- it's completely absurd.  You see, if Ramius was in fact a mad bomber looking to toast 50 million Americans he wouldn't need to sail to the U.S. Eastern seaboard to do so.  The missiles on a Typhon class ballistic submarine have the range to strike American targets from their home ports!  In other words, if Ramius wanted to blow up New York City he wouldn't need to leave home to do it.

Once you know this much of the premise of the movie makes no sense (the book it's based upon gets this right).  That doesn't make the movie any less great, but it does show how knowing a little about history and/or military technology can change your whole understanding of things.

Likewise, I hope to reveal similar interesting insights into the basis of the technology and cultures depicted in GW games and how the game mechanics suggest they work.  Some of the topics I have in mind include:

• A Short History of Early Firearms
• Does the Leman Russ Make Any Sense?
• Just why do Empire Troops Go Around in Leotards?
• Who Would Win -- The US Military or the Imperium?
• Do Dwarves Float?

And whatever else occurs to me over time.  I would also like to encourage people to ask questions.  Ever wondered how something related to Fantasy or 40K might work in real life?  Or, do you just have any burning question about history, technology, or science?  Please send them along.  One, it will allow me to indulge a lifelong passion of mine, and; two, it will give me more time to work on gaming projects before having to post about them!

So, stick around.  You may just learn something.

Rifleman Dreadnought

Posted by Ranillon on 23. August 2009 18:22

I've been on something of a conversion frenzy since returning from Gen Con.  My latest is this Dreadnought conversion using one of the Black Reach Dreads I got on the cheap and some bits from the recent Aegis Defense Line.

 

I call this the "Rifleman Dreadnought" because it looks a lot like the old Battletech Rifleman mech.  Of course, in this case it packs a pair of twin-linked autocannons.  It's a dreadnought design that only works in the new(er) Space Marine codex, not for Dark Angels, but since I already have three painted dreads and a few others not yet finished I figured a something unusual was called for in this case.  I certainly think it looks cool.  If nothing else I can use it in Apocalypse battles.

"Rats. Why Did it Have to Be Rats?"

Posted by Ranillon on 22. August 2009 10:07

Games Workshop just released the book cover for the new Skaven army book coming out in November.  Just think -- you can get rats for Christmas!