Friday, 17 July 2015

OB Podcast Episode 8: Fresh Meat For Grinder

Hello and good day, it has been a while. For that I can only say..........absence makes the heart (and ears) grow fonder. 

We have a plethora of news to discuss plus an OB exclusive from Hawk - you won't find out first from any other source!!

Introductions 0:00:00

News (including the OB exclusive) 0:03:00
We talk Wave 1, 2 and beyond all the new shineys that have just been released, imminently released and on their way

What are you playing at? 0:48:00
Birmingham UK Games Expo, swimming, Joe's cyclone (you may not want to hear about this - you have been warned). The difference between Gorillas and Bears and general hobby chit-chat. 

Discussionzone 1:16:20
Infantry and the future - with recent releases, there has been a push from Hawk to use more infantry. Will we? have a listen and find out

Outro 1:48:20

That's all folks, if you have any comments on the pod, let us know. We really do want to hear from you 

All sounds effects used in the Orbital Bombardment Podcast are from


  1. thx for the pod cast Sir.

  2. Thanks,

    great as always - except when I pictured the shower scene,...I nearly went off the highway... ;)

    I like the "dug in idea" (+1 to hit) especially along with scattered terrain (additional +1 maybe) or give them the option to hide in ruins / the rubble of destroyed buildings (maybe soft & body cover).

    That way a destroyed building could become another element of the game and people might think twice about blowing it up and creating some sort of hideout (near a focal point) without falling masonry. Does that make sense?



    1. That absolutely makes sense. I was thinking of the scenes in Saving Private Ryan when they were scrambling about the ruins of that town when the OB guys were discussing Infantry. I also (kinda) like the idea of Infantry being given the chance to scramble out of a building that is about to collapse, and also the Run option that was discussed. With a Run option, still allow Infantry to Shoot, but they get a +2 Acc penalty, but the double their Mv value. Just some thoughts...

  3. Great as always!

    Agree completely about the Alpha Strike rule! If hawk decides to have it nerf it a bit so it only works within SoI or make the Ronins only mass not Fine mass so they can't be so mobile.

    Great discussion about infantry. I would love to see more infantry operating in the open...

  4. I also think that Infantry should be able to operate in the open or in ruins or something but I think it is important to keep the rock-paper-scissor core of the game. Infantry being versatile like the Ferrum will not improve the game but adding so that they will be a little more efficient on shooting and manning the walls might be sound. Also it would be interesting to see if they could find a way to operate them in the open.

    Always an interesting podcast! Thank you. I posted a small response regarding infantry manning the walls on the swedish blog. It have made me change my mind a little bit. Of course Mr Ford and Kings of war helped as well...

    Best regards

  5. Great discussion, guys, thank you!

  6. Calling me swedish that is almost enough to make me call you french gentlemen out for a grunge match, but as I doubt i'll make Working it will have to wait ;)
    I am Danish and we do have a "relationship" with Sweden.
    Great block you had me laugh on the way to work.


  7. I've long wanted more types of infantry and more for infantry to do, but I'm more interested in basic infantry, perhaps with different weapons, rather than odd stuff like big suits, super-monsters, and so on.

    I don't want to see infantry getting all sorts of special rules or powers because as was said, why would you have tanks if infantry carry weapons that are just as powerful? Why should infantry be able to 'run' as fast as a tank?

    I think there are two important points to make about how infantry work though. The first, from a context or setting point of view is cost/availability. Very few wargames get tank/infantry ratios 'right' because they want to create fun games. In WWII nations deployed tens of thousands of tanks, but millions of men. It's not so much, 'why take infantry when you could take a tank', but 'why wouldn't you deploy hundreds of infantry men in addition to any tanks you deploy'. Probably the only way to reflect this in a game of DZC would be to make infantry units compulsory. e.g. Require players to take an infantry battlegroup for every other battlegroup they field. This would be easier to do with scenarios, especially ones where there are attackes and defenders. Not everyone is going to have a dropship ready to move them.

    The second point is that we need the game to reflect how infantry actually take part in modern warfare. They don't run around empty deserts going toe to toe with tanks as medium range. They just don't. So what we ought to be looking for in games of DZC if we want to see more infantry is narrow streets between buildings that tanks and aicraft can't get to. And more rough terrain between buildings to provide troops cover. And more games played outside of cities in rough ground that tanks find it hard to fight on. e.g. Forests, boulder fields, swamps, etc.

    Even if it didn't help infantry, one thing I'd really like to see for this game is a push to take the game to non-urban battlefields. I hope that the huge display board at Salute this year was a hint of what is to come. Because although I love urban battlefields, I think the game would benefit from being played in more types of terrain, but i think to make that work it might need some thought.