Jump to content

KAMUT

Members
  • Posts

    599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KAMUT

  1. I love the idea of gear paratroopers, but I'm trying to understand the difference between an Iguana and a Jager. there are no paratrooper kits? If not, i'm definately assembling a team for shock value.
  2. I can always appreciate flexibility. I was looking at two strike Cadre and a fire support element. but me being a big fan of infantry, how would I be able to incorporate that into a Gear element? I like some of the armor too. I haven't even looked into striders yet, but most certainly I can see a strider unit.
  3. KAMUT

    SOC

    Ok, I think IF would probably be better if we want to keep the AOE for the underslung grenade launcher. As for double pistols, that could be the exception to the rule. maybe later we can come up with something a little heavier to go two fisted with, but I want to keep the rifles as two hands necessary. these rifles would be like an m60 in size comparison (you'll only see someone rockin' two of them in the movies). Claymore, we'll go with remote detonated for standard issue stuff, later on proximity detonated claymores could be worked in. OK, I think we have this thing set. now I got some home work to do, but look over what you have now, get a feel for it. and most likely, Lucky 8s will be hot dropping behind enemy lines with a section of these. I got to get construction points down and the statline for the Octurro slide mounted weapon; but I think this is definately workable.
  4. KAMUT

    SOC

    OK, so we'll go with a single attack per turn regardless of PW and see how it works; It'll take getting use to the excess PW, but maybe we could drop the breeder two points, and that would catch that effect by default. (lets take a look at the underslung Grenade launcher) so as it stands then, I think we can work with what we have now. I'll start adding up construction costs and we'll bump heads on that. so our next task is to comb over the optional weapons, and fine tune their effects. the tricky b*stard is the Underslung Grenade launcher. currently an infantry grenade launcher is classified a direct fire weapon in CAV. (A1GL), but technically a true grenade has a blast radius; being this is a larger scaled grenade launcher, is the AOE applicable or should it be made an indirect fire weapon. "prep a claymore" could obviously be handled as an attack, but since its detonated at convenience, lets say you've prepped a claymore in the previous turn, the next turn you remote detonate it (1PW) and attack with your rifle. technically we may have just broke the rule to do this, or should this double attack be allowed? And also should the double XP1 configuration (a pistol in each hand) be allowed?
  5. KAMUT

    SOC

    I can see a Gauss Cannon having a "recharge" time, after all, it is a powered weapon. that could easily explain away why a CAV could only fire its weapons once. I can go with that and that would suffice for me. but this isn't the case when your simply switching from one weapon to another. So if we go with, ah screw it and allow a SOC to do it, I'm guessing the most it could attack is twice. (it still comes up sort of short against a CAV's firepower) If we say no and restrict it, then we are literally tying a hand behind the SOCs back in order to favor a typical CAV.
  6. KAMUT

    SOC

    OK, hey heres a situation to ponder, your currently kneeling behind a rock with your rifle, you aim, fire, drop the rifle, stand up and draw your pistol from its holster, and fire that. can you physically do this within 4 seconds? now imagine if this Cybot was doing it. so this is why, I'm torn between trying to restrict multiple fire, or allowing it for this situation.
  7. KAMUT

    SOC

    Exactly! I'm trying to minimize this loophole as best possible and it doesn't seem fair to just take the ability away out right. but at least, balance it to where another weapon could be readied for the start of the next turn. this I can see within the balance of a turn. this was the idea behind reducing the breeder altogether, just to limit that as best possible. but I do want these things to "break the CAV mold" so to speak; these are NOT CAVS, they're Cybots, and in the right conditions they can be extremely effective. the troublemaker at the moment, is the XP1 particle bolt pistol; using that creates a huge PW excess being that it doesn't require as much to operate.
  8. KAMUT

    SOC

    I can accept that. so grenades are treated as IF. and we'll stay within the game balance. I'm really looking at the ability to switch weapons mid turn, as opposed to simply putting it away. the balance is trying to keep the multiple attacks within context. next example fire a pistol (3PW), holster it (3PW), draw your rifle (3PW) and fire(4PW). currently 3 PW would be excess unless the unit "releases" the rifle to its sling. (end result, nothing in the SOC's hand)
  9. KAMUT

    SOC

    yeah, in a way it is the weapon PW cost are actually bumped up a bit, basically the cost to move the arms to fire the weapon are in one number. the only additional PW your paying off is to "draw" or "holster" the weapon (or reload the ammo critical ones). it also keeps a balance within the PW cost which we're still trying to work within the timeframe of "4 seconds". I just dont want these things to be able to do too much, but at least capture the Grunt basics. Ultimately, this thing will not be limited by its weapons, like a typical CAV, and thats one strength of the design I want to capture. next up to bat would be handling some of these weapons. for example; currently we're treating the "toss a grenade" attack like indirect fire, however in doing so there is more than enough power to draw a rifle or pistol, and come charging out firing its weapon. it's a basic grunt tactic, and could be accomplished within the scope of 4 seconds especially by a machine; however under current rules, an indirect fire attack and direct fire attack cannot be done in the same turn. I'm wondering how to handle that.
  10. KAMUT

    SOC

    OK, Red here is the refined version. I took your advice and left the breeders alone. Instead we refined the arm articulation process and merged the stats as best possible. the PW number in parenthesis is the PW cost to draw, holster or in some cases reload the weapon. the arm articulation is already included in the cost to use the weapon. result, same process but less numbers to worry about. Datacards split and each variant is pretty much bare boned, optional weapons are on the last page. this should be easier to manage. if you notice atop the datacard, the arm articulation data is gone, much easier this way, but by default each minor action costs 1 PW per hand. IE reach, Grab, Push, Pull. this is more for reference than anything else. the special movements and position data hasn't been touched. basically as the SOC takes damage, these abilities diminish. basically its going to cost more movement and power to scale a vertical surface on its last DT. its the same damage track system and I think its reasonable. the optional weapons have their own place, and hopefully each one should be clearly defined, if not, we have to work on that. Ultimately, I think this is closer to ready up and it should capture everything we talked about without getting overly complicated. the tricky part is drawing the weapons and defensive fire.
  11. KAMUT

    SOC

    I'll keep that in mind good point about the excess power. Ideally I am looking at this as a the defining line between a 4DT and 3DT CAV, but because of the "Finesse factor", I think 3dts should do it. It should be able to take out most light CAVs without much of a problem, especially with the AC76 OGM or one of the rifles. currently the breeder line is equivelant to a Kahn, so it is technically using a smaller breeder. 3DTs also allows it to enjoy the better ECM value, which would compensate for it being 3DTs instead of 4. the ECM and TL values follow the Talon. I'll probably do some playtesting tonight, just to get a feel for how much PW excess there is. we'll try to have it ready for the next campaign sessions, falling this weekend. (we'll starting posting again wed or thurs,)
  12. KAMUT

    SOC

    I hear you bro This right here is just for our campaign. I don't think Reaper has any intention of trying to bring something like this to light so thats for them to decide. this creation, strictly for you and my brother, since the both of you were the only ones who showed an interest in using this type of machine in the campaign. yeah, drawing and holstering a weapon would exactly work like that, a "Macro" and that would use up some power. no real effort on the pilot except to command the machine to do that. to really simplify the process, aiming and firing a weapon should be included with the weapon power cost. I got these changes to make tonight. merging the PW costs holding aiming and weapons drain. (one number to look at should simpifly the process drastically) reducing the breeder PW a bit, maybe 14 PW is fair? Weapons fired once, including pistols, but what to do with the excess PW? It may seem complex now, but a lot of things that make it sort of complex can be merged with other functions to really speed things up. I think we can do that, and it should be not much more complicated than using something like a Sultan or Mastadon. Hey, you are realizing that you are looking at 4 different models on that datacard? hand held weapons are mixed and matched at your discretion. lemme split the datacards tonight, that'll help a lot.
  13. KAMUT

    SOC

    I think we should look at this as using the hands to "draw" or "holster" the weapon. I think switching weapons would be more involved than switching weapon modes. but it is kind of like that, only your tacking on extra power for using the hands to draw the weapon. I think in the future, I'll include that with the PW cost of the weapon itself, but I think the we could leave out the PW cost when targeting. better yet, include that with the PW cost of the weapon, just to keep it simple. Some weapons though require both hands to fire, some require only one. I do want to keep the idea of drawing and holstering weapons, grabbing and releasing things. but your right, some things could be merged for ease of play. but I'm not even worried about ACA or DCA yet. I just took a smaller number and used the same degredation as a psyro to get that effect.
  14. KAMUT

    SOC

    Yeah, at the moment arm movements only require power; and in retrospect, I think this way is a good problem solver, for example how would a SOC grab a weapon from a CAV while peeling it's canopy off? Well I don't know about the CAV weapon's loss but I can see 2PW to reach and grab the weapon (requires two movements) 2PW to reach and grab the canopy at this point 1 PW to rip the canopy off the CAV.(maybe double the PW for a strenuous action) that attack costs 5PW and possibly an extra 4 assuming the SOC was moving to base contact. Shoulder mounted weapons, I was looking at them being "slung" on the back until used. then slid on a track over the shoulder and fired like a grunt fires a stinger. the Delta variant however has the regular secondary mount configuration. I think dropping the breeder output would help the balance out, better. So each weapon is fired once per turn, that'll be changed.
  15. KAMUT

    SOC

    So you think, one weapon attack is suffice then? I was pondering that. and should the arm movements take up movement points instead of power? I think for at least energy weapons, the power should be conducted from the SOC hand. trying to get away from tracking ammo, and powercells. I don't think a breeder could be made small enough for a SOC hand held weapon. I couldn't escape the ammo situation with altogether with AC76 OGM, and shoulder mounted mortar. I could just simply reduce the breeder output altogether and that would limit additional weapon fire for at least the rifles. though the pistol still has a bit of an edge.
  16. KAMUT

    SOC

    OK, cool; I think what I was trying to acheive was treating the arms as something outside of movement costs. Though things like crouching, climbing or crawling would actually use up movement points too. the climbing I'm talking about is basically scaling straight surfaces, normal CAVs couldn't do that. I will reword that. Are you thinking maybe the change in positions shouldn't cost additional power? that would streamline record keeping a bit, but I'm thinking since this goes out of the norm for CAVs, it would require additional power, which is that yellow column. (The green column is movement costs) I'm thinking the power for the weapon is fed directly from the hand when the handle of the rifle or pistol is in the SOC's grasp. The weapon itself requires an energy cost to fire as normal, but the pointing and handling of the weapon would require some additional arm movements that also draw power depending on if one or two arms are required. Gaining TL would be a little more involved than a CAV that's actually built with a "preset field or sector or firing lane" a few things I was trying to prevent was, one giving these units more opportunity for fire or having to restrict them by bumping the weapon power costs up. two attacks with the same weapon seemed fair enough, but then why couldn't CAVs have that same ability? So where I was going with this is, taking some power and putting them with the arms themselves for the motions required for pointing the weapon, taking aim and firing. At this point, for one turn a SOC would be able to fire an XR1 rifle twice and run about 26 inches. of course it could at the end the turn, take a kneel position behind some cover at the end of the turn if there is enough power. I'm thinking a CAV should be at least able to do that, but I not sure of the official word. maybe thats the way they gain a hull down? Well, it's still a process, but go ahead and keep tinkering with it.
  17. Hey Red I did order a Strike Cadre from the Southern Militia; though I don't know jack about them. I'm just assuming this is sort of a basic assault force with a mix of abilities? could you give me a standard unit layout for HG. so I can decide to what extent I'll get troops?
  18. KAMUT

    SOC

    Oh, boy being military again Special Operations Cybot basically a "CAV" with hands. Ultimitely this is a 40 ton mechanical grunt. here is some of the general guidelines. I have to figure construction costs for each variant, but I want to get their concept right. Note: SOCs are highly versatile. Different in concept than a true CAV, however these machines can be quite effective if utilized properly. 1. Attacking with hand held weapons involves hand articulation. This PW cost is added onto the PW cost to fire the weapon. Hand weapons are considered fast recharge weapons and can be fire more than once in a turn, depending on the power requirements 2. Shifting body position (Kneel to Prone) requires movement points as well as power points. 3. “Grab a grenade” and “throw” costs an undamaged SOC, 2 movement points total and requires 1 PW for the arm and another to trigger a detonation. Detonation is considered on a timer and explodes within the turn. Only one grenade can be thrown per hand. 4. Prep a claymore requires a “kneel” action, the Claymore’s PW for is tallied in the turn when detonation is triggered. Both hands are used to prep, none are required to detonate. 5. Shoulder tracked weapons require 2 to 3 actions to complete, Sequence is “reach back”, “draw weapon” and “stabilize with the free hand” if both hands are required. 6. Defensive fire is limited to the weapons drawn at the conclusion of the turn. On the Delta variant SOC, it can return fire as normal because of its fixed mounts. 7. Bipod weapons only return defensive fire at 180 degrees. bear in mind, this is a work in progress, but I'm at the point some things can be tested. also think of a SOC action as a series of minor actions required to accomplish a larger task. (Actions are limited by power) so a SOC at this moment, can run accross the field, fire it's rifle twice all within the same turn. (some Core rules had to be set aside to make this work within the scope of the game)
  19. KAMUT

    SOC

    I have the basic stats laid out for this thing, so those who are interested. drop me an Email.
  20. Hey Red If you catch this message during the weekend, give me a call. I have the first preliminary datacards of the Special Operations Cybot, but there are some fine details about its handling that you need to know about. I probably won't do up a model until I know the machine works within the game balance.
  21. I understand the concern, and thats one of the major reasons why I left the Black Lightning program, just so people don't get the impression anything I proposed was "official". It doesn't mean I no longer support Reaper, It only means we're supporting them in a much different way. I don't look at CAV or anybody playing strictly tournies and warmasters as boring. In fact we enjoy the Warmaster and built our campaign structure around it. But I always looked at the core rules as "core rules" and not "the Rules". the term implies there is more to this game. So for those who insist the core rules are the rules, they end up with a messed up view to anything added to the game, unless Reaper makes it "official". I got a ton of respect for these guys, hell after a few intense discussions with Matt Ragan via email, I'm convinced the dude is a mad genius. He knows his elf, period. Loyalty begets loyalty, respect begets respect, and my impression of the Reaper staff has usually been favorable, and they have truckloads of patience to even put up with a lot of elf from all of us, and still maintain an "Ear to the streets" The House rules on Mil-Net should've been the best answer, but the problem is, that messed up view of "House Rules" seemed to creep in there as well. Granted there were some who held to the idea, something or another was messed up, until either they realized, they were making mountains out of mole hills, or they just got fed up and left. With the exception of online reports for the campaign, I barely even bother posting there as much as before and only recently got comfortable with posting on the Reaper forums again.
  22. Now I have another reason to check out the Terra Nova faction.
  23. TACOPS is purely support, however in some situations, they may ride around in a field vehicle. whatever the situation calls for. currently, for the campaign, the character "Spear Specialist Djanni Moore" who is the Wild Apache TACOPs Officer, would be aboard the Assault Transport Geronimo, which is running a low orbit pattern to provide artillery support to the troops on ground. The TACOPS post is a little outdated, so I'll post the updated information in a thread here. Basically the experience or skill level in game of the TACOPs officer provides the overall unit with extra initiative. Since my family prefers to roll dice instead of drawing cards for initiative, the skill level "regular (0)", "veteran (+1)", "Elite (+2)" or "Ace (+3)" is added to each roll. If we we're drawing cards for initiative, basically the skill level tells us how many OBCS cards we add to the deck. So for us, OBCS is a pretty constant thing, but we don't include that in the point cost for the campaign. suppose two opposing forces have each +2 TACOPs, then they are either canceled out or both numbers are applied. in another situation, one force has a TACOPS of +2, while the other has a TACOPS of +3, well one card can be added to the deck (or a +1 for initiative roll for the army with the better TACOPS), or just add two cards for one force, 3 for the other. We're still testing the "prefered" method. experience is simply the number of accumulated kills (in points) for that unit under an accepted point cost, and since we don't usually run 3 or 4 way games, we don't worry so much about pouching. As of lately we just left our TACOPs set at Elite. but technically, with all the games we've played with the same unit Wild Apaches, the character "Djanni Moore" is actually an Ace. We're using the system to determine "Logistics Points" at the moment, and here is how it works. I assign a mission which requires 2 CAV sections, under our limits, each section is 1500 points so the total mission total is 3000 points. I pay out 3750 for the mission (cost x 1.25). you decide per section you will use 1400 points (2800 points) that leaves you with 950 points left over in case you take losses. When we run a salvage or recovery operation, your basically spending whatever points you need to refit or bolster your forces. the salvage rolls are still being tested, but ultimately every CAV destroyed is considered a complete loss, what your rolling the d10 for, is to see what you can repair from it. a 10 is a complete refit, a 0 is a total loss. the equipment gets "sold" to the recovery operator (Captain Peter Riley), of course at cost x.9 and those points get added to your logistics score. An "evolved" unit is one that takes a heavy loss, but reorganizes into a smaller unit. usually the logistics points are at the very least double of the new unit total. (a 1500 point evolved force with over 3000 logistics points- this force can withstand a 100% combat loss and still be able to rebuild). If anybody is puzzled in the future about something I talk about, please ask me to clarify it better. I'm actually an easy guy to talk to.
  24. Yeah, hey, sorry about that. I'll work on a better translation for everybody a Tomahawk is our basic manuevering element, is roughly equivalent to a turma in capacity. (or at least each army is based on 7500 points) what I mean big manuevers is BIG manuevers, like advancing a conventional battle line. the Tomahawk is our name for it but we also call it a combat group (A1CG means Alpha 1st Combat Group or 1st Tomahawk) this would be the rough equivalent of an Army Armor company (12 tanks) and its own mechanized infantry platoon for support. also air support is included specifically for this unit as well as light vehicle support (4 vehicles for recon, or light duties) We replaced 4 tanks with CAVs, so that we could use them to fight their way through an enemy battle line, create a weak point and the armor takes advantage of that weak point. They then hold that point, while the CAVs create another weak point. Everything else is supporting that action. When an armor company attacks an enemy, first off, they will try to overwhelm them with numbers and sheer firepower. one "section" would fight the enemy in place, while the second "section" while try to get around the enemy if possible either to the right or left (flank). the third "section" supports the first and tries to replace any damaged units that are totally destroyed or combat ineffective. Thats a very basic American armor tactic and there are plenty others, but this one kind of explains the organization of an armor company the best. Armor should never be without some kind of infantry support, because they can be taken out quite easily by enemy infantry armed with antitank rockets (and not that 3rd rate garbage used by Iraqi military) this is why we dedicate a mechanized infantry platoon (infantry with apcs) for each armor company. An infantry platoon without vehicles is roughly 44 men divided into 4 squads, two fire teams each with maybe 3-5 men each. 3 of these squads are basically rifle squads, armed with M16s and each fire team has a SAW gunner or a squad automatic weapon to lay down suppression fire while the rifle teams move around. the 4th squad is the humdinger, thats usually a Heavy weapons squad, armed with 2 teams of 240 bravos (an m60 on crack). included in that team is an ammo bearer, sometime two, I've even seen these guys carry some antitank missiles and stuff. what we did is take away a rifle squad and replaced it with 4 tubes of mortars; not to mention give them a ride, depending on if their light or heavy infantry. so our version of a typical platoon is two double mortar stands with apcs in one squad (section) 2 to 3 AT23, 52 stands and apcs in the next section, and the next section or 2 with 2-3 stands of basic grunts (FA45, a1GL, or G11) we added a section of vehicles to round them off (sabres, ashigaros, or nomads when they come out.) and finally to provide air support, a section consisting of 2 Tsuiseki's, a Kharl and a harpy, or sometimes two Harpys. TACOPs is for short, a Tactical Operations Officer, sort of an intelligence and data collector. this is our equivalent to a company S-1 officer. (S-1? I'm a little fuzzy right now). this guy (or Gal) analizes all the recon information, and compares this against his or her unit's ability. from this information, he or she can propose the good course of action for success and minimal casualties. The unit commander and TACOPs Officer formulate a strategy based on this information and make it happen. Our organization is actually based on real army concepts, and together seem to work pretty well in all the games we've ever played, even before the campaign rules. I hope this helps
×
×
  • Create New...