Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KAMUT

  1. that is true; so I know I need to do a little more to make sure people understand that. As for the fluff; you know, I'm having just as much fun creating my own, as I do playing the game. The idea with our campaign was to continue creating the fluff as we go along. It's one thing to read something saying "Wild Apaches, G Unit and Lucky 8s fought the Battle of Cassini" but it's something more to have actually played it through. Ultimitely, this will go into a nice lengthy piece, maybe a novella of my own. I would rather have a backdrop established where other players participated. have them open up a book and say "oh, yeah, I didn't realize how import my mission was to the outcome of the whole story". The only thing I had established was the beginning, the possible ending and a few highlights; the rest revolved around player participation. So thats the "agenda" behind what we're doing; The campaign rules are just that; to kind of link the story elements to the actual game experience. So things like the TACOPs Officer, or the UTDS Geronimo becomes much more than just a name, but an actual presence in game. Situation Modifiers; My group has been using them with the grid map as opposed to the individual sections on the table. Section Limits, really enhance the feel of the campaign dramatically, and they help balance everything within perspective. Whats an additional bonus is, now when we assign missions on Cassini, I have a set number to work around and generate what we call "Logistic points" or the capability to rebuild or reinforce a troop's movement. On a large scale of combat, a lot of things some guys dismissed are actually working pretty smoothly in game (and are not even as complicated as some people may think). though there is always room for improvement. My toughest challenge is trying to get other players, including the designers to understand what we're doing over here and how we're coming to some of the decisions we do.
  2. I think that is the big line right there, official stuff, play by official rules. I never had a problem with that, and I think some people may have been confused with everything we proposed, thinking this was core rules stuff. For the record, a lot of the things that I had difficulty with, I either found a way around within the rules or Reaper fixed. one 4 infantry to a stand yet two weapons on the datacard. (the overwatch explaination doesn't do it for me either) Solution The rulebook itself says an infantry stand can have as many models as you want, the data card still stays the same SOOOOO. I put 2-3 men on a stand, two are reflective of the data card and a 3rd as a leader type. Crewserved weapons are 2 men per weapon. two Critical hit chart, Solution Reaper fixed it, I just work off that to include salvageable equipment. AS AN OPTION Three Scale of Aircraft Solution – just proxy with 1/144 dragon models A10 for Tsuiseki, or f-19 stealth fighters for most else. Four Armor, either too small or too WW2ish Solution Well, perhaps in the 23rd century, only two men are required to crew a tank, comparing my Despots to an N scale Leopard A4. the Naginata is a tad larger. the Tsukei is my next major aquisition. Note: the vehicles like the Sabre and Ashigaro do look a little on the small side in my opinion, but I can live with it as for WW2ish, JoR 2 knocked that right out the box. Scale is important to me for a lot more reasons than just CAV, so I tend to look at them as models and not game peices. and woah, I am BIG on fluff. I love to incorporate a story as a backdrop for whatever battles we do.
  3. Actually the Grunder House Hercules, designed by Blitz on the Mil-Net. though an N scale C 130 Hercules would make a hell of a kit bash. I gotta keep that in mind. go over to the Milnet if you cant find it here. theres a virus going around so you you shouldn't trust any links for the time being.
  4. so far everything seems to indicate Dropship-Jumpship, but I don't really know the official word. The Hercules is a dime peice, so you should look into that. she's hot. I did a few designs for my own campaign; a Tomahawk lander and an Assault transport which could carry 3 of them, a squadron of intercepters and some lighter drop ships. It resembles a space station with the top sort of simular to the configuration of Deep Space Nine but with three good sized engines, it's hub points down and on it's tip is a turret with 4 huge guns designed to provide artillery support from orbit. In N scale, this ship would have a diameter of 5 feet from the top and about 7 feet tall. this ship would need to travel through the jump points as indicated by the official fluff, however we have a simular variant that can negotiate its own jump points.
  5. yeah with the TACOPs out, Delgado is screwed out of overall initiative. they'll be blind as a bat. once they are out of the picture, all of our initiative is no longer canceled out, meaning everytime you manuever against Delgado, add 2 cards to the deck for you or a +2 to each initiative roll. Which reminds me, Ortiz TACOPs was already taken out in our air raid, so you already have that bonus against them. Our initiative is canceled out against the Silent Storm, being they operate as recon for themselves. that was pretty evident with the pattern the held when we first deployed.
  6. Campaign Title: The Second N'dee War Blood Apache Statement of Derision http://www.mil-net.net/commstation/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1394 Red Sentinal Statement of Derision http://www.mil-net.net/commstation/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1482 Battle for Cassini http://www.mil-net.net/commstation/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1582 ATTN CETFOR http://www.mil-net.net/commstation/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1512 Cast of Characters http://www.mil-net.net/commstation/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1453 OK, I guess this is probably much easier than tracking emails so we'll do the basic stuff out in the open. Classified stuff stays out of the public.... -logged A Hot drop to catch the TACOPs is not a bad idea, though I would prefer you wait until the Tecumseh passes through its fire support run. that way, most of those Halo 81, 82 and 83 series Opex gun towers are alpha mike foxtrot, if you know what mean. I think a Section of SOC would then be able to get around, but there is a full tomahawk immediately in the area of the Mobile TACOPs. I misread the Sierra Romeo coordinates, it was a sad offset, so we're looking at Mike Quebec for the underground facility. Looks good for a hit, and the same SOC section could manuever both missions. The core of Lucky 8s should stay in their operation area, your running a delay against the entire Ortiz Battery and the fact we initiated phase 2 deployment already means they're all shook up. We'll put the SOC section at 1500 points max and you can add that to the Lucky 8 roster. If you feel a little bloated, you can cut loose G Unit and we'll figure something out for them. My niece should be coming back from New York soon anyway.
  7. hey lets move this to another thread.
  8. I think for HG, i'll probably stay small for a while, so I'll probably try a Terranova faction to get the feel for their mecha. besides, my pockets can only handle so much anyway, it's tough managing a CAV army, hoah. At Spartan; No doubt. It'll be included with our next update of the Tolucan registry and you can have it all in one shot. just give me an email. At Red I'm reexamining the situation at Sierra Romeo, the trench and bunker system. basically that whole ridge area is home to a pretty extensive underground facility. Originally a light CAV would be able to get around a lot of that facility but these SOC may have the right mix of capability to get through all of that, even if they have to high crawl, low crawl through some areas. Another situation is the mobile Delgado TACOPS, one SOC sniper round oughtta take her out, and theres no way in hell any conventional equipment is going to get further north without punching through. Wild Apaches would keep the remaining Delgado elements occupied, I think a sniper variant is in the works. Silent Storm has been giving us all hell, so maybe a recon screen is the best option. You already caught Mchale, and with the Geronimo pounding the h*ll out of Delgado, they would certainly disperse to avoid being pin pointed. We'll run a section of SOC through their area with a super wide dispersal pattern, pin point any of their prick officers and take them out before they have the chance to converge on any of our heavier forces. there might be a small delay before we start up, but I'll have these mission parameters detailed when we do.
  9. Wilco. Let me dig for info first, then I'll ask you about whichever faction I choose. On the CAV side of the house, If your willing. We'll try a few new things on Cassini once the holidays let up. We already established as we push further to the north, we will come across heavier experimentations like TAK Sinopa, Notako, Apukeena and quite possibly lesser Mangus. We'll introduce a Special Operations Cybot (SOC) and a few hand held weapon classes to start with. most certainly, we'll keep these Cybots on the light CAV scheme of things, however with the shoulder track and heavier weapon, this thing should at least be able to carry one heavy weapon somewhat comparable to a large CAV. We can bump heads on stats together, but preferably its weapons load should stay around 1-2 hand held weapons (or a rifle) a knife and either a shoulder tracked heavy weapon or some kind of secondary DFM/IFM mount for light CAVs. Damage wise, i'm looking no more than +4 to +5 (Hard) for a shoulder tracked weapon +3 to +4 for hand held weapons, rifles having the better range. Scaling vertical surfaces require 3 or 4 movement points per level, and a rappelling kit is standard for this thing. (perhaps good for up to 10 levels of vertical climb) some of the terrain up north will be great to try this out. I'll get to work on this and look for them during our next recovery operation right after the New Year. We'll give these things a baptism by fire, hoah.
  10. I think I was proposing something simular with the specs for the "Ninja" whereas using a shoulder mount to fire a standard CAV sized weapon simular to how a grunt fires a stinger or maybe like a Dragon. The potential is definately there. I like the idea of this weapon operating with various modes like the Chimera or the Sultan's rotary IFM. this would increase it's heavy combat potential. maybe with a 36-40 range, this unit could qualify as a sniper. Too often enough, a lot of people equate a mech with hands and the potential for close combat. Its there, but as you said, those are extreme measures, you have to get close enough first. Sold on HG, and will talk to my people tonight. I think I can get a platoon in a pack, so I'll start with that to get a feel for the game. maybe later I'll try Gear Krieg too.
  11. At a glance, you just described the differences yourself. the weapons loadout dictate the mission role. A CAV to put it simply is a Combat Assault Vehicle (cool name huh?). there is no mistaking that, and it will carry a much heavier weapons payload than an equally sized CAV with hands. Role specifics, are as Reaper described exactly. CAVs are breach and penetration, especially against a heavy battle line. Simular to conventional armor, but far more mobile. Something like a Heavy Gear or a CAV with hands is far more surgical in operation. Attacks would be against precise and predefined targets, where it could utilize it's flexibility at best. In a straight up fight, within a few seconds against an equally sized CAV, a CAV with hands wouldn't stand up to a typical CAV. A typical CAV will have it outgunned from the jump. The weapons damage greatly supercede the armor value in CAV and the CAV with hands wouldn't be able to bring about decisive firepower as quickly as a CAV can. Not trashing HG, or the idea about CAVs with hands, just running the comparison. Close combat could be ideal for a CAV with hands, but just like your not going to run 300 meters across the battlefeild just to punch a rifleman in the head, a CAV with hands will have to be crafty with its approach. the Larger weapons on a CAV would have better range than anything hand held and a rifle type CAV weapon will have to stand up against two primary weapons. secondary mounts have been left out because if the two were equally sized, the two have the same potential to carry the same secondary weapons types. A CAV with hands lacks the double primary weapons advantage of a typical CAV, but gains the advantage of flexiblity because of the articulation of its hands. It would be better to avoid a direct fire fight with a typical CAV so I think the reduction of size in comparison would make it a harder target and easier to hide. A CAV with hands would do better to mask its approach (as with all things) but more so being that it is obviously outgunned. Stealth would work better with a smaller unit anyway so this type of CAV starts to shine here. Light CAVs usaully have great ECM, so as a lighter model, this could be a simular trait. Why fight a CAV directly if you can snipe him from a safe and obsene position? A CAV with hands would definately be able to reach these obscure positions. this is the discipline that suggests itself to me when I compare two equally sized CAVs; one with hands, and one without. I really have to try out Heavy Gear; I've been a little biased towards even trying out other Mecha games. Heavy Gear is one for certain I haven't tried.
  12. Again, true AI is the ability to reason outside it's programed routine. If you program a machine to "not target freindlies" with true AI, it has the ability to think outside of that routine. that's true AI. Science fiction or not. I was just saying, that is scary to me. unfortunate for me, we are heading that direction. An AI equipped CAV will outperform a human/WSO piloted one, almost too mechanical and with no inhibitions about it. I'm with you about the flexibility of weapons. drop one pick up another, yeah it doesn't get much quicker than that. but your at the mercy of whats available, and that wouldn't always be applicable. A hand held weapon for a CAV would be smaller than whats currently used for them. you couldn't use the current CAV weapons like a pistol, their too big, harder to aim and the prolonged stress would be a problem in the "forearm area" of the arm. the metal would have to be rediculuously thick and dense to keep it from destroying the arm. If you did decide to use one of the typical CAV weapons, it would have to be used like a rifle; and you'll only have one. If you tuck a rifle under both of your arms then you can use two, but a CAV is already configured that way. A typical CAV is a dedicated weapons platform with a certain degree of flexibility. Agreed not nearly as flexible as a machine with hands, but well designed for its role. I do think a CAV with hands may not be such a bad idea, I agree with you there. but what I'm saying is, it's combat role would be much different.
  13. We did a Tolucan Registry of just this kind of stuff. I can email you a recent copy if your willing to try a few new things. most of this stuff comes out of discussions here and there. this is for campaign play and should never be used in a tournie or such. For smoke, we've only used it from time to time with A1 GL infantry. just target a point, use the drift rules. place a flight stand with a cottonball and a 4 sided dice marker. the LOS is blocked for at least 1 turn and with an AOE of 2 inches (radius). I was thinking a while ago about hand held grenades, and thinking about a simple rule set to manage them. I'll let you know what we come up with. I'm not to worried about this stuff making the game complex like Battletech; honestly the core mechanics of CAV are so simple, that'll truly never happen.
  14. The flail is an excellent weapon for its day and time, but we wouldn't arm our troops with it. This is a weapon which excells at close range combat, and is great at wacking through foilage. (in the case of a 20-30 foot robot, those pesky tree branches.) but a Machete is just as effective and not liable to bounce back against a hard surface and smack you right back. Battlebots is specifically point on point contact, now imagine if somebody armed one of them with a pair of M60 machine guns. the game will be dramatically changed. I think this type of CAV would definately have to be on the small size, maybe even with a single crewman. Something like this could only be piloted by an expert, skilled as a pilot and WSO. I like the idea of a back slung weapon on a track which rotates the weapon over the shoulder and fired in the manner simular to an infantry man firing an anti tank rocket. - maybe for versatility, give it a multi function like the Chimera. (just don't mount it on the crotch with pump action) It could have a hand held weapon, something like an MP5 in relation to size. that way it's small enough to tuck aside on a "holster"; plus a quickload feature would allow the weapon swap powercells (obviously, it's mission role would require it to rely mostly on PBG or LBG weaponry.) A powered Knife would be pretty cool, maybe even shaped like a machete and holstered slightly downward from the chest, that way it could draw and slash in one motion. ideal for close combat if it was necessary; utilize a quick kill method against a full sized CAV by using it's stealth abilities to get close enough to the rear of a stationary CAV and Swiiiiiiiiish. ECM would have to take on a stealth characteristic, perhaps even allowing an enemy CAV to read it as a lone infantry stand until visual confirmation is made. maybe deploy this single CAV as a section and place 3 more lone infantry stands to act as decoys. (one of course would be marked as the real thing.) after visual confirmation is made, the stealth CAV can be placed on the table, unless it's in some heavy foilage like a jungle or forest with good tree cover. it can raise hell on anything that enters it's area of operation and the best defense is indirect fire saturation of that area. Data card wise, this thing would be no more or less than 3 DTs. it's shoulder fired weapon just stay in the area of no more than +4 or +5 against either hard or soft targets. (range 32-40 depending if it's a sniper variant). the shoulder tracked weapon would be a weapon which will be on par with a large CAV chassis but not as tough. Speed would be at least 26 inches, just enough to stay with the fastest superiority with an upgrade, but not enough to keep up with a RECON/ESM type CAV. it would be able to scale abrupt surfaces for maybe 2 or 3 points per level, and cannot fire when in that process. parts would not be interchangable with other units, (breeders, TL systems, ECM systems.) In that relation, this type of CAV would be to CAVs what a laptop is to computer. If Reaper ever pursues this idea, please let the Terran UCORs be the first to come up with this, preferably Mitso Ta. then you can call it the Mitso-Ta "Ninja". Of course, other UCORs would follow. So what does everybody think?
  15. AI is a whole other dimension in robotics, and for CAVs there would almost have to be some primitive kind of "reasoning" to avoid the programmed routines from "stalling" while its trying to figure it's way around a problem. Stalling in combat could be deadly. AI is basically the means for a machine to rationalize outside it's programmed routine, or to "learn" the answer to a problem and commit it to memory. At its basic function, lets examine a drone RC car whos task is to travel a path from point A to Point B at a certain time each day. It does this regularly but one day a brick wall is put in its way. All of the sudden, there is a problem so the operator guides the drone around the wall and the drone changes it's routine to adjust. Thats a typical robot, however with true AI, the drone would have been able to identify the problem itself and rationalize a solution without the operator's intervention. Right or wrong, the drone would have made a choice based on it's best "reasoning" then acted on that choice. The best robots nowadays have the intelligence of a dumb animal, they do what they do, thats it! The difference is they do what they do extremely well, especially repatative motion. this is why AI for the weapons components of a CAV is a scary thing (for me anyway), so the WSO is a practical answer for that. Whats to stop the machine from declaring it's own crew a target? Now we're talking close to what I mean by a CAV which is slaved to a Mangus in our "future campaigns". AI is a whole other arena of discusion and it tends to revolve around religions and emotion. but unfortunatly that is a path which isn't clearly defined along our conditions, and that's why we as humans are naturally afraid. You don't even have to argue about the articulation of hand joints, that is absolutely true. the Combat Assault Vehicle is a robot, but it isn't much good for anything else; the whole arm from the shoulder down, is designed to carry a heavier weapons load out than if it were a weapon carried in a hand. The wieght distribution is different, but if the whole arm was removed from lets say a Dictator and replaced with an articulating hand, the flexibility of the Dictator would be governed by what it can hold. NO argument there, brother, but there would be no hand held weapon it could carry that would match the firepower of its GKw 12s; it's the load distribution. So would a CAV with hands be even in the same league with a typical CAV? Not without some serious programming and discipline changes. for example, A light recondo or stealth variant CAV would benefit from being able to clear its own way through heavier brush. It would need killer ECM and hellified speed to compensate for the lack of firepower. Under this rationale, this type of CAV would not be expected to confront a typical superiority CAV, but use its flexibility to take it places beyond what a normal CAV can go. things like vertical rock climbing, thick brush movements, ETC, ETC. Now there is a "CAV with hands" that uses it's strengths to compensate for its weakness'. I could see a special knife for this variant but more so for other uses, like clearing brush than opposed to close combat. Give it a good short ranged weapon with some punch, maybe a single shoulder fired anti CAV weapon.
  16. A skilled warrior can do much with a knife in a gunfight. hey hey. see Rambo seriously, every weapon has its time and place on the battlefield, even if it may be all that you have. I could see metal slicing knives on heavy Infantry though, being they could find the most practical use for it. I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday. I saw the Packbot a while ago, and it is a step in the age we're talking about. but although it can do things along its own parameters, theres a guy usually sitting in a van with a remote control, giving it constant instruction. Unlike other vehicles, a CAV is a robot considering all the preprograming that must go into motion compensation, taking a step, considering that step based on the type of terrain and it's density, etc, etc. Unlike the Packbot, the guy sits within the machine as a "Pilot", giving the machine instructions, however the constant change of variables, would be managed by the robot itself. A CAV would have a certain level of robotics more so than most other vehicles, considering all the programming that must go into just making the thing move. The newest Euro fighter works in the same capacity, the machine itself was designed airodynamically unstable on purpose. At high speeds, it's flight computers take over damn near 100% of flight operations and even some combat/evasion patterns. This is something more advanced than the standard auto pilot. I can see something simular for CAV "pilots" where the pilot is really only there to directly manage the machine, but the machine really handles itself.
  17. One thing that Red touched on , and I firmly agree however is a tracked vehicle is far more capable of carrying a heavier weapon and fire the thing with less variables than a machine in the link is capable of carrying. thue easier TL. It's more of a distribution of load, which is why I thought the TL modifier for armor was fair enough. I don't think Reaper needs to make bigger tanks, but the ones out already would certainly have more accuracy, if not heavier weapons. Imagine that robot, 25 to 30 feet tall and what you essentially have is a Commando Mech from Battletech.
  18. well, thats always a matter of opinion. I've already seen a walking robot debute at an Expo in Canada, sometime in 99-2000. So it's already possible by todays standards. How hard is it to slap a pair of 240 bravos on either "arm" and send it into a cave in Afganistan on seek and destroy orders. The cost saved in lives would be tremendous, however it is not economically feasable to create such things. I do see walking robots taking the field in the future, maybe even as replacement for some of the most dangerous infantry operations where the cost in lives is too much of a risk. The human body is FAAAARRR superior in mobility than any vehicle imaginable, so it would be crazy to not work towards creating a machine than emulates the human body. So whatever the human body can do, you gotta believe science is working on either duplicating or enhancing. Now AI is a different story altogether, but walking Robots are already the reality. as a matter of fact look at this http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~iba/misc/p3/
  19. Yeah, Air power pretty much would kill any preconceptions we had of Mecha. But that same question was raised about Armor in general. Why have them? hovering Aircraft (specifically helicopters) do not have the prolonged fighting power Armor has. Aircraft cannot hold a ground position, you need troops for that. I remember Fort Knox running a few tests to determine whether tracked armor or wheeled armor was the way to go; last check, the Army purchased those new 6 wheelers and scrapped the Crusader project. doesn't mean armor is obsolete, just means theres a time and a place for it. As for true Aircraft, if a tank (non AA) could get a shot off on a fast moving aircraft, then that crew deserves a hellified medal. The same should probably apply to a CAV Crew. not impossible. It should be cheaper and easier to produce a tank; less moving parts, but your still looking at a CAV exactly like a tank, when in fact. it isn't. Its different from a tank like a helicopter is different than a Fighter jet, yet kind of simular in function. I think Reaper caught the concept dead on, whereas the giant mecha is not the almighty lord of battle, as portayed in Battletech. The CAV is just one piece of a larger picture, and can be destroyed by just about every other unit in the game. Heavy Gear at a quick glance seems to utilize mecha like oversized power armor, and thats cool. I guess in their situation hands are cool, but CAV is coming from an entirely different perspective. Take a closer look at the Naginata, that might be the closest thing to what you may consider a "rolling CAV"
  20. The original robotic workers were called Cybots, and it is from these machines CAVs evolved. At first as crude weapons platforms built to defend their immediate area of operation, but eventually as technology progresses, fully combat designed "Cybots" appeared. These are the true CAVs just as Frank said ;Combat Assault Vehicle. thier solely designed for combat. What your asking about is Cybots; sure, they would be cool, but they aren't CAVs. I can see engineer Cybots in operations supporting an element of CAVs. Recovery vehicles are probably best left as tracked, but a modern Cybot would probably be able to go anywhere a CAV should. Ultimitely that is the Mecha's strength; mobility. Consider how difficult it is to move armor across a mountainous region, some vehicles stall when they hit an extreme grade, whereas the human body navigates that same terrain like walking up a flight of steps. That is the where a CAV would really shine on the battlefield, the fact that the commander has the ability to position "Armor" in an area once only navigable by infantry. Now a heavy armor element can come from just about anywhere and exploit a defensive line. Terrain is a key factor in preparation of a defense and CAVs, once as infantry support units, are now organized as breach and penetration units as described in the first JOR with the Imperial Wars, Thank the Terrans for that. this is probably the theory behind :Attention CAV. A tracked CAV bro? If a CAV is "a walking tank", then a CAV on tracks is basically "a Tank"
  21. KAMUT

    CAV Boxed Sets

    Cost is a major factor anyway you cut it. And for a fact around here, thats the reason, I've been supplying the armies for my guys to even play CAV. I know the same situation exists not just in Lancaster, but in a heck of a lot of places. Gamers, who crossover from other games, are already involved in the hobby, so yeah, they probably would buy a 100-150 dollar boxed set from the jump. But you haven't considered, that for every gamer who buys that set, there will probably 10 guys (probably never gamed in their life) who would like to get involved, but can't cough up 100-150 bucks in one shot, or may find 100-150 bucks too much for a game they may not be entirely sure of. Don't get me wrong, an army set is cool, but I wouldn't pass it off on a newbie. that's way too much to ask in the beginning. look at it like, what's the minimum investment I can spend to play a decent game of CAV. you'll have a better chance trying to sell a 50 dollar boxed set long before a 100-150 dollar boxed set. the sets could be split first by major governments, UCORs, then the major mercenary organizations like Yellow Jackets, Kolditz, Red Spades, then Pirates like Black Rose, Sir Hawkins ETC ETC. Each set may have it's own take on what they have, based on politics, UCOR of choice, loyalties, ETC,ETC. next the sections themselves could be arranged by function Superiority (Warmaster) Soft killers balanced (2 soft killer CAVs, 2 Hard killer CAVs) Fire Support/suppression Vehicles, armor, aircraft could probably follow the same mold and are treated as expansion kits. easier on the pockets being that if you can't afford to assemble that army of choice, you can take your time with it. OR just combine a few kits and get something a little closer to exactly what you want. now thats a TON of Variety with just that much, I wouldn't worry about point cost so much, unless your gearing for a Warmaster. By building an army gradually you also reduce the risk of players dissatisfied with certain units in the boxed set. IE The ghasts in that set are cool, but I prefer the Harpy. little things like that are a turn off to buying those big ole boxes. I know I was turned off with MWDA by the fact you really don't know what your paying for until you open the box; bad way to do business. Well, thats my take on it anyway.
  22. KAMUT

    CAV Boxed Sets

    I agree with you there. CAV really shines in the combined arms arena. but to ask a newer player to spend anymore than 50 dollars at least around here is a bit too much. Especially if your looking to draw newer players. The one thing about combined arms is there is no true clear cut way to be competative, and all that is left up to player skill and personal preferences. Some guys like more CAVs, some guys like more gunships, etc, etc. the game itself is balanced well enough, so the "winning combinations" are endless; I may not be able to use a gunship as well as you, or you may not able to use a certain type of CAV as well as me, vice versa. these personal preferences influence army selection, and of course, everyone is going to want to use what they can effectively use. I've seen some players using specifically CAV only forces and do just as well as an equally pointed combined arms force. thats all in the skill and personal preferences. At least with the Warmaster, the section itself can be refined to a few formidable choices and theres no rule saying there couldn't be any add on section kits of vehicles, armor, infantry etc, etc. This keeps the costs nominal and allows a new player to build his/her army gradually and in steps, according to his/her tastes. ideally, I'm looking at it as a how to paint kit too, with everything the newbies need to get started. paints, decals, cards, quick guide.... I feel if Reaper could keep it around 50 bucks, that's more than enough to draw in new gamers who may not be able to spend the money some of us do.
  23. KAMUT

    CAV Boxed Sets

    I was thinking just limiting prepackaged units by sections (to distribute to local game stores.) this way the cost would stay (hopefully) in the nieghborhood of around 40-50 dollars or around 25 dollars for a vehicle section. make it affordable to get newer players started at least on the Warmaster level. (especially those who may have never painted a mini before) the pro paints wouldn't have to be the full deal either but rather something like a Testors kit where it would be a small plastic palette, and a few small bottles of PRO Paint. enough to paint the section, with some left over just in case. plus 2 paint brushes. If ambitious a "Warmaster" kit could be made with two sections, dice and a quick guide to the rules. we all have our interpretations of what an army should consist of, so perhaps that is best left to the buyers themselves. just give them enough to get started. Army selections like proposed before would probably be best for an online bulk order deal, specifically for those who may not have access to a gaming store, which might buy in bulk through a distributor. Something like this could be marketed simular to the How to Paint kits, Reaper already has out.
  24. KAMUT

    CAV Boxed Sets

    I think a neat little package would be to market the major mercenary groups. included in the package would be one section of CAVs based on the mercenary organization's style of warfare. A set of decals with the approriate insignia a few Pro Paints in the unit colors, plus primer and a few brushes. an instruction sheet for how to paint a brief bio of the unit's history and stock data cards. that would be cool.
  • Create New...