Jump to content

Joel47

Members
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joel47

  1. 3" Army Transport tray, though you'd need a 4" if the cav have elevated lances. You could probably fit 12-15 in a tray. I've got Lord Vandrian in a 4" tray due to that pennant, so he doesn't always go with me to games (he's the tray's only occupant).

  2. The intent was that mortar teams go in FS platoons. But you're right, the rules don't say you can't.

    I recall pointing that out early on, and being told that the rules would be changed to prevent that sort of abuse. Hopefully they remembered...

  3. I put together a Crypt Legion list for yesterday's game, knowing that two of my three possible opponents usually play Dwarves. Result -- I'm going to need a lot of dwarven zombies to properly represent my new army composition. :devil: Having a chance to get back up was nice (and my dice cooperated), but the healing was the big thing. A bunch of Piercers had just managed to start hurting Moandain, so I spent a round and a spell healing him back up. He then resumed nuking dwarves.

  4. In all 3 cases, you'd end up with models that have the exact same base stats, yet the upgrades would be priced differently due to mostly non-related costs.

    Non-related, but still combat-effective. Defense-wise (i.e., Armor & ECM) I'd like to see upgrade costs scale with model cost. You should pay more to keep a more valuable (for whatever reason) unit alive.

    Offensive upgrade costs should vary with the effectiveness of the upgrade and how long the unit will stay alive (i.e., #DA and damage tracks).

  5. Realize, folks, that we're not saying things are incredibly broken, we're just saying Accurized (especially) and Armor are too cheap. Look at Point Defense Turret -- besides some ancillary effects, it gives two more armor vs just missiles and costs 35, vs Armor's +1 vs everything else for 15. At the very least, Accurized should be split into Accurate Guns, Accurate Indirect and Accurate Missiles for 15 each, but I still think upgrades like that should scale similar to the upgrades in CAV 1. Sure, it adds a little complexity, but CAV 2 has done such a good job at simplifying things I think we could put a little bit back without hurting anything. As it stands, you will never, ever see an Accurized Rifle Team, but if my suggestion in the other thread were adopted (2 pts/attack/damage track), it'd just cost 2 points more (or 6 using the 10% cost model). If that sounds too cheap, realize that that same formula would add 56 points to a Rhino, which as it stands I'd still buy every time.

     

    Sounds like you could use some more blocking terrain on your table.

    Back in CAV 1, we always had to set up *gobs* of blocking terrain. The table looked like the Badlands. I'd really prefer not to go back to that. I had wanted to use a little more (there was lots of Flames of War going on before we got there, so there wasn't much to choose from, though we did have two large forests), but I don't envision CAV as a modern infantry skirmish game (stay in cover or die instantly). It was Crazy8's first game, but I didn't bother using any tactics with the Rhino & Mastodon.

  6. A heavier missile load might have helped him, but the Upgrade Crazy8 couldn't remember was a point-defense turret. Also, I probably would have stayed out of LOS (running-and-gunning out from behind cover) had I been facing a more missile-heavy force. As it was, I just plodded forward and ignored incoming fire.

  7. We played a 2500 pt game last night, using a +1 to ECM across the board. I think +2 to ECM is the right number, as standing still and firing missiles twice is pretty deadly at long range. It does seem odd, though, that missiles damage things without regard to armor strength. I'd prefer to see missiles handled something like indirect fire, with a lock-on roll (perhaps vs the original ECM) followed by a damage roll (at a higher plus than 2, perhaps around 5 since they've already hit).

     

    The main point of the test, though, was my theory (mentioned in this forum several times) that certain upgrades are broken. Accurized and armor should scale with the strength of the unit. I gave a Rhino and a Mastodon both upgrades and left them in the open all game (albeit at 40+ inches). Neither one ever took a point of damage (though the Rhino's point defense turret helped). Accurized should be 2 points per weapon (DA, IA, and MA) times the # of damage tracks (or maybe 10% of the base model cost), and Armor should be 5 points per damage track (or maybe 5% of the base model cost). That leaves aside the effects of giving a model with Blaster the Accurized upgrade...

     

    One other question -- if Air units are flying nap-of-the-earth, why do airborne troops scatter? I'd have them scatter 1" in a random direction.

  8. How about having strikes be two actions on consecutive rounds? Round 1 -- call the strike into the general vicinity. Round 2 -- spot for strike as it lands (which requires LoS and/or a scan). Since we've agreed (I think) that everything has to be terminally guided, as hitting a moving target with off-board artillery is purely luck, that would fix the "first round" effects as well as de-power strikes slightly (but not too much). You wouldn't need to use the same model, either, though it should probably be limited to a model from the same section (gotta have the exact frequencies to talk to the artillery shells). It even gives a little bit of the "time of flight" effect without getting too realistic -- we still want a fun game.

  9. how often in today's military are you calling in strikes on fast-moving targets (and how much harder is it)?

    Hardly ever and almost impossible. :lol:

    That's what I figured. Fluff-wise, it would be best to consider all incoming munitions terminally-guided by the FIST model (or, optionally, the scanning model) due to the fact that every worthwhile target is moving. Combine that with a scan/LoS requirement, and there's justification for defensive fire applying. Now that would fix strikes being overpowered...

  10. "200m straight out" is just what the guy says to the RTO. The RTO then tells the FDC something useful like the grid of the target. I'm well aware "200m straight out" won't cut it. And you don't have to tell the FDC where you are if you're doing a polar or shift mission, just the direction.

    But aren't the two guys in question part of the same Rifle Team with FIST? Also, we're talking about hitting moving targets. I figure the spotter has to hit the target with his mega-rangefinder (scan, as you said), then transmit the data to the guy with the radio (free, just push a button). The second guy has to correlate the info *and* contact fire support central. Basically, your idea (explained much better at the end of your last post, thanks) looks good, I just think perhaps one more action, either on the part of the targeter or the FIST model, might be necessary -- how often in today's military are you calling in strikes on fast-moving targets (and how much harder is it)?

     

    Where does it say you need a Wizzo to share scan data with your platoon-mates? Did I miss that?

    Units with Wizzo get plusses vs targets scanned by their squadmates. Thus, given the short amount of time a round represents, precise targeting data (including both location and motion of the target) requires human intervention by someone not busy piloting (or running).

     

    That said, I could live with your rules as-is, with the caveat that one scan = one strike -- otherwise, one guy in the 12-model infantry platoon spots for the other 11, unless we can fix the opening activation problem.

  11. Something we're taking for granted is that the units we're manuevering on the tabletop have priority of fire for all that stuff. There might be another engagement a ways away that has priority of fire.

    That was part of my reasoning back several months ago when I proposed decreasing the strikes/round (though I didn't know the technical term, being strictly an arm-chair general). I like 1 strike/activation -- it keeps 12-model Rifle Platoons from ripping a deployment zone when they activate first. I don't like 1 of each type -- as mentioned earlier, aircraft and artillery rounds should not share the same airspace.

     

    The deployment zone is actually part of the problem -- around here, when models first activate they spread out to the edges as well as move forwards. Why not make the default deployment zone the width of the board? You know the enemy's just over the next hill, why are you still in parade formation?

  12. It doesn't require a FiST unit to make the scan. ANY model can attempt the scan and the data is then shared with the FiST'er.

     

     

    As for one guy sticking his head up and then telling the guy with the radio "they're 200m straight out.."  That's exactly how it works in real life.  :lol:

    But putting rounds on target in the time frame of one round in the game (no time-of-flight) implies guided munitions already on their way. The ability to uplink the targeting info ("200m straight out" would be insufficient, BTW, without also saying where you are and which way straight out is) is the FIST equipment/ability. I might be convinced that the info can be passed from a non-FIST unit to a FIST unit if one or the other has Wizzo, but the game has established already that targeting data can't be passed from model to model without Wizzo. I can accept it if both the FIST model and the non-FIST (scanning) model forfeit both movement and combat actions, but it seems to add un-needed complexity to what's shaping into a rather elegant game.

  13. 1. Counter Battery-  You're Fire-Finder radar set back at HQ finally tracked the trajectory of the enemy artillery and can tell the "Redlegs" where to fire some rounds to eliminate that pesky enemy artillery.

    Play immediately after the enemy's activation in which an artillery-based strike is called. No further artillery-based strikes can be called for five rounds.

    Cost: Depends on what the new costs of artillery strikes are, but about twice the cost of a strike.

     

    2. Air Superiority-  HQ finally honored your request to get some tactical fighters in here and get rid of the annoying strafing aircraft that keep tearing your guys up.

    Two versions:

    Intercept: The fast-movers performing the strafing run are bounced and drawn into a dogfight, negating the strafing run. Costs the same as a strafing run. (Perhaps strafing runs could be used for this purpose, as the trend in present-day modern aircraft is towards dual-purpose F/A.)

    Air Superiority: Full air superiority, played on your turn, prevents enemy strafing runs for five turns. Costs twice the cost of a strafing run.

     

    3. Ironhand-  Some nut-job tac-air pilots are going after the Cruise Missile launchers deep behind enemy lines.

    Called when the cruise missile appears, destroying it. Costs the same as the missile.

     

    Add orbital superiority, played on your turn, costs two-three times the cost of an orbital strike, and prevents orbital strikes for five rounds.

  14. I agree. I'd like to see the targeting roll made by the model calling in the strike. Otherwise, I get a mental picture of one infantryman poking his head over the top of the berm, then pulling back, telling his mates that the enemy is 200m due north, and seeing a bunch of soldiers all pull out their cell phones...

  15. I've been doing a scan roll modified with the targets ECM value.

    Let us know how it works (the next few weeks are too busy for me to get in a game). I'd love to see something like this make the rulebook. Currently, we're using "Mutual Assured Destruction" to limit the amount of strikes taken, but obviously that won't work for the finalized, printed rules (which should be balanced without requiring the immediate application of house rules).

  16. As a battletech player, I am already use to having about 10 different things to account for. (attacker move, defender move, multiple guns each with multiple gun ranges - short, medium, long, terrain, damage mods, special weapon mods, etc...)

    Yes, but (so long as you're using movement dice) you can calculate it all yourself, without asking your opponent what "special features" are on your target. The math doesn't bother me one bit until I run out of fingers -- I'm just trying to come up with a non-silly, non-permanent way of making things that affect the to-hit # like deflect obvious from across the board.

  17. I'd be fine with that if all of the other faction abilities were limited in the number of times they could be used too, but since they aren't....

    I'd have no problem seeing "Convert or Die" limited in # of uses, and my objections to the overwhelming first-action Strike possibilities of the Terrans are (I hope) well known.

    This isn't to say that its not over powered now, just that getting to bury the cards once per game isn't going to cut it.

    Yeah, the more I think about it, 3 total in a 3000-point game is insufficient. The thing is, I like games that force you to make tactical choices, and the more the better; thus, a limited pool of resources appeals to me.

    This would also reduce the power of the added tanks, since you'd be paying points into exisiting platoons instead of creating new ones.  Going your route you'd also have to lose tokens as you lost platoons, making it a double-whammy as you'd also be losing an initiative card.

    Sounds like a perfect balancing act to me.

    Yes, and I like that a choice is forced upon the player; it just seems odd that their abilities would work at cross-purposes.

    Why would you lose counters?  You don't lose any right now once you've lost 1000 points worth of models.  The # counters are based on the scenario rules, not what happens during the fight.

    I was just extending the current initiative card rules -- you wouldn't *have* to, but I'm still trying to fix the power level (and one per platoon would be *way* too high).

  18. We count with fingers, too. I'm just trying to figure out a way for one person to calculate the target number (modified DV) without needing the other person to pitch in with the stuff only shown on their data card. While it does lead to frequent exchanges of "Deflect!" "PBG!" "Damn!", it just strikes me as somehow inelegant. It's not vital, since weapons fire isn't simultaneous, freeing your opponent to fill in any missing data; I'm just thinking it would be nice. I just have to figure something out (that looks better than Chrome's suggestion :).

  19. My idea is to change the SA to be based on the total number of platoons in a game, not the total points...  say 1 for every 2 platoons that the Ritterlich force fields.

    I still think just limiting the tokens to one use per game (instead of per turn) would work well -- you can seize the initiative when you really need it, but you're not *constantly* going first. Basing it on the number of platoons will lead to most Ritterlich forces bringing as much cheap stuff as possible, as I think going first is worth quite a bit. This would also reduce the power of the added tanks, since you'd be paying points into exisiting platoons instead of creating new ones. Going your route you'd also have to lose tokens as you lost platoons, making it a double-whammy as you'd also be losing an initiative card.

    [*] Deflect needs to be against DA attacks only, not against IA attacks.  Just a personal opinion.

    I'm of two minds about that. On the one hand, there's no way for IA to get around Deflect. On the other, it seems to be balanced, and IA just isn't the killer it was in CAV1. That being the case, I'll go with the fluff, and I can't come up with a fluff reason why force fields would only work against horizontal projectiles ("Wizzo -- you angle the deflector screens while I get the coordinates from the navacomputer!")

  20. The short-range mods are a godsend when you're trying to get a Rhino out of heavy woods. (Sure, I spent two Dictators doing it, but it had to be done.)

     

    I am having trouble remembering who has Deflect (and, correspondingly, who has PBG), since I've never been good at rote memorization (though it will come with practice, I'm sure). Spartan6 makes a good point that it gets even worse with upgrades. While I don't think going back to the WYSIWYG modelling limitations, I'm trying to think of some way to discreetly mark the base to remind everyone what the model has, ability-wise.

×
×
  • Create New...