Jump to content

CAV 2 Beta


Recommended Posts

ok, another question about scanning...

 

The target is in stealth mode and has not fired or moved yet so trying to hide and keep from giving itself away until the right time.

 

You said that stealth and camo effects have the upper hand until 60 inches distance.

 

does this mean that if the scenario were something like a garrison where there is a definite defensive player, that player would not have to put said hidden unit on the table until one of the following things happened:

 

1. The attacker comes within 60 inches

2. The attacker thinks to and executes a successful scan from outside of 60 inches.

 

And if the above is true, then throw in the example if there are more than 3 "stealthed"units. The book says that the scan can reveal up to 3 units. How do you determine which 3?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I just saw that 90 degree facing on the hex base as well. With all the existing models out there on hex bases, as well as the stock already in the supply chain, I think a 60-degree rear face would be a better way to go. Models without bases or with non-hex bases are vastly in the minority and would be easy to check rear arc with a simple hex template.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading along here, and I tell you what, the unlimited range abilities of direct fire is going to have a huge effect on tactics especially related to defenisve fire.

 

For example, in CAV 1, a favorite tactic was to grab a gunship like the Merlin or Tsuiseki that had a long range, and fly around making sure to stay outside of the range of some of the super CAVs big guns, and peck away knowing that the Supers could not fire back.

 

Now, even with the -2 range penalty for being in the next range band, Supers will again become very feared by all units that are not super themselves.

 

Definitely interesting to say the least. Too early to give an opinion on it as I have only read it, not tested yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when you talk about the transports, Yes some of the transports capacity numbers have changed, when thinking of CAV2 ignore the datacards for CAV1.

 

When you say some of the numbers on the infantry stands don't match up what do you mean.

 

Mad Pat

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only model that has the Specialist ability right now is the sniper team. Are any others supposed to have that designation as well? It would seem a waste to define a special ability for just one unit.

 

Also, will the Distinction between the Coalition and Alliance have any significant effect on force construction? The languge here is a little vague. Will players be able to field task forces composed of Affiliated factions and still have access to some faction abilities?

 

Barring that, how about a set of Faction Abilities that can only be used by a force composed entirely of models from One Faction, and a Set of Affiliation abilities that can be used only by forces consisting of models from more than one of the Affiliation's member factions.

 

Just tossing ideas out. It just so happens that my three favorite UCORs (KODA, Borsig-Spline, and Hughes-Marietta) all ended up in the same faction. ::D:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stayed up half the night reading and re-reading the rules. I'm not going to comment on grammar as DC seems to be all over it and I realize this is a "rough draft" and the spelling and grammar will undoubtedly be cleaned up.

 

A few things jumped out at me as I read; the 90 degree rear arc being one of them as noted by Frosch and Erion. I agree it should probably be a 60 degree arc.

 

I don't care for the mandatory units during creation. What if I wanted to build a force consisting of only aircraft?

 

 

 

I don't care for the discipline/cohesion rules. Those rules make sense in a medieval/fantasy setting like Warlord and no sense in a futuristic setting for this reason: communication.

 

Troops become frightened and unsure when they are out of communication with other members of their unit or leadership. A friendly voice on the radio will keep troops from panicking. With modern battlefield tachnology taken into account and the likelihood of it's improvement over the next few centuries the individual soldiers' "situational awareness" will be bordering on information overload. Cohesion really shouldn't be an issue at all in CAV.

 

In my squad and platoon our fire teams often operated hundreds of meters from each other while maintaining communication and operating in a mutually supportive manner. A distance of four inches on the tabletop for infantry cohesion in a modern, or especially futuristic, setting is a completely unrealistic distance.

 

 

With the advent of the idea that every soldier should know the mission and the commanders intent, only infantry of extremely low quality would ever retreat without being ordered too. I've seen Privates wind up in charge of squads due to attrition and they did just fine for two reasons; 1. they knew the mission and their commanders intent and 2: they could get on the radio and ask "someone" what they should do. In 18 years as an infantryman I've never seen a professional infantry soldier willingly retreat completely out of a battle.

 

 

 

Moving on..

 

 

Page 19..Charge Bonus.. Why?

 

Page 19.. "Base to Base contact with an enemy model's base ends a Models' movement action".. They can't push them out of the way? Or step around? That doesn't make sense.

 

Page 19.. Leaving Close Combat.. The requirement to make a discipline check doesn't make sense. Infantry train a lot on the common task " Break Contact ".

It's something we train on a lot and a decently trained team or squad will be able to do it on order effectively.

 

Page 21.. Disorientation.... Automatic shaken for dismounting? Modern mechanized infantry squads and teams have "dismount drills" that prevent this very thing from happening. Even Air Assault squads and teams dismounting from helo's "dismount" in such a way that command and control is maintained. The exception to this might be airborne troops that drop over a relatively wide area. They do have to take some time to regroup and reestablish C&C. Mech and Air Assault troops don't really suffer from this problem.

 

 

 

Regrouping goes back to my comments on communications. Unless radio communication is lost, regrouping units shouldn't be necessary at all.

 

 

 

 

Coup De Grace? .. Just no..... Professional soldiers do not execute wounded. If you're close enough to administer a bayonet to the heart the enemy models should be considered captured not killed.

 

 

 

Run and Gun.. Aren't we doing that already by manuevering and firing? Modern Bradleys and Abrams' can move at full speed and lase a target and effectively kill it bye using the guns' stabilization system. I have no reason to believe futuristic weapons systems wouldn't be able to stabo.

 

 

Okay, that's enough for now I think...lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
when you talk about the transports, Yes some of the transports capacity numbers have changed, when thinking of CAV2 ignore the datacards for CAV1.

 

When you say some of the numbers on the infantry stands don't match up what do you mean.

 

Mad Pat

I think he means that some of the infantry stands seems like they should cost more or less compared to other stands with fewer/different abilities. It keeps popping into my head that something should cost more, but then I remember Matt said the points values are going to be off, and sometimes dead wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's going to be a big change.  You're essentially never safe if an enemy can draw a line of sight to you, especially with that automatic 10% chance of success.

AH! But a 10 is only an auto hit in your listed range bracket, dont forget that! Outside your listed bracket you are at -2 and a 10 will miss if you need more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care for the mandatory units during creation. What if I wanted to build a force consisting of only aircraft?

I like the idea of forces being restricted in there selection. I also really like that they got away from the traditional (or what seems to be anyway) use of the number 4 in a platoon. The fact that I can now have flights with 2 aircraft, or large infantry platoons is very cool to me, and a little more representational.

 

Maybe making Flights a Primary platoon type would be the way to go. Not sure how big of a deal this would be but it would allow the all Gunship army that Spartan mentions.

 

Also in the section on cover and obstructions it seems odd to me that a Gunship, thats supposed to be very maneuverable and like a modern day helo on steroids, can not alter its hight to hide behind a wall that is cover level 1.

 

Maybe make the Gunship able to alter its base size instead of making it a base size 2. Cause the way it reads now, or at least to my understanding, is that a gunship is unable to use any cover of size 1 or 2 to hide behind since it is base size 2.

 

Some datacard observations:

 

The Nomad does not have a disciplne rating at track 1.

The Jaguar is missing its Mov stat for its track 1.

The Mastodon is missing its range for its last track.

The Blitz is missing its discipline score for its 1 track.

The Wolverine is missing its ECM from tracs 1 and 3.

The Manticore is missing its DV from track 1.

The Vanquisher is missing its Mov and CCV from track 1.

The Khan is missing its RAV from track 1.

The Despot is missing its RAV and Rp from track 1, and its Mov and RAV from track 3.

The Kharl is missing its CCV from track 1.

The Knight is missing its Mov from track 3.

The Warlord is missing its DV from track 1.

The Lance is missing its Rp and ECM from tracks 1 and 3.

The Flail is missing its Rng, DV, and Rp from track 1.

The Czar is missing its RAV, DV, and Rp from track 1.

The Stiletto is missing its Rng, and DV from track 1.

The saber is missing its DV and Rp from track 1.

The Longbow is missing its Dis from track 1.

The Regent is missing its RAV from track 3.

The Starhawk V is missing its CCV from track 3.

The Raptor is missing its DIS from tracks 1 and 3.

The Talon is missing its RAV from track 1, and its CCV and RNG from track 3.

 

I assume that some of these missing numbers may be intended from damage, but I think having a 0 would be better, or a dash. Just wanted to mention them here though incase they werent intentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy, Most of that should be fixable by looking at the degradations of other data cards with the same number of tracks. Range never changes on any other data card no matter how damaged a model gets, so the Mastodon should probably have a DT 5 Range of 36.

 

If Matt doesn't mind, I'll extrapolate the missing values and he can check my work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In 18 years as an infantryman I've never seen a professional infantry soldier willingly retreat completely out of a battle.

 

Page 19.. Leaving Close Combat.. The requirement to make a discipline check doesn't make sense. Infantry train a lot on the common task " Break Contact ".

It's something we train on a lot and a decently trained team or squad will be able to do it on order effectively.

 

Coup De Grace? .. Just no..... Professional soldiers do not execute wounded. If you're close enough to administer a bayonet to the heart the enemy models should be considered captured not killed.

 

Wow. Hey dude, I want to make sure Reaper enjoys getting the feedback from us so we can make this game awesome. I read this post and my first reaction was... "did he not read the email Reaper sent? Is he trying to bust Reaper's chops?"

 

Uh no offense, but Spartan, while I think it's awesome that our US Army soldiers have such a code of conduct etc. and are professional enough to not run in the face of the enemy and are disciplined enough to not get stuck into combat this is a game about another time and involves more than just the US Army.

 

In my view of the CAV universe a Malvernian professional soldier would have no problem sticking a bayonet in the heart of a Terran or Rach and Malvernian "volunteer" troops bent to the will of the Grand Inquisitor would run if given half the chance (I play Malvernis by the way) and are certainly not going to be able to just hit and run.

 

We've been asked to beta test the mechanics. Not the fluff. Maybe we should focus on the rules and mechanics and not about applying our own cultural morals (admirable as they are) and code of conduct on a fictional world.

 

For example.

In Warlord's it specifically states that each army/faction/whatever can be described as doing whatever they want. (looting may involve taking body parts, gold, etc.) However the game MECHANICS are the same. The enemy Model is taken out of play. Coup de grace means a tough model is taken out of play. In your army, they take them POW, in my army, we kill you and eat your liver.

 

Your comment about troops leaving close combat "It's something we train on a lot and a decently trained team" ... wouldn't the Discipline Check reflect that? If it's a low Discipline.. they can't. If it's a high discipline, they can. It's a good MECHANIC that varies with the data cards and I like it.

 

Also, since we were asked to provide feedback and suggest a fix, my suggested fix to the above would be to add a Special Ability (working name Disciplined) and functions as Fearless from Warlord (no Retreat) and in there make some comment about how they rarely kill enemy figures when doing a Coup de Grace. That takes care of Spartan's concern and leaves a good MECHANIC alone.

 

Another one where I feel we may be focusing on the wrong thing.

Page 19.. "Base to Base contact with an enemy model's base ends a Models' movement action".. They can't push them out of the way? Or step around? That doesn't make sense.

Push out of the way suggests Close Combat. Step Around means you don't bring the Model into base-to-base contact. Again, this is a good mechanic. I don't want to set up a firing line of infantry and have the other guy just squeeze past my line because I misplaced a stand so that he can squeak his base through without dealing with my guys. To me, that's dumb. If I put my models in my opponent's way, I want them to be dealt with or gone around. Again, to me this is a good MECHANIC.

 

Maybe Spartan's post rubbed me the wrong way but I just wanted to bring these points up. We're here to test mechanics, not fluff. We should test mechanics, and suggest fluff.

 

On with my own comments after reading the rules

 

Since there's enough Negative about it in these posts I'm going to post the stuff I like.

 

1) Primary Platoons and Secondary Platoons. This is a combined arms game, if I wanted to play a game involving all gunships I'd write a scenario and play in it. I don't think the "default" game should allow players to get too far away from what made CAV awesome to begin with. A Combined Arms game with big stompy mecha.

 

2) Special Abilities. The versatility here is what I liked about Warlord and now CAV 2. I think it's cool that we can now make up just about anything.

 

3) Stealth. This is freaking cool. Probably the best "quasi-fluff" I've ever seen to explain why we're playing on a dining room table. It gives us long ranged weapons but doesn't force us to play on gymnasium floors.

 

My gripes and suggested fixes

I agree with Spartan on the cohesion thing. It's modern combat in the 23rd century, do we really need cohesion anymore? My suggested fix 1) do away with it or 2) let 'Disciplined' (as mentioned above) allow certain models to do away with it (I see Terrans, Ritterlich, Adon, and maybe Templars having it and only a few Rach and Malvernis).

 

Coalition and Alliance. This is supposed to be like Good and Evil in Warlord... while it makes it a RAGE game... cool, it's a similarity... But I want to be able to fight my friends. Some play Adon... I play Malvernis. I want to be at war with Adon, not doing "training battles" all the time. My suggested fix, in the fluff refer to what used to be a coalition and an alliance and then leave them all fighting each other. Maybe the Coalition and the Alliance was short lived or something and it's degenerated (like what would have happened if Russia and the US had fallen out during WW2 instead of staying allies).

 

Bounding Overwatch. I don't know if this is a gripe so much as a request for a clarification. Seems to me that Reaper's already put travelling overwatch in as the rules in the game for Defensive Fire and Cover Fire (force the enemy to be suppressed) is really close to Overwatch (it was when we played last night anyway, I suppressed an enemy then moved with another unit on a later activation). Is this supposed to take the role of Bounding Overwatch and Travelling Overwatch or not?

 

We played CAV2 until 1 am last night. I think this game is basically done. Just a few tweaks here and there. We loved it. I had as much fun playing CAV 2 after playing CAV 1 all these years as I had playing CAV 1 after playing Battletech. It was "good times" all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I will get back to my "page by page" questions and breakdown in a sec. But, since I just wanted to take a sec to respond to all these other posts...

 

First, some pretty good posts here with lots of feedback.

 

It has made me realize that most of my posts are more questions and technicalities than opinino on play. But, I am ok with that cause it makes other people respond and give their opinions, clarifications, etc...

 

And my playtest opinions will come soon enough. I can't very well form a correct opinion if I am doing it wrong from the beginning.

 

Regarding my questions on the infantry and transports. I think most of you over read into my question. Pat answered it. It was simply that I am used to the whole idea of a transport plus 3 infantry to make a section. Now it seems that is going to change to where it can be a transport and anywhere from 1 to 5 infantry depending on which type of platoon it is in. I am sure it will become more clear as I get further along.

 

Lurkbeast, lots of good comments to say the least. I agree that from what I have read, the Stealth stuff is going to be aweome from the weaker unit point of view.

 

I agree with Spartan that the Cohesion for infantry seems a little bit short space wise, if we are given a 60 inch range to detect enemies but only 4 inches to be part of team without getting scared... just seems a little off.

 

Cant say on the bounding thing as I havent read that far yet.

 

The questions regarding the Coalition and Alliance, again I asked that question out of the shoot (see post like 2 or 3 in this thread), and hoping that it gets answered later in my reading...

 

I have no problems with making a discipline check for breaking close combat, but to say that it might retreat with no chance for rally makes it a bit difficult to swallow. Especially, say if it is sitting in the middle of the table, and would take several turns to "retreat" off the table. Just to have it POOF disapear...

 

I like the idea of gunships being a secondary platoon. Only concern I have is that since all Flight platoons can onlyhave 2 gunships, and as soon as one of the two gets destroyed, you have to deal with the "all alone" rolls. It is one thing to have to deal with the all alone rules after 3 out of 4 units get killed, its totally different when its only 1 out of 2.

 

I also like the idea behind the run and gun, but I also have a concern there. This will probably get cleared up somewhere else, but to me the run and gun basically helps the Supers and penalizes the recon units. That is to say, I don't know what the datacards are gonna have on them, and I havent gotten far enough in the rules yet to see what you have on them now, so pulling some completely fake numbers out of the air here is my example:

 

A rhino decides to do a run and gun, cause if he doesnt its gonna take him a year to travel across the table... He start with a RAV of lets say an 8 and he is firing against a light CAV with a ARM value of say 8 also. Well, even at -2 all the Rhino has to roll is a 2 to be successful.

 

Now lets swap the scenario around... The light CAV has a RAV value of say 6 and the Rhino is heavily armored so say he has an ARM of 13. Well, at -2, that light CAV has to have a 9 or better to get the Rhino.

 

I guess what I am saying is that, even though the penalty is done on a flat scale, it penalizes the different units to a different degree. I could have changed the target to a lesser target but it would still hold true. A rhino would still have less worry about taking the -2 than a smaller unit simply cause he starts at a better number.

 

Ok, back to reading it and asking my technicality questions...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...