Jump to content

CAV 2 Beta


Stubbdog
 Share

Recommended Posts

All this complaining about rear arcs (we don't care for them, either) leads me to suggest two options:

 

1. (obvious) Get rid of them

2. (stolen from Warmachine) To make a back strike, you must both start and end your movement (if any) in the back arc. This means indirect attacks would hit the front unless the firer were behind the target, as well as making it more difficult to get back shots against any non-surrounded unit.

The problem with Number 2 is: what if you start behind terrain or a building and come out behind an opponents CAV?

 

It would rule out the possibility of ambushes.

 

 

 

I haven't been ignoring posting my comments for CAV2.0, we are just going over the rules and stuff and will be playing soon, besides, some of the stuff I'd post would be redundant until we can come up with what we think would be a good idea to help it out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If there's no advantage to be gained by being behind an enemy unit why bother manuevering at all? Just get close to some cover or in some woods and stay there.

 

Making the rear arc advantageous to be in makes you take risks to get there and contributes to more interesting game play. Having a vulnerable rear arc also makes players take into account those fast moving CAV's that don't hit very hard from the front but suddenly become a threat from behind. It also makes players give a little more thought to force composition if suddenly Rhino's and Whispers won't win it for you. Having that rear arc also makes the game more fluid with units manuevering all over the board trying to get the upper hand on their enemies.

 

 

I like the rear arcs and I like the pre-measuring. You can guesstimate range to within a couple inches anyway if you know how big the table your playing on is. As high-tech as the CAV universe is I can't imagine there wouldn't be some sort of "always on" device that would push range to target to your HUD along with all other pertinent data. Or you could have a ranging laser that lases the target with a slight trigger pull and if you don't like the range you don't shoot. For Warlord it makes perfect sense not to be able to measure before you decide wether to shoot or not but not in CAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total agreement wiith Spartan here. Having a rear arc adds to the tactics of the game. I like Joel47s suggestion to claim a rear arc stuff, though I would ammend it to you must start the turn in the targets rear arc, obviously when you fire you must still be in the rear arc, but you could then move to anywhere.

 

Premeasuring I feel for high tech settings such as this it works, also is the game still going to be playable on hexed terrain ? I mean in mediveal settings and fantasy I don't mind my archers having to guess ranges, but for a CAV ? It would know whether it's weapons are in range (or with the range brackets optimum range).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to laugh about the totally conflicting views on CAV 2's fluidity. One one side you have the guys who say movement and ranges are too high, and that the game can't be played on standard-sized tables with more than a dozen or so models per side. On the other side there are guys arguing that the game is too static, and that modifiers for firing arcs are needed in order to keep the models moving.

 

I'm not saying either one is right or wrong, I'm just enjoying the fact that the game supports both totally variant styles of play that brought about these viewpoints.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a CAV model not move except to remain in some serious cover/out of LOS, or to attempt to repair under the CAV1 rules.

 

There are a couple of reasons I don't think the rear arcs are needed:

 

1) The game already has plenty of reasons to keep moving.

a) Getting behind cover/LOS.

b) Removing Cover from your LOS corridor to a Target/Clearing LOS Obstructions.

c) Getting close enough to get the +1 bonus for point blank range.

d) Getting farther away to reduce enemy accuracy due to range.

e) Completing objectives.

f) Supporting friendly models via plain old combat, cover fire, use of instants, etc.

g) Redeploying firing lanes.

h) Taking advantage of enemy models which have become suppressed and/or shaken.

 

2) They add another level of complexity to the game which was not there before. Everytime a model is attacked from behind the half-way point on the base, you're going to have people checking to see if the attack is within the defined arc (whether it remains at 90 degrees or is reduced to 60 degrees). You're going to be doing this for every target effected by an AOE as well. With AOE's that can currently reach 72 sq. in., that's a lot of checks.

 

3) The CAV Waltz will return. There's nothing more boring in Heavy Gear than when two squads square off and spend five turns jockeying for position witihn 5" of each other to get better shots. Please let's avoid this.

 

I understand why some people think there need to be incentives for models to move, but adding extra steps to the combat resolution isn't anywhere near the ideal way to do it. Put in a flat bonus to hit units that didn't move during their last activation and I can guarantee you that people will think twice about keeping something stationary. Call a computer's ability to acquire a better firing solution onthe stationary target.

 

It also makes more sense than allowing a bonus for firing through a rear arc in a game that allows 360-degree arcs of fire for all models, allows a model to simultaneously return defensive fire through that supposedly vulnerable rear arc (which would, by definition, require some if not all models to turn their vulnerable parts away from the rear arc to do so), and otherwise ignores model facing for all intents and purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We played several more games last night. Our love of CAV2 just keeps growing. We are now at 14 games played between all members of our group of 4. We average 4-5 platoons per player when we play. I have only played 2 games myself but I watch a lot of the action going on with my other buddies.

 

We played 3 games, just to play them, then 2 games testing new mechanics. We were up till 1am again.

 

1.

First, we moved the Specialist Platoon to Primary, and this was loved by all involved.

 

2.

In both our our testing games we tossed rear arc, it didn't make one bit of difference except that everything was a lot cleaner. AoE was just AoE, no worries about arc or anything. We're pretty confident that it's something we'd like to see done away with.

 

3.

We observed that the tactical flexibility of a 2 main weapon, 1 salvo, 1 IA CAV (the standard superiority setup) is awesome.

 

Examples:

1 Attack

a) Move + Run and Gun, 1 DA (less accurate, more movement)

b) Move + Run and Gun, 1 IA (less accurate, more movement)

c) Move + Ranged Combat Action, 1 IA

2 Attacks

d) Move + Ranged Combat Action, 2 DA

e) Sacrificed Non-Combat + Run and Gun, 1 DA, 1 Salvo (less accurate, more movement)

3 Attacks

f) Sacrifice Non-Combat + Ranged Combat Action, 2 DA, 1 Salvo (no movement, extra attack)

 

One of the players remarked that he had wished he left his missile packs on instead of sawing them off for CAV1. I thought that was funny.

 

4.

As per another thread's suggestion/request/wondering, we tried one battle with the penalty at only -1 and felt that it was an insignificant penalty at that point. We prefer the -2, the -2 feels like a fair price to pay to gain the movement. If it's only -1, then just get rid of it completely.

 

5.

Our two testing games we did away with Infantry Cohesion and it didn't make much of a difference. Our infantry models were always within about a foot to 18 inches of each other anyway. However, we did feel that some nod to Cohesion was necessary, we suggest setting Infantry Cohesion at 2 feet. That's 100 scale meters. This is a game, regardless of what the "Real Army" does, if you want to have two groups of groundpounders on opposite sides of the table, then take a small regular mech inf or rifle platoon and a specialist platoon and get the extra initiative card out of it. You're basically creating two maneuver elements, so just make two maneuver elements when you set up your Fighting Company and play it that way and get the secondary platoons to boot.

 

6.

We would like to suggest a Terminology change. It's getting confusing to keep both the terms "Models of Movement Class (MClass) Air" and Gunship. We suggest moving any APC of movment class Air to Gunship. Rename it Heavy Transport or something like that (so we'll have AT and HT). Then in the rules whenever it needs to refer to an Air model the term Gunship will signify. It's cleaner that way. Gunship would then mean anything with movement type Air that isn't a "true aircraft" (using the terms from CAV2).

 

7.

Observation. Maybe it's because our group plays Warlord on a regular basis but we seem to have far fewer questions about certain mechanics than some of the other posters. Me and one other of my companions are CAV players, the rest only play Warlord (and one has only every played Warlord, the rest of us are longtime wargamers). This leads me to believe that when all the missing text, example photos, and example text is put into the document like it is in the final Warlord book, that the RAGE conversion will be a success. For instance, we don't require any reminders to add 6 inches to our indirect fire because in Warlord, you add 6 inches to indirect fire. We didn't have the "pre-measuring" question because Warlord doesn't allow "pre-measuring" (but we do use our little ESM CAVs and various small models to Scan anytime and everytime we have a question about range. Every Action Phase we always seemed to have one Model scanning or other Models entering Stealth. It is very satisfying by the way to actually have something for the ESM models to do each and every Action Phase).

 

8.

Instants. These are lots of fun. These had better be expensive. Barrage alone is easily worth another CAV out there on the field. As for artificially forbidding the use of instants in the first two turns we're all against that. It makes no sense. When the game launches, those instants will have a point cost. If I sink those points into instants and not Models, I want to use them. If my Task Force is about to engage the enemy, you had better bet that I want some artillery softening up their position before I go in. Likewise, I would expect my opponent to hit my forces as I come up. Question regarding drift, do we roll drift using the Model that called the Instant's RAV or use the RAV listed in the Instant's description? We've been playing that we use the RAV of the Instant itself. If this is not the case, this needs to be presented differently to help readers grasp that. If it is the case, can we get a format change so that the RAV of the attack is listed right above "Point Cost" or something? That'll be a little more like Warlord's presentation that way and a lot clearer.

 

9.

Flamer. I posed the thread's question to the group. In all honesty, we never considered such a use of the flamer so we were surprised initially. Our oldest grognard commented "damn rules lawyers" but after I talked to them a bit we put our heads together to propose a fix rather than just grouse.

Solutions

a) Go to a more standard template, this is the least interesting option but easiest.

b) Go back to the original flamer proposal from CAV2 from a few months ago where it hits anything within X distance in a 180 degree fan. This assumes people can measure a 180 degree fan.

c) Put in an illustration were the flamer hit anything between the outside edges of the loop of string. So if I looped the string into an S shape, I would hit everything caught in the loops of the S as well. This is the most complex option but retains the string.

 

Our group was 1 vote for a and c and 2 votes for b.

 

10.

Infantry. We're glad they die easy. If they were more difficult to kill there would be little reason to field anything else. When you use the infantry platoon as a single entity instead of a bunch of smaller ones, you're looking at a 8-10 damage track, 8-16+ ranged attack juggernaut that will obliterate things in Close Combat. If infantry were very much more resilient then there would be little reason to take much else out there. We played one game where we increased their toughness and it didn't make much difference so that would be the fix we suggest if the desire is to make infantry more rugged without making them the uber unit in the game. We tried making hunters have a negative but that was not popular, just a style problem more than anything else I think. We didn't like the way it functioned in play. It was easy to remember since it's on our cheat sheet but it just seemed excessive. A Shredder kills them dead dead dead, anything else gives them a chance to get back up. Put a Medic upgrade out there and they're quite rugged. (We played that Infantry without Tough, with a Medic upgrade, gained Tough/2 was this correct?) Our Heavy Infantry with Medic were getting back up after getting knocked down 50% of the time. That's pretty beefy to me.

 

Final Observation.

The more we play, the more we like it. It needs some polish (and illustrations and more examples!!!) but it's already the only CAV we play. We had started doing the d8 testing that Super JAG suggested but we don't even look at CAV 1 anymore.

 

We do observe it's more complex than Warlord, however, maybe we're sci-fi snobs but the sci-fi game *should* be a little more complicated than the fantasy game. It's complex, but it's rewarding. When you win (I'm 1/1) you feel like you earned it, not that you diced it. You outmaneuvered, out fought, and out thought your opponent (STEALTH IS KING. -2 to the opponent's attack is gold. When you're up close and slugging it out STEALTH and then STEALTH some more. I love my little Panthers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the players remarked that he had wished he left his missile packs on instead of sawing them off for CAV1. I thought that was funny.

We always ruled that Missile pods were out of ammo if you chose not to pay the points for them. It made it a lot easier to customize models from game to game, and required less work.

 

Flamer option C is WAY two powerful. You can get nearly 46 sq in of total coverage if you lay out the string in a half-circle instead of just hitting things touched by the string.

 

Option b would have to be carefully considered to determine the optimal distance for the fan, because your area of coverage increases exponentially as the fan radius gets bigger.

 

Templates may not be innovative, but they do work. I'm also ok with the flamer having a straight line distance from the center of the firing model's base to a target point, and everything within say 1/4 or 1/2 inch on either side of the string is effected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had issues with the flamer too, I put them in a seperate thread.

 

I like the idea of having a 12" "smart" weapon - but it shouldn't be called a flamer, or if it remains a flamer, the rules need to change.

 

I opted for a straight line, or a template - but I do like option C to represent waving it back and forth, where if you curve it, everything under the curves get hit - so if you wanna wave it back and forth really far, it doesn't spray outward as much, were if you want to fire a straight line, you get the full 12" - and it makes you think about how you want to use a flamer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.

As per another thread's suggestion/request/wondering, we tried one battle with the penalty at only -1 and felt that it was an insignificant penalty at that point. We prefer the -2, the -2 feels like a fair price to pay to gain the movement. If it's only -1, then just get rid of it completely.

 

 

10.

Infantry. We're glad they die easy. If they were more difficult to kill there would be little reason to field anything else. When you use the infantry platoon as a single entity instead of a bunch of smaller ones, you're looking at a 8-10 damage track, 8-16+ ranged attack juggernaut that will obliterate things in Close Combat. If infantry were very much more resilient then there would be little reason to take much else out there. We played one game where we increased their toughness and it didn't make much difference so that would be the fix we suggest if the desire is to make infantry more rugged without making them the uber unit in the game. We tried making hunters have a negative but that was not popular, just a style problem more than anything else I think. We didn't like the way it functioned in play. It was easy to remember since it's on our cheat sheet but it just seemed excessive. A Shredder kills them dead dead dead, anything else gives them a chance to get back up. Put a Medic upgrade out there and they're quite rugged. (We played that Infantry without Tough, with a Medic upgrade, gained Tough/2 was this correct?) Our Heavy Infantry with Medic were getting back up after getting knocked down 50% of the time. That's pretty beefy to me.

For #4

Thanks for testing out the change to a -1 penalty for the RaG. I still want to test that myself, but I appreciate your team trying it out and giving the feedback. The fact taht we were playing with a +1DV across the board probably is what was influencing that idea the most...

 

For #10

Pre-Assuming that you are responding to my whole rant about little guys verses big guys.... My feeling on the infantry was not that I felt that they needed to be beefier in terms of DTs. I agree with your assessment on that part. My feeling was simply that weak units verses the big and super units only do damage 10% of the time. It would be less, but there is that auto hit on a natural 10 inside the first range band. 70 % of the CAVs start out with the DEFLECT SA giving a penalty to be hit. Only 8% of Gunships, and 2% of Infantry units have SAs that counter it (either PBG or HUNTER). So, in reality roughly 95% of the air and infantry start out with a number less than what is sowing on their data card if they are taking on the average CAV platoon.

 

I guess that is where I am kinda basing my whole thought process here.

 

And admittedly, it might play the best just the way it is, with no need to change it. But, since this is still the testing phase and we are suppose to bounce ideas around, this is one that keeps coming back in my head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question on Chain Fire.

 

I am so used to CAV 1 where any IDF can join in with one unit that has Chain.

 

But the wording in the Beta 1 looks to say that only units with chain fire may chain together. So, other units with IF could not be part of it.

 

Just want to get verification on this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's real easy to make more kinds of infantry. I was thinking about an Ion Cannon team (with PBG and Bulky) and a missile team (with Salvo/1 and Bulky) the other day, as a matter of Fact.

 

Regular Infantry shouldn't be able to go TOW-to-toe with Superheavies on a regular basis. That's what Hunter Teams and FIST teams are for. Basic infantry are for digging in, holding ground, taking objectives, etc. The perfect 10 represents the golden bullet, but IMO there is very little cause for a standard grunt squad to be a consistent threat to the biggest, toughest hardware out there on a 1-1 basis.

 

Use them to provide Cover fire to get that big model supressed or even shaken. A minimum-size non-mechanized Rifle Platoon with basic Rifle teams is +6 for cover fire checks, and each team also has 1 Allocation it can spend on Strike Instants (and even those Allocation 1 Strikes are nothing to sneeze at, giving a +4 RAV vs potentially multiple targets in both cases).

 

I think that once you discover the new things infantry are capable of in the game, you won't be as concerned with their damage-dealing capacity. The role of the infantry squad in the game has changed, for the better as far as I'm concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question on Chain Fire.

 

I am so used to CAV 1 where any IDF can join in with one unit that has Chain.

 

But the wording in the Beta 1 looks to say that only units with chain fire may chain together. So, other units with IF could not be part of it.

 

Just want to get verification on this....

That's how I read it, DCH. All models joining in on the Chain Fire must have the Chain Fire ability. I must say I was surprised to find that it's not an available upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use them to provide Cover fire to get that big model supressed or even shaken. A minimum-size non-mechanized Rifle Platoon with basic Rifle teams is +6 for cover fire checks, and each team also has 1 Allocation it can spend on Strike Instants (and even those Allocation 1 Strikes are nothing to sneeze at, giving a +4 RAV vs potentially multiple targets in both cases).

Very good point and suggestion. I hadn't thought about that possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling people really haven't dug into the biggest changes in CAV 2. With the right transports you can get four Rifle Teams, two Shredder Teams and either two FIST Teams or Two Hunter Teams in a mechanized infantry platoon (One Rifle Team and either a Shredder or Hunter/FIST Team in each Transport with Transport/3).

 

Now, say you have an undamaged Super CAV. It has a Discipline of 5, and it's DV doesn't matter. You split the platoon into two groups. All four Rifle Teams, all four Transports, and Both Shredder teams declare a cover fire action. That's +12 to your Cover fire roll (meaning a value of 13-22) and only +5 to his discipline check (for 6 - 15). He only has a 40% chance of Beating your lowest possible roll, and the odds get worse as the cover fire action rolls anything higher than a 1. Use the FIST Teams to hit him with the strike instant of your choice (I like a Convetional Cruise missile here, because of it's minimum damage), or take a standard shot at him with the hunter teams.

 

Assuming the Cover fire works, that superheavy is moving even slower across all terrain (even open ground and roads), and can choose to remain suppressed to shoot with Reduced RAV, or use his next combat action to rally and remove the supression, which may have been worth it in the first place. If he doesn't remove the supression, hit him with cover fire again the next turn and get him shaken to start really hitting him hard.

 

Once enemy Models start taking moderate damage you can split the platoon into two squads with +6 cover fire checks and a hard-hitting attack. IN any event,, as I said before a single infantry attack will no longer do much against a BIGGUY, but concentrated firepower combined with judiciously placed strikes will work wonders.

 

Now, for a couple of questions about this tactic:

 

1) That'll teach me to read through all the examples.

2) Does the Shredder bonus count for each Direct attack on a participating model or just once?

 

[Edit: Removed question about Salvo].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...