CAV 2 Closed Beta v1.1

[Erion]

I'm hoping the "printer friendly" version will also have Alpha versions of points values when we get them.

[Stubbdog]

Ok, had a small beta test over the weekend. My CETG CAV game got cancelled due to real life and all except Tabasco pulling out.

 

Anyway, have several comments and questions to write later tonight as my notes are at home. But, there was one thing that still stands out big time.

 

Due to the huge list of complaints written about the stationary related rules, we decided to play without them for this beta test. And truthfully, I don't think they would have made an impact on on my issue anyway, but I mentioned it since technically it does have a dice roll impact.

 

My big issue is still with the Scan to Fire. That being the scan version that in beta 1.0 doubled the range, and now in 1.1 just gives you a +2 in all ranges outside your primary range band, effectively giving you the same results for the second range band.

 

We played on a 6'x 8' table, we each took an armor platoon, mechanized infantry platoon, and a flight platoon. We scattered the starting points around the board so as to not start out as a big mob.

 

I wont go into all the details of the game, but lets just say that for the most part the CAVs all chose to basically sit still, do scan for fires, and lob indirect fire all over the table. Even with an 8 foot long table it didnt hurt the dice numbers enough not to use that tactic.

 

It really made for a boring game from that point of view.

 

So, trying not to just woof and moan about this issue, I want to help solve it by giving some ideas to mull over...

 

1. Obvious answer is get rid of the scan to fire all together. This idea I like the least, cause I like the idea that someone could stop , take a few extra seconds and concentrate and get a bonus to hit.

 

2. Make it valid for DIRECT fire attacks only, not indirect fire. You would still have some people choosing to use this technique on wide open tables, but since most tables have at least some terrain on them, it would allow the opposition the ability to make up the ground between them and force the person to decide if that tactic was still worth it. Even though I like using Indirect fire alot.

 

3. An adendum to idea #2 says that it could still be used by someone firing INDIRECT fire, if they have a SPOTTER, or maybe CHAINED in with someone who does have LOS or something like that.

 

4. Next is a radical one that would affect all sorts of things, but the more I have playtested both CAV 1 and 1.1 the more I am liking the idea. But, the idea is to change the average gun ranges in the game. That is keep the movement values the same, keep the idea of the unlimited ranges via range bands, just change the length of each range band.

 

Let me explain a little better.

 

I think that the long gun ranges suited CAV 1.0 because they did not have this concept of ulimited range. It allowed for fighting to occur without having to run all the way in at brawling ranges like CBT traditionally does.

 

But, with the introduction of unlimited range thru firing bands, this concept changes dramatically, no matter how long those bands are. People have to be prepared to be in the thick of it from the get go, not even 1 turn into the game as enemies call in strikes, use mines, use scan for fire, or just simply lob a long range shot.

 

I personally think that I probably play on larger tables than the average player. Most players are gonna pay on a 4 x 4 or 4 x 6 type of board. With the average gun range being 30+ inches (and add 6 inches to that for IDF) someone can run on their first action and lob an indirect shot at a target on the other side of a mountain on the other end of that sized tables and only have a -2 to hit cause its still in the 2nd range band. Or they can sit still, do a scan for fire, lob a shot over the same mountain and not take a penalty.

 

I play on at least 6 x 8 foot tables so, there is a little more distance there, but the same concepts still apply. In this case I just decide from the beginning that I can do a scan for fire and lob a shot at them for the -2 because they are in the third range band instead of even trying to run and lob the shot with a -4. If I use a unit with FRS then I negate that -2 and have a fairly easy shot at 8 foot away.

 

Now, make the average gun range about 20 instead of 30 and everything changes. Granted it changes for other aspects of the game to, but since we are now firing with unlimited range, it take away anyones ability to still fight before getting into brawling ranges. It just says that trying to shoot at someone 8 foot away will now be in the 4th or 5th range band instead of the 2nd or 3rd.

 

This would also lower the ability to stand still in other areas, not just scan for fire. (atleast on big tables anyway).

 

5. My last idea that I came up with is the idea of graduation of range bands. That is to say your first range band is what is listed on your card, the secondary range band might be 75% of that, then 50%, then 25%, for a total of 4 range bands with a finite range.

 

Or maybe 80, 60, 40, 20, 0 that gives 5 range bands again with a finite longest range.

 

for a gun with range 30 this would =

A.

30,

30+23=53,

30+23+15=68,

30+23+15+8=76

 

B.

30,

30+24=54,

30+24+18=72,

30+24+18+12=84,

30+24+18+12+6=90

[Stubbdog]

Related to my last post above, I think that some of the instances and air strikes should have the same possible restrictions put on them (range bands that mena if you call in a strike against someone 8 foot away there will be some form of penalty). Otherwise it can be too powerful and players will start simply getting all FIST and not worry about anything else cause they wouldnt need to.

 

Why risk running up a transport full of squishies only to have them torn apart by someone with shredder, when I can choose FIST instead, sit back and call in all the strikes from distance and never worry about moving.

[papabees]

Were you playing with an objective other than "blow the other guy to bits"? I ask this because there might be some consideration put into some sort of generic objective sysytem to determine winners if a scenario isn't present. i.e each player places two objectives in his opponents half of the table etc. etc. That would give a reason to get up and go.

[Stubbdog]

to be honest, I don't like the idea that you have to use the scenario to try ot create the movement. Especially when it wouldnt work anyway. Cause you could still use the tactics listed above to kill the enemy and then obtain the objectives....

[Chrome]

The thing that's really shocked me about IF in the new game is how devastating models like the Dictator, Assassin and Wight have become when using IF. With a RAV of 5 Dictators and Wights almost always hit on target, and even without Barrage they're doing more damage that Fire Support CAVs like the Spider, Specter and Blitz.

 

So what if they've only got a AOE/2? It's still an automatic point of damage on 1 model each turn, which is a heck of a lot better than the old Superiority CAVs used to be able to do w/IFM.

[Akela]

That's an error. LOL. They're supposed to be RAV 3+Hunter. We'll fix that. Nice catch.

[Erion]

Oooookay. Seems like a quick datacard review for the same thing on other CAV's might be in order at this end. . .

[Jeremy]

Any word on the datacards with the trial points cost and formated for printing yet?

[Mad Pat]

working on those, getting some points calculated out

 

Mad Pat

[Erion]

In other words (all together now)

 

SOON!

 

[Erion]

Sultan: Just based on the appearance of its weapons, shouldn't the sultan have Linked/2 for those PBG's?

 

Scan to fire: for Indirect fire, I suggest we make the scan modifier (and all range modifiers) apply to drift rolls instead of the attack rolls. That area-effect weapon isn't going to cause more damage to every model in the AOE because you scanned your target point. It's going to be more likely to detonate at the target point, rather than somewhere else. Problem solved for IF. Direct fire still requires LOS, and there are lots of reasons to move from cover to cover already. All this would require is the addition of a qualifier of "Direct Fire only" to the scan and range modifier in the RAV modifiers table, and the adddition of the same text used in the RAV table to the Drift modifiers table for those modifers.

 

If we do this, I would also suggest that drift distances be increased based on the Range band that the attack is in. Thus an attack would drift 1d6 inches in the first range band, 2d6 inches in the 2nd 3d6 in the third, etc.

 

Thoughts?

 

Also, the Rhino is RAV 4 and has Hunter. It doesn't seem right that the Scorpion's main weapon has the same basic stat, as do the Tiger's. That Maxim One is supposed to be the great grandaddy of big guns, and Wrecker is nice, but is it nice enough to make some other gun the best single-attack weapon in the game ?

[Mad Pat]

Ya i caught the issue on the Sultan last week, and the Rhino has been addressed as well.

 

but good catch on both.

 

test out your drift suggestion and let us know how well it works.

 

Mad Pat

[Erion]

Any chance we'll get those updated cards before close of business today?

[Mad Pat]

Nope sorry addressing other issues.

 

Mad Pat