Jump to content

Beta game from today


Stubbdog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well had a Three for all game earlier today. First things first, I know that there is not a lot that Pat can do about it, but playing a game with 3 people on a 4x8 table just doesnt work. It's too much of a two on one game as someone has to start in the middle.

 

In this game, Tabasco and I started on opposite ends and Pat started in the middle. I was Ritterlich, Tabasco was Malvernis, and Pat fielded a Rach conglomerate.

 

Each team was 3000 points.

 

There were several items that came up, but the ones that stood out were:

  • The Ritterlich's Hunter's Edge is a very powerful thing. I think it needs to be redone just a bit, but after having thought about it more, I dont think it needs to be changed the way Pat suggested. I agree that 1 token per 1000 points is too steep. But, to me its not about points, its about number of platoons in a game.
     
    In a game where there are say only two players and each player has 3000 points. Just like our game showed, players will have an average of 3-5 platoons. Well, having 3 tokens to continuously force the other players card to the bottom gives too much to the Rit player.
     
    But, take that same scenario but add another player and now there are 6-10 enemy platoons and 3 tokens doesnt look at all bad.
     
    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 love the Armor Platoon of either a Rhino, 2 Tigers, and a Cougar or 3 Tigers and a Cougar. Use the Couger to scan for target, and then the Rhino and Tigers can all take advantage of their Wizzo, if they are in the second or further range band, they can do a scan to fire to lower or negate the distance modifiers, then Run and Gun (with no RaG penalty cause of Wizzo) and even get an additional +1 from the Cougar's scan for target.
     
    I took advantage of thise several times taking out 2 Dictators and an Emporer that way.
     
  • I love the Orbital Pinpoint Strike. Call in the strike and with what is equal to a RAV 6, Boom, Conqueror takes 3 points of damage. Definitely worth the points spent. There are a few strikes that I think are almost too expensive but that one fits the budget nicely.
     
  • I also had good success with some Conventional Cruise missiles. We discussed that they might be a little too powerful for only 25 points. I would agree that they probably need to be only 2 damage tracks instead of 3. I wouldnt think all the way to 1, since they cannot attack anything on the turn they are called, but 3 is probably too much considering they are DV9.
     
  • I won the contest overall this time, but part of that is because Tabasco forgot to take advantage of his faction SA. He blew several of Pats tanks up from clean tanks to rubble due to crit shots. Several of those were in the first range band meaning he had the choice of not destroying them but rather claiming them for his own army, and from my understanding of the rule, they would have been spotless again (because they were spotless at the time when he destroyed them) and easily would have turned the tide of battle in his favor.
     
  • Deflect needs to be against DA attacks only, not against IA attacks. Just a personal opinion.

We had a few other itmes that came up for discussion during the game, but these were ones that stuck out to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Y'know I realized what I had not done on the way home from the game. The Despots that were doing a number on me would have helped a lot if converted, especially considering they were smack in the middle of Pat's territory and could have caused lots of Point Blank havoc with the rest of his crew. I won't forget next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think just limiting the tokens to one use per game (instead of per turn) would work well

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....

 

you can seize the initiative when you really need it, but you're not *constantly* going first.

Ritterlich are supposed to be the best tactical faction in the game. While they shouldn't go first /every/ turn, their opponents should know that they're going to be in for a hard fought battle where the Ritterlich player is going to have an advantage in who goes when. 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.

 

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.

It /could/ open the door up for some munchkins to use this, but I don't think most players would. Afterall, most of us don't think a CAV game is a CAV game without any CAVs in it. :poke:

 

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.

 

Do I take advantage of my Integrated Tank Advantage? It gives me more firepower in a single platoon, but it also limits their flexibility and tactibility, since most tanks are slower than the CAVs they'll be accompaning.

 

Or do I use my Hunter's Edge? It keeps my platoons fast and flexible, gaining an advantage in tactics, but in order to use it effectively, I need to weaken my individual platoons by moving the 5th and 6th tanks into platoons of their own, to get the extra initiative card.

 

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad for the debate here. I know that my idea is not perfect, but then again neither is the current 1 per 1000 points either.

 

Its a tough debate because what would work fine for a one on one game (no matter the points or platoons used) usually does not work well for a multiplayer game. and visa versa. Even sitting here trying to do a follow up I have come up with several pros and cons for and against my idea and other ideas swimming in my head.

 

If you were to propose to change it to only one use per game type of tokens, I would want to then say well then I should get one per enemy platoon used in the game. Then we could debate over whether I could use that number of tokens against any platoon or whether I would have to keep them to one per enemy platoon. And I can open my mind to say that seems somewhat fair.

 

But, Chrome's rebuttle of the fact that other Faction's SAs would not be limited so why should this one, is valid. So, maybe we should discuss that, or maybe the discussion should be about how we do put a small limit on the others verses how do we keep this one unlimited. Malvies conversion is the primary one that comes to mind here. Again, not sure the best way to go here, just opening it up for brainstorming a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE 

QUOTE 

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.

 

Actually they work together. You load in the extra tanks and lose the action cards, BUT, you get teh abiltiy to control the flow of the initative deck - "I wanna go now. Your card? Bury it. I wanna go now"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...