Are we looking at it wrong?

[Chrome]

Looks like the only thing that really needs to be changed is the 2'x1' deployment zone, which is most likely a leftover from the Warlord book. In Warlord it makes sense that your troops would start in such a small area, since they'd be moving together and have no way of communicating across large distances. In CAV it makes no sense.

 

And why should one broken part of the current beta rules keep players from being able to deploy in reasonable unit formations.......Are we always going to have to deploy with a tape in hand to ensure that our minis are at least 12" apart, and is that a violation of the premeasuring concept?

People playing on small tables or group games of CAV 1 found out pretty quickly that you didn't group more than 2 models within an 8" AoE or else you were probably going to get smacked by a mortar crew or Specter. Just like any wargame, there's tactics and strategies that you have to learn to be a good player. For CAV 2, being aware of your models' positioning is going to be one of them.

[Ivarr]

Saint,

There are two problems with your idea...one ...strafing run does not specify RANGED attack, so stealth affords no modifier unless that has been errata'd. And terran infantry getting fist/1 is all they need unless the cost of strafing run/cruise missile are raised...otherwise, the multiple platoons of mortar teams or riflemen can still call nearly 30 strafing runs in a 2000 pt game....and I am not even thinking about hitting multiple targets with each run (though that makes it worse) I am only concerned that the strike bearing player can use those strikes in concentration to remove the 5-6 targets of their choice.....and assuming average cost for CAVs that would be a minimum of 1200 pts of your 2k force, if you take a platoon of CAVs in your CAV army.....(a platton of assasins .<in my case>) leaving them 6 or 8 more strikes to remove other assets

 

Like I said, play that game I suggested with the current rules....set up your opposition any way you chose, and assume Saint is correct 2 ft X 1 ft deployment...(as that makes my point even more brutal....no room to spread, and the strafing runs are likely to get more than 1 target each in the first turn)

 

Then add the requirement for a successful scan and LOS for infantry (which may slow down the carnage, but I still think you will lose half of your force to strikes) As I said before, I am going to playtest it more with my buddy today....I will let you know what my actual results are....please do the same.

 

Oh and BTW, your rifle platoon for the Terrans could be as rude as 10 Heavy mortar teams (rav 3 indirect) which is more points I understand, but is also substantially more effective in their own right...and does qualify as basic infantry for the rifle platoon.

[Spartan6]

My deployment zone has always been just within 12" of your table edge. No wonder you guys are getting slaughtered by strikes.

 

The staggered deployment makes a lot of sense. No unit travels all bunched up and never arrives at a battle that way. Lets try staggered deployment and stealth together. Your units arrive as your initiative cards turn over and stealthed.

 

So what to do with units that have recon? Deploy them onto the table before you start flipping cards?

[Saint of Sinners]

Ivarr,

 

In CAV there are only to types of attack Ranged and close combat. For it to be close combat you need to be base to base contact. So that would leave the obvious conculsion that Strife run would be ranged.

 

Secondly, the only cruise missle that is a level 1 (usable by FIST/1) is the EMP. Further more cruise missles are not instant strikes. They began on the board next to yer DZ and then move 18" a turn until they hit a target. Now the only thing a EMP missle can kill is a gunship. So using a EMP won't help yer case. The only other Cuise missle at 25pts is the conventional which is a level 2 so currently the only model that has it is fire support team which has to be fielded in a Specialist group.

 

 

Ok so let's up the stakes yer gonna field 30 infantry (with 27 strikes).

 

Ok I see yer poggers and raise you Four CAV, starhawks with accruized, armor, and speed upgrades. That means I'll an affective RAV of 6 against yer infantry, A DVof 12, and a Mov of 12. Every time I move them, I'll end my turn in stealth giving me a DV of 14. You will have to roll tens to hit me. And then with my leftover points I'll buy a scout platoon of 6 Kikyu... and maybe some strikes

[von Richtor]

My deployment zone has always been just within 12" of your table edge.  No wonder you guys are getting slaughtered by strikes. 

Yeah, this was going to be my second suggestion (It's how we do a lot of our games in my wargaming club).

 

By a "staggered" deployment I mean the following (by example): I show up with five platoons (pick a number). I deploy two of them on the board shuffling 4 initiative cards into the deck. When 1 of my cards comes up, I can either conduct a normal turn for one of the two "on board" platoons or bring one of the three "off board" platoons to the deployment area. At the end of this turn, I have 4 of my 5 platoons "on board". Two are in the deployment box and two have probably moved out of the deployment box. Because I anticipate bringing my fifth and (known only to me) last platoon on board this turn, I add my fifth card to the deck and continue in this fashion.

 

Actually, you could combine these two suggestions and eliminate the deployment area altogether. Everybody starts the game with nothing on board and, as initiative cards are drawn, any platoons first action will be a non-combat(movement) action to move onto the board from the edge. The classic "meeting engagement".

[Saint of Sinners]

Its amazing how one little paragraph can ruin yer day.

 

After reading through the beta rules for I don't know how many times I came across a paragraph at the beginning of the strikes section.

 

Strikes roll their Attack Roll versus the target's unmodified current DV. Strikes that allow Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers to affect the attack roll will indicate it in their description. "Perfect 10" rolled on strike Attack Rolls add Critical hit damage.

 

In other words, cover, deflect, and yes even stealth would have no effect on strikes. I'm hoping that this is just baddly write and not Reaper's intent Otherwise I'd have to agree that strikes are out of balance. Has everybody else been allowing the Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers on strikes? Or am I the only numb skull?

 

What like any of you guys are surprised that I was wrong ...one of these days I'll be right and y'all will be in trouble.

[Saint of Sinners]

Before I run away and hide in a hole until the second draft comes out. I don't like the idea of Von Ricthtor's staggered deployment. It might make for a interesrting special scenario rule, but not for basic mechanics.

 

But to answer Spartan question about what to do with Recon SA. Give a model with Recon an extra non-combat action during the first round.

[Spartan6]

what to do with Recon SA. Give a model with Recon an extra non-combat action during the first round.

That could work.

[Ivarr]

Its amazing how one little paragraph can ruin yer day.

 

After reading through the beta rules for I don't know how many times I came across a paragraph at the beginning of the strikes section.

 

Strikes roll their Attack Roll versus the target's unmodified current DV. Strikes that allow Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers to affect the attack roll will indicate it in their description. "Perfect 10" rolled on strike Attack Rolls add Critical hit damage.

 

In other words, cover, deflect, and yes even stealth would have no effect on strikes. I'm hoping that this is just baddly write and not Reaper's intent Otherwise I'd have to agree that strikes are out of balance. Has everybody else been allowing the Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers on strikes? Or am I the only numb skull?

 

What like any of you guys are surprised that I was wrong ...one of these days I'll be right and y'all will be in trouble.

The unfortunate part is that the first argument FOR including strikes that was given was realism....and as far as realism goes, this little bit of rules makes perfect sense.....after all ...its gonna be awful hard to hide from an orbital satellite armed with pin-point targeting and big guns.......and deciding to be careful/stealthy a few hundred meters and just a few seconds before you engage the enemy is not going to be enough to hide you from aircraft doing strafing runs with IR gear and well developed FOF systems.

 

This being said, I still return to my former question: Why would anyone who enjoyed CAV 1 want these assets added to the primary rules of the game.......CAV2s rules are FAN-fraggin'-tastic otherwise.....I have had more fun playing CAV this last week than any other game that I have played INCLUDING Battletech (since '86) BUT we played without strikes and without faction abilities <<as some of my players did not have faction pure forces to play and the Terrans would have been at a disadvantage due to their factional reliance on strikes>>

[Saint of Sinners]

Once again I must disagree Ivarr.

 

While say standing behind a wall might not protect you from a shot from directly above you, something like a strife run, which would come from an angle would provide cover.

 

\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\|t\\\\\

 

Stealth would protect against orbital strike though as well as strife runs and whatnots. Think of stealth as active electronic counter measures that are trying to feed there attacker's targeting computer false info on its location.

 

Regardless, of how you want to explain it, a person can always come up with some fluff explaination on how or why something would work. But playtesting fluff is not our job. We are suppose to be testing game mechanics and balance issues. And most importantly, the FUN factor.

 

I enjoyed using strikes. Of course this was before I realized they were uneffected by Ranged Combat Situational modifiers. As they are currently written you can't defend yerself from them nor can you strike back (like other forms of attacks). Which makes they extremely powerful and unbalancing.

 

I'm really hoping they change this to: Strikes roll their Attack Roll versus the target's unmodified current DV. Strikes allow Ranged Combat Situational Modifiers to affect the attack roll unless otherwise indicated in their description. "Perfect 10" rolled on strike Attack Rolls add Critical hit damage.

 

Hopefully, when the Reaper crew gets back from GENCon they will correct me on this issue.

[mughzee]

I agree that you could have cover from any type of strike......EMP Excluded.

 

 

In today's age they take satellite pictures all over the world......Cammo Netting one of the many technologies/inventions/techniqueis used to hinder the ability of those pictures...

 

Coorparations of the time developing Stealth, utilizing what ever technology, I'm sure would/could have come up with a counter measure that would jam a signal, lnclude ghost blips, requiring the satellite to use probabilities to determine which one is the real blip...if the satellite itself had that ability to begin with or any other thinkg they could have come up with......hey, we dropped napalm in Vietnam.....hardly got anything because everyone used cover....

 

Strikes can definately be hindered.

[Spartan6]

Why would anyone who enjoyed CAV 1 want these assets added to the primary rules of the game

Because it's not truly a combined arms game without them.

 

 

 

When playing on a 4' x 8' table and making the deployment zone anywhere within 12" of your table edge you can spread out enough to really reduce the effect of turn 1 strikes. Be aware that the more points you play on a given table the more of a beating you'll take. If the table you're playing on is small don't play more than a couple thousand points.

 

When you add the necessity of having LoS to an enemy model and a succesful scan to the requirements for calling a strike it makes turn 1 strikes really no more dangerous than on any other turn.

 

If you really don't want the other guy to rain death from above on you make sure you're dispersed when you deploy. All you old Battletechers should remember Natasha Kerensky saying "disperse to move, concentrate to fight." CAV2 doesn't have that silly command distance crap so use it to your advantage. Spread out, find cover and/or concealment.

 

If you burn all your strikes on turn 1 you aren't using them the way you should anyway. Artillery strikes are for hitting those targets that are too well concealed or dug in too well to attack with your on-board forces. Artillery is a stand-off weapon that should be used to reduce the damage your on-board forces take from dislodging your opponent from somewhere or too soften him up just before you attack. Artillery on turn 1 gives your opponent time to repair and reconsolidate before you engage him with direct fire. So that's kind of a waste on turn 1.

 

Strafing runs are for catching infantry and armor in the open. If your opponent is silly enough to move a group of assets out in the open away from cover punish him for it with strafing runs.

 

Orbital strikes are for that Rhino or Thunderbird that's causing you grief and just won't frikkin' die!

[Spartan6]

I agree that you could have cover from any type of strike......EMP Excluded.

How do you take cover from something coming straight down on you?

 

 

When you're recieving artillery fire you can do several things:

1. Find a deep hole to keep that nasty shrapnel from cutting you up and pray.

2. Disperse and pray.

3. Find the FO and kill him. And pray.

4. Try to advance out of the barrage and pray.

5. Die.

6. Any combination of the above.

 

 

Artillery is the "King of Battle" for a reason.

[Saint of Sinners]

I can see yer point on takin' a direct hit from a artillery shot but what if yer just in the AoE with cover in between you and the impact point?

[Spartan6]

I can see yer point on takin' a direct hit from a artillery shot but what if yer just in the AoE with cover in between you and the impact point?

Well in that case you'd reduce the damage you take from shrapnel but you still have concussive damage. For the sake of playability I don't think we want to get into that.