Jump to content

Are we looking at it wrong?


Recommended Posts

We could always institute a No Strikes on the First Turn rule as well. Kinda like saying the CO won't authorize any expensive assets to you until you've fully engaged the enemy and confirmed their strength. Afterall, in real combat, most commanders wouldn't call arty until the bullets really start flying, right Spartan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not to bring up a bad subject, but why not use something like the 40k rules ...where the strikes happen only if a successful roll is made....like bringing on reinforcements...starting the second turn, on a successful roll of 4+ (on a D6) for EACH strike...it can then be resolved.....or perhaps you begin in the first turn with a successfuld roll of 5+ being required....(obviously this could be any die you chose......ie turn one a 7+ on d10....etc)

 

Then after rolling to see if the asseta are available, require a successful scan to target the strike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Afterall, in real combat, most commanders wouldn't call arty until the bullets really start flying, right Spartan?

Sort of. Artillery is cheap, men aren't. The sooner you can find and fix the enemy with artillery the better off you are. Calling in indirect fire is pretty much a level 1 skill and all the radio guys back at the fire-direction centers are trained on how to talk an untrained observer through a fire mission. When you get to rifle range artillery fire starts getting "iffy" with all those big casualty radius's and such. In a real battle you generally have an artillery prep fire before you launch your attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Something we're taking for granted is that the units we're manuevering on the tabletop have priority of fire for all that stuff. There might be another engagement a ways away that has priority of fire.

That was part of my reasoning back several months ago when I proposed decreasing the strikes/round (though I didn't know the technical term, being strictly an arm-chair general). I like 1 strike/activation -- it keeps 12-model Rifle Platoons from ripping a deployment zone when they activate first. I don't like 1 of each type -- as mentioned earlier, aircraft and artillery rounds should not share the same airspace.

 

The deployment zone is actually part of the problem -- around here, when models first activate they spread out to the edges as well as move forwards. Why not make the default deployment zone the width of the board? You know the enemy's just over the next hill, why are you still in parade formation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is what happens to the platoon that has one model w/FIST/1, another with FIST/2, a third with FIST/3 and one with no FIST SA at all? Would that platoon get 1, 2, 3 or no strikes per turn?

 

Actually the number after the FIST is the level of strike they can call in, not the number of strikes they can call in. Right? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solution # 501

 

For every 1000 pts a task force may use one strike per turn. I.e. three strikes per turn in a 3000 point game. The FIST model must have LoS or perform a scan to Fire (or something simular).

 

 

Personally, I don't want 1st strike entirely removed but I don't want it to be able to cripple an opponent within the first turn before they can even get out of their deployment zone. Requiring LoS is pretty much the census of our test. I'm also thinking that with the big honkin' targeting computer they should also be able to just scan for the targets location... but all their target will have their ECM computer working against the scans... so I'ma thinkin' roll vs. ecm will work when the target is out of sight.

 

As far as how powerful strikes are currently, I think they are fine (albeit in need of abit of point adjustment which we'll see in the 2nd coming of the Beta).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the number after the FIST is the level of strike they can call in, not the number of strikes they can call in.  Right?  :unsure:

 

@Freefall: Right... currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could call (4) level 1 strikes during it's activation.

 

My proposal was that the same Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could only call one strike per turn (since that is the highest FIST rating in the platoon) and would only have access to Allocation 1 strikes (Strafing runs, artillery strikes etc..) But a Platoon with a FIST/3 model could potentially call (3) level 1 strikes OR (1) level 2 and (1) level 1 strike OR (1) level 3 strike, whereas currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/3 units could conceivably call 4 Orbital Strikes(level 3) in one activation.

 

My thought was that the FIST rating would represent both sophistication of electronics/gear AND the level of access that the unit would have, thus a FIST/3 unit would be authorized to use higher priority assets AND be able to co-ordinate them appropriately.

 

I'm probably making things needlessly complicated! :lol:

 

@Erion: Hush, you

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the number after the FIST is the level of strike they can call in, not the number of strikes they can call in.  Right?  :unsure:

 

@Freefall: Right... currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could call (4) level 1 strikes during it's activation.

 

My proposal was that the same Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could only call one strike per turn (since that is the highest FIST rating in the platoon) and would only have access to Allocation 1 strikes (Strafing runs, artillery strikes etc..) But a Platoon with a FIST/3 model could potentially call (3) level 1 strikes OR (1) level 2 and (1) level 1 strike OR (1) level 3 strike, whereas currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/3 units could conceivably call 4 Orbital Strikes(level 3) in one turn.

 

My thought was that the FIST rating would represent both sophistication of electronics/gear AND the level of access that the unit would have, thus a FIST/3 unit would be authorized to use higher priority assets AND be able to co-ordinate them appropriately.

 

I'm probably making things needlessly complicated! :lol:

 

@Erion: Hush, you

I think idea would function more smoothly with platoon activaition then by turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen lots of good discussion and ideas thrown out here. Adding my $0.0156

 

1. Joel, changing the size of the deployment zone sounds good until you have multi-player games.

 

2. FC.. interesting idea. It would promoe having more types of infantry other than just FIST, and even then the FIST infantry that you do have it would promote spreading them out to different platoons to be able to use them. I'll have to think on this one some more.

 

3. SOS, one strike per 1000 points is too tight, would consider it if you changed it to 400-500 points. At 1000 points, no one would field more than one FIST unit, cause otherwise they are wasting points on a unit that cant do anything. Example, in a 1000 point game, I grab 4 fist units in a rifle platoon. Only 1 of the 4 could do anything on any given turn. Wouldnt be worth having the other 3.

 

4. Limiting to one strike type per turn wouldnt work either. Too easy to adapt to it. So, instead of hitting you with a 50 pt pinpoint, a 25 point missile, and a strafing run, now I will just hit you with 4 straffing runs.

 

5. Treating the FIST kinda like Indirect fire... making the attacker roll twice, once for drift and once for damage... although I dont like it, I am already used to doing it with Indirect fire, so I could accept it. Use the platoons RAV for the drift roll, and the Strike's RAV for the damage roll.

 

6. Simply not allowing first turn strikes... Although this one sounds like an easy fix, its really not. Since many times the movement on each turn (other than gunships) is not going to be enough to make that much of a difference. If I can still shoot off a half dozen or dozen strikes the 2nd turn I bet I can still be almost as effective as in the first turn. Plus, as soon as you say that FIST teams cant call their strikes the first turn, then you wil have someone argue the opposite point saying "well then you cant lob an armor platoon's worth of indirect fire over here destroying all my FIST teams on the first turn either...." Nope, that wont solve the problem, only add to it.

 

 

So, in summary, I guess either #2, or #5 seem to work the best of these ideas. Both still need polishing, but they atleast have workable bases to start from...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true, that's why I was trying to think of something that would fit in the game mechanics as well as the fluff... the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment was lack of intelligence.  Now... if someone were to field some units with Scout SA and managed to get LOS on the enemy deployment zone... then that's a different story.  I do agree with you, the mechanics need to make sense first and foremost.

It's all "fluff". The game mechanic is: "No strikes on the first turn". That's pretty straight forward. There's not a lot of wiggle room for the "Cheeze Weasels". I would love to see a serious rationalization for a first turn strike given that in bold letters. :poke:

 

What if you just didn't bring everything in on the first turn? As initiative cards are drawn you can either move a platoon out of the deployment area, bring a platoon to the deployment area from "off board", or pass. (Alternately, you can eliminate the "pass" option by adding cards to the initiative deck based on the number of platoons you intend to bring on this turn.) You'd always have the option of beginning play with everything "on board" but you risk the potentially devistating first (turn) strike just as you would in any real life situation where you pile up your military assets. I realize that this would slow games down somewhat and may be undesirable for that reason alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true, that's why I was trying to think of something that would fit in the game mechanics as well as the fluff... the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment was lack of intelligence.  Now... if someone were to field some units with Scout SA and managed to get LOS on the enemy deployment zone... then that's a different story.  I do agree with you, the mechanics need to make sense first and foremost.

It's all "fluff". The game mechanic is: "No strikes on the first turn". That's pretty straight forward. There's not a lot of wiggle room for the "Cheeze Weasels". I would love to see a serious rationalization for a first turn strike given that in bold letters. :poke:

Artillery preparatory fire. :lol:

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...