Jump to content

Are we looking at it wrong?


Spartan6
 Share

Recommended Posts

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:

I agree. I think "No First Turn Strikes" (or, how about No Strikes During the Deployment Phase) is a very workable rule. Especially if it's spelled out just like that, it leaves no wiggle room. As far as the fluff is concerned, if people really need a "reason why", it could always be something along the lines of assets being in transit, intelligence gathering, deployment confusion... whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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:

I agree. I think "No First Turn Strikes" (or, how about No Strikes During the Deployment Phase) is a very workable rule. Especially if it's spelled out just like that, it leaves no wiggle room. As far as the fluff is concerned, if people really need a "reason why", it could always be something along the lines of assets being in transit, intelligence gathering, deployment confusion... whatever.

I think our goal is not to entirely eliminate first strike but to reduce its effectiveness to cripple an opponent during the first turn when they are grouped together in there deployment zone. Otherwise I'd agree with you about using a "No Strikes during First Turn" rule. But for now let's keep that as a last resort.

 

And remember during the Deployment stage all your doing is placing yer task force on the board... and if yer smart or if you can help it, not in LoS of yer opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this begs another question...CAV is a game of mecha combat....with fantastic combined arms opportunities....but it deals with relatively small engagements ....why are there strike rules at all? especially strike rules that could presumably remove mecha from the game before the players (who presumably play this game because it is about mecha) get to play them.

 

I am certain that someone is going to make the "military realism" argument, but I will pre-emptively strike that one down....as, yet again, this is a mecha game.....if players want "military realism" they are playing the wrong genre.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are there strike rules at all? especially strike rules that could presumably remove mecha from the game before the players get to play them.

 

I am certain that someone is going to make the "military realism" argument, but I will pre-emptively strike that one down....as, yet again, this is a mecha game.....if players want "military realism" they are playing the wrong genre.....

You answered your own question about the strike rules; It's a combined arms game.

 

If nothing could kill CAV's except other CAV's we wouldn't be playing CAV anymore we'd be playing Battletech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If strikes are unlimited and have a common tendency to take out the majority I'd say they were too much. As it sits now I see strikes as support from the rear. I pictures units set up "over the ridge" and while the main battle is going on there are call for fires going on. Strike should assist in the destruction, not be the means of it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is a mecha game.....if players want "military realism" they are playing the wrong genre.....

CAV has never been a mecha game, its always been about combined arms. It's marketed as a mecha game b/c people are generally attracted to the giant robots, but Reaper's made it clear from day one that CAVs are not king of the battlefield, they're simply another tool to be used to achieve victory.

 

why are there strike rules at all?
Becuase players asked for them! CAV 1 didn't have anything like this, but house rules for orbital bombardment and such have existed before the majority of the people here ever heard of CAV. If Reaper does anything, they listen to their customers, and their customers wanted artillary strikes, fast-mover support and orbital bombardment! :B):
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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...

Well here is a question just how many during an activiation and/or turn would be acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....why are there strike rules at all?

I'm new to this whole thing having played CAV but a couple of times a few years back but "Strikes" are actually very important to me. The reason for this is my general "Why Mecha combat?" philosophy. I have always contended that, if I have Orbital and Interface Superiority, I couldn't care less what you do on the ground. Using Orbital strikes, I become the US to your Iraq; eliminating 80% of your military assets before landing. So, a game which addresses that, saying, "well, you can try that but here's how it works" is important to me. Even if it creates its own justification (for mecha) by artificially reducing the effectiveness of said strikes compared to our imagined realities, it allows an anal retentive like myself to accept what's offered and move on. ^_^

 

Oh, I also wanted to say that I was neither condeming nor condoning the "No strikes first turn" idea as a rule (I'm far too inexperienced for that), I was simply trying to point out that, if that is the desired mechanic, you should be able to wrap it in all of the "fluff" you want sans worries of abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are there strike rules at all?  especially strike rules that could presumably remove mecha from the game before the players get to play them.

 

I am certain that someone is going to make the "military realism" argument, but I will pre-emptively strike that one down....as, yet again, this is a mecha game.....if players want "military realism" they are playing the wrong genre.....

You answered your own question about the strike rules; It's a combined arms game.

 

If nothing could kill CAV's except other CAV's we wouldn't be playing CAV anymore we'd be playing Battletech.

If that's not the whole embodiement of CAV I don't know what is... The combined arms aspect is what pulled me into CAV and away from CBT in the first place.

 

P.S I'm stealing your quote to... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are there strike rules at all?  especially strike rules that could presumably remove mecha from the game before the players get to play them.

 

I am certain that someone is going to make the "military realism" argument, but I will pre-emptively strike that one down....as, yet again, this is a mecha game.....if players want "military realism" they are playing the wrong genre.....

You answered your own question about the strike rules; It's a combined arms game.

 

If nothing could kill CAV's except other CAV's we wouldn't be playing CAV anymore we'd be playing Battletech.

If that's not the whole embodiement of CAV I don't know what is... The combined arms aspect is what pulled me into CAV and away from CBT in the first place.

 

P.S I'm stealing your quote to... :rolleyes:

Cool. :B):::D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make the thread this much longer...

 

I agree with Spartan that a successful scan of some should be required, be a scan for target, scan for fire, or something new.

 

I would advocate that LOS is not required though given the fluff that's already in the game regarding sensory data available to field units (see scan for targets). Since a call for fire requires the requesting unit to know where the enemy is, scan for target is a logical choice because that's exactly what it does, where scan to fire is more about determining a firing solution for a line-of-sight attack. (somebody please correct me if I am incorrect regarding the intent of these game mechanics) To represent the calling unit getting more accurate locational info on the unit rather than just looking to see what is out there, add a negative modifier to the scan roll. If successful, activate the SA and watch the fireworks, if not, the strike isn't called and the FIST team goes about its business.

 

Also, I would require the FIST team calling the strike to be the one conducting the scan. Yes, it ties that model up for the turn, but I don't think that's all to unrealistic. Besides, those guys in the other FIST teams are all drunks or incompetent anyways, I wouldn't trust their numbers for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, those guys in the other FIST teams are all drunks or incompetent anyways, I wouldn't trust their numbers for anything.

I could never get them to put down their Pepsi's and Twinkies long enough to tell me if my mark center sector round hit safely. :lol:

 

 

I could live without LOS if we used the scan. I wouldn't make the Fisters be the "scanners" though. I think another model in their same platoon is plenty. If they're tied up the whole turn doing that then they're left with their junk flapping in the breeze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're tied up the whole turn doing that then they're left with their junk flapping in the breeze.

 

If LOS is not required, the FIST team doesn't have to move forward, they could even find a nice hidey hole and take cover. The team would still have it's defensive fire if it was to come under a LOS attack. The rest of the platoon would provide cover or move to contact if necessary. The other thing is, this doesn't tie up two models to perform one action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're tied up the whole turn doing that then they're left with their junk flapping in the breeze.

 

If LOS is not required, the FIST team doesn't have to move forward, they could even find a nice hidey hole and take cover. The team would still have it's defensive fire if it was to come under a LOS attack. The rest of the platoon would provide cover or move to contact if necessary. The other thing is, this doesn't tie up two models to perform one action.

True but the other way you've got two models performing one action each. Without the LOS you're going to have all the FiST teams nuking each other.

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...