Are we looking at it wrong?

[Sergeant_Crunch]

The reason for the delay being in full turns is to mitigate the first turn strike. In a 3000 pt game, the worst is going to be 3 turns (1 out 6), but it's more likely to come that turn due to priority of fire.

 

The other interesting thing is, as I have it written, the calling platoon could be activated first when that player's card comes up, giving it a chance to hit something in the AOE before it can move (provided it's there).

 

As to the other guy knowing where the strike is going to hit before rolling scatter, their intelligence units intercepted the call for fire but obviously can't account for drift.

[Mad Pat]

You guys are making some great suggestions but some things to keep in mind.

 

suggestions should use existing rules or processes already in the game system. One opinion and this is only a opinion on the concept of not allowing strikes first turn.

 

"all right men I would like for you to take your units down across that field and engage the hostile force on the other side of that map, we've just updated your pads with satellite images of force composition and placement. Please engage and destroy. Now we've decided that because today is Tuesday, we are not allowing and support requests for the first 10min of this engagements after you leave this tent."

 

Doctrine sense the Germans demonstrated the blitzkrieg has been to "soften" hostile targets with available stand off weapon systems before sending in your "non-disposable" resources. You know what, everyone but the folks on the receiving end of the the stand off systems seems pretty happy with this system.

 

I think that a rule denying the use of strikes during the first turn would be unfair for regular play. As a house rule, or gentleman's agreement, perhaps even a scenario or tournament restriction its a great idea, but for basic play a better compromise must be sought.

 

the less dice rolls the better, the closer to existing rules or procedures the better. Your opinions and suggestions are why there is a open beta program.

 

Mad Pat

[Ivarr]

You guys are making some great suggestions but some things to keep in mind.

 

suggestions should use existing rules or processes already in the game system.  One opinion and this is only a opinion on the concept of not allowing strikes first turn.

 

"all right men I would like for you to take your units down across that field and engage the hostile force on the other side of that map, we've just updated your pads with satellite images of force composition and placement.  Please engage and destroy.  Now we've decided that because today is Tuesday, we are not allowing and support requests for the first 10min of this engagements after you leave this tent."

 

Doctrine sense the Germans demonstrated the blitzkrieg has been to "soften" hostile targets with available stand off weapon systems before sending in your "non-disposable" resources.  You know what, everyone but the folks on the receiving end of the the stand off systems seems pretty happy with this system.

 

I think that a rule denying the use of strikes during the first turn would be unfair for regular play.  As a house rule, or gentleman's agreement, perhaps even a scenario or tournament restriction its a great idea, but for basic play a better compromise must be sought.

 

the less dice rolls the better, the closer to existing rules or procedures the better.  Your opinions and suggestions are why there is a open beta program.

 

Mad Pat

This post reads alot like:

 

"you guys are welcome to your opinions and input, but if you dont agree with me...I dont want to hear it."

 

and there is a pretty big difference between pre-engagement saturation of an area and the precision strikes that are represented by "strikes" in the current beta rules....

 

 

also...on the subject of fairness....what is less fair? adjusting rules to not allow first turn strikes, or dedicating a full quarter of your army to assets that require no representation aside from a couple of scratches on a piece of paper...and using those assets to take a notable percentage of your opponents painstakingly assembled and painted models off of the board before said opponent gets to use them? after all, this is a miniatures game...if you dont want to put your minis on the table and square off against your opponent, why are you playing a minis game in the first place?

 

 

I played my first game of CAV2 today. We played without strikes, and I am very much in agreement that CAV2 is an improvement over the origional.

 

The strike rules really seem to me that they would be better as advanced/optional rules used under specific conditions rather than a regular part of every game of CAV.

[Saint of Sinners]

You guys are making some great suggestions but some things to keep in mind.

 

suggestions should use existing rules or processes already in the game system.  One opinion and this is only a opinion on the concept of not allowing strikes first turn.

 

"all right men I would like for you to take your units down across that field and engage the hostile force on the other side of that map, we've just updated your pads with satellite images of force composition and placement.  Please engage and destroy.  Now we've decided that because today is Tuesday, we are not allowing and support requests for the first 10min of this engagements after you leave this tent."

 

Doctrine sense the Germans demonstrated the blitzkrieg has been to "soften" hostile targets with available stand off weapon systems before sending in your "non-disposable" resources.  You know what, everyone but the folks on the receiving end of the the stand off systems seems pretty happy with this system.

 

I think that a rule denying the use of strikes during the first turn would be unfair for regular play.  As a house rule, or gentleman's agreement, perhaps even a scenario or tournament restriction its a great idea, but for basic play a better compromise must be sought.

 

the less dice rolls the better, the closer to existing rules or procedures the better.  Your opinions and suggestions are why there is a open beta program.

 

Mad Pat

This post reads alot like:

 

"you guys are welcome to your opinions and input, but if you dont agree with me...I dont want to hear it."

Wow, its amazing how two people can see the same thing and think entirely different thoughts. I don't think Pat was making a polite blow-off of our concerns. Instead I read it as Pat givin' us a criteria for making suggestions on game mechanics.

 

1. limited die rolls

2. using existing rules or procedures

3. limiting first strike not strikes themselves (ok so I added that one myself )

 

 

Now first strike is a legitimite tactic. I would prefer not see it removed from the game but at the same time I don't want to see an army crippled during the first turn neither. So gentleman once again I will reitierate our goal is not to limit strikes but to limit the ablity to cripple an opponent during the first turn.

 

And like I said, "No Strike during the first turn" option is the one I like the least but out of all the suggestions it meets the most critierias.

 

Ok, just for fun let's crunch some numbers. Let's say we have a 3000 point army, 750 pts of my army have been alloted to strikes. And to make things simple I bought 15 Artillery strikes (with their 3" AoE it'll gice me the best bang for my buck. Also I have a full Rifle platoon of Rifle teams (that's ten models at 43 pts. each = 430) So we have spent 1130pts alone already (that's about the average cost of a platoon of CAVs). WIth ten artillery strikes I should be able to cover an entire 2' by 1' deployment zone. So everything should at least have one damage to it.... WHat if we enlarge the deployment area?

[Sergeant_Crunch]

OK, here's another idea, doesn't involve dice, requires a little more effort in task force organization, but doesn't really fall under existing rules either. What about having to purchase the "launcher" as well. I may have the ammo for 5 artillery battery strikes, but if I only have one battery it can only fire so fast (once per turn).

 

Point cost would be commensurate with the level of strike the launcher would be capable of. I wouldn't break it down to types of launcher though, just something along the lines of "I have 1 class 3 launcher, 2 class 2s, and 2 class 1s". Higher level launchers would be capable of firing lower level strikes.

 

Now the important question, where do you purchase these launchers...at the surplus store? I wouldn't want to impact the player's ability to put models on the table, so I was thinking of a pool equal to a percentage of the game's point limit (in order to represent greater support for larger task forces) that is separate from what you use to purchase your platoons and strikes.

 

The trick is figuring out that magic percentage. The other problem is larger games. As the point limit for the game goes up, so does the "launcher pool." If the launchers are a fixed cost, then in a larger game with the larger "launcher pool" you would still be able to purchase a number of launchers capable of saturating the deployment area. So I suppose the problem is one of scalability.

 

Now then, having typed all that while holding a sleeping baby, I also like the idea of increasing the deployment area. Since the majority of strikes have an AOE (kind of the whole idea) that is when the models are most vulnerable to strikes. Modern armies train soldiers to spread apart (depending on the drill) so that a single grenade doesn't take out half a squad. I suppose to a CAV an artillery shell would similar in scale to a grenade to an infantryman and the same concept applies.

 

And to clarify my stance, I don't agree with just saying "ok, no strikes in the first turn." Just doesn't make sense. I also don't want to limit the number of strikes a person can take. If you play Terrans and want to use that full 33% worth of strikes, have at it. I just don't think it's very fun to watch your task force be taken out of the running in the first turn, and the whole point of the hobby is have fun. If I were being introduced to the game and my force gets damaged to the point to where they're ineffective in the first turn on a semi-regular basis, I'm probably not going to get into the game. The trick is to find the happy middle ground between reality (everything short of strategic nuclear warfare) and enjoyability (still having a chance to win after the first turn). Kind of like the old saying, "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time." (or was it "fool" instead of "please")

 

Incredibly wordy for 5AM,

 

Sgt Crunch

[Mad Pat]

Ya let me stress that I was in no way blowing off any suggestions you guys have. The choice on putting your suggestions and changes into play is NOT MINE, that would be Matts. I was helping you guys out because I know what sort of things turn a suggestion into a real winner for a change.

 

Now try this out.

 

1. Infantry must be dismounted from any APC's to call strikes

2. FIST unit calling the strike must make a successful Scan for Targets Non Combat action if targeting a specific unit.

 

Mad Pat

[Saint of Sinners]

Now try this out.

 

1. Infantry must be dismounted from any APC's to call strikes

2. FIST unit calling the strike must make a successful Scan for Targets Non Combat action if targeting a specific unit.

 

Mad Pat

I thought the first one was already required Ok I've read too many suggests on this subject. I blame Spartan

 

The second item, "the Scan to Target" option. No die rolls. But I don't really see it have a big effect on limiting the "First Strike" problem.

[von Richtor]

What if first turn strikes were just less accurate? (Include any fluff justification you think you need here and keep in mind that IA which "misses" and drifts is still more likely to damage the enemy on the first turn then on subsequent turns). Oh, wait, we're talking strikes not IA, may not be doable then. I'm really uninformed ala Strikes.

[Crazy8]

What if first turn strikes were just less accurate? (Include any fluff justification you think you need here and keep in mind that IA which "misses" and drifts is still more likely to damage the enemy on the first turn then on subsequent turns). Oh, wait, we're talking strikes not IA, may not be doable then. I'm really uninformed ala Strikes.

That could work... make 1st turn strikes only half the damage they would normally be. As well as a -2/-3 to the attack roll. That would cut down on some 1st turn strikes and there lethality.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

Haven't had a chance to play requiring the scan to target and dismounted infantry yet, but since I play on a 4x8 table the scan to target pretty much takes care of the first turn strike.

[Saint of Sinners]

Haven't had a chance to play requiring the scan to target and dismounted infantry yet, but since I play on a 4x8 table the scan to target pretty much takes care of the first turn strike.

 

D'oh! I forgot about the 60" range thingie...

 

I apologize for doubting yer wisdom, Pat

 

And thank you Sgt. for showing me the forest

[smokingwreckage]

Effectiveness of delayed strike: it denies the enemy an area OR disrupts there line. Also, a delayed secret strike is gonna be tense.

 

Another idea: strikes arrive next turn. Not secretly coordinated, but by laying down 3 chits, face down. One is the REAL strike and two are just there to brain-**** your opponent. Watch the bastards scatter!!

[mughzee]

I like the scatter idea, but how effective would it be. If everyone is scattering how often is your strike going to do anything. it's a fly swatter at this point. everyone would be using it just to chase away opponents and you wouldn't have to purchase the expensive ones. the have several blips on the table Idea is cool too.

[Joel47]

How about having strikes be two actions on consecutive rounds? Round 1 -- call the strike into the general vicinity. Round 2 -- spot for strike as it lands (which requires LoS and/or a scan). Since we've agreed (I think) that everything has to be terminally guided, as hitting a moving target with off-board artillery is purely luck, that would fix the "first round" effects as well as de-power strikes slightly (but not too much). You wouldn't need to use the same model, either, though it should probably be limited to a model from the same section (gotta have the exact frequencies to talk to the artillery shells). It even gives a little bit of the "time of flight" effect without getting too realistic -- we still want a fun game.

[Spartan6]

There's gotta be a way.