Sergeant_Crunch Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 ... well, I really don't have a modern day equivalent for an orbital strike. I know this is OT, but can't resist... linkage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Blitz used to have a link to some awesome AC-130 footage from Desert Storm and Afghanistan. You remember where that was dude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitz Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Wow, that was awhile back. I was hosting that clip, but not any more. Probably have it at home somewhere - I'll see if I can dig it up tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I found it with Google. Warning - this is an actual combat operation! While the movie is in infrared and taken from altitude, they are still blowing real people up. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190..._121802,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daHob Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 After playing several games of CAV2 last night, I still have the same concern with strikes that I have stated before.....If the writers actually find a balance for strikes...then in an average game....player A spends 25% of his army points on strikes....and if he rolls decent, uses them to wipe out about 25% of the total damage tracks of his opponent....(given, there should be the chance that if he rolls well, it could be slightly more) But in the end...player A has used 25% of his army (which he does not represent aside from dice rolls) to remove 25% of his opponents army (which he presumably has bought, built and painted) ....why not just reduce the game by 25% so player B doesnt have to bother putting effort into painting and modelling an extra 25% of models....after all there is money being spent by player B to field 2k points or more This is actually a really compelling argument. I like the idea of there being strikes in the game somehow. It just seems to fit CAV because CAV feels (to me) the most like modern combat of all the sci-fi mniatures games I've played. Arty is in the real world, so it seems like it should have a place in CAV. That being said, I can see a good argument tht they should only be there for flavor. No one wants strikes to dominate the game. Maybe there is merit to only allowing one strike per turn, or 100 points in strikes a turn. It's there. It's useful. However, it's metered so it doesn't significantly change the game. For the Terrans, give the strikes at half cost or let them do 2 a turn. An advantage, but within reason. Hob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperbryan Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I can tell you that strikes are being examined to determine if they break the game. I am not involved personally in the playtests or I could tell you more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Richtor Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 How do you figure? They're in orbit. Their firing arc is over 1/3 of the planet's surface and they know where their guys are. All they have to do is stay in position over them. I'm not sure I would go here Chrome. The only real modern equivalent to orbital bombardment is satellite photography. In this case, while you can redirect a satellite somewhat, you still have to wait for it to get into position and you have a window of about 90 minutes to get the job done. This is fine in the case of offensive actions but do little for you defensively. My theory on CAV is that this is what happens on a large scale to break major blockages or blow "holes" in whatever lines may form in 23rd century warfare. What we play on the tabletop then is those break-through units engaging enemy units held back from the lines on point defense or garrision duty. As a result, true orbital bombardment never rears its ugly head and I don't consider Strikes representative of true orbital bombardment. That's just my personal take on things of course and solves nothing Strikes wise. As to eliminating Strikes from the game entirely, I don't think that's necessary. I'm sure a more workable system can be arrived at and included. From there, you can modify those rules for home use or simply run "no strikes" games. There are some good ideas presented here and I would encourage anyone running a game who is familiar with the way Strikes currently work (I mean a working, seen them in action a few times, familiar, not just knows the rules) to introduce some of these ideas in order to playtest them. Let's get some comparative feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint of Sinners Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I would be very disappointed if strikes were not included in the game. And as I've said time and time again I've found the strikes to be well balanced (aside from a few needing point adjustments). The only point during a game that strikes become unbalanced is when armies are clustered up in their deployment zones and yer opponent can drop up to ten artillery rounds on top of yer deployment zone. Interestly enough only an infantry platoon (possible a Terran scout platoon) could pull this off. Ok how about this: Deployment Zone Stealth... All models in their deployment zone are conceded stealthed and require a Target lock (covered under Scan to Target Non-Combat Action pg 15) even if the model is less then 60" away from the attacker (this means an attacking model must make a Target Lock roll plus a strike roll to damage a model during the first turn.) The benefits of Deployment Zone Stealth lasts only until a platoon's first activiations ( in other words a platoon could not perform an action and then conduct stealth to regain the benefits of being treated as if it was more then 60" away from its attackers). Rules for Scan to Target and Stealth can be found on pages 15 and 16 of the beta rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 How do you figure? They're in orbit. Their firing arc is over 1/3 of the planet's surface and they know where their guys are. All they have to do is stay in position over them. I'm not sure I would go here Chrome. The only real modern equivalent to orbital bombardment is satellite photography. In this case, while you can redirect a satellite somewhat, you still have to wait for it to get into position and you have a window of about 90 minutes to get the job done. This is fine in the case of offensive actions but do little for you defensively. You're talking about a satellite, I'm talking about a spaceship that can simply sit over the same location for days at a time if need be, shadowing the military assets that its providing cover for. true orbital bombardment never rears its ugly head and I don't consider Strikes representative of true orbital bombardment. Exactly! Strikes are not carpet bombing or anything like that, they're tactical, pinpoint attacks made against a specific target on the ground, a target that must be "painted" by a FIST team on the ground to ensure that the round is on target and doesn't oblitherate your team instead. When Heavy Words comes out, you guys will get a really good idea of how this all ties together. (Yall have 5 days until Matt comes back and deletes this post! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 SoS, I like that idea almost as much as I like your Avatar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint of Sinners Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 SoS, I like that idea almost as much as I like your Avatar! I was wondering when you'd notice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I noticed a long time ago. Just didn't want to acknoledge it before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOldcorn Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Firstly I will point out that I don't play CAV2 yet, nor to be honest am I likely to, for various reasons. (main one is the year long absence of new product has lessoned my interest). Therefore my understanding of the situation is in no way complete. That said I don't like the no strikes on turn one idea, far better was the suggestion that at the start of turn 1 the table is empty of forces (except possibly for scouts) then as you go through the initiative deck so forces are brought onto the table and take their first turn actions. This would lead to a more dispersed formation and make strikes less devastating. (Also as a general comment I will happily take my non mech battletech force up against anyone's force and expect to win) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erion Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Deployment zone stealth is a beautiful solution. You can still use your strikes, but it's harder to do. The only problem is that models using AOE strikes can still target a point on the ground and do so with no penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Unless that the rule includes a section noting that the immense amount of ECM generated in that location makes targeting even the ground a difficult task and thus requires a Scan to Target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.