Jump to content

Small Games


Recommended Posts

I like CAV. I like it's relatively balanced approach to combined arms warfare. I am not seeking to CAV bash, but to work out a problem I've been having.

 

I have gotten used to playing 5,000 plus. I can have a Fire Support section, a couple of armor sections, two or more flight sections, etc... Now trying to drop down and try smaller games it feels like CAV looses all those possiblities. In a 2k list I have been working in I get a maximum of two sections.

 

How do you get the combined armes feel at point level of 2,000 to 3,000. With the section minimums as they are how do you get all the different elements into a small game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I like CAV. I like it's relatively balanced approach to combined arms warfare. I am not seeking to CAV bash, but to work out a problem I've been having.

 

I have gotten used to playing 5,000 plus. I can have a Fire Support section, a couple of armor sections, two or more flight sections, etc... Now trying to drop down and try smaller games it feels like CAV looses all those possiblities. In a 2k list I have been working in I get a maximum of two sections.

 

How do you get the combined armes feel at point level of 2,000 to 3,000. With the section minimums as they are how do you get all the different elements into a small game?

 

I feel your pain... Just a single CAV section alone costs me 2000pts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have gotten used to playing 5,000 plus. I can have a Fire Support section, a couple of armor sections, two or more flight sections, etc... Now trying to drop down and try smaller games it feels like CAV looses all those possiblities. In a 2k list I have been working in I get a maximum of two sections.

 

How do you get the combined armes feel at point level of 2,000 to 3,000. With the section minimums as they are how do you get all the different elements into a small game?

 

I am just now starting to think about games of 4 and 5k, and in the few games I have played I have had a good time with 2k and 3k points. Part of this is in the way that Sergeant Crunch designed my beginning forces when I started, but in buying minis afterwards my lists have had a good mix.

 

I think the main thing is to rely much more heavily on open-market models. This might mean using a merc force, or it might mean that the faction points are spent on cheaper vehicles and gunships rather than CAVs. In doing this, I think 2k could be something like:

 

Falcon 286

Dictator 60x2 536

Edit: oops - meant _Puma_ with EST Upgrade 153

Attack Section = 975

 

4x Infantry = 252

2x Lynx = 294(?)

Mech Infantry = 546

 

2x Dragonfly = 162

 

2x Ghast = 210

 

Total cost = 1893, +107 in smoke strikes, satchel charges, etc.

 

While this is a merc force, I think that, esp. with transports and vehicles, faction points could be used up, and also some Stilettos could be replaced for one of the flight sections (as a specialist section) to have another "arm" to "combine" If you did this maybe a mortar section could fill out the specialist section to give some indirect fire. A tank or two could also be put in for a CAV in tha armor section, and the mech inf. could probably be monkeyed with to change into one section of infantry with a transport (maybe a cheaper on than the Lynx) and a section of mortars, although one of these would probably be incomplete and form a specialist section.

 

Edit: I don't have my cards in front off me - this is from memory so excuse me if some points are a bit off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are looking for the variety at lower points the thing to do is go outside the box. Agree upon changed section requirements (eg. Armor 2-3 wiith 2 being Attack) and then build from there. It gives you all the combined arms aspect without having to fill up each section. Ive found it to be fun and also a good way to draw in people who are watching you play because of the movement of more sections so they can see how the initive flows. You'll have to explain that the sections are smaller than 'legal' but I also always keep a task force building sheet on hand to let them see how the forces are put together. But this is a great way to have a fun game with friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's trying to plan for the local tournament in a few weeks--though I would consider modified section requirements in a casual game.

Not entirely. Yes getting more ideas for the tournament isn't a bad idea, but I'm also just trying to wrap my mind around the whole idea of smaller CAV games. I have a couple small forces I'm working on, but it just doesn't Feel like CAV at 2k points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I will agree that you can't get all the arms of the combined arms, I think 2-3K works alright. You can't have absolutely everything, true; but you can fit in a decently sized armor section, a flight section, and then two-three additional armor, fire support, and infantry. I use a lot of tanks, though, so that does affect the number I can fit in. I can have two decent tank sections for 1500 points (3 Scarab + Wasp each). If you want to use heavier CAVs, it does get a bit tighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lower point games it is difficult to get the combined arms feel. You have decide if you want multiple sections of lighter equipment and infantry or one or two sections of CAVs. You can pull off one section of Open Market CAVs and a section, maybe two, of vehicles or infantry. The game scales up well, but down it starts to break around 2k~2.5k points unless the game is a scenario of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind games over 2,500 points. They're not a 10k game, but you can get a good feel for the game. It's below 2,500 points that the game changes too much for my liking.

 

CAV's streamlined rules make larger games both viable and exciting. In smaller games the lack of detail becomes a hindrance IMO. But back to the point, I have been experimenting with a dual function Attack/FS section with a back-up attack or flight and it doesn't suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the argument could be that if you wanted to play a game with just four mecha, go play CBT. But I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to play it. It's a great game for what it is, but I'll never go back.

I am a CBT player and don't feel any shame, but the major draw for CAV was the relative parity of all the different Unit types which other games (not only CBT) specifically take the other way. That still exists in smaller games, so CAV still has an appeal.

 

My problem is that I started playing CAV at 4,000 - 5,000 points so that was my baseline. Now I'm trying to adapt to smaller games. Honestly, I can see a lot of appeal in games of 2,500 - 4,000, but I'm used to having the problem of running out of figures to field my force, not how to cram it down to a lower point level. It's just a different mindset I'm currently adapting to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played games with as few as two models per side and it's still balanced and fun though the replayability is somewhat limited at such a low model count unless you come up with cool scenario ideas.

 

I've had loads of fun playing Hunt the Rhino scenarios with just one model per player and four players total.

 

Guess what I'm saying is that scenario construction is even more important in small games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't figured out where the section minimums came from to begin with. Cav1 had 4 models in a section, which is what I organized my units around.

I don't even remember any discussion on the boards about minimums for any model, so I was totally blindsided with the rules in Cav2. I don't object to the section being expanded, I did that a lot anyway, but requiring 3 attack models for an "armor" section or 3 fire support models for a "fire support" section caught me by surprise. I would have been alright with a 50% minimum, that is how I had several of my sections organized to begin with, i.e. 2 Regents, a Hawk VI and a Talon made up a FS section in Cav1 and 2 Ronins, a Specter/Sultan/Conqueror and a light cav made up my Attack units. Now I have to field a minimum of 5 Cavs in a section to meet the new rules. After a year, I still find that hard to swallow. I can't tailor my armies the way I want to simply because I have to have too much of one thing to meet the minimums. Having to have a 'primary' section for every 'secondary' section really bites, but I realized when I read the rules the first time last year that I could jump 10 feet in the air, and burst into flames and it would not change the rule.

 

Sometimes I REALLY, REALLY resent the extent to which people have gone to differentiate Cav from Btech, if people can't look at the models and tell the difference then what difference does a rule make?

 

 

Oh well, this is just my opinion anyway, not like it is going to change any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't figured out where the section minimums came from to begin with. Cav1 had 4 models in a section, which is what I organized my units around.

I don't even remember any discussion on the boards about minimums for any model, so I was totally blindsided with the rules in Cav2. I don't object to the section being expanded, I did that a lot anyway, but requiring 3 attack models for an "armor" section or 3 fire support models for a "fire support" section caught me by surprise. I would have been alright with a 50% minimum, that is how I had several of my sections organized to begin with, i.e. 2 Regents, a Hawk VI and a Talon made up a FS section in Cav1 and 2 Ronins, a Specter/Sultan/Conqueror and a light cav made up my Attack units. Now I have to field a minimum of 5 Cavs in a section to meet the new rules. After a year, I still find that hard to swallow. I can't tailor my armies the way I want to simply because I have to have too much of one thing to meet the minimums. Having to have a 'primary' section for every 'secondary' section really bites, but I realized when I read the rules the first time last year that I could jump 10 feet in the air, and burst into flames and it would not change the rule.

 

Sometimes I REALLY, REALLY resent the extent to which people have gone to differentiate Cav from Btech, if people can't look at the models and tell the difference then what difference does a rule make?

 

 

Oh well, this is just my opinion anyway, not like it is going to change any time soon.

 

 

 

I fought the minimums tooth and nail along with the section types, i.e. armor, recon, etc. but I lost that fight. I wish I had some words of infinite wisdom but the only solace I can offer is "it's just one of those things". ::): Make the best of it. ::): Oh, and keep building Thunderhawks. :;):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still haven't figured out where the section minimums came from to begin with. Cav1 had 4 models in a section, which is what I organized my units around.

I don't even remember any discussion on the boards about minimums for any model, so I was totally blindsided with the rules in Cav2. I don't object to the section being expanded, I did that a lot anyway, but requiring 3 attack models for an "armor" section or 3 fire support models for a "fire support" section caught me by surprise. I would have been alright with a 50% minimum, that is how I had several of my sections organized to begin with, i.e. 2 Regents, a Hawk VI and a Talon made up a FS section in Cav1 and 2 Ronins, a Specter/Sultan/Conqueror and a light cav made up my Attack units. Now I have to field a minimum of 5 Cavs in a section to meet the new rules. After a year, I still find that hard to swallow. I can't tailor my armies the way I want to simply because I have to have too much of one thing to meet the minimums. Having to have a 'primary' section for every 'secondary' section really bites, but I realized when I read the rules the first time last year that I could jump 10 feet in the air, and burst into flames and it would not change the rule.

 

Sometimes I REALLY, REALLY resent the extent to which people have gone to differentiate Cav from Btech, if people can't look at the models and tell the difference then what difference does a rule make?

 

 

Oh well, this is just my opinion anyway, not like it is going to change any time soon.

 

 

 

I fought the minimums tooth and nail along with the section types, i.e. armor, recon, etc. but I lost that fight. I wish I had some words of infinite wisdom but the only solace I can offer is "it's just one of those things". ::): Make the best of it. ::): Oh, and keep building Thunderhawks. :;):

 

Yeah, I figured it was something that was set in stone, especially since there was no open debate on it. (playtester debate doesn't count, mere mortals like myself have no access there.)

 

As for the T-hawks: so far, 4 painted and based, 4 more and 4 Terrors assembled and awaiting the airbrush. When I finish those I will have a total of:

6 Thunderbirds

8 Thunderhawks

8 Terrors

6 OEM Rhinos

6 OEM Ogres

and for times when people let me 'bend the rules'

4 Revenents

4 Emperors

2 Centurions

(all "salvaged equipment")

 

This of course does NOT include all the heavy and light NON-TERRAN cavs that are all painted and decaled as the 43rd Legion (God bless fighting piranha graphics)

 

Btw, when the game is big enough and all (or most) of the Supers take the field, I take shameless advantage of the Air Superiority Doctrine and attach a Gunship Flight to each Super section for air-to-air support (helps to have 14 Harpies, <_< ).

 

With the new Doctrine giving me basically a "free" 10% addition to my army I can include even more aerial goodness, :ph34r:

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...