Jump to content

Specialty Missile Rounds


Spartan6
 Share

Recommended Posts

Have special rounds for DFM's and IFM's ever been discussed?

 

Something along the lines of smoke for obscuring the LOS or "hot-smoke" ( WP ) to throw off visual and thermal? You could add mettallic chaff to that to throw off magnetic anomaly detectors too.

 

How is a Whisper targeted? Thermal, visual..etc..? Wouldn't someone have come up with a countermeasure for that darn thing yet?

 

Want to dissuade infantry from close-assaulting your CAV or tank? Just duct-tape on some Claymore mines. The explosive force would channel away from the armor ( path of least resistance ) and genuinely ruin a "crunchies" whole day.

 

Electronic ECM is great, when it works. As a professional grunt I'm always skeptical of anything electronic because it always doesn't work when you need it most. That's probably why bayonets are still issue. I'm just thinking out loud really, but I believe CAV pilots, tankers and crunchies would still be skeptical of all that " high-tech junk " even in the future.

 

Smoke is a really valuable tool we grunts employ. To quote a Brit friend " It keeps 'em from shootin' at us." The ability to obscure LOS to charging infantry close-assaulting a CAV would be really popular with them. I don't mean the whole duration of the CA, just while they move into position.

 

Would a strong EMP effect the electronics of a CAV? EMP limpet mines?

 

 

 

Just wanted to throw some more ideas out there and get some feedback.

 

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My only concern with any of this would be a return to the complexity of Battletech were this type of gear was prevalent.

 

But that's my humble opinion. I found uses for all of it, but one of our big selling points these days is that it ISN't Battletech.

 

Mad Pat

Dallas Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want it to be that complex either, and I like that it's not Battletech. I was just kinda thinking out loud and maybe along the lines of optional rules or something like that.

 

Personally I don't mind a little complexity and I enjoy having a lot options on the battlefield, but thats just me. I understand a lot of players like the simplicity of CAV and frankly so do I, it makes it a lot of fun and very easy to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did a Tolucan Registry of just this kind of stuff. I can email you a recent copy if your willing to try a few new things. most of this stuff comes out of discussions here and there. this is for campaign play and should never be used in a tournie or such.

 

For smoke, we've only used it from time to time with A1 GL infantry. just target a point, use the drift rules. place a flight stand with a cottonball and a 4 sided dice marker. the LOS is blocked for at least 1 turn and with an AOE of 2 inches (radius).

 

I was thinking a while ago about hand held grenades, and thinking about a simple rule set to manage them. I'll let you know what we come up with.

 

I'm not to worried about this stuff making the game complex like Battletech; honestly the core mechanics of CAV are so simple, that'll truly never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartan6 - as it was explained to me a while back the whole claymore mine thing attached to your cav is essentially how close combat works. They explain it as anti-personnel type stuff going on, not a CAV kicking and punching really so you're dead on there.

 

 

 

You hit upon something I did a while back, and the backlash can still be felt. CAV gamers want to keep it simple for the most part it seems. I've been kicking and screaming for more "optional" rules to add levels of complexity to it sincea simple game only goes so far in some circles. Believe it or not, some games can be too simple ::o: .

I brought up different types of warheads at one point, since in a world where breeder units, AI's and guass cannon you'd think they'd have come out with something a little more flashy the IF and DF. Basically Reaper turned modes of fire into actual weapons instead of going the route of creating weapons for different modes of fire.

I say create your own. I like KAMUT's stuff, he has quite a few interesting home brew rules that make a game of CAV a little more exciting and tend to spice it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I have found that if you make a game complex by choice, and allow the players to go that extra mile, they will charge to the next mark sooner or later. CAV is simple, but there is a need for those options to keep the game fresh to those who have been with it for a while. As for the special rounds and the smoke, I think that would add that extra advantage to tactics for those who take the effort and time to equip there units with these weapons. I mean what would be greater then when you throw out a special equip round that causes your opponents sensor to lose track of your location, or a smoke round that causes them to lose the LOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emp is a great weapon with current-earth tech, sure. In fact it's hard to understand why it isn't more prevalent right now.

 

but in a CAV universe? EMP is easily blocked by superconducting materials. We don't have 'em yet, but we're pretty close. it's hard to imagine they don't have 'em in CAV.

 

But would that really make EMP useless? No. only useless against shielded targets. So...you get a wounded CAV (wounded in a CAV-CAV exchange) then you get some brave grunts to use an RP(emp)G through a hole in the CAV armor. Now THAT's a good infantry weapon.

 

but again, would only be effective against a wounded CAV, otherwise the shielding would be pretty thorough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular science just did something about a year ago on combination chemical and magnet EMP weapons. Supposedly it is in the realm of possibility. However the bigger issue is that it is fairly easy to protect hardware from EMP effects even now a days. The US military is really only considering it on the conventional scale because most of our potential enemies aren't prepared for that level of warfare. I imagine in CAV an EMP pulse isn't an issue. The idea if using against a wounded machine is intriguing however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of EMP, I brought this question up to Ed when I first read the rules many moons ago. My concern was that giventhe way a Bellar Joint worked, would an EMP weapon simply cause the joint to collapse, grinding the compnents into each other, or worse yet, simply fly apart? He infomred me that all CAVs and Bellar Joint technology included EMP shielding to stop these types of attacks. So there's an official answer from on high. :rolleyes:

 

As for Optional rules, simply write your own optional rules. This is the point which doesn't seem to coem accross. What I like most about CAV is the flexibility of the game. I can take any scenario and write special rules for that scenario. For example, I wrote a scenario that takes place on a frozen lake, and I wanted a chance that CAVs may fall through. So I had to sit down and basically write a whoel underwater combat setup. I could easily do this within the scope of the given rules. If you want to write rules for special ordinance, then do it. Nothing says you can't do whatever you want within your gaming group.

 

The only prohibition I have ever seen is in regards to "official" play, meaning events sponsored and ran by Black Lightning members AS Black Lightning events. Kind of what you do in your own home is your business, but on company time...

 

If you start throwing in a ton of optional rules, you make the game unwieldy. If you put out a whole book of optional rules, how many people would buy it? I guess I don't think making optional rules official is that big of a deal, just like I don't think the prohibition on using house rules in official events is a big deal.

 

Maybe I'm just boring, but I think the rules are fine, and I've never found a need to change the basic game system to keep my group interested. You can do that through inventive scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah KAMUT, please do, I'd love to see them.

 

I have to agree with Froy, if you allow players to use optional, more complex rules they usually will eat them up. I very fondly recall the tandem-charge warheads for SRM's in BT and the LB series autocannons. I also really liked the Arrow IV guided missiles. Sometimes just some spiffy new equipment can really add to the excitement of the game.

 

Keeping the game fresh is also pretty important. I've seen a lot of games come and go and they go, mostly, because players get bored with them, or they get overloaded like I did with Rifts. There were just too many books to keep up with it. So striking a nice balance between the two extremes is really key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the big line right there, official stuff, play by official rules. I never had a problem with that, and I think some people may have been confused with everything we proposed, thinking this was core rules stuff.

 

For the record, a lot of the things that I had difficulty with, I either found a way around within the rules or Reaper fixed.

 

one

4 infantry to a stand yet two weapons on the datacard. (the overwatch explaination doesn't do it for me either)

 

Solution

The rulebook itself says an infantry stand can have as many models as you want, the data card still stays the same SOOOOO. I put 2-3 men on a stand, two are reflective of the data card and a 3rd as a leader type. Crewserved weapons are 2 men per weapon.

 

two

Critical hit chart,

 

Solution

Reaper fixed it, I just work off that to include salvageable equipment. AS AN OPTION

 

Three

Scale of Aircraft

 

Solution

– just proxy with 1/144 dragon models A10 for Tsuiseki, or f-19 stealth fighters for most else.

 

Four

Armor, either too small or too WW2ish

 

Solution

Well, perhaps in the 23rd century, only two men are required to crew a tank, comparing my Despots to an N scale Leopard A4. the Naginata is a tad larger. the Tsukei is my next major aquisition.

 

Note: the vehicles like the Sabre and Ashigaro do look a little on the small side in my opinion, but I can live with it

 

as for WW2ish, JoR 2 knocked that right out the box.

 

Scale is important to me for a lot more reasons than just CAV, so I tend to look at them as models and not game peices.

 

and woah, I am BIG on fluff. I love to incorporate a story as a backdrop for whatever battles we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people may have been confused with everything we proposed, thinking this was core rules stuff.

 

 

Absolutely I wasn't proposing rules changes, I just like to think out loud sometimes and appreciate feedback on my ideas. And who knows? Maybe something will become popular enough it's considered canon somewhere down the road.

 

I love fluff, I think I have every BT novel ever published with the exception of the Jade Falcon trilogy. I also have a couple 40K books of short stories. The story about the Dark Angel terminators cleansing their homeworld of genestealers sold me on a Dark Angels army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the lack of fluff. That's the only really BIG problem that I have with the CAV system right now. But I also know that it will take time to develop that and patience is a virtue. Look at BT. How many years did it take for the fluff to get developed for that system?

 

As for ideas that become optional rules, I think we have seen a lot of that. One example is Leech's Full Speed rule. At least I think it was him. That was printed in one of the JORs. Bringing up ideas for optional rules and scenario rules is great, but like you said, new players can be overwhelmed and not know what is core and what is a house rule. That is where you have to be careful. :poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for ideas that become optional rules, I think we have seen a lot of that. One example is Leech's Full Speed rule. At least I think it was him. That was printed in one of the JORs. Bringing up ideas for optional rules and scenario rules is great, but like you said, new players can be overwhelmed and not know what is core and what is a house rule. That is where you have to be careful. 

 

 

 

that is true; so I know I need to do a little more to make sure people understand that.

 

As for the fluff; you know, I'm having just as much fun creating my own, as I do playing the game. The idea with our campaign was to continue creating the fluff as we go along. It's one thing to read something saying "Wild Apaches, G Unit and Lucky 8s fought the Battle of Cassini" but it's something more to have actually played it through.

 

Ultimitely, this will go into a nice lengthy piece, maybe a novella of my own. I would rather have a backdrop established where other players participated. have them open up a book and say "oh, yeah, I didn't realize how import my mission was to the outcome of the whole story". The only thing I had established was the beginning, the possible ending and a few highlights; the rest revolved around player participation.

 

So thats the "agenda" behind what we're doing; The campaign rules are just that; to kind of link the story elements to the actual game experience. So things like the TACOPs Officer, or the UTDS Geronimo becomes much more than just a name, but an actual presence in game. Situation Modifiers; My group has been using them with the grid map as opposed to the individual sections on the table.

 

Section Limits, really enhance the feel of the campaign dramatically, and they help balance everything within perspective. Whats an additional bonus is, now when we assign missions on Cassini, I have a set number to work around and generate what we call "Logistic points" or the capability to rebuild or reinforce a troop's movement.

 

On a large scale of combat, a lot of things some guys dismissed are actually working pretty smoothly in game (and are not even as complicated as some people may think). though there is always room for improvement.

My toughest challenge is trying to get other players, including the designers to understand what we're doing over here and how we're coming to some of the decisions we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Kamut, you might try to dumb down or more generalize your terminology. This isn't a complaint mind you just a suggestion. I've found myself at times lost in your jargon. Now I'm sure because of participation in the campaign and such your players understand it but you might try and use more generic term than "Tomahawk, TACOPs", etc. Some of your ideas sound very interesting to me for campaign rules but i find myself trying to interpret some of where your going. I have no military background so that could be causing the gap. That is one thing I'll give GW (collective gasp). They make their army lists pretty simple to understand.

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...