Jump to content

Choosing a Faction


Arc 724
 Share

Recommended Posts

The new game is fairly well balanced.

That's what the last 2 rule book authors thought too. Both versions had glaring holes in them. :lol:

edited to whom I was actually referring

 

I have no idea what's to become of the SO Adon down the road

I thought that you were a play tester? Have things changed so dramatically in 2 years that the play testers don't know how the factions play?

 

 

.

Edited by Chrome
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

The new game is fairly well balanced.

That's what the last 2 rule book authors thought too. Both versions had glaring holes in them. :lol:

edited to whom I was actually referring

 

I have no idea what's to become of the SO Adon down the road

I thought that you were a play tester? Have things changed so dramatically in 2 years that the play testers don't know how the factions play?

 

 

.

 

The playing testing was very Terran and Rach focused, as far as models, to see if the mechanics were sound. The Datacards have always been in a bit of flux as things were tweaked.

Edited by papabees
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The new game is fairly well balanced.

 

That's what the last 2 rule book authors thought too. Both versions had glaring holes in them. :lol:

edited to whom I was actually referring

 

I have no idea what's to become of the SO Adon down the road

 

I thought that you were a play tester? Have things changed so dramatically in 2 years that the play testers don't know how the factions play?

 

 

.

The playing testing was very Terran and Rach focused, as far as models, to see if the mechanics were sound. The Datacards have always been in a bit of flux as things were tweaked.

Thank you, that is the gist it. What I said is being taken a little out of context though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the Terran and Rach data cards only represent a subsection of the abilities, weapon types, and doctrine interactions in the game, how could playtesting using primarily those cards ensure that the entire game is sound? Has anyone actually tested the balance of, say, an entire army equipped with PBGs (e.g. a typical Adon force, especially with the Scorpion and Spider removed from the game)? Or the interaction of the (essentially copied from CAV 2) faction doctrines with the entirely different core rules? Or the feasibility of an infantry-heavy army, since we've hardly seen any transport models?

 

Maybe some of these factors have already been taken into consideration, but from what has been publicly stated and shared so far, with the book already or soon to be at the printers, there's a very real possibility that the game is either going to be unbalanced or require substantial errata from day one. Which is bad enough for a PDF product, but absolutely terrible for a print rulebook, as Reaper should well know from past experience.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, that is the gist it. What I said is being taken a little out of context though.

 

I'm sorry, but what exactly was I taking out of context?  You were replying to a statement that some factions tend to favor certain weapon types over others. You dismissed that as a "CAV 2" thing, but that's not true. It's a CAV thing. With the exception of the Tyrant's weapons being changed from LBGs to PBGs in CAV 2, every CAV's weapons have stayed the same since they were first introduced. Every models UCOR has stayed unchanged, so as long as each faction continues to use their nationalized UCORs' CAVs, those weapon type preferences will stay the same. 

  • Adon uses almost solely PBGs b/c most RMI and Borsig-Spline CAVs have PBGs.
  • The Templars use mostly energy weapons b/c most Hughes-Marietta CAVs have energy weapons.
  • Rach and Ritterlich are mostly MAC/Gauss weapons b/c KODA Works and KDM CAVs have those weapons.

They were all designed that way from the start, nearly 15 years ago.

 

So then the part that I was replying to:

The new game is fairly well balanced. I have no idea what's to become of the SO Adon down the road but for now that's a moot point. For now we've got plenty to work with using the Rach and Terrans (and independents).

 

Your opinion is that the game is fairly balanced because there are 2 factions that are usable and the rest don't matter? That is what you said. Moot = obsolete; so by saying that Adon is moot you're saying that they don't matter (and implying the same for every other faction that's not Rach or Terrans).

 

Because we've got less than 2/3 of the game's factions to play with!  :bday:

Edited by Chrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sons and me paint up three mercenary forces and frankly I will probably never meet another CAV player in my life. So I don't care about factions and we mix and match to our hearts content. (In hindsight I do now a guy with some metal CAVs but he is a collector and won't play.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I occasionally enjoy a hearty debate that is not what's going on here.  At this point I'm left with little alternative but to take this nonsense personally.

 

As much as it may pain some of the 'old guard' this isn't the same game, a fact the few of you have barking about from the jump.  You don't have to like it.  Not liking it, however, isn't an excuse to troll or to get combative.  You don't like Strike Ops in it's current form (or at all)?  That's just fine.  Continue on you merry way with CAV2 and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy ourselves.  Crapping on everyone else's table, one you aren't even sitting at, just because they aren't playing YOUR game by YOUR rules YOUR way is nothing more than classic spoiled brat bullcrap.  Take your control issues and your toys and see yourself out.  The rest of us will be over there actually having fun.

 

EDIT:  I'm sure the thread's author doesn't want his topic polluted by negative vibes.  Could we get a mod to split out the discussion regarding version differences, speculation, and etiquette?  You could simply title the thread "Version Wars" and we'll take it from there.

Edited by Girot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I occasionally enjoy a hearty debate that is not what's going on here.  At this point I'm left with little alternative but to take this nonsense personally.

 

You should take it personally. I wasn't making up crap, I wasn't getting combative: I replied to the statements you made, that A) a factions/models weapon type being a "CAV 2" thing, and B) the game being balanced despite apparently only 2 factions being heavily tested. You accused me of taking what you said out of context and I rebutted that. I would assume that if anything I said was incorrect or invalid based on fact or that I misunderstood your intent, you would have replied to me with answers. Instead you call me a troll. 

 

Sorry, but calling me names doesn't make legitimate questions go away.

 

 

edited to make my point more concise

Edited by Chrome
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to both thoughts, the Datacards were being constantly tweaked from the inception of CAV 1.5 on. In fact, those of you who have been around long enough will remember the great Ace/Ace pilot debate in CAV1. Point being, the best way to balance a game is to play it. I personally don't see the rules themselves changing much at all (thus the comment of the "game" being balanced), however, I'm sure the cards will be tweaked as hundreds of people play as opposed to the numbers that put it through it's paces.

 

Everybody just breath deep :;):

Edited by papabees
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cull/split the argument maybe. No need to lock down an innocent topic that got hijacked.

The thread was never hijacked. Show me where any of my posts (or Vil's) stray from the topic of how factions work differently from each other? 

 

In fairness to both thoughts, the Datacards were being constantly tweaked from the inception of CAV 1.5 on. In fact, those of you who have been around long enough will remember the great Ace/Ace pilot debate in CAV1. Point being, the best way to balance a game is to play it. I personally don't see the rules themselves changing much at all (thus the comment of the "game" being balanced), however, I'm sure the cards will be tweaked as hundreds of people play as opposed to the numbers that put it through it's paces.

 

Everybody just breath deep :;):

That is exactly what I was referring to in my post at the top of this page Papabees. 

 

Question (if you can answer it w/out breaking NDA) - did your play testing include using the Doctrines? B/c since they were mostly ripped straight from CAV 2 original doctrines, they also contain the same flaws that people complained about back then, and were addressed in RC09.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't lock it, Besides the negative stuff, i am learning a great deal about this and am greatly looking forward to purchasing a CAV:SO book and getting into full swing. I'm evening thinking about do Battle reports.

  • Like 1
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...