Page 2 of 2

[ 30 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2

Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game
nealhunt	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:47 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	I prefer an initiative-related system, such as making an "activation" roll for air units that you want to be on CAP or a garrison on OW.  Since that reflects, among other things, the discipline of the formation, it seems a reasonable way to determine if they are properly prepared before the battle. But I was in a significant minority when it was last discussed on the old SG boards. _________________ Neal
Top

Dwarf Supreme	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:56 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm Posts: 11143 Location: Canton, CT, USA	This rule makes sense to me as well. It's perfectly analagous to allowing garrison units starting on OW. _________________ "I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top

Legion 4	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:05 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36947 Location: Ohio - USA	IMO ... CAP - NO ! ... CAS ... ONLY ! _________________ Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top

Dwarf Supreme	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:19 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm Posts: 11143 Location: Canton, CT, USA	Quote (Legion 4 @ 08 Nov. 2005 (16:05)) IMO ... CAP - NO ! ... CAS ... ONLY ! Good point, L4. I would rather see CAS only and not CAP, provided there was a limit on the number of aircraft performing CAS. _________________ "I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top

Tas	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:55 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am Posts: 7823 Location: Sydney, NSW	I think it adds a good dimension.  Invest in CAP and you dont have to suffer enemy CAS.   I guess its all that Joint training they have invested in me showing through!   _________________ Tas My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/ My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/ My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/
Top

Markconz	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:57 pm
Purestrain Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm Posts: 7925 Location: New Zealand	Quote (nealhunt @ 08 Nov. 2005 (13:47)) I prefer an initiative-related system, such as making an "activation" roll for air units that you want to be on CAP or a garrison on OW. ?Since that reflects, among other things, the discipline of the formation, it seems a reasonable way to determine if they are properly prepared before the battle. But I was in a significant minority when it was last discussed on the old SG boards. For what it is worth - I've always liked this idea. What about something like the following as a compromise: Garrisons on Overwatch - special rule. During the garrison phase, a formation placed as a garrison may make an initiative check (immediately after all units in the formation have been placed). If successful the formataion will be on overwatch orders at the start of the first turn. Scramble - special rule. During the garrison phase, a fighter or fighter bomber formation may be selected to take an initiative check (taking turns alternating with other garrisoning or scrambling formations in the normal manner). If successful the aircraft formation will be on CAP orders at the start of the first turn. _________________ http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top

Dwarf Supreme	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:10 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm Posts: 11143 Location: Canton, CT, USA	Quote (Markconz @ 08 Nov. 2005 (20:57)) Quote (nealhunt @ 08 Nov. 2005 (13:47)) I prefer an initiative-related system, such as making an "activation" roll for air units that you want to be on CAP or a garrison on OW. ?Since that reflects, among other things, the discipline of the formation, it seems a reasonable way to determine if they are properly prepared before the battle. But I was in a significant minority when it was last discussed on the old SG boards. For what it is worth - I've always liked this idea. What about something like the following as a compromise: Garrisons on Overwatch - special rule. During the garrison phase, a formation placed as a garrison may make an initiative check (immediately after all units in the formation have been placed). If successful the formataion will be on overwatch orders at the start of the first turn. Scramble - special rule. During the garrison phase, a fighter or fighter bomber formation may be selected to take an initiative check (taking turns alternating with other garrisoning or scrambling formations in the normal manner). If successful the aircraft formation will be on CAP orders at the start of the first turn. I like it. It seems fairly simple to implement. _________________ "I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top

Legion 4	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:48 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36947 Location: Ohio - USA	Well if you use CAS only based on SM1/AT1 we used 25% TBL to be used on Off-board and Titans, now with E:A we use 33% TBL (1/3) on Off-Board/Titans/CAS ... Just for the record/FYI ... _________________ Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Top

Tactica	Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:29 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241	Quote (Markconz @ 06 Nov. 2005 (03:33)) Quote (Tactica @ 03 Nov. 2005 (14:55)) OK, this issue/recomendation is interesting. Although I kinda like the idea, (and I'm an air craft fan) I'm struggling to give a thumbs up after I give it some thought due to balance concerns. Take IG for example, not the highest strategy in the game and doesn't usually go first. They have some big toys and enemy like to target those big toys before they go off. Are Air assault craft and bombers not also 'big toys'? Why should they ?get to 'go off' without worrying about interceptors? I don't get it... ? Regardign your comments to my post... 1) IG don't have the largest flying toys in the game. Are they big toys Their Maurader is arguably over priced (seperate topic). Their fighters are lack luster compared to the competition out there. They are definitely not what I'd consider to be the big toys of the air considering other races. Still - point taken, if the IG go first - what response does the enemy have? I guess the first answer comes to mind is flak. Your counter should be - is flak enough? Answer: I don't know. Guess that's why we're discussing this proposed rule! LOL 2) Taking my example that you/I quoted above, assuming IG get to go first - the enemy's flak would or should be positioned to reasonably if not adequately deal with the IG fliers in question, or perhaps the enemy didn't prepare for the battle very well IMHO. CAP will afford a first turn 'second layer' of insulation against enemy fliers. Is that a good thing on first turn? 3) Back to the toys... IG going first to activate one of their  Maurader plane or Tbolt formations (IG big air toys) doesn't take into account the enemy's _lack of ability_ to muster adequate counter measures before being "pearl harbored" by the enemy's well planned sneak attack. (caveat - I'm an American. I mean no disrespect to anyone whom which has ties to said event. I only site it as a prime example of powerful suprise air assault on a strong force.) The proposed CAP rule circumvents any element of speed and suprise 41st millenium planes _should_ bring to the field of battle. It also falsely assumes that enemy aircraft will always be in the air to counter any air assault. The IG fliers are not the worlds best at intercept ops in E:A however, the proposed CAP rule would make it so they are always aware, always in the air, always ready, regardless of the enemy's strategy or plan of attack. Something genuinely doesn't seem right about that to me guys. BTW: I play IG in E:A - I'm just picking on them due to them being originally sited. 4) The proposed CAP rule has the potential to reduce the need for flak and increase the reliance on planes _in some armies_. FLAK today affords you the chance to protect your army somewhat, even when you don't have your planes on the field. It also affords your planes the opportunity to go on seperate missions. it also affords a blanketed zone of cover for your planes to ground assault the enemy within while serving as a back up for your planes. In the proposed mode of operations, flak may start to be left at home _in some armies_. If I can deploy in CAP, possibly overwhelm you with CAP, and the CAP/Intercept bonus' go up simultaneously making them more effective at their role, CAP may become quite popular if not reduce the need for flak (though it won't eliminate it for the reasons I've already sited). CAP has the potential to be the only thing relied upon for AA in _some_ armies. ?Is that a good thing to encourage? Today, having flak before the enemy arrives is very fluffy and logical to most ground forces. Typicall, all planes cannot be on all fronts and one has to protect themselves while the air cover is called in. Putting CAP straight in from deployment seems to taunt with that established culture and feel of the game to me. Is that a bad thing... well, again, I like the intention but something just doesn't feel right about always knowing enemy planes will always be mustered and alert in all tournament situations. I'm all for making cap / intercept more deadly (i.e. the +1) but the unintended circumstances from deployed CAP does cause concern for me. I'm still reading through this thread and catching up - but wanted to answer the question that was posed to my now dated initial response. anyway ... back to reading... Cheers, _________________ Rob
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Aircraft on CAP at the start of the game Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:17 am

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241

[quote="Markconz,08 Nov. 2005 (20:57)"][/quote] What about something like the following as a compromise: Garrisons on Overwatch - special rule. During the garrison phase, a formation placed as a garrison may make an initiative check (immediately after all units in the formation have been placed). If successful the formataion will be on overwatch orders at the start of the first turn. Hmm... different that the CAP thing, but I see where it came from. I actually like this, but knowing whether or not a formation is on garrison successfully as being deployed isn't quite "epic" enough to me. A general will know he desires the formation to be on garrison orders during deployment, but they may not have cooperated, they may have become distracted, etc... many days or even hours of deployment can wear on the bravest most dedicated sole. Heck, sometimes you just aren't paying attention when the first shot is fired! Therefore, really like this idea and would like to see it go forward, however, I would modify to _something_ like this in concept: Garrisons on Overwatch - special rule. Immediately after garrisons are deployed for both sides and before moving on, each player must make a special pre-game initiative check for each garrisoned foramtion. This special pre-game initiative check is at a -1 initiative for all garrisons as no garrison is always alert at the beginning of every battle. If successful, the garrison is on overwatch orders at the start of turn 1. Scramble - special rule. During the garrison phase, a fighter or fighter bomber formation may be selected to take an initiative check (taking turns alternating with other garrisoning or scrambling formations in the normal manner). If successful the aircraft formation will be on CAP orders at the start of the first turn.

In a similar manner as the above, I actually like the concept here much more as well. I do think the element of uncertanty needs to be present in this rule as well. Planes run out of fuel, they arrive at the wrong battlefield, they may encounter resistance when on the way to the field their meant to protect, etc, etc... I also think the suggested may be a more conservative approach.

Scramble - special rule.
Immediately prior to deploying garrisons, a player may deploy fighter and/or fighter bomber squadrons on his table edge in the same alternating fashion that's used when deploying garrisons. A fighter or fighter bomber formation should be placed at the intended point of entry and desired facing on the table edge. These represent aircraft that may be on CAP at the beginning of the game.

Immediately after all aircraft desired to be on CAP are deployed, each player must make a special pre-game initiative check for each aircraft foramtion deployed. This special pre-game initiative check is at a -1 initiative for all deployed aircraft as no aircraft is guaranteed to be in position or have adequate remaining resources when the first enemy is spotted.

Any aircraft formations that fail to be on CAP at the start of the game should be removed from the table and may be activated as normal during the turn 1 activation phase.


I noted the planes as being deployed in advance of the garrisons as one would assume garrisons would know whether planes were overhead circling or not.

I made the activation test for CAP a -1 as the plane may not have had time to get into position.

I kicked around the idea of adding a blast marker to aircraft formatons that were attempted to be on CAP, but failed to present a negative aspect to trying to put all of yoru planes on CAP at the beginning of the game and to signify them not being able to be on CAP because something held them up - another enemy engagement, fuel, ammo, etc... I decided that it was too much though and went straight to the recomendation as that is the critical point of my concern.

Just some thoughts to kick around. I do like these new ideas more than the originals.

Cheers,