 
|
Page 3 of 4 |
[ 56 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback |
|||||
| Lion in the Stars |
|
||||
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm Posts: 1455 |
|
||||
| Top |   |
||||
 |
|||||
| Tactica |
|
||||
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am Posts: 2241 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
40K haters... 
If I felt we were in a position where we could achieve OWS, then I'd consider it. However, there are inherent imbalance between weapons groups - assault and firefight weapons vs ranged weapons, at the very least - which I feel means complete balance is going to be impossibly to obtain. If, however, we can achieve balance between the groups of weapons as presented, then I feel we're well on the way to a balanced Titan loadout.
I'm not sure what you mean about "Knight selection." I am glad to see the Paladin minimum requirement gone, that was an unnecessary pain in the rump.
There is still a Paladin minimum requirement, but only to the level where one formation of Paladins is required to field any number of units of other Knights.
And, to be honest, I haven't found the Paladins to be as bad as people make out
The titan weapons are still only half correct in my opinion. Some of them are too powerful (Vulcan Mega Bolter, Chainfist, Plasma Destructor, Barrage Missile Launcher, and the Volcano Cannon), some are not powerful enough (all of the other titan CC weapons), and some just don't follow what they were in previous editions of Epic.
The list, as presented, contains 22 different Titan weapons. If you've only singled 5 out as being (in your opinion) over-powered, then we're not doing too bad. Given the ones you've listed, the Volcano Cannon is out of my hands, as it is printed in the GT List for Titan Legions, as well as in the Imperial Guard - it's on the list JJ said I wasn't allowed to mess with. The BML and VMB are changes I've put in to see how that works, and I think I went a little OTT on the VMB, maybe by one shot.
As to the other Titan CC weapons being too weak, I'm going to disagree (based on testing them a couple of times) with regards to the Laser Burner and CAP, and I'm looking at testing some of the CC weapons in future games.
If a weapon can't fit exactly with how it worked in previous versions of Epic and still be balanced, then my priority in this regard is to get a weapon that feels balanced. If I can get it to work in a similar feeling way whilst being balanced, then I'll try to, but that's the way its gonna be, Blarg.
Yes, you've nailed down the above topics, but not everyone is happy with what you have done. I appreciate that you have taken on the mantle of AMTL Army champion, but I don't like what you have done to the AMTL.
Unfortunately, you can never please everyone. Trying to do so is bound to lead to disappointment. For example, there is no way I can please both yourself and tneva - you have polar opposite opinions on most issues.
My aim is to get as many players happy with the list as I can. I accept that there will be those who don't like the list. I have no problems with that. But if they want to use the AMTL in a tournament or a general pick-up game, then this is the list they'll be using.
If you're in the position where you have a stable gaming group, modify the list as you see fit - its your gaming, after all.
The Knight Shield seems OK. Call me crazy, but I actually liked a void shield better.
The Ordinatus do seem to need work. Good luck.
Changing the Void Shield to Knight Shield killed two birds with one stone. Number one, it allowed for bigger units of Paladins, something people were nigh on demanding. Secondly, it eliminated the (to my mind) daft situation of members of a broken unit of Knights, who may still have had working Void Shields, being killed by anyone with a pop-gun.
With regards to the Ordinatus, the only change I think they've received since v0.1 (on the old forum) of the list is gaining Fearless, which I did reluctantly and with a cost increase. It's time to see how they've been performing in the games people have had, and how we may need to change them.
Single Shot Missiles - Change the name of the Vortex missile back to what it really is: a Deathstrike Missile. If you are going to use the vaunted and feared name of "Vortex Missile" in Epic it had better be close to what it was originally: an area effect weapon that was good at destroying titans.
From a game balance perspective, I have issues with a BP TK weapon, which is what people keep suggesting for it.
The Barrage Missile Launcher should be what was printed on p.165 of the E:A rulebook, those stats are close in power compared to the Gatling Blaster while you tacking Disrupt on to the current bastardized stats make it too powerful.
Blarg, have you tried this weapon yet? Personally, I haven't, but I have used Ordinatus Mars, which has a similar main gun - 10BP, Disrupt, with Ignore Cover. That thing will generally break a formation a turn, but unless hitting infantry it doesn't tend to kill that much. The BML is a blast marker down on the Ordinatus there at the top end, and is a template and 2 BM down on it at minimum. Oh, and lest we forget, it only gets to fire once per game.....
I'll see if I can fit the BML on one of my Titans on Sunday, and see how it does.
Where are your ideas for the Emperor class titans?
Mostly in my head atm. I do have all your old ideas on it on my hard drive, and I will be looking at them before I present my initial suggestions.
nealhunt, post #1
1) It still bothers me that it's relatively easy to field a tournament-level AMTL list with only 1 titan. I think Ordinatii should be Auxilia and not count towards the 50% point requirement.
2) The VMB is too powerful. A 50% increase in shots is not an even trade compared to the 25% loss in range. A Reaver titan with 3 VMBs will pack more firepower than 2 companies of IG with Fire Support Platoons plus the considerable advantages of a Reaver Titan chassis for fewer points.
3) I still have concerns over a 4DC, 450 point aircraft formation. That's a LOT of firepower that is very durable because so little can touch it.
1, I think the 1 Titan + Ordinatus army will have to be tested before we can say for definate that it has problem. In a 2700pt tournament (so min of 1350 in Legio) it can be done with a Warlord and an Ordinatus, with 50pts of upgrades. At 3k, it's definately a bit more tricky, though still doable. The downside, of course, is that you then limit your number of Auxilia choices, cutting back on activations. It'll have to be tried to see what problems it causes.
2, As I mentioned earlier, I made a mistake on the VMB. 5 shots would have been a bit more sensible, but just putting at 4 shots, 60cm, AP3+ / AT5+ would have blended it too much with the GB and TLD, to my mind. It is definately on the revise list.
3, I have more concerns about a pair of Thunderhawks - they can carry units, cost 50pts less, and are 2 activations, at the same DC and with a better save. I think the heavy-aircraft-formation problem may need looking at, but I have tried to make them expensive to make up for their survivability. Again, further playtesting is required.
I continue to have grave concerns that this list will ever be balanced for a tournament environment. I can't imagine that most normal "in the box" (to use Jaldon's phrase) tournament armies will stand a chance against a WE-heavy force. It's a good list for fun games and for campaigns and such, but I just can't see it working in open tourneys.
To be honest with you, and with the OGBM to come as well, I think the "in the box" tournament army compisition will change to allow itself better anti-high-armour set-ups. Consider it presenting a different challange to the torunament players - and most lists have some no-brainer choices to counter the threat of high armour. The one that doesn't (Index Astartes Space Marines) has it as a flaw in the design of that list.
Grimshawl post #1
I do think that with a little more tweaking the list can go in a tournament setting myself. so a few changes would still be nice but overall my concerns are few.
Any specific points? I'd be interested in hearing what alterations you felt we needed to make.
Agamemnon 2.0 post #1
I agree that the current vortex missile seems a little too "surgical" to describe a device that, in fluff, opens rifts in space. I understand a name change might be too superfluous, so I remain ambivalent on the issue. On the matter of names, the Warhound "light ____" weapons are a bit inelegant but do get the point across.
As I said earlier, I have issues with the suggested BP TK weapon - and don't just point at the Cobra and say its been done before,
The main point with the Light weapons is to make the distinction clear. If anyone has a better prefix or suffix than "light", I'd like to hear it.
Tactica post #1
I'm not sure on the wording of the knight shield still. Using the word lance seems to specifically address a rule in another codex instead of making the rule more generic to encompass your desired affect without making a reference to a rule that the player may not have access to easily because he doesnt' have the Swordwind codex at hand. I don't know - just seems like some word smithing is still required on this ability. The goal makes sense to me though.
I think the main problem with the current Knight Shield wording is that I used the Holofield as a base for it, modifying as required. Having said that, we do have a seperate thread available for discussion on this topic, so I'd suggest this discussion decamps there.
Flame Template,
Point 1: doesn't seem to say which part of the template must touch the "end of the gun barrel"
Point 1: "end of the barrel" should be relabled as "muzzle end" to be more accurate and less wordy.
point 2: seems to say the opponent may always reposition the template the way its worded.
point 2: nothing is described to inform a player what happens if two or more templates overlap on the same unit (2 hits or treat multiple templates from the same formation as one big template - like barrages?)
As another new section, the wording probably needs tightening up.
1,a - should probably insert "narrow end of the" between the and template.
1,b - seems OK as a change
2,a - I see what you mean. The intention is that that only happens if the maximum number of units aren't covered, so that needs rewording.
2,b - I'm leaning towards treating them as a big barrage, but I'm open to opinions.
Mole mortar now seems worth trying, still don't know if I like it, but for the points and abilities, might be worth trying now.
They're a 150pt formation - what're you expecting them to do, take Paris?
OK, bad example
Maurader's underwing rockets are 5+ while the precident and thunderbolt's underwings are 4+ - typo?
Probably a typo, yes. I'll check my notes.
Tygre post #1
Looking through the list there doesn't seem much difference between the Scout Weapons and the Tactical Weapons. The main difference for most weapons seems to be the range.
ATM, there is a definate similarity between the MRL, TLD and VMB on each list. The plasma weapons are different on each platform, as is the Inferno Gun. I'm also looking at differentiating the MRL on the Warhound, regressing it to more of a large Valkyrie rocket pod than a smaller version of the Battle Titan weapon, or at least a halfway house.
Blarg D Implaer, post #2
Your concerns are rightly justified, IMO. As I have said before, the weapons make the Imperial Titan, and the way the weapons list is now makes the AMTL overly formidable.
For an "in the box" game, against an unknown opponent, this problem isn't as major an advantage as you make it out to be. Your weapons selections have to still be flexible enough to deal with a range of targets, both AP and AV.
Against the Space Marines: Vulcan Mega Bolters and Chain Fists should take care of the CC and FF infantry heavy marines. A lone Volcano Cannon and/or missile launcher with Carapace Landing Pad should be enough to take care of the occassional Whirlwind platoon or THawk.
Care to elaborate on this a little, as neither the VMB or chainfist work in a Firefight. Also, when you say "missile launcher", are you referring to the Barrage Missile Launcher or the Multiple Rocket Launcher?
More to come tomorrow, when I deal with page 2.
_________________
The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!
Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress
Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
| Blarg D Impaler |
|
|||
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm Posts: 356 Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA |
That's the reason why I developed my mathematical formulas for figuring weapons in the first place. I wanted to make sure that the CC weapons were balanced with all of the ranged weapons. I think that it is possible to make the weapons balanced, it'll just take some work. The list, as presented, contains 22 different Titan weapons. If you've only singled 5 out as being (in your opinion) over-powered, then we're not doing too bad. |
I was only considering the 17 battle titan weapons, I had not really bothered with the Warhound weapons. I have changed my mind about the Barrage Missile Launcher; since it doesn't have "Ignore LOS" then the Unlimited range is not as great of an advantage and Disrupt might be a nice balancer. Though I would like to add your stats for the Melta Cannon to my "Too Powerful Complaints List."
While I may be have only listed 5 out of 17 Battle Titan Weapons as too powerful, I also feel that 5 weapons are not powerful enough: Inferno Gun, Multiple Rocket Launcher, Laser Burner, Power Fist, and Wrecker.
I also have fundamental differences regarding how some of the weapons have stats: Turbolaser Destructor (should be 2 long range shots), Vulcan Mega Bolter (range = 30cm and add +3 FF attacks), Laser Burner (should be a CC weapon and not an FF weapon), Power Fist (Imperial Power Fist should be TK(D6) and not TK(D3) like the Eldar PF), and the Vortex Missile (should be called what it really is, a Deathstrike Missile.)
In all fairness, I think that these Battle Titan weapons are just fine: Gatling Blaster, Plasma Cannon, stats for the Turbolaser Destructor, Corvus Assault Pod, Barrage Missile Launcher (Firepower should be changed back to 2D6), Quake Cannon, and the Deathstrike Missile / Vortex Missile.
Given the ones you've listed, the Volcano Cannon is out of my hands, as it is printed in the GT List for Titan Legions, as well as in the Imperial Guard - it's on the list JJ said I wasn't allowed to mess with.
I agree, the stats should not be messed with for the same reasons, but that still does nothing for the fact that the VC is more powerful than the other Support Weapons (Except for the Plasma Destructor, which is just way out there.) I have always advocated a special rule of some kind that limits a titan's employment/use of the VC. But everytime I say "Special Rule" people scream bloody murder.
If a weapon can't fit exactly with how it worked in previous versions of Epic and still be balanced, then my priority in this regard is to get a weapon that feels balanced. If I can get it to work in a similar feeling way whilst being balanced, then I'll try to, but that's the way its gonna be, Blarg.
Seriously, no offense intended, but I think the biggest problem with what you're talking about is a lack of creativity. Everyone wants to go the safe and staid route instead of reaching out for something different. It's not that hard to get a set of weapon stats that reflect what a weapon was like in previous editions of Epic. The hardest part has been getting you, and some of the "past be damned" types, to actually seriously consider ideas and not dismiss my suggestions, and some others, out of hand.
OK, it may just be me, but I am boggled at the ignorance and indifference to the previous editions of Epic that I have seen in the development of the AMTL. I'm not trying to be mean, far from it, but aside from "Hey, that's a cool mini, let's incorporate it!" I have seen little correlation in titan weapons between SM/TL (remember, the "Golden Age Of Epic") and E:A. Everybody is more than happy to go after fleeting side comments about the AMTL infantry in Inquisitor, but talk about stuff from the original Adeptus Titanicus, Space Marine, and Titan Legions and I feel like I'm getting blank, glassy-eyed stares.
Unfortunately, you can never please everyone. Trying to do so is bound to lead to disappointment. For example, there is no way I can please both yourself and tneva - you have polar opposite opinions on most issues.
My aim is to get as many players happy with the list as I can. I accept that there will be those who don't like the list. I have no problems with that. But if they want to use the AMTL in a tournament or a general pick-up game, then this is the list they'll be using.
If you're in the position where you have a stable gaming group, modify the list as you see fit - its your gaming, after all.
What really makes me mad at myself is that I had pretty much written off the continuing development of E:A, especially the AMTL, and was going to get my group to do our own thing. But dammit, I got dragged back into the discussion! Grr...
Quote
Single Shot Missiles - Change the name of the Vortex missile back to what it really is: a Deathstrike Missile. If you are going to use the vaunted and feared name of "Vortex Missile" in Epic it had better be close to what it was originally: an area effect weapon that was good at destroying titans.
From a game balance perspective, I have issues with a BP TK weapon, which is what people keep suggesting for it.
Hhhmmm..., why would everyone keep suggesting that the Vortex Missile be a BP TK weapon?
Could it be that the Vortex Missile in AT and SM/TL was excellent at killing titans? No, that can't be it. Could it be that the Vortex Missile in AT and SM/TL was a weapon that used a barrage template? No, of course not. Could it be that the Vortex Missile in AT and SM/TL was a weapon that created a rift between the Warp and Realspace that devastated anything that touched it? Nah...
Wow, why would people keep suggesting that the Vortex Missile be a BP TK weapon? I dunno...
_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
| wargame_insomniac |
|
||||||
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:42 pm Posts: 3305 Location: West Yorkshire, UK |
|
||||||
| Top | |
||||||
|
|||||||
| dysartes |
|
|||
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908 |
That was never my intent. From the moment I said I was introducing the Destroyer, I had intended it to be somewhere along the lines of the current version. TheRealChris wrote this version of the stats in his Air document which has floated around in the past, while I've contributed the background and some testing. The fact that the Destroyer in the rulebook has bastardised stats is nothing to do with me, though I'd do something about it if I could. Blarg D Impaler, post #1 Please also keep in mind that, as I have stated previously and I'm sure you've seen me say, I'm not a tournament player. I play Epic as if the game were part of a campaign or situation where the AMTL will at least have an idea who they are going to fight. Tournament play, while which is what the army lists are geared towards, are unrealistic circumstances under what an army would fight. I'm sorry I haven't adapted my mindset to tournament play. |
It is my understanding that the lists we are designing are to be balanced within the environment provided by the "Epic Tournament Scenario" - which, as I have said before, is not merely designed for playing within a tournament environment. Going by the reports I see on here, a lot of people play it as their stock pick-up-and-play game, which is part of the reason we design for it. For more on this, I suggest section 6.1 of the E:A rulebook as reading.
Viewed as is, I agree with you that the Tournament scenario is a fairly unrealistic combat situation, but it is a quantifiable variable in the playtesting process.
I think you may have missed that I was rather selective in the weapons that I mentioned in my inappropriate examples. Part of the reason why I wrote my examples as I did was because I wanted to draw out that there were several weapons that I felt were too powerful, and that those few weapons were sufficient to cover all of the AMTL's needs. One of the biggest problem weapons, in my opinion, is the Vulcan Mega Bolter which is mentioned several times.
Before I "tweaked" the VMB, two things were apparent.
1, It wasn't really a competitive weapon in the Tactical grouping, as it hadn't benefited from the 60cm range increase the TLD and GB had.
2, There was a feeling that merely increasing its range to 60cm would make it a bit bland, even though it would complete the TLD/GB/? axis of 4 shot, 60cm ranged weapons whose AP and AT values pivoted around AP4+/AT4+.
As I admitted in my previous batch reply, I think I went a little overboard in boosting its firepower by 50% - 25% would have been better, so I'll be cutting it back to 5 shots instead of 6.
Any army, IG included as you mentioned, will have an advantage if they know who they are fighting, but the AMTL would have an extra advantage since some of their weapons are better than the others IMO. Once players figure out what weapons are "good" and which ones are "bad" they will naturally gravitate to using the "good" weapons only.
The idea behind getting the weapons groups internally balanced is to prevent there being "good" and "bad" weapons. If we can get this balance, then the choices come down to personal preference.
Blarg D Impaler, post #2
Call me crazy...
You're crazy.
...but I don't think there needs to be significant differences between a tournament army list and a campaign army list. Really, when you get down to it for an tournament order of battle, especially for the AMTL, you just need to either pick an all-rounder army and try to adapt tactics to your situation, or specialize your force and tactics and hope that you can pull it off. Beyond that there shouldn't be significant differences between what a tournament AMTL army and a campaign AMTL army can "pick" from.
One thing that's occured to me Blarg - what do you actually mean by a "campaign" army list. As it stands, every army designed to date has been a campaign army list, with extra stats and/or "counts as" information provided for units that are OOP or are viewed as not common enough to warrant being in the standard lists. After all, how often are you gonna see a Divisio Telepathica Psi-Titan meandering around the battlefield?
After all, what is "flavor" for an army list? It is the background and perceived typical ways that an army operates expressed in an army list. If there is a need for a "Tournament AMTL Army List" that is different than a "Campaign AMTL Army List" then the first thing that should be done is remove "AMTL" from the title, because you have certainly deviated from the background to create such a thing.
Part of the problem we're still suffering from with the AMTL list is getting some theatre-specific info from JJ with regards to where on Armageddon the AMTL force is meant to be fighting and what thy're meant to have available. If you've noticed, I've started dropping in theatre-specific notes (see the Thudd Gun or Marauder Destroyer, for instance), and the list as a whole now has a lot more unit background within it, which should help with flavour.
Oh - is the last sentence n the above quote referring to the current list, or would it only apply if there were two lists?
Agamemnon 2.0, post #1
I don't think the weapons can ever be balanced, so the system that all configurations cost the same should be brought to an end. By giving additional points costs to certain weapons (probably not all of them) a new balancing element is added to the list.
Given the block-constructed nature of E:A armylists, I do understand having a plasma blastgun cost an extra +20 points might well be moot, but I think the concept is not inherently flawed.
Thing is, to price weapons individually, you need some form of baseline. For Tactical weapons, that's probably the Gatling Blaster - but then you have to look at each weapon, compare it with it and coe up with points costs. Its a lot of work when we can just be trying to get balance within the weapon groups as they stand - a goal I think we *can* achieve.
More to come later, when I address pages 3 & 4
_________________
The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!
Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress
Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!
| Tepoc |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:25 am Posts: 82 |
|
||||
| Top | |
||||
|
|||||
| dysartes |
|
|||
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm Posts: 908 |
Thanks. Lasguns and Plasma guns just aren't meaty enough for Praetorians. For some reason I see them with multilasers. I think a FF of 4+ could be in order. 5+RA would be perhaps more appropriate than 3+ (although I'm prepared to live with it!) 300 points just looks too much to make them worthwhile, 400 with chimeras. That's nearly a warhound pack. Although that's for playtesting - increased toughness is a hard one to judge! |
Having just boosted the CC ability of the unit, along with its survivability, I'm loathe to mess with its ranged potential or FF ability just yet - lets see how they perform first.
The armour increase puts them on a par with Ogryns, which is what people were requestin from the previous version. 5+ reinforced is another option, but possibly makes them too good against MW attacks.
As for the cost, I figured it is always safest to overcost something that's just been powered up, as people have less resistance to reducing the cost of a unit, compared to increasing the cost of an under-costed unit.
I have to say I think 450 for a warhound pack might make them more attractive, as opposed to taking lots of single warhounds for activations, even with the legio formations rule.
I was discussing this on Tuesday night with my opponent - As it stads, some incentive is needed to choose a Warhound Pack over 2 single warhounds, beyond the fact that the Pack is a Legion formation as opposed to 2 Auxilia choices. For now, we'll leave it, but I'll be taking a look at peoples lists, and seeing how often the Warhound Pack appears.
Blarg D Impaler, post 2
My biggest complaint about the Tournament List -vs- Scenario Game playing is that a lot of us older Epic players want something in-between: the ability to play a scenario game with point-balanced (or specifically unbalanced) forces. There are a lot of "Collectors List" items that a lot of people want to have points values assigned to them, but can't because Jervis is deathly afraid that somebody might try to use them in a GW sanctioned tournament.
As it stands, there's nothing stopping you using the army list to pick forces for a scenario, but the costs have been devised as appropriate for that scenario. As nealhunt pointed out, that may mean there is a problem if you're trying to design a scenario with certain victory conditions, as some units may be worth more than thier cost in those conditions.
In principle, I have no problem with a suggested formation size and cost for units in the AMTL Collector's Models section. If you want to proide an estimate for them, I'll take a look at your numbers.
Blarg D Impaler, post 3
The laid back aspect of the Collector's edition stuff is great for small, discrete groups of mature gamers, but that is so contrary to prior communication concerning the whole "tournament" thing coming from GW/SG that it smacks of laziness.
What Epic: Armageddon needs is an area devoted to putting good stats on old figures and conjuring up points costs for them so Veterans can use them in a tournament setting.
Coming up with a points cost within your gaming group shouldn't really be an issue, as it is working towards an element of scenario design - the House Rule. As you pointed out, this may cause issues if playing a Tournament Scenario pick-up-and-play game, which is why you'd be advised to stick to the army list as published.
By your second quoted paragraph, are you referring to having a points value for these available for a non-tournaement pick-up-and-play game, or for tournaments as well?
nealhunt/LI/Lion In the Stars, end of page 3 start of page 4
*Insert 40k discussion here
I've got to agree with Tactica here - can we leave the discussion on 40k to a seperate thread, please? My only question is why the 40k team can now dictate elements of game design to the Epic team (no Trygons for you, Tyranid Champion, etc)
Blarg D Impaler, page 4
That's the reason why I developed my mathematical formulas for figuring weapons in the first place. I wanted to make sure that the CC weapons were balanced with all of the ranged weapons. I think that it is possible to make the weapons balanced, it'll just take some work.
Unfortunately, to my eyes, your formula is based on some flawed assumptions. The first (and possibly most major) is the assumption that the benefits of range work on a linear scale, when I don't think they do. Then we've got average armour values to think about, what benefit MW and TK should cause, etc.
I'd also argue that your formula severely undervalues the FF and CC abilities. Having seen your original list of weapons, there were some choices there which were horrendously over-powered, which is a problem when you start trying to analyse based of pure maths and no testing.
The other area your formula can't take account of is how well weapons synergise with each other. Tricky to quantify, but it definately makes a difference to the units effectiveness.
==============================================
Unfortunately, I appear to have run out of time for now - I've got to dash out to work. I'll continue with this when I get back in.
