| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| 'Support' weapons should be... http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=11155 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
An example of a more powerful weapon is better stats and/or range (e.g. E&C's thinking behind plasma weapons, or a Quake cannon being a rocket launcher with MW and longer range etc). A pros and cons thing would be better stats but a drawback (so the above Quake cannon but slow firing etc). The different role gives it the power in effect (example a VC with less shots than a TLD but specialised and better for a slow support role). Personally I go for a combination of 2 and 3. I don't want 'no brainer' choices of you always scale up if you can, but rather a choice. Yes the VC is a better weapon than the TLD, but it is more specialised and has a flaw in RoF. I don't want, got the option, upgrade to bigger gun. Further I do think the biggest weapons should be a supporting role, not the mainstay the others cluster around. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
I voted for 2. But tailored for a specific role as addition (at least for some of the support weapons) would be good too. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
You don't have an option d: d - Each weapon is different, and the previous editions of Epic / the background should be looked to to find appropriate stats. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
Really? Why? The stats for 1st and 2nd editions aren't that similar and 3rd is again something different. Epic to date hasn't followed the past much, apart from fluff if appropriate why should we do ports of old stats and then find they are out of whack with each other? Of course if you want to do individually pointed weapons for Reavers and Warlord then it makes more sense  Hena that would be option 1 as there's no draw backs, you simply get them if you can. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
Then you pick the coolest version from previous editions. 
|
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
I think weapons should increase in "power" as they go up in Grades... or Barrels... *laugh* I've got no problem with adding drawbacks as well, to make the weapons more characterful. And, of course people will take the most powerful weapons they can... would anyone deliberately undergun their Titans if there was no compensating benefit? |
|
| Author: | Ilushia [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
I'm voting for 2 and 3, basically. 2 primarily. I think the larger, heavier weapons ought to be more powerful but come with some kind of disadvantage to make your decision based on the specialization of the titan. Some weapons, like the Volcano Cannon, special missiles and CC/FF weapons, offer the Titan abilities which nothing else in the list gives them essentially. These weapons don't need to have specific drawbacks other then the fact that they're more focused on their goal and thus less useful in general. A TLD can fire on every turn potentially, while a Power Fist is rarely going to get more then one assault in a game (If that). |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
I didn't vote because the definition of "support weapon" isn't all that precise to me. Right now "support weapon" seems like a catch-all category for powerful weapons, which might have a less powerful antecedent. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
What Ilushia said. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
Then what is your view? |
|
| Author: | rpr [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
My vote goes for: 'there should be no support weapon distinction' - just have a list of weapons with possibly different costs and that's it. |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
(rpr @ Dec. 10 2007,03:32) QUOTE My vote goes for: 'there should be no support weapon distinction' - just have a list of weapons with possibly different costs and that's it. That's my view also. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
If by chance 3 or 4 were all more than the others and a similar cost they are probably a group of support weapons
|
|
| Author: | Ilushia [ Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Support' weapons should be... |
(Dwarf Supreme @ Dec. 10 2007,10:40) QUOTE (rpr @ Dec. 10 2007,03:32) QUOTE My vote goes for: 'there should be no support weapon distinction' - just have a list of weapons with possibly different costs and that's it. That's my view also. Functionally this is still basically the same thing, though. Basically you have 'normal' weapons which cost X and 'heavy' weapons which cost Y. With the heavier weapons costing more you still effectively have restrictions on their weapon choices. In essence resulting in basically the same end result. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|