Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

CLP round 2
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26694		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Vaaish [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:03 am ]
Post subject:  CLP round 2
Ok the poll runs for the next 4 days. At the end of that period, the winner will be integrated into the AMtL list.

If there is a tie, we can do a run off or I can cast the deciding vote.

Feel free to continue the discussion below.
Author:  Vaaish [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Hey Folks, this is running pretty close. Could you please post your reasoning for the option you select so I can have something to review should we have a tie.
Author:  zombocom [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
I voted no LOF, with the caveat that it should not be allowed to work on overwatch.
Author:  Koshi [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Voted for Option 3, best IMO.
Author:  wargame_insomniac [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
I voted for Option 3. The best and simplest solution I have seen suggested sonfar.

Option 1 sucks as it makes having pair of barrage weapons pointless.

Option 2 feels too unwieldly.
Author:  Apocolocyntosis [ Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
3, for exactly the same reason WI just gave.

(1 is fine for EUK, but it would be nice to have an alternative in this list that does allow more arty use, even if some curtailing is in place to encourage movement etc)
Author:  Vaaish [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Thanks guys.

Two questions/concerns about Glyn's suggestion.

1. Ignoring LOF even if the formation fails to activate. Right now with the CLP you don't get indirect fire (double range + ignore LOF) unless the unit activates. Under Glyns proposal, a unit can fail it's activation and still use the CLP to fire on units that are out of LOF.

2. Ignoring LOF while on overwatch. Zobo brought this one up. I guess this depends on how overwatch is played. Can a unit start it's move out of LOF, move through the LOF a unit on overwatch and end it's move out of LOF to prevent overwatch from triggering. If so then I think Zobo has a valid point. If not then I don't see this being too much of an issue.

Should Glyn's propsal win out should we put it in as stated in the poll and add things like doesn't work on overwatch or if the unit fails to activate if we need to tone it down or add it on now?
Author:  mordoten [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
I think it should only work with a sustain order!
Author:  SpeakerToMachines [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Voted 3, too.

mordoten wrote:
I think it should only work with a sustain order!


Sounds fair enough.
Author:  Jaggedtoothgrin [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Given that the supposed mandate for this change is "stop static playstyle" any proposal that requires a sustain to function is not a solution at all.

of course, given that the actual reason for the change is "people shouldnt have quake cannons" it does fit nicely with the AC's plans, and I suppose a side effect of making the CLP virtually useless is that it won't matter if you need to stand still to use it, since taking it in the first place would be a collossal mistake.
Author:  GlynG [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
SpeakerToMachines wrote:
Voted 3, too.

mordoten wrote:
I think it should only work with a sustain order!


Sounds fair enough.

Sounds like a terrible idea to me! Leave it available when moving please. It would good to be able to use it in combination with an Inferno Gun or AML and double forwards behind cover. The list is trying to get away from static play.

Not allowing it in a failed activation could be reasonable. I'm unsure about whether it should be allowed on overwatch or not. As to your question overwatch is determined based on the end position of the enemy after each move (each of the two moves of a double).
Author:  zombocom [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
The main issue with overwatch is transport aircraft; a BP titan on overwatch will be able to lay the smack down even if the plane lands behind a building.

Allow it on sustained fire, advance and double only.
Author:  Borka [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
zombocom wrote:
The main issue with overwatch is transport aircraft; a BP titan on overwatch will be able to lay the smack down even if the plane lands behind a building.

Allow it on sustained fire, advance and double only.

I agree with this. I don't think it should be available on overwatch or a Hold order.
Author:  Man of kent [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Of the three options presented I feel that the third is the best. If you're still going for an army which must be on the move then not requiring LoS as opposed to indirect fire cuts down on range.

However, I must also agree with Zombo and would like to bring up the issue that this rule had with Deathstrikes smashing t/hawks and other landers out of the 'sky' with ease back when they were 'no line of sight'.
Author:  Vaaish [ Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: CLP round 2
Quote:
Given that the supposed mandate for this change is "stop static playstyle" any proposal that requires a sustain to function is not a solution at all.


I agree it shouldn't require sustain.

Quote:
of course, given that the actual reason for the change is "people shouldnt have quake cannons" it does fit nicely with the AC's plans, and I suppose a side effect of making the CLP virtually useless is that it won't matter if you need to stand still to use it, since taking it in the first place would be a collossal mistake.


That's wildly inappropriate and unsupportable. My goal is to make the list less static, not remove the quake cannon. I've got no issues with the quake in direct fire mode.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/