Tactical Command | View topic - V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Board index » NetEA Development » NetEA Tau

Page 2 of 13

[ 193 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Honda

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:53 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

So is it a choice between faster and 75cm range or slower and long ranged main gun (ta-da, Shadowsword).

I would prefer to see a "not as quick" longer range version.

Dropping all weps but the 2x TL Missile Pod, and taking 4 (3?) "Flexible Missile Launchers" (FML), each of which can launch 1 Seeker Missile OR 1 Submunitions Missile OR 1 Tracer Missile, per turn, players choice. Tracer missiles are limited to "One-Shot" per FML. I'm not concerned about the loss of the Hunter missile, Tau have fine AA and Interceptors as it is.

First off, I think this is a brilliant idea and I like it a lot. However, I would propose that we not give it "one-shot" missiles and that we leave the Hunter onboard.

AA Reasoning: When I was using these regularly, they tended to support satellite formations operating closer to the enemy. One thing that became fairly apparent to some of my opponents is that if they could perform a decapitation strike on the formation, then they could punch a hole in my weapons "solar system" (i.e. take out the sun). The AA capability is important to preserving this asset or at least making the opponent really sure that they want to go after it.

As far as the "one shot" thingy, the vehicle is large enough to handle any type of storage needs, plus one shot stuff is fiddly. Give them the missile and then cost it appropriately.

Again, excellent idea Heckler.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

tneva82

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:30 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

Quote (Honda @ 08 Mar. 2006 (13:53))

As far as the "one shot" thingy, the vehicle is large enough to handle any type of storage needs, plus one shot stuff is fiddly. Give them the missile and then cost it appropriately.

Of course that would kill need for seeker missile included in stat...Or who would shoot AT6+ missile when MW6+ is included

. Also hunter(if kept) would be just for AA use. So basicly it would be tracer(heavy infantry, vechiles) or submunitions(light/medium infantry).

_________________
www.tneva.net

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:44 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

I tend to think the variable ammo could be confusing/messy. But I do think that a multiple Tracer Missile platform would be a valid approach to the Scorpionfish. I would leave the submunition shots for stingrays etc.

How about 3 (or 4?) Tracer missiles, 2 Seeker missiles, 1 AA missile (personally I could manage without this as the Tau have plenty of other AA options, but I'm not too concerned) and a "close defence" weapon, such as a burst cannon or SMS.

Keeping the main armament as GMs seems very fluffy to me. (I would not like to see another uber rail gun/cannon)

Top

Honda

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:04 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Of course that would kill need for seeker missile included in stat...Or who would shoot AT6+ missile when MW6+ is included

This would not be "instead of", it would be "in addition to".

How about 3 (or 4?) Tracer missiles, 2 Seeker missiles, 1 AA missile (personally I could manage without this as the Tau have plenty of other AA options, but I'm not too concerned) and a "close defence" weapon, such as a burst cannon or SMS.

Well, the basic Orca comes with the long version of the BC and has a missile rack in the turret, so either could work.

I think I'd prefer the SMS just to keep assault infantry from trying to sneak up on you.

Keeping the main armament as GMs seems very fluffy to me. (I would not like to see another uber rail gun/cannon)

Agree on the GM approach vs. RG/RC. This vehicle should not require LOF to be effective. It should operate in the backfield supporting where necessary.

Given the above, are we still talking about 200 pts? Still talking about a squadron of 3?

Also that the Dragonfish would just be a Scorpionfish with the SC upgrade for 100 points?

:;):

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

tneva82

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:26 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

Quote (Honda @ 08 Mar. 2006 (18:04))

Of course that would kill need for seeker missile included in stat...Or who would shoot AT6+ missile when MW6+ is included

This would not be "instead of", it would be "in addition to".

So basicly 3(4?) missile launchers each launching hunter/seeker/submunition pack as per choise and 1(or more?) tracer missile in addition? Ok.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Top

Honda

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:42 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

So basicly 3(4?) missile launchers each launching hunter/seeker/submunition pack as per choise and 1(or more?) tracer missile in addition? Ok.

If I am interpreting CW description correctly, the Scorpionfish would have:

3-4 x Tracer missiles
2 x Seeker missiles
1 x Hunter AA missile
1 x SMS or Long Burst cannon

So, roughly 5 shots/turn assuming an AT target or 3-4 shots for AP and 1 AA shot if available.

If we leave the base to hit at +6 (which is really annoying), then you can get a +1 for Markerlight and +1 for Sustain (assuming LoF, which is not what we are talking about with a slow boat in the backfield).

Since you brought up the to hit number (

), does anyone else think it's a little low for a big hitter? Should it be a +5 or +4 if it is going to be a sort of equivalent of the Shadowsword.

Thoughts?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

halfempty101

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:46 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:32 pm
Posts: 2

[QUOTE]How about 3 (or 4?) Tracer missiles, 2 Seeker missiles, 1 AA missile (personally I could manage without this as the Tau have plenty of other AA options, but I'm not too concerned) and a "close defence" weapon, such as a burst cannon or SMS.

I think this is the right way to go. Having a completely guided missle boat would be unique for the Tau. The question is how many missles would be needed to justify a cost of 200 points?

Halfempty

_________________
"The glass is always half empty until it starts to over flow."

Top

tneva82

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:52 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

Quote (Honda @ 08 Mar. 2006 (18:42))

If I am interpreting CW description correctly, the Scorpionfish would have:

CW? I was talking about HecklerMDs suggestion where you have 3 or 4 flexible missile launcher which could shoot tracer/submunition pack/seeker missiles(with tracers limited to one per launcher).

Then came suggestion tracers are unlimited to which I poundered wouldn't that invalidate seekers. To which came reply it would be in addition so basicly as far as I understand there would be 3 or 4 flexible missile launchers(seeker/submunition pack/hunter though hunter would be only AA missile with this suggestion) and unlimited tracer missile in addition if HecklerMDs suggestion would be modified as suggested.

Very confusing when different suggestions are thrown isn't it

_________________
www.tneva.net

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:48 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Tneva, sorry about the confusion. I had indeed made a slightly different suggestion. I felt that variable ammo weapons could be confusing (since you had to ask for clarification on the variable idea I feel vindicated in that opinion).

Honda, I don't think we should be trying to emulate a Shadowsword, the Moray does that much better. I see the Scorpionfish as more of a heavy support vehicle (with this kind of loadout anyway).

I did consider suggesting a "Heavy Tracer Missile" that had a better to hit number, but decided that it would be simpler not to create new weapons but to try and create a balanced loadout of the current weapons.

Worth noting that with MLs you dont need a LOS to shoot. A single advance in turn 1 will put you in position to shoot on subsequent turns 95cm across the board with sustained fire shots hitting ML targets on a 4+. That will put a good dent in most armour formations.

Top

tneva82

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:56 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606

Quote (clausewitz @ 08 Mar. 2006 (19:48))

Tneva, sorry about the confusion.

No problems. It's not your fault and more suggestions is only good for creating good list

.

Personally I like the idea of flexible missile launchers though. Maybe it's the flexibility of that weapon. With the point cost and to hit values flexibility to shoot at suitable targets doesn't seem unreasonable.

Though simply upping the number of missiles could work. Right now it just feels so AT gunboat(which of course might be purposeful).

_________________
www.tneva.net

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:09 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Right now it just feels so AT gunboat(which of course might be purposeful).

Which distinguises the Scorpionfish from the Stingray. So yes, from my perspective, it is entirely purposeful.

Top

thurse

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:16 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Dundee, Scotland

and +1 for Sustain (assuming LoF, which is not what we are talking about with a slow boat in the backfield).

Well I'm not sure to understand what you mean Honda. If I'm not mistaken, you get +1 for markerlights and +1 for sustained fire, so in this case the 6+ missiles hit on a 4+ even without a LOF

Anyway, I like this idea because Tau do not have a lot of simple MW hits, and we have to find a specific role to this tank.

I'll go for 4 tracer missiles :
4 x Tracer missiles
2 x Seeker missiles
1 x Hunter AA missile
1 x SMS

If seems too much, I would prefer seeing a 5+ RA instead of a firepower reduction.
For me it is not ( at first glance... ) over the top as it really depends on markerlights.

P.S. : my friend ayoras logged with this computer so that's why you might have seen this post with his name before I deleted it( I forgot to change the automatic logon ).

Top

HecklerMD

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:58 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201

RE;Ammo confusion.

Admittedly, it may take a minute or two for someone to figure out the one-shot Tracer thing, its not hare to remember that you've got 4 tracers onboard at the beginning of the game, and remember how many you shoot. Save them for the LRusses, or use em on the Chimeras so no cover save for the guys inside, your choice.

Since the Hunter (As seen on the current SkyRay) has no AT value, we could give the ScF one (w/ its own launcher) and not disrupt the number of AT shots it brings. Just not as, erm, symetrical:(

Top

CyberShadow

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:03 pm

Swarm Tyrant

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore

I think that we are going about this a little backwards. We should come up with a role and design the weapons fit to match that, rather than the other way around. That said, I like the idea of a slower missile-boat. I always viewed the Dragonfish as an infantry support platform, flanked by Fire Warriors and Crisis suits, and lending heavy hitting power to the units. Therefore, I like the idea of a 'variable' launcher. I dont think that we should start this off better than a 5+, which would bring it to a 3+ with a following wind.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Top

Tactica

Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:21 pm

Brood Brother

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

We should come up with a role and design the weapons fit to match that, rather than the other way around. That said, I like the idea of a slower missile-boat.

Well stated - couldn't agree more!

So then, CS - your guidance would be best help here... can't speak for everyone else, but I'd like to work from your vision of this thing. So, for me - the next questions on my mind are:

1. What is the primary capability for long range engagement?
?a. MW/TK
?b. MW
?c. AT
?d. AP
?e. AA

2. What secondary role (if any) should this vehicle statisfy?

3. With number 1 in mind, what is the overall effective range of this vessel when;
?a. stationary?
?b. moving?
?c. double moving?

4. Keeping number 2 and 3 in mind, how fast should it go?
?a. 10cm (ordinatus / leviathon)
?b. 15-20cm (infantry speed and ground LV)
?c. 20-25cm (Tracked SHT and tracked MBT)
?d. 25-30cm (APC, tracked AV, Skimmers, and jump infantry)
?e. 35cm+ (Eldar skimming and faster)

5. With 4 in mind, weapon ranges will then become obvious.

6. With 1-5 in mind, what kind of defensive & Combat stats should it have?
?a. Armor
?b. CC
?c. FF
?d. DC
?e. Reinforced Armor?
?f. Thick Rear Armor?
?g. Tau shield

7. With 1-6 in mind, actual weapon systems can be formed.

8. With 1-7, points will become obvious.

9. If there's a points goal, start tweaking for balance to align.

10. Playtest and repeat step 9 as needed.

PS - for the record, I like Heckler's idea as well - with Honda's caveat to eliminate fiddly 'single shot' stuff. Cw, Honda, or whoever mentioned the 5+ base to hit- I'm right there with you. The 6+ is annoying for something this impressive. I want to reasonably rely on my heavy hitters a bit more - rather than the hopeful 6+ IF I can get a mark and IF I can manage a sustain and IF I can see the target. Blah... Finally, I think CS is on the right path though I may be a bit more open minded on the to-hit. I would say we *probably* don't want to go down to a 4+ GM out of the gate. When we start considering the various stats, role, defense, etc such a to-hit value may put it well out of the target price range. However, answers to the above questions in orange will allow me to solidify my opinion on the base GM to-hit value of the ScF.

Cheers,

_________________
Rob

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 13

[ 193 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish

Who is online