Page 2 of 3

[ 35 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Airpower, Epic and Tau
The_Real_Chris	Post subject: Airpower, Epic and Tau Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:59 am
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Quote (Tactica @ 26 April 2006 (23:40)) If the question is to say, if I take all infantry IG force with no AA (planes or flak) - which I think meets your question's criteria, and my opponent takes all thunderhawks with marines, landing craft with predator support and marines and finally strike cruisers with drop pods and assaulting planetfalling assault marines - yeah, I think he should clean my clock. Forces that cannot deal well with h-t-h combat are in for a hurting if they did not take any AA and the enemy comes in via heavy air assets chocked full of great h-t-h elitists by comparison. One reason i stuck it here is that about the 'type' of airpower the Tau have. Its 'strike' power. Marines have I think an air 'force multiplier'. This doesn't apply so much to Tau. Sure there is the synenergy between missiles and markerlights (and I like Hecklers suggestion of having all the missiles on the TS's as GM's to enhance this) but otherwise its not like an Orca air assault is that much of a boost to the Tau (hence the low price highlighting as I think many agree the abusability of transports becoming ground units). The extreme example is a good one. The all infantry force is probably Siegemasters not Steel Legion but either way I would fight it Here the marines will be hitting the ground at some point so I get to shoot (3000 points of IG is 12 companies of infantry with 84 autocannons between them plus commissars, Siege it is with revised point costs about 14 companies and 5 lots of fortifications so 126 AP only guns and 14 autocannon) and they have to put themselves at risk to job me. I agree they would still win, not least because the Thunderhawks as AT targets would be hard to kill whilst nicking all the objectives. But they at some point are still at risk of dying. Indeed General_Ng still remarks at how I completely fouled up a Marine Air attack on a mostly infantry Steel Legion force with only 2 Hydra losing virtually everyone by the end of turn two (I failed miserably to hit anything from orbit and the air assaults went in against un-bm'ed targets). Would the same marine assault work well against assault specialists like Tyranids? Anyway the long and short of all that is I agree with the example, but see it as a different kettle of fish as airpower there is a multiplier for the army specialists, not something operating  independantly as a bomber would. How would you think that an army relying on Bombers for its mainstay formation cope against an 'undefended' force? Would its results be as dramatic as the Marine air assault? Would you expect them to be? Of course its unrealistic for an army to have no AA (of any type). That is just asking for trouble. But what should be the payoff for an air reliant army destroying the AA it has (assuming its about 10% of the enemy spend)? With the original 'cheap' Tigershark A-10 the successes largely came from knocking off the flak one way or another with the Tau ground and occasional air troops, then fighting a battle of attrition. Thats a lot harder now (as the last bat rep I got to try showed with an 'optimin' opposition - little AA and lots of WE- the army winning last years CC, didn't give particular stunning results). I guess what I'm wondering about is how to as a general rule properly intergrate air effectiveness/power/ability with an army in terms of its payoff and possibilities. Straying into what you rightly say we would all like with is general guidance on certain aspects of Epic. Secifically how to achieve that with a concensus on what can/should be able to be done now (hence the begining questions). _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

thurse	Post subject: Airpower, Epic and Tau Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:15 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:13 pm Posts: 185 Location: Dundee, Scotland	Ok here I go for my first 2 cent about aircrafts. As I'm much newer to this forum than most of you, I'll probably talk about things that have already been debated, so apologizes... 1) on the statement "air units are not as powerful as they should be because epic is a ground war game": I could agree with that but keep in mind that a plane able to target a formation of for example 20 men (4 units ) is very precise... Furthermore, they reload very fast as they are able to act each turn. But honestly I'm not very interested to go too much in depth with "epic vs real warfare". 2) aircrafts give you the ability to strike wherever you want and are only hit by AA. This is powerful, add some possibilities to your tactics, and thus add a new kind of threat to your opponent. For example, you often have to limit the movement/orders of formations with AA capabilities to be able to counter aircrafts attacks. 3) flak can fire on each aircraft formation, the more aircrafts they are, the more they are useful. So, with a fixed and quite low amount of flak you can counter/annoy a lot of points spent in aircrafts. For me, it is fine as it is, otherwise you would be forced to buy a lot of AA to face aircrafts heavy army. And that would handicap you against armies with no aircrafts. stone/paper/scissors, as it was said... 4) Taking 1/3 of your army in aircrafts is quite extreme. It can work, but should give you a harder time, as you have a limited ground force. To conclude I'm happy the way it is in the : aircrafts are a good addition to an army, add tactics but can't rule the game. With that said, the following rules make the game more interesting : - +1 for CAP - No sniping - No objective grabbing. Concerning Tau aircrafts... : - barracudas: I dont have playtested them yet. - AX10 : the TK(D3) weapon dont mix very well with the other weapons... Furthermore, I would only field them in large battles, where the 2 pin-point attacks of my hero are not sufficient. - Orca : nice for air assault/planetfall. Ok for the limitation of 1 per formation that can fit in - Tigershark : my favorite. I really like the concept of a bomber carrying drones, although I think it needs a little more power to be really worth. My games have shown that the planes that performed the best were those with BPs. Tau can't have that, but with morays and Hero, they IMHO don't need another TK thing. I would prefer a real bomber, perhaps with guided missiles.
Top

Tactica

Post subject: Airpower, Epic and Tau Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:42 pm

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

Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 26 April 2006 (23:59)) Would the same marine assault work well against assault specialists like Tyranids? probably not, but neither would AX-1-0 heavy force from the Tau... or a Thunderbolt heavy force of the IG. The bug army delivers a nature ability to deal with AA very well in their Zoanthroapes coupled with spawning AA anywhere its needed on the field. Its further amplified by the inability to pick out their synapse as Greg Lane identified. Sniping is relatively impossible as you can't set your plane on the opponent's models (no rule permitting that) and its pretty easy for him to insulate his tyranids well enough. The whole idea of closeset model plays hell on any kind of MW attack too. Then there is the debate of when a 'closest' model in a formation is determined as per aircraft. In fact, out of the Marine, IG, and Tau examples above, the Marine list with thunderhawks would stand a much better chance than the other two air heavy lists vs. your proposed bug threat. Multiplier or not - the aircraft transports when allocated to combat oriented lists serve a multiplying effect - we'll agree. However, at the end of the day - we are still talking about airpower having an impact on the game. Because one version of airpower is payload, another is Cargo, and yet another is measured by objective grab does not mean that each is not relivent as to airpower's effect on the game. Aggregate, Airpower has a huge impact on this game for some lists as it pertains to their deliver capabilities of on board forces - its only recently that lists that do not depend upon combat have need for a different version of airpower - their payload. However, both versions of airpower align well with each lists core design and fictional history. Airpower is a very VERY big part of this game. How would you think that an army relying on Bombers for its mainstay formation cope against an 'undefended' force?

Hmm... this is really an open ended question with a multitude of variables.

*If* you are really asking me - should Tau airpower, by way of payload vs. cargo for H-t-H specialists - have an measurably comparable impact on the game, the answer is yes.

Would its results be as dramatic as the Marine air assault? Would you expect them to be?
See above. This question really starts becoming apples and oranges. By results, I assume you mean game end results. The game should be fun for both parties and should not be predetermined by forces chosen. As the game has an army building aspect to it that is arguably as important as deployment and which is arguably just as important as actual tactical/strategic decions in play and of course, none of which are more important than dice-rolling odds being agreeable with your gaming effort - I would say Airpower is Airpower and it should have a significant impact on the game if one player plans for it and takes it - and another player ignores it.

I could say the same thing about a Tau player taking all FW cadres and no AT weapons, then squaring off against a 80%+ AT / WE heavy force by IG, chaos, Eldar, or AMTL though. The point is, if you do not plan to deal with the multitude of variables in war - and you run into a list containing those elements, you are pre-ordaned - you have no answer for that threat. SO you either work around that self induced handicap, or suffer the consequences... which do include a possibility of severe desimation if not annihilation for a general's poor planning and ignorance of potential threats that may be encountered.

Of course its unrealistic for an army to have no AA (of any type). That is just asking for trouble. But what should be the payoff for an air reliant army destroying the AA it has (assuming its about 10% of the enemy spend)?
This question is open-ended and loaded with unknown variables and assumption. I really cannot comment.

With the original 'cheap' Tigershark A-10 the successes largely came from knocking off the flak one way or another with the Tau ground and occasional air troops, then fighting a battle of attrition. Thats a lot harder now (as the last bat rep I got to try showed with an 'optimin' opposition - little AA and lots of WE- the army winning last years CC, didn't give particular stunning results).
So we agree. To extrapolate...

Take a good unit (Inf, WE, LV or otherwise), reduce its payload and increase its cost and it becomes measurably worthless if the points get high enough. OK... don't know what your point is yet.

I guess what I'm wondering about is how to as a general rule properly intergrate air effectiveness/power/ability with an army in terms of its payoff and possibilities. Straying into what you rightly say we would all like with is general guidance on certain aspects of Epic.
If there is not going to be a guiding principle, then you must balance a given unit within a list. Just because it delivers a payload that is unexpected or unprecidented doesn't make it problematic. If the games are still fun, if the enemy can take answers to the threat, and if the games are ultimately still balanced - then that's all that really matters in the end. Will previous army building mentalities change...

Example:
We used to only take 5-10% AP in our lists, now with army XYZ out there, we have to take 15-20% AP to feel safe in a tourny situation... or whatever...

Sure, army building mentalities tend to change with each new list that's introduced into the gaming arena.

Do you think Siegemasters made me change my playstyle? YES... the sheer amount of infantry wounds that army can field is staggering.

Do you think the introduction of Eldar into the mainstream made me change my playstyle? YES, the mobility and flexability of that army is unbelievable.

Do I think Tau's payload based airpower will introduce a paradigm shift as it pertains to AA planning - absolutely. Should it - yep.

IF Honda's Elysian list makes it to mainstream, we'll have another skimmer and flight based army to deal with.

Is the 41st millenium a constantly changing and evolving amount of threats - yep.

Secifically how to achieve that with a concensus on what can/should be able to be done now (hence the begining questions).
See above and previous post.

Management based principles.
Management refined air rules.

If neither will happen...

Balance of units within lists as per the battle results and not at the sacrifice of the general level of entertainment in games played by opposing and commanding generals.

Cheers,