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

Airpower, Epic and Tau
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5609		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
I've sent a reponse to Heckler privately over our arguement we were having in the locked changes thread, but one potentially interesting point beyond flaming each others ideas is what are the views of how air power should work in Epic?

Airpower is artificially weakened in Epic without much fluff justification (like say in Hammers Slammers). Not everyone agrees. I think its important to have some sort of concensus on how Airpower should be working in epic especially with the Tau as they currently have the most powerful aircraft in terms of weapon fits.

So, what does everyone think of the following statements/ideas (as in agree/dissagree).

That a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.

That new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).

That any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.

Me? I think airpower should be like Titans or similar constrained units, that you should be able to still win without stacks of AA (or TK/MW in the case of WE), i.e. you have a fair chance with what each list would consider a representative pick in a blind GT setting.

I do think in response to 2 and 3 together their should be 'artifical' constraints, both to balance with what has come before and not overload the creaking air rules that break down beyond a certain point of aircraft effectiveness. Just reguarding point two I think fluff wise you can't top Eldar for air effectiveness overall, but that still gives a lot of leyway.

Edit for Honda and others :)
I promise not to say a single word in arguement, but only seek clarification of points if I don't 'get it' :)
Author:  dptdexys [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:41 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
That a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.


They should have an advantage in the skies but this should put them at a big disadvantage on the ground(as has been seen in tournaments with air heavy forces).

That new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).

No all aircraft should be kept low powered to keep the emphasis on epic being a ground based game.


That any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.


I believe that any weapon fit/chasis could be pointed fairly
but aircraft are usually at a higher points cost for what they can do (still think all aircraft should be kept low to what fluff/40k etc has them at).


I have to agree that the Eldar should be the top limit to what airpower can go to and Tau should be very close to that limit.
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
We limit Titans, CAS and Off Board Support (SM1 rules)[represents Spacecraft/Ortillary, etc.] to 33% of the total battle force. Limiting powerful assets like that is not only realistic, but more playable ... And Epic is a game about Ground Forces and units that support them ... IMO ... ?:;):
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
Quote (dptdexys @ 23 April 2006 (10:41))
They should have an advantage in the skies but this should put them at a big disadvantage on the ground(as has been seen in tournaments with air heavy forces).

But surely aircraft affect the ground?
My X points of bombers should give me at least equivalent results to ground formations, with advantages and disadvantages to both. How effective would they be if unopposed? More effective certainly as it is reasonable to assume that some AA should be present. If my ground pounders can eliminate that what sort of reward should I get?

I believe that any weapon fit/chasis could be pointed fairly
but aircraft are usually at a higher points cost for what they can do (still think all aircraft should be kept low to what fluff/40k etc has them at).


The big worry for me with flyers is there is only one way to deal with them - AA fire from flak or interceptors. Unlike other things in epic you can't hide, you can't assault and you can't mass ineffective fire to break them with BM (how my siegers deal with Titans).
What is the points premium for that ability and is it fixed, a percentage of the final price or exponential with the armament?

Coming back to the Tau they have aircraft with background fluff having them operate much like modern airpower. Should they actually be able to do so considering how much of a war winner it is? Looking at past arguements over barracudas and A-10's its clear people have opposing views on quite basic aspects of air in Epic which is why I'm interested in what people think of the above.
Author:  Gotchaye [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
>>That a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.

This I'm fine with, just as a player with lots of WEs has an advantage over someone with no MW/TK.

>>That new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).

They should be so constrained.  Our only understanding of these units is in context - the current Devilfish would be a heavily armored vehicle if Leman Russes only had 6+ saves, and it would be wrong to give Devilfish a 5+ save if the rest of the game was giving 40k AV14 equivalents worse armor.

>>That any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.

Not so much.  As range and power go up relative to durability (particularly range), you get units that are much more hit-or-miss.  60cm aircraft guns would dominate most boards, but Skyrays and Fire Prisms would have no trouble.  I don't have a big problem with big aircraft, but we should try to keep ranges down, and it'd be easier to balance if overall aircraft power was an indicator of durability as well as firepower.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:28 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
Quote (Gotchaye @ 23 April 2006 (22:49))
This I'm fine with, just as a player with lots of WEs has an advantage over someone with no MW/TK.

They do? To date using armies with no MW/TK ability in their lists I can compensate with either good assault units to break them or lots of formations (to name two popular strategies) to break them with AP or weak AT fire. In other words I have a recourse to other means.

The whole 'how much advantage' from facing an opponent with a weak AA countermeasures (the only countermeasure availible, coming in two flavours) I think is important as all my experience with air shows that certain weapon fits and abilities are worth far more than others when unopposed. Marauder bombers are the worse bomber in the game - unless you don't face much AA or can eliminate it. Then they become better than artillary batteries.

Tau wise (and particularily the A-10, everyones favourite plane) the planes mount more powerful and more weapons than the other races, so if there is an advantage from going the air route do they get more than someone else? If they do presumably they compensate with higher points values, but doesn't that then make them unactractive when they aren't the core of your strategy? Of course you have the range and good AA cover which means that you can stand more flak than the other races, but is that enough?
Author:  Legion 4 [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:16 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
The Tau have no FA ... so CAS plays that role as well ... :;):
Author:  Gotchaye [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:19 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
You have a recourse, but it's still nice to have big guns.  In general, a list without MW/TK fire is going to be less effective than a list without when it comes to dealing with Titans.

I suppose, then, that the trick is to allow other methods of dealing with aircraft beyond specialized AA weapons.

What if we borrowed a rule from 40k - all guns can shoot at aircraft, but only AA-capable guns can shoot without penalty?  Allow all AT weapons to fire at aircraft, but with some horrible penalty, and maybe a range cut.  In 40k, non-AA guns generally take a 66-75% hit to their effectiveness.  I suppose this could be accomplished with a special save - a 3+ invulnerable type would work, and ought to make it easier to balance aircraft.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:47 am ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
Well the Tau sorta do this, hence the 'support craft' that hover omniously above the table.
Author:  Honda [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
I would really like to give my opinion on this topic, but I feel, based on initial comments and your (TRC) responses, that you are more interested in rebutting other people's opinions.

You stated up front in your posting that you wanted to get everyone's opinions with a goal towards arriving at a consensus. A very admirable goal.

However, that does not mean that you contest every opinion that runs counter to yours.

For example, you state that you believe that the AX-1-0 is the best aircraft in the game (possibly paraphrasing a little) which is your opinion. It is not a fact. In fact, it wouldn't be that difficult to bring up other facts that contest that point.

The AX-1-0 is a very good aircraft, but it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is the best.

So, what is this topic to be? An area where people are free to express their opinions or another electronic argument? For the record, I am not interested in the latter.
Author:  Steve54 [ Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
I can't see what the problem is in discussing varying opinions and viewpoints which seems to be what is happening in this thread. Especially compared to other threads which have degenerated into flaming and the production of 'pseudo bat reps' which contain  armylists, brief game rundown and then a conclusion that it 100% confirms the posters position
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
That a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.


There should be an advantage if there is a significant disparity.  Just like there is an advantage if there is the WE disparity discussed previously, or a large difference in activation numbers, or an arty-heavy force versus a force without deepstriking capabilities.

That said, the advantage should not be so large as to make going "bare" a complete non-option.  It should be a calculated risk to take an army that skips defenses against "specialty" units.  If it pays off, you have a small advantage and if it doesn't pay off you have a small disadvantage.

That new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).

They should be proportional to existing power levels.

That any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.

That depends on what you mean by "pointed fairly."  Any set of abilities can be pointed fairly for the results over the course of many games and conditions.  Not every set of abilities can be pointed accurately for good game play.

To give the most extreme example possible, you could have a "coin flip" unit.  That unit causes the players to flip a coin.  Whoever wins the coin toss wins the game.  It could easily be pointed "fairly" over the long term by simply making it cost exactly what the opposing army costs.  You would have an exact 50% win ratio for equal points - perfectly balanced.  However, in any given game the "good play" imbalance is obvious.

Those kinds of units, abilities, and combos which turn the game into a glorified version of "rock, paper, scissors" are not necessarily unbalanced but are nonetheless not good for game play.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
Quote (Honda @ 24 April 2006 (14:03))
Sniped by Chris

I promise not to say a single word in arguement, but only seek clarification of points if I don't 'get it' :)

Oh and for the record the best aircraft is far and away the Marine Thunderhawk. I feel it makes the list. It definatively reflects the fluff that it is the backbone of the chapters strength.
Author:  Tactica [ Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Airpower, Epic and Tau
As I'm sure Cw was missing my long windy posts... without further adue... :p

Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 23 April 2006 (03:35))
[/quote]
I've sent a reponse to Heckler privately over our arguement we were having in the locked changes thread, but one potentially interesting point beyond flaming each others ideas is...


Preamble:

TRC,

If you are looking for a collection of opinions - i.e. data gathering, I'm happy to toss in my hat. If you are looking or a debate on this topic, please disregard the following as I _think_ I share concerns others have posted. I don't wish to debate my opinions on this topic with you. I'm simply supplying my opinions on the basis that you are running a data collection effort. I applaud that.

PS - I think this post would be better served in the general forums. This Tau development specific forum is probably not the best area for a general aircraft discussion/ data gathering request. A link posted here with referencing a thread int eh general forums may have served better to gather varied opinions.

what are the views of how air power should work in Epic?


A good question. This goes back to the guiding principles of designers. Me = peon has a simple management expectation here.

The ERC body of individuals (or whatever they're called) should have a consensus view on fundamental design principles of which the public can utilize in our design efforts. That includes intended impact of Air in E:A, what constitutes an LV, Maximum wound capacity of a list at a given points value, Kill-count potential of a given list at given points levels and the list goes on.

This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but a core groups of fundamental metrics by which all lists can be measured within E:A would be ideal. One would hope that the document would be a dynamic one where it could live and breathe through change as needed over time.

Since that's ideological and not reality, I would hope that the ERC could at least acknowledge such issues as they creap up and make an effort to be consistent on their schedule for meeting and resolving known issues of concern across all lists.

Air - in general - is one question needing some attention.
?- Air transports being deployed empty
?- Air transports claiming objectives
?- WE Aircraft formation sizes and hit counts
?- Aircraft placement on the field (sniping)




I think its important to have some sort of concensus on how Airpower should be working in epic
Agreed so far...

especially with the Tau as they currently have the most powerful aircraft in terms of weapon fits.
Hmm... your opinion at this point - no comment here.

To toss in my hat, and my own opinion
1. ?I think SM thrive on aircraft.

2. ?I think SM lose more games if they couldn't depend upon air assaults.

3. ?I think the same could be said for Orcs and Eldar.

4. ?As an owning player of IG, Tau, and Eldar - I think the air assault is extremely powerful to certain armies.

5. ?As a player of many armies (though not owning them all) I'm not convinced that Tau have the most powerful aircraft impact on the E:A battlefield as a net result of numerous games played with various lists.

...what does everyone think of the following statements/ideas (as in agree/dissagree).

...a player with lots of points of aircraft should have an advantage over someone with far less investment in the way of AA.
Lots is a relative measure.

If by AA you mean Flak, that is not the only answer to aircraft. If by AA you mean both the amount of aircraft and Flak the "lessor" player takes, well - OK...

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.

No surprise, this happens. It ain't pretty.

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.

And I agree, that result should be very decided.

However, this could be true about any number of measures. Essentially, if I show up with a tactically imbalanced force and your force plays to my weakness, then I should have a marketed advantage in that battle - however, lists alone should not dictate the winner of a given match.

Afterall, its possible that my DZ's could be all off with my assault marine drop pods, my aircraft assaults could be poorly choiced targets where I was outnumbered, Overwatched enemy could always foil some plans, and FF can never be underestimated. WIthout a doubt though, the Marine force will have out meta-gamed the IG player, and definitely goes into that battle with the advantage and measurable favor due to his heavy investment in his Aircraft transports - which pack a healthy shot or two in FF and in main play after its contents have been disgourged into the field.

And then there's always the landing of the Thawks to take objectives while the marines of the Imperium are doing their work in the backfield of the opponent's IG line.

Yeah - I'm pretty comfortable stating that hands down - the aircraft heavy army should have a significant impact on the game where his opponent took no AA (flak or aircraft), and although it shouldn't be "in the bag" so-to-speak, the IG player here is going to play hell pulling a victory - much less a draw. To say he has an uphill battle might be eloquently stated - to say the least.

new aircraft shouldn't be artifically constrained by existing planes power levels (Orks/Imperium/Eldar).
Hmm... "power levels." I suppose that's a very relative statement that has to do with a whole host of metrics, not to mention staying power, how it affects the army its taken in, what special rules the army has - along with the armor, capabilities, weapons stats, etc.

Example: I think many players would say a 2DC 4+ RA transport with no guns in the Chaos force that cost 150 points would be more powerful than anything in the game. Put that same plane in the Tau list - and its the most worthless POS out there.

If "power level" was a quantifiable number, perhaps this question would start to have merit for me. However, as you can see by the example - the question is very open to interpretation.

I think this goes back to design principles more than anything else.

1. ?All E:A units in general (Aircraft, LV, AV, Inf, WE, or the vehicle transport variants) - should be set to adhere to fundamental well documented and DEFINED design principles for E:A.

2. ?Beyond that, the unit should closely tie into the established core design philosphy and established ficitional history as close as possible when ported too and/or developed into the E:A universe - without violating and minding the fundamental design principles.

3. ?The unit should be balanced in terms of points, impact, stats, etc within the list constraints that it appears in.

So, if you believe precident to be law, you are a fan of case law becoming common law and absolutions based upon previous decisons.

If you believe in the value and wisdom of stare decisis process of examining precident, but are willing/compelled to review each case (army) individually as it may have further elements and variables to consider that previous cases (armies) did not have to encounter, entertain or consider, then you believe in a living document of principles that has no hard and fast set rule of design constraints from pecident that absolutely at all costs may not be diverged from.

I fall into the second camp on this one.

any weapon fit and chassis can be pointed fairly within the existing rules and oposistion army lists.
See above.




Edit for Honda and others :)
I promise not to say a single word in arguement, but only seek clarification of points if I don't 'get it' :)


Excellent.

Cheers,



Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/