Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

Siegfried on SG

 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2003 5:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
I haven't played a Phantom in EpicA yet, but in previous editions if anyone should have had a close combat weapon it is the Eldar titans.  The Holofields work their best when the phantom is moving quick, so keeping them on first orders was risky.  To me, the eldar titans might as well move into CC since they wouldn't be able to utilize their shields. . .

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am
Posts: 7823
Location: Sydney, NSW
Quote (Legion 4 @ 18 2003 Aug.,14:29)
Yes, urban terrain is not Titan friendly. Send in the grunts to clear the buildings, after the area has been pummeled by Titans, FA and airstrikes... :D


I say nuke the site from orbit...

It's the only way to be sure! ?:D

_________________
Tas
My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/
My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/
My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Well that is another option, but it won't play well on CNN or ENN (Emperor's News Network) ! :laugh:

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:28 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Titans and gargants are NOT a battleship/weapons platform in the EA rules.   :angry:  It would be much more accurate to compare them to a walking fortification.  They share the following traits:

1)  Fortifcations tend to be hard to suppress.
2)  Fortifications can take a lot of punishment, i.e. they concentrate on defense over firepower.
3)  Fortifications surrender operational initiative.


Suppression.  WEs are only suppressed when their DC is matched, but that also breaks them.  Titans, being Immune to Panic, can continue to fire even when broken.  So, they have to be destroyed to really take them out of the game.

Defense.  A Warlord titan has 6 shields and DC8.  That means, assuming that no shields are regenerated, it's going to take 6 hits to down the shields, and about 24 more to give it a good chance of being taken out.  That drops to about 12 with MW attacks, and even a d3 titan-killer is going to require 3-4 hits after the shield is gone to reasonably expect to kill it.

That's going to be very difficult to pull off, especially without shields regenerating.

That leaves assaulting to kill a titan.  Again, they are tough to kill.  Many assaults do as much damage on the resolution as they do from direct FF or CC hits.  Titans are Immune to Panic, so they do not take additional hits if they lose an assault, nor do they have to retreat more than the ZoC (usually 5cm).  Every point of damage has to be done by direct attack and beat the reinforced armor, plus shields for those units in FF range.

With respect to firepower, titans have considerably less than an equivalent points value in troops and vehicles.  850 points of Orks, for instance, can easily match the number of TK weapons a titan can carry, plus quite a bit more.

Operational Initiative.  This is the biggest drawback to titans. imho.  They concentrate a lot of points in a small area and aren't terribly maneuverable.  This means that your opponent is going to get to pick where and when he fights most times.  That's what you get for sitting in your "castle" while the opposing army besieges you.


Since they match the abilities of a mobile fortress, it seems logical that would be the best way to use them.  Send them to take an objective (you get 3 turns to reach it), preferably one that also has a commanding field of fire over a second objective, and/or is close enough that the titan can contest both simultaneously.  Luckily, you get to place 2 objectives in the GT scenario, so you can plan for this.

As always, try to maximize fields of fire while maintaining some cover from wide-open LoS.  Titans are small for the points and have restricted fire arcs, so they can frequently find terrain that blocks LoS from the flanks (hindering them not at all), while still having good fields of fire.  They are also walkers, so it's easy to move them into terrain to take advantage of the -1 to be hit.

My personal experience has been that titans and gargatns fielded in this manner do, in fact, control large segments of the battlefield.

Then the test is whether your forces have surrendered too much initiative and firepower to stop the enemy from "storming the castle."   }:)

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Neal, A very nice essay. I really think that if the Titans would work that way you discribe I would buy into the whole argument you built.

So far, I have not had any luck using the Titan to "capture" objectives when a small fast formation can challange the objective at the last moment thus making the Titan a very costly usless objective holder. But then maybe I have not used them the right way. We shall see. I will go ahead and give them another try.

dafrca

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:13 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Neal,

No need to use the :angry: face! :laugh:

I see where you are coming from, but as Dafrca said, your Titan Tactics seem to be different then others.

In 1940, both the French and Germans had AFVs, and both used them very differently, as you know.

I have said how I generally use Titans, so I think this is another case of two different concepts of how to use a weapons system... only our opponents' reaction will tell...  :;):

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:41 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Legion-4:
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have stated it differently. I find it frustrating when someone says that Titans don't work as fire platforms (and by extension that they are useless), when their stats clearly aren't designed to be fire platforms.


Dafrca:
Hmmm... I've had opponents try that. I generally delay the Titan activation as long as possible to discourage objective squatting. When they do, it usually comes as a shock to them just how much firepower and damage a Titan or Gargant on Sustained Fire can really do.

- I even once had an Eldar player try to oppose a Great Gargant with a Phantom Titan. I did a normal action, intending to move within 15cm and fire, followed by another formation instigating a firefight with the Gargant in support. Unfortunately, the Gargant alone broke the Titan, allowing him to retreat, and depriving me of my well-deserved Orkish victory.

- Then again, I have to remind myself from time to time that I favor high-intensity, bloody games. I generally place objectives close together to force my opponent to concentrate in a smaller area. I tend to do better in attrition-style combat, probably because I am a compulsive number-cruncher and can concentrate on making my firepower do the maximum amount of damage.

- That entire style of play certainly favors the Titan-as-fortress tactic, as there is little chance it will be left unsupported.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2003 Aug.,06:41)
Legion: ?Fair enough. ?Perhaps I should have stated it differently. ?I find it frustrating when someone says that titans don't work as fire platforms (and by extension that they are useless), when their stats clearly aren't fire platforms.

Odd, the only time the Titans have worked for me is when I have used them as "fire platforms". ???

Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2003 Aug.,06:41)
dafrca: ?Hmmm. ?I've had opponents try that. ?I generally delay the titan activation as long as possible to discourage objective squatting. ?

I play IG so I seldom have the ability of delaying longer then they can. Once they "contest" the objective at the end of turn three I no longer have clear "title" and thus no longer have the goal met.

Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2003 Aug.,06:41)
I generally place objectives close together to force my opponent to concentrate in a smaller area. ?[snip] That entire style of play certainly favors the Titan-as-fortress tactic, as there is little chance it will be left unsupported.

As I said above, maybe I have not been using mine right. I will try placing the objectives as ?close as I can and see what happens. Worth a try, right?

dafrca

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Neal,

I believe that Titans are useful weapons platforms and that's how we have used them for years.

However, your description of a Titan as a Fortress would be similar to mine as a Weapons Platform. And I think it is a case of the France 1940 anology again. ?

It would be interesting and fun to see how we would fair if played an E-A game, one-on-one... your concept of Titans vs. mine... ?:;): ?

Another great historical "what if!" :laugh:

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 4:13 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
>> Your description of a Titan as a fortress would be similar to mine as a weapons platform.


Ah... Well... That changes things considerably.

- I generally think of "eggshells wielding sledgehammers" when I hear the term "weapons platform." To me, that term puts the emphasis on firepower over armor. I think of Cobra and Apache choppers, as opposed to Hinds, which I mentally classify as flying armor.

- I definitely think Titans are more like big anthropomorphic tanks, so if that translates to "weapons platform" in your brain housing group, I guess we agree. :D

- Also, on a historical note, I have been under the impression that battleships were pretty vulnerable to each other's guns, and that anything resembling a direct hit by an enemy salvo meant you were going down. To me, that's not a good Titan analogy at all. They are much more "stand and deliver" according to the background.

- If I'm wrong about the battleships, please feel free to disabuse me of the notion. Obviously, that would make a difference in whether the analogy was accurate, and help me understand the tactics mentioned.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Neal,

More and more it sounds like we are not as far apart as it at first seemed.

Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2003 Aug.,08:13)
I generally think of "eggshells wielding sledgehammers" when I hear the term "weapons platform."  To me, that term puts the emphasis on firepower over armor.  I think of Cobra and Apache choppers, as opposed to Hinds, which I mentally classify as flying armor.

Interesting how we each hear the same word and think of different things. When I hear the words ?weapon platform? I think of a role. Like the difference between a Tank, a Tank Killer, AFV, and Artillery. All have guns/missiles but each has a different role. When I say ?Weapon Platform? I think of something that has, as their primary role, the job of bringing firepower to the situation. The amount of armour would be a part of the role and where it would need to go. A tank killer, something that could also be seen as a Weapon Platform would need more armour then say an Artillery Unit.


Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2003 Aug.,08:13)
Also, on a historical note, I have been under the impression that battleships were pretty vulnerable to each other's guns, and that anything resembling a direct hit by an enemy salvo meant you were going down.  To me, that's not a good titan analogy at all.  They are much more "stand and deliver" according to the background.
You bring up a very good point here. When I say Battleship maybe I should be clear on the era I was thinking off. How Battleships were used in WWI is very different from how they were used in Post WWII. I was thinking more along the lines of how the ship was used in the invasions at the end of WWII and in some of the actions sense. Not in the ?Grand Naval Battles? but as a mobile heavy artillery and support vehicle.

I know this is a mental vision I have that may be from a point of ignorance of real navy doctrine, but I think of modern Battleship use more along the lines of the way the Wisconsin and the Missouri were used in the Persian Gulf war. They fired their 16 inch guns and fired their cruise missiles at enemy that was a long way away.

When you bring a Battleship to conflicts like the Persian Gulf war they sit far from the shore, and fires into the enemy positions. It uses the guns and missiles to soften them up for the troops and tanks. For me, at least so far, that is how I have used the Titan. He tries to stay away from the assault battles and lends his power to support the tanks in their bid for the battlefield.

But, you do bring up an interesting point of view and I will try it. :D

dafrca

_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
              - Cities of Death, page 59

Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
I see we are all more in agreement than we may have first thought. A weapons platform can be a tank, ship, etc., IMO.

Armor protection will vary, some AFVs have more armor thickness than others, but they still mount a main gun, and secondary weapons like MGs. That is similar to a warship with main/primary batteries and secondary batteries. A heavy tank has more armor than a medium tank. And again, a Cruiser (CA) has more armor and bigger guns than a Destroyer (DD), and a Battleship (BB) more than both of them. ?

So Titans are sort of the same kind of thing, I've made this comparison before, so a:
- Warhound: a DD or light tank
- Reaver: a CA or medium tank
- Warlord: a BB or a heavy tank
- Imperator: a class by itself like the IJN Yamato or a super heavy tank like the WWII German Maus or E100. ?

As far as gunships go, the Soviet Mi-24 Hind may have more armor than the US Cobra or Apache, but fire power is similar. The Mi-24 had problems with the Stinger and the Apache with RPGs. ?

And if you study the naval battles of early WWII and even Jutland in WWI, you will see many warships pummeled each other before one was sunk or dead in the water. (The Bismarck vs. the ill fated Hood was an anomaly!) ? ?

So I think, again, our definitions may be different, but we are basically in agreement. My suggestion, we all should watch more of the History Channel! :laugh:

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Many of the battleshields of WWI and standard in WWII they had armored hulls and decks to withstand many direct hits, so a single salvo, even a good one was hardly enough to sink one. They were built with this in mind. As a matter of fact the sinking of the Hood was due to the fact that thier decks and certain aspects of their hull did not have the armor plating other ships of the day had. Add a lucky shot from the Bismark and the Hood sinks in under 10 minutes.

So titans work pretty much the same way, they can stand and pummel each other quite a bit, but a lucky shot in a nbad place can end the combat prematurely.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36984
Location: Ohio - USA
Exactly! ?

US Carriers suffered from the same problem - no armored decks as opposed to the UK's which were well armoured. The learning curve is steep in combat... ?

And as Dafrca said in the previous post, warships moved into the fire support role as ship-to-ship battles went out of favor, (for many reasons). ?

So Titans can provide fire support to the grunts & tanks or go into the Titan vs. Titan role...

It's up to you and your opponent... :;):

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Siegfried on SG
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:20 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 12:46 am
Posts: 27069
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma USA
Hi!

Its funny that certain information is known but not acted upon quickly, even in war.

The American carriers suffered greatly from those wooden decks, but since they were winning with them never "upgraded" them. Perhaps if they did the kamikaze attacks would have hurt less.

A plane full of bombs hitting an wooden deck must hurt...

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net