Page 6 of 9

[ 125 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!!
nealhunt	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:42 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	A large battle - a main effort if you like - does attract the commitment of specialised resources to make sure it works.  That includes AA, Arty, CAS, Combat engineers, etc etc.  This has been true from ancient times (-4k), why wouldnt it be so in 40k? That's all fine and dandy in the real world.  I agree whole-heartedly that is how it works.  The problem is that this is a game, restricted by game mechanics, which in this case don't deal particularly well with air cover. This is basically much the same problem as with the all-WE lists (AMTL and OGBM).  The rules for those kinds of units are auxiliary to the primary mechanics and significant deviations from the original design assumptions are likely to cause balance problems that simply can't be resolved. A few WEs or modest air support does not cause problems because an army can divert a relatively modest amount of resources to anti- tactics.  Mass-WE and significant air cover requires a radically different army composition in order to remain competitive.  That is a bad thing for the balance (and variety) of a tournament environment. _________________ Neal

Top

Legion 4	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:25 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36989 Location: Ohio - USA	Hmmm ... you may see a problem (power players, poor rules for army composition, etc.) others don't, Neal ?   Should there be new limits on certain unit types ... or what ?  Any suggestions, without "reinventing the wheel" ?  Limiting certain units (ie. 0-2 ?), like in the past, would that work ?   Revise point values, etc. ?   _________________ 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

Tiny-Tim	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:31 pm
Hybrid Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire	Quote (nealhunt @ 20 2005 July,14:42) A few WEs or modest air support does not cause problems because an army can divert a relatively modest amount of resources to anti- tactics. ?Mass-WE and significant air cover requires a radically different army composition in order to remain competitive. ?That is a bad thing for the balance (and variety) of a tournament environment. Is it? I can see that with the lists being published piece meal as they are its a problem, but once we have a greater diversity of lists then things will change. My main thought is with Bugs. They will force everybody to change their ideas. It should be noted that at Call 2 Arms there was very little in the way of artillery. This in my eyes was a huge benefit for my Speed Freak horde and a contributing reason for them doing so well. Tiny _________________ _________________ www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top

Tiny-Tim	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:34 pm
Hybrid Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire	opps didn't really finish my point. If there are a large number of different lists and type of lists then it will not be possible to design your army to take on all comers and force players to improve their play and not just their army composition. Tim _________________ _________________ www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion
Top

The_Real_Chris	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:17 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	Air ironically faces another problem. 'Reasonable aircraft' (ones with range 45cm and below) become less effective at 4 and 5 k games. Here there is so much flak (every leman russ company/mech formation brings a hydra etc) that they find opperating on the battlefield suicide. _________________ 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

nealhunt	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:34 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	Quote (Legion 4 @ 20 2005 July,15:25) Hmmm ... you may see a problem (power players, poor rules for army composition, etc.) others don't, Neal ?   Should there be new limits on certain unit types ... or what ?  Any suggestions, without "reinventing the wheel" ?  Limiting certain units (ie. 0-2 ?), like in the past, would that work ?   Revise point values, etc. ?   Besides the massed-WE balance problem parallel, this could also be seen as a parallel with the point-density issue.  In a high point density, maneuver-based armies lose their advantages while at low point densities horde armies can't bring their strengths to bear.   The "official" 2-5K point range is a wide enough spread that balance is significantly skewed at the ends of that spectrum and point values are based mostly on the "true" tournament point levels of 2500-3500 on a 6' board. My suggestion is to keep aircraft in the relative power range of previously published versions.  They should have values in the 150-200 range for interceptor formations, 250-350 for bombers, and ~200 for transports at DC 2-3, carrying 8-10 stands. Those point ranges are where the 33% restriction on 2500-3500 point armies provide the best overall mix of strategic choice and play balance.  Moving outside of them is most likely going to start to skew air cover one way or the other.  Currently, I see it skewing in favor of taking newer, more surviveable air formations which is then forcing additional flak choices.  While this may end with an overall net balance, it is reducing the choices available to army commanders. The counter-argument which I can almost hear already is that it will make the aircraft too "generic."  That's possibly true.  However, as EA is based on ground unit combat, do you really want to risk restricting the ground force composition for the addition of a small amount of variety in air cover?  I certainly don't.  Give me the generic air any day.  I'd even be fine with a completely abstrated air support system in a vein similar to the spacecraft. === For the record, this isn't a new idea I recently introduced.  It's been around a while and is not simply a "new army syndrome" response as has been implied on occasion.  There has been a long history of complaints regarding 9-FB formations in the Ork army because they are too surviveable as a whole and I maintained from before publication (along with some others) that the SM Landing Craft was not balanced precisely because of its insane durability versus any reasonable air defense. _________________ Neal
Top

Jaldon	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:44 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.	I will verify that Neals statements are correct he did voice his concerns long ago about Huge Ork Air Formations and the SM Landing Craft's durability. "And thats the way it was" Walter Cronkite Jaldon _________________ Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.
Top

Tas

Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:07 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am Posts: 7823 Location: Sydney, NSW

SM Landing Craft was not balanced precisely because of its insane durability versus any reasonable air defense While I agree that there is an issue with this, remember that the LAST thing ANY commander wants to do is an opposed air landing, or amphibious assult for that matter.  The defender has all the advantages and even a small amount of damage or a lucky hit to a troop transport in flight (or at sea beyond the surf zone) is going to have disproportionate causualties.   D-Day style assaults are a thing of the past - nobody can afford the losses in men or materiel anymore.  Especially when you can land 20miles away then meet them without that vulnerability. So how does this get back to Epic?  In a larger game, that means the player should guess the relative amount o flak going to be present and use his lander smartly somewhere on the flank where th AAA will be minimised, or not take it at all.  It is a vulnerability of the platform that the player needs to incorporate into his tactics _________________ Tas My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/ My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/ My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:34 pm

Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA

So how does this get back to Epic?  In a larger game, that means the player should guess the relative amount o flak going to be present and use his lander smartly somewhere on the flank where th AAA will be minimised, or not take it at all.  It is a vulnerability of the platform that the player needs to incorporate into his tactics. In fact, I think a lot of people have begun to do so.  I know I have.  The "Banzai" air assault is very effective and therefore quite tempting but I've found that in many cases an outlying or flanking formation works almost as well while allowing much greater preservation of the air assault force. This conservation seems especially true of Marine players.  I typically see Thawk loads of Assault/Dev or all Dev.  A flanking assault can kill a small formation, provide crossfire, allow the aircraft to take off and provide future support and still leave an effective formation on the ground.  It's nowhere near as flashy as the occasional SHT/Arty intermingled assault target, but the aggregate effect is probably equivalent while maintaining more tactical flexibility. Then again, the Banzai attack is so much more Orky... ...sometimes you just have to do it. _________________ Neal

Top

Legion 4	Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:49 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36989 Location: Ohio - USA	Good points, Guys ! Definitely some things to think about ... I agree, that we don't need to make aircraft a very detailed subsystem ... ?In Epic, I generally think we need to stay away from "the F/W IG Syndrome" ... a dozen different versions of the same thing ! ?We're limiting most of our AFV types, for example to one or two. Like the Leman Russ ... if it has a long barrel, it's a Standard L/Russ ... if short, it's a Demolisher. ? ?Aircraft types too, maybe ?two versions of the Lightening, T-Bolt and Marauder ... based on the model ... ?Neal's point values sounds good ... or at least reasonable ... ?   And Tas's points about Landing Craft/Forced Entry are valid also ... You have to "be smart" about landings, whether with Drop Pods/Ships etc.  It's easy to lose your assault force if you're not careful !   _________________ 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

Tas

Post subject: E:A in US W/D 29er2 !!! Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:12 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am Posts: 7823 Location: Sydney, NSW

Quote (nealhunt @ 21 2005 July,22:34) So how does this get back to Epic? ?In a larger game, that means the player should guess the relative amount o flak going to be present and use his lander smartly somewhere on the flank where th AAA will be minimised, or not take it at all. ?It is a vulnerability of the platform that the player needs to incorporate into his tactics. In fact, I think a lot of people have begun to do so. ?I know I have. ? Great! I really like it when real world stuff proves true on the tabel.  It shows that you have a solid set of rules It's nowhere near as flashy as the occasional SHT/Arty intermingled assault target, but the aggregate effect is probably equivalent while maintaining more tactical flexibility.

The SM air mobile attack is faster, more accurate and leave a "High Guard" available.

You are right - Its not as sexy in terms of weight of metal.  But it is a much more tactically elegant move!  And frustrating when you see it happen to you and you cant do a thing about it.  

Then again, the Banzai attack is so much more Orky... ...sometimes you just have to do it.

True. Thats what the Japanese and Russians thought too!  

Good dialogue - thanks!