Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

The increasing power of aircraft

 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 29
Hello all.
This 3k list was successful in beating a well played IG army on the weekend.

2 Tac + 1 hunter for each.
1 Dev.
1 Assault.
1 Terminator.
1 Landraider.
1 Whirlwind.
1 Mixed Predator.
2 Warhounds

Total of 9 activations with no characters and no garrison troops.
I decided to forgo the usual T.hawk assault and was glad I did because my IG opponent had taken 5 AA tanks (Hydras?). He really hates my air assaults =).
The Warhounds actually survived the battle (just barely) by staying out of the Shadow Swords and other big guns sights. They were a big factor in dominating one side of the table and breaking a couple of large formations. The only unit in the IG army left unbroken in the third turn was the Heavily upgraded SHT formation. The truth is I didnt even try to take that monster out and spent most of the game avoiding it.

What do you all think?

_________________
Hetzer
"Make contact to break contact"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:24 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
A bit light on AA (I'd definitely put another with the whirlwinds) for my tastes but looks ok  :D  I would be tempted to take a SC in one of the tacticals plus some razorbacks.  In fact lots of razorbacks in tacticals rather than the predators maybe.

Warhounds can be very good if used well.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Quote (Markconz @ 28 2004 June,14:24)
...plus some razorbacks. ?In fact lots of razorbacks in tacticals rather than the predators maybe.

I have to agree here. The Razorbacks can be quite nice and the added firepower can help against many of the armies.

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: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 29
Thanks for the reply.
I have some Razorbacks on order but they did not arrive in time for this battle.
The only thing with regards to switching up the Razorbacks for the formation of Preds is the loss of an activation.
In that game I had three activations left after the IG player was finished. Those extra activations allowed me to coordinate some really nasty crossfire attacks that finally nailed those damn Leman Russ.
With the combination of those extra activations at the end of the turn, plus being able to go first the following turn, I was able to handle some of his large mechanized units.

Anyway that was like my second game played.....sooo I am always open to suggestions on how to better my army.

_________________
Hetzer
"Make contact to break contact"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36947
Location: Ohio - USA
Good point about extra activations.   You have a good combined arms force but the SMs lack the FA assets, and that is one of their weaknesses.  I would have been tempted to take out his Shadowswords with my Warhounds or vise versa !  I like killing big things !    :;):

_________________
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: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:32 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
A good force a pefect battle compnay.  Glad it works well because that is what I'm buidling and nothing else. Really.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Posts: 3381
Location: First star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Yeah, I would stay away from the shadowswords myself.    Warhounds are fragile against those buggers, unless you could jump 'em out of cover.  And any Guard player who leaves his Shadowswords in a weak position like that deserves to have them stomped. :p

my 2cents,

iblisdrax

_________________
"Have Leman Reuss, will travel"

"Hallo. My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:26 pm
Posts: 7016
Location: Southfields, London, England
As previously mentioned very light on AA, if you ever face Tau.... it will be messy.

_________________
Tom Webb
Author Page: http://www.newtonwebb.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thewebb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thenewtonwebb
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/thenewtonwebb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 1:06 pm
Posts: 358
Location: France
i would probably let the Landraider in the battle barge, and bring in an additional Terminator formation and a hunter to protect the WW from air. Basically, it's a swap between some ranged AT firepower and some nasty MW CC attacks that can happen anywhere. 2 termies formations allow some nasty deepstrike against heavy foes (Leman russ companies, Super Heavy tanks Coy); you can thus either start crippling two of those and leave them weakened for the Warhound to finish the job, or combine the 2 termies dets to make a mess of such buggers.
You could even consider taking a warhound out to bring in some landspeeders and get an additional character; i would advise a comander or a chaplain in one of the terminator formation; you can get the landspeeder to double and shoot at a formation, then use them as support when a chaplain augmented Termies det get close and personal with them. It give you a bucketload of MW attack; the landspeeder can do such nastyness from 80 cm away, inspiring and an additional MW for the termies are quite good. A comander would allow you to combine assault with both terminator formations; this should do short work of most thing you can encounter, including very big stuff; even a warlord should be carefull when risking this.
However, your army seem quite solid - if a bit thin on AA - and if it work, well, it work and that's what matter.

But if i remember corectly, you play DA, and i thought adding termies and landspeeder could ring a bell to you, and i must say i quite like the tactics those formation allow (like what i mentioned earlier). but i can understand you'd be sad to let one of those lovely warhounds at home. I certainly love those too; their MW attacks also come in handy for Space marines army, but termies and LS can fulfill that role.
Well, those are only first sight suggestion anyway.

Athmos


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 29
Great advise all.....thanks.
My only real problem in EA is that I get attached to certain units (Landraiders) and it kills me to leave them in the fig case:( .
As you have pointed out, I could find a better use for the massive 400 points the LR's take up.
Better air defense is definitely a priority though. I think I will add a hunter to the WW detachment at least.
The other advantage I have found with using several small formations rather then fewer larger formations is that it when my IG opponent opens up with his 900 point Monster SHT company he has to fire at one formation only. Sure he completely Devastates my Devastators o:p ....but he also has allot of left over firepower wasted on my much smaller unit.

_________________
Hetzer
"Make contact to break contact"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36947
Location: Ohio - USA
I agree with you Hetzer, my Tac Dets deploy with Land Raiders and Dev Dets with Rhinos or Razorbacks.  That's S.O.P. for us, in most cases !  And still we use SM1 TO&Es, mostly and have used activation since then ('90). So we keep our units small ... and it works for us !    :;):

_________________
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: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Re-posted here as it?s a waste of time discussing stuff in the general section of the SG forum :)

I've put this post here as I think it pertains to epic development in general (and the priority lists currently in development). I'm referring to what some have dubbed an Epic Air Arms race.
Nealhunt in particular I believe made some good comments about this on the old forum.
Essentially I think there may be a problem brewing with new armies as they come out (of course I could be wrong :) It wouldn't be the first time!) in that their air forces project a greater threat from the air than the original lists were designed to meet.

As I see it air power in the original 3 armies was a fun but not dominant part of the game. It encouraged the use of flak and aircraft, in my experience about 10-12 flak 'shots' and several aircraft. Columns of armour had their SP flak trundling alongside and everything looked cool (though there is a gaping hole with infantry flak, where oh where are all my WWII toys? Ahem, somewhat off topic there). Landing craft were lost tot he odd lucky shot but otherwise seemed to encounter more trouble on the ground and so on.
The option was there for one upmanship in the air giving a welcome edge to a player that wished to gamble but it wasn't an overpowering one. A player didn't expect to rule the ground from the sky or be completely outclassed if their flak umbrella collapsed.

The Eldar came out and I think it has to be said (with one of two quibbles about the bombers from some) their airforce was more powerful but didn't upset that dynamic too much and start people racing for air defences. Indeed the biggest consequence was to negate the chance of others achieving air superiority through their excellent fighters and brilliant flak defences.

Now newer lists are using air in different ways. Some are trying to place it in the existing power scale, others to make up for deficiencies in the main body of troops which is giving rise to the 'arms race'. Its not intentional but as enemy airforces get stronger, i.e. carry MW or TK attacks (with or without additional abilities like pulse), have longer ranged or simply better AA intercept values, longer ranged main weapons defeating flak defences, get more resilient in squadron sized groups rather than individual craft etc the threat from the air grows.

Now the air rules in Epic don't strike me as fully integrated into the game as other aspects and I think the increasing stress puts too much pressure on certain (or all armies). First off army selection changes, you have to have more flak or better/more fighters. The threat of, say, flying long ranged MW pulse attacks to a marine force is enormous. In a tournament (the reason behind these point values) you may face such a beast and if you don't tool up to defend against it you probably will not have a hope in that game.

Finally how do you cost these things? If the opponent hasn't invested enough in quality/quantity of air defences their potential battlefield effect is far greater, and if we start to expect heavy flak in every army it leaves some out in the cold (not everyone has good/reliable/long ranged flak) and makes people army selections a bit more predictable and to be frank less fun to do. Those that lack good air defences (marines can struggle and Imperials in general lack a good air to air interceptor, the Thunderbolt being a good ground attack aircraft but indifferent air defender, not to mention the potential to strafe feral Orks into the ground) will suffer a fair bit more or have an even more bland time picking the army.
So the points become harder to determine, cost it for its ideal use then have its selection pretty much dictate basic tactics due to its cost, or put a pints value on it that can be exploited by a good air commander or against a disadvantaged foe?

What are others thoughts on this? I know there a bit of discussion going on about a new set of air rules in some quarters, would these make the increased variety less of a problem and more of a flavourful opportunity?

If not I think a few guidelines should be laid down to limit aircraft power, I know what currently I would favour but what about others?

Then Nealhunts comments
TRC is right in that I have a significant concern about this.

In the core armies, the major restriction on aircraft was that they were in relatively small formations and not terribly difficult to suppress or possibly kill. Small formations (size and point-wise) means that maxing out on air cover is to a certain extent self-limiting if the enemy has modest amounts of flak coverage. More formations = more flak shots = more planes downed.

The obvious exception is the Ork FB formations and they are considered clearly better than the Imperial Navy formations. But even then, they are short range and fielded in large formations, considered expendable, because they are pretty much required to fly through flak to hit anything.

The biggest "creep" on air cover is due to much more capable aircraft on an individual basis. As the point cost of the craft rise, it's possible to take a similar portion of the army in aircraft without nearly as much vulnerability to flak.

Some people have claimed that the fact that a single loss of a heavier-armed aircraft makes up for that change, but I disagree. With multiple formations facing moderate amounts of flak, it is almost unavoidable that there will be a need to brave the flak umbrella to hit a desired target. There are only so many formations that can be attacked without entering enemy flak coverage. Vulnerable formations can retreat back into coverage or the flak weapons can simply move to cover them later, preventing multiple air strikes on a single formation.

Heavier aircraft can hit a single formation if it "sticks its nose out" from the flak coverage even briefly. This reduces the potential enemy flak response. Also, the heavier aircraft are tending to pick up longer range weapons. This means that it is much harder to keep a unit under flak protection in the first place. The extra range further means that the chances of disengagement without encountering flak or exiting an enemy board edge is greater, i.e. not only less chances of actual kills, but less chance of garnering BMs.

====

I would like to see air units for armies in development to concentrate on keeping the air power of individual aircraft proportionate to the existing units rather than trying to make the unit stats fit as closely as possible to 40K. The aircraft rules are very highly abstracted and attempting to make them more literal is likely to end up causing balance problems.

And Dafrca in general seemed to aggree. I'm sure though he will post himself :)

What about the rest of ya?

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36947
Location: Ohio - USA
Yes, the aircraft rules created a paradigm shift. We wanted to keep it simple, but have a bit of realism (?) ...  So dropping Air2Air, limiting CAS (to 25-33% TBL, including Titans, Off Board Spt), and not creating a complex sub-system plus arms race to sell more models ... :D

_________________
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: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:57 am
Posts: 104
Location: Irvine , Ayrshire ,Scotland
The problem is deeper , as Epic is an offshoot of 40k , which is a skirmish game, there are a number of armies which do not have fundamental weapon systems as a result.

We already have one trick army which uses aircraft instead of artillery (Orks) but how many more will go down the same path.

Tau, Necrons , Black Legion.?

All modern armies have varying proportions of the basic trooptypes.

Armour , infantry , artillery , flak, ATGW , recon, this is not just because they are like to copy each other. All these trooptypes are necessary to fight combined arms mechanised warfare.

So unless the problem of finding artillery for these armies are addressed ,an aircraft arms race seems on the cards.

_________________
"The Emperor Protects"

.........Commissar Zak


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: The increasing power of aircraft
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36947
Location: Ohio - USA
Excellent Points, Zak !  I really don't have a problem with some armies having more FA or not, that may be the "way" that army fights. And I totally understand combined arm warfare as being a participant from '79-'90 as an Infantry Officer.    If the Necrons see the light of day, who knows what G/W has in mind. The IG has more FA than any other army and everyone else has varying lesser amounts to almost zero (Orks,Tau).  We still use Thud Guns and mortars for SMs too, so we still have more FA than the current forces. Plus the excellent SM1 Off Board Support system.   I'm betting we won't see much more FA out there and G/W continuing to field aircraft for more of the armies. Again I don't really see a problem with that, as based on my gaming past (since the late '60s), my "Epicing" since '90 and experiences in my previous career. CAS can be used as effectively as FA, in most cases.      :)   I don't like or play 40K, the models are nice, but the rules are generally purile, at best. So I don't like to make the Epic-40K paradigm.  :;):

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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