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

Air Rules Review.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1451		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 08, 2006 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
I started a thread on the SG forums here.

I'll recap it:
Let me start by saying that even though there is a strong sentiment in certain quarters that the aircraft rules coudl go with a full rewrite, such extensive changes are beyond the "charter" of the rules committee. After discussions with the ERC and Jervis, we were charged with keeping the rule changes to a minimum. Major rewrites are effectively off the table.

=======

The experimental rules in the vault will be obivously be considered, however the major sticking point are the rules for Landing aircraft. To keep the changes minimal, we have basically identified 3 options.

1) Require disengage for all air units in the end phase.

This requires the minimal amount of changes to the rules. Everything will work essentially as-is. This takes care of the air trans objective grab tactic and does a fair bit towards limiting other goofiness like the Thunderhawk mobile AA platform. It does not, however, address some of the other problems like the transition between air unit and ground unit (which causes no end of confusion and questions) and the "flak unit rush" to get AA shots in on air units during their disengage moves.

2) Remove landing.

This would address everything in #1 and would further eliminate the air/ground unit transition. It would introduce a bit of weirdness in air transports participating in assaults, but nothing that shouldn't be relatively intuitive.

3) Require immediate disengage move

This is the most radical change. Air units would move on the board, take their actions, and immediately disengage. This would address all the problems #1 addresses, plus stopping the "flak unit rush" and the Thunderhawk AA platform tactics. The drawback is that it would essentially eliminate the Interception action altogether as there would no longer be on-board targets to Intercept.


These options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There could be a hybrid version (for example, end of turn disengage for trans, imediate disengage for other aircraft) but these are the primary options.

===

Please comment on the various options. Anyone who wishes to playtest any of them are definitely invited to do so and report the results.

Again, keep in mind that major re-writes are effectively off the table.


Neal Hunt
Epic Ork Army Champion
Epic Rules Committee Member


Personally, I don't care where you respond, but keep in mind that some of the ERC is much more likely to see your responses on the SG boards.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon May 08, 2006 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Air? I may have to comment :) (Or simply cut and paste :) ).
Author:  CyberShadow [ Mon May 08, 2006 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
I would vote for the third option here. While it requires the most changes, I think that it represents the cleanest and most logical method. The loss of the intercept action is not such a problem, since CAP does the same job essentially (although only on ground attack enemy fliers).
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon May 08, 2006 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
That does impact on planetfall however.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Mon May 08, 2006 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
True, but if we are going to make changes to the game, then I would rather that we make proper changes, even if they are more radical, if it means that we are more likely to get it right in one go. The Planetfall issue and the Interceptor issue are things that could be dealt with a couple of additional minor alterations. It is clear that the air power of lists is currently more developed than initially thought when the game was first put together. I would rather bite the bullet and make a better game, even if it means a few changes to aircraft rules.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon May 08, 2006 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
I think #3 actually favors aircraft ops.  It both stops some (admittedly cheesy) ground flak tactics and limits interceptors to CAP pre-activations.

Right now, a person can elect to take the hit from a ground attack in order to activate a ground formation, secure in the knowledge that they can still get their shots in later.  With the disengage that option disappears, forcing them to react in only one way.

If anything, bombers will get more powerful.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue May 09, 2006 3:57 am ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Maybe, maybe not, it would be harder to supress/kill all the flak for the exit move as well.
Author:  thurse [ Tue May 09, 2006 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.

Maybe, maybe not, it would be harder to supress/kill all the flak for the exit move as well.

Hum... I've always thought that suppression did not affect flak.
Otherwise, it would mean that if you have 1 BM on a formation with only one flak unit, this unit is suppressed, as it is the only one able to shoot at aircrafts.
Am I wrong?
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue May 09, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 09 May 2006 (03:57))
Maybe, maybe not, it would be harder to supress/kill all the flak for the exit move as well.

I don't see how that would be true.

Well, actually, I do.  However, the need for flak suppression would be reduced because you would only need to suppress flak that you knew you were definitely flying through and not any flak that might be able to rush over.  I think it would be a wash.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Tue May 09, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Quote (thurse @ 09 May 2006 (09:09))
Otherwise, it would mean that if you have 1 BM on a formation with only one flak unit, this unit is suppressed, as it is the only one able to shoot at aircrafts.
Am I wrong?

I think a weapon just has to have range to the target to count for suppression purposes (supposedly, even small arms count, though that might be wrong). Of course, since models are suppressed front-to-back [edit: I meant to type back-to-front, my bad], you can often force the flak unit to be the one that is suppressed (assuming equal ranges).

As to the topic at hand, I vote for #3 as well. Planetfalling aircraft would almost certainly have to leave immediately - making them expensive/vulnerable/poor substitutes for teleport. But then again, teleporter use is already quite limited, while most troops have to use planetfall transports if they want to "deep strike." I think that SMs will take the most hit, since they rely the most on PF aircraft, and they have the most expensive/limited ground flak.
Author:  nealhunt [ Tue May 09, 2006 3:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Quote (thurse @ 09 May 2006 (15:09))

Maybe, maybe not, it would be harder to supress/kill all the flak for the exit move as well.

Hum... I've always thought that suppression did not affect flak.
Otherwise, it would mean that if you have 1 BM on a formation with only one flak unit, this unit is suppressed, as it is the only one able to shoot at aircrafts.
Am I wrong?

Flak can be suppressed.

Suppression affects units that have range and LoS.  Period.  There is no requirement that the unit actually be able to fire at the intended target.

So, if you have a Hydra in a formation of Leman Russ, all those Russ with 75cm range can be used to "soak" suppression (in the normal back-to-front order, of course).

As a side effect, flak with longer range than the surrounding units can effectively be suppressed down to a shorter range fairly quickly while flak with a shorter range than the surrounding units is more difficult to suppress.


Incidentally, that also means that units completely unable to fire can be suppressed.  For example, a slow firing unit can be suppressed on its "off" turn, allowing the remainder of the formation to fire at full effect.
Author:  thurse [ Tue May 09, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.
Well the rules said that :

One unit that has a line of fire and is
within range may not shoot for each Blast marker on the formation. Units are suppressed ?from the back to the front? of a formation, with the front and the back being determined by the location of the target formation.

So it still work for the flak AA shots?
To take your example, if my leman russ are 30cm away from a plane, they can count as suppressed units concerning the AA shot?
Strange but ok...
Author:  Honda [ Wed May 10, 2006 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Air Rules Review.

Well, actually, I do.  However, the need for flak suppression would be reduced because you would only need to suppress flak that you knew you were definitely flying through and not any flak that might be able to rush over.  


What I like about this comment is that is how you would do it in real life. A strike package would plan their route to the target, identifiy remaining AA threats, supress them if possible, otherwise adjust route, strike target.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/