TRC *err... I mean Ginger,
Are we happy to let things develop or concerned about the balance of play and game mechanics?
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| E:A Air wars - "arms race" http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=3692 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Ginger [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
Guys In various experimental lists people are developing A/c stats that are newer, bigger, more powerfull etc, often because some other A/c is already under discussion. Examples are the various Tau A/c, Eldar Vampire Hunter / Raider, Tzeentch Firelord etc. Could I ask - how does everyone feel about this development? Is this reasonable or undesirable? Are we happy to let things develop or concerned about the balance of play and game mechanics? Also if possible, could someone get Jervis to give his views on this - if only to provide direction to some tortuous debates in the various forums. Cheers Ginger (Note this is also posted in the SG forum here) |
|
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
TRC *err... I mean Ginger, Are we happy to let things develop or concerned about the balance of play and game mechanics? | |
| Author: | Ginger [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
Not entirely true Tac I have tried to ask for all views to be expressed around the present direction of air wars so we can at least get the background agreed against which to measure any give air or AA unit. I can see another wave of "discussion" developing of pantomime proportions, which I for one would like aired ?  ?as a separate topic rather than fragmented in the various forums. Equally, as you may know, I and others have been trying to develop the E:A air wars aspects of the rules, and any pointers gleaned would be useful Cheers Ginger |
|
| Author: | Lion in the Stars [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
I know that some of the problem comes from making E:A stats for Forgeworld's aircraft. FW likes to make significantly more powerful aircraft than what is in Epic. Then again, looking at things like late WW2 aircraft, FW is pretty close to the 'right' power level, IMO. While I freely admit to wanting powerful aircraft (I'm the one who was making stats for the Starhawk Bomber, for goodness sake!), I want them to be points-appropriate, too. There's no fun in aircraft that are way under-points, for their capabilities. At the same time, it's proving to be challenging to balance certain ground-attack aircraft, like the Vampire Hunter and Tigershark AX10, because when they work well, they're nigh-unstoppable, but if you do stop them, you've often removed a major part of your opponent's combat power from the game. |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
We only use aircraft in Epic in a CAS role ... no Air-2-Air ... Epic is about ground forces - supported by CAS, Titans, etc. ... ? BTW ... I just posted pics of my Orks and Imperial Aircraft ! ?Check them out !  |
|
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:10 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" | ||
Ginger, I agree that it needs discussed, but I've seen some pretty ugly air-assault forces from planes in existing armies. Orcs, Marines, and Eldar all come to mind. I've been kicked from one end of the tarmac to the other by these air-assault heavy forces. When forces like the Tau that don't rely on combat, but rely on shooting to deliver staple 'air' power instead of the landed air-assaults - its deemed 'game mechanic embalancing'. Well - tau (and IG in many cases) look at air-assaults as game mechanic embalancing for their lists. If the main rules of the game have inadequecies in construct, then we should work to address that and I applaud any effort. I think we've proven that the main list has aircraft problems... (aircraft sniping anyone?) I just don't get the feeling that Jervis, or the once established rules committee is doing anything to rectify it. Its not like they haven't known about the air rule inadequicies for quite some time. Instead of framing this query from an implied "certain list development is causing game mechanic imbalances" perhaps we could approach this from... Here's a list of problems with the main flier rules in E:A... and here's a list of proposed solutions. I think you'll receive a lot more input and will ruffle far fewer feathers. Cheers, |
|||
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
Muddying the waters with extensive Air-2-Air rules or even massive CAS rules are un-needed ... IMO ... Another arms race ... will be of no use ... |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
My problem is the way the air game intergrates with the ground game. Weapons beyond a certain range create big problems for flak - leading to interceptors being needed. This wouldn't be a problem if the three core lists had good interceptors. Indeed of all the published lists only the Eldar have good interceptors. THe further problem is the increase in power does lead to an arms race. So air assualts are powerful? They have been from the very start - the best air assualt list is one of the first 3. However its expensive and also risky - you will close to flak range to do it. You are also vulnerable to troops on the ground (overwatch) and if flak is around will always have a blast marker prior to the assualt. All mitigating factors. Net result air assualts are a problem that can be dealt with. Now throw in aircraft that have a long range and it is very hard to deal with them. Then up the armour (with the increased range) and you have problems with intercepts. How many fighter bombers do you need on average to shoot down a Thunderhawk? You need 8 to survive any defensive flak for 2 hits to get past the armour. A further problem is giving them MW or TK attacks. Now you have a tough plane, with range and the instant kill ability. Take the Thunderhawk anihilator. How do you bring it down? Its got 1+ init, 4+ RA armour, 2 DC and outranges most flak in the game. A bigger problem with list development though is the port from 40k. No not the 'direct translation' of gun for gun stuff but rather army to epic scale. Black templars. Coming to Epic. Sod all MW/TK. What do you do? Well air units aren't defined in 40k, how about adding one of those to make up for the defiency? Siam Haine. Same problem. I know, stick it on a flyer! Air power simply isn't a feature of 40k and is a bolt on from forgeworld. The differences in rules are immense. A further problem with transitions is Forgeworld has given bugger all thought to the reality of air power. We all know what air power does to war. Look at the Naval and ground battles of WWI compared to WWII - especially late WWII. You get air superiority, you win. Russia, Europe, the Pacific (especially). PLanes buzzing around cuasing havoc. Look at how good flak got and how much flak would accompany panzer regiments. Anyway, back to the point. Does anyone field mech/tank formations without hydra? Nope. Are they ever used in 40k? (Are they even in the codex?) AIr is something not explored in 40k, EPic is trailblazing here. You either go the way of the modern world (which just ain't fun in my opinion) or you go the way of early WWII when air was an adjunct not campaign winning factor - AND FREEZE IT. This means later lists can't suddenly have a level of tactical intergration and raw physical power in their air assets to unbalance that element of the game. Handily enough I think I have a set of air rules which does this, allows things like the proposed super planes (with their current stats) and I shall unviel them after I have finished polishing them up 
|
|
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
I just want to add my voice here. I agree that later lists seem to be more 'air heavy' (  ) and I dont necessarily think that this is a good direction to move in. That said, I dont think that it is a black and white as that. For example, the three core lists are not supposed to be air capable lists in the way that some others are, and this may lead to a slight mis-conception in further development. In addition, the amount of air power that is available should not be taken in isolation. For example, the Tau have powerful air units, but in some sense these are around to compensate for the lack of titans. How do you factor this against force such as the Eldar?I am conveniently ignoring the prospect of an Air War game at this point. I dont think that it is likely that we will ever see an official game from SG, and if the craft are balanced in the main game then that should help subsequent games without too much trouble. I do think that this should be tackled at a core rules level. I dont think that most of the craft out there are unreasonable or unbalanced, bu that the core rules may skew the use of some craft, or all craft. |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
Why are tau classed as not having titans when the support crafts are titans in all but name. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
My opinion on the air creep are well documented, so I won't belabor it. The order of relative potential air dominance should, according to my reading of the background should be: 1) Eldar 2) Tau & Tzeentch 3) Everyone else |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
THe Manta is the Tau Titan (Hayes said that long ago to T/S in an interview !), and the Tau use CAS instead of FA. How We play aircraft: call in, fly on (ingress), get shot at by AAA/ADA, surviving a/c make their attacks/gun run, (AAA attacks - if fly within range on egress) fly off - rearm ... simple ... Air is to support the ground forces ...
|
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" |
Neal and others have brought up the airpower creep many times. Airpower only "creeps" because of new list development, however. IMO that should be where the focus should be. When these new lists are being drafted and playtested, the move of the forum should be to correct it then and there. Special note should be made to the flak units as well, since a list with average airpower and uber-flak is just as bad as massive airpower. The exp rules to increase the to-hit ability of CAPs seems like it could help the creep of bombers and fighter-bombers. Any more tweaks to the core rules and I think we'll be asking for trouble. With all that said, am I in the minority when I think that all Titans should get some AA (even if it is an 1 x AA6+)? I don't want to mess with the army lists too much but the Titans have all these guns pointing in every direction - including up. It always seemed weird that they don't have them. 
|
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:30 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | E:A Air wars - "arms race" | ||
Throwing in my 2 cents (am I the only one that misses having the cents symbol on my keyboard?  )...Given how air power has increased with each edition of Epic, I would be in favor some sort of AA capability for Titans. Also, like L4, I think air power should be limited to CAS, keeping the rules simple. IMO having extensive air support rules would only detract from what Epic is, a ground game. |
|||
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|