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

My thoughts on AI
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=8334		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
I have had the rules for a while now, and I thought that I would offer up some thoughts on them. Firstly, this post will probably pick at details, but I should point out that I like the rules. I am glad that they went with keeping altitude in - it does complicate but it adds detail, and that is important. It would have been too easy to go the BFG route and keep it 2D.

The rules seem fast and reasonably intuitive, but brief. If you buy the book for the rules, then you will probably be disappointed. Only 19 pages are devoted to rules, the rest is a standard (high quality) Forge World background, pictures and excellent detail. This is a book where the actual game is only a part of the package.

There are three issues that I have with it...

Firstly, it is clearly Forge World. Not a problem in itself, if you can take a leap of faith and gamble that the rules are actually playable this time. However, the alligence is clear in certain places. What is the Marine ground defence? No, there is no Hunter, but a Hyperios... a what now? Why? Well, Forge World dont make the Hunter, despite the fact that it is now established in Epic. Still, this does have an upside... if development follows form, we should see an Epic scale Sabre platform with a choice of Heavy Bolter, Auto Cannon or Heavy Stubber. Sure, it is more IG stuff... but my cult wants one please!

Second issue - cards. Perhaps irrational, but having to physically place the card in front of the base, and 'follow the line' just doesnt sit well with me. This may be just me, so I wont say much more.

Finally, the rules just dont go quite far enough. There are a lot of gaps that could be filled. An example - the tailing rules state that tailing allows the attacker to fire more often and react to the enemy movement. Firing more often is covered, but nothing about watching your target and following their movement. Hits are simply 'two strikes and youre out'. It could be a lot more detailed, but perhaps that would spoil the feel of it, the fast paced play. I am tempted to leave it as it is and just play it as written, to stop it getting slowed down too much.

Finally, in this post which doesnt really go anywhere... there are a couple of things that act as speed bumps when reading. The most obvious omission is when things are 'seriously damaged'. Now, I assume that this is reduced to half or less of the original damage points, but unless I have missed it this is not defined anywhere in the rules at all, and yet determines victory points! Also not covered are the victory points awarded for destruction and damage of ground defence units. I guess that these work in the same way as air units, but again this is not specified.

Lastly, the victory point table confused me a little. I understand the intention - it is to try to stop a player shooting down a single enemy craft and rushing off the table to claim a victory, but if I have any craft left on the table at the end of the game, they are not worth any victoy points, despite the fact that they would be out of fuel?

Thanks for making it this far. Comments?
Author:  mageboltrat [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI

(CyberShadow @ Jan. 13 2007,10:53)
QUOTE


The rules seem fast and reasonably intuitive, but brief. If you buy the book for the rules, then you will probably be disappointed. Only 19 pages are devoted to rules, the rest is a standard (high quality) Forge World background, pictures and excellent detail. This is a book where the actual game is only a part of the package.


I feel the scenarios at the end are a really important part of the rules too.. this is where a lot of the depth is added



Firstly, it is clearly Forge World. Not a problem in itself, if you can take a leap of faith and gamble that the rules are actually playable this time. However, the alligence is clear in certain places. What is the Marine ground defence? No, there is no Hunter, but a Hyperios... a what now? Why? Well, Forge World dont make the Hunter, despite the fact that it is now established in Epic. Still, this does have an upside... if development follows form, we should see an Epic scale Sabre platform with a choice of Heavy Bolter, Auto Cannon or Heavy Stubber. Sure, it is more IG stuff... but my cult wants one please!



My main issue is there is no Ork Landa. which is really important if you want to play lots of the missions with orks.
However this is only the first batch of rules, they have already stated they moved fighta bombas to fightas to allow room for them to realease a bomba and they have also stated a few other planes that are not in the initial release.


Second issue - cards. Perhaps irrational, but having to physically place the card in front of the base, and 'follow the line' just doesnt sit well with me. This may be just me, so I wont say much more.


Wasn't sure at first. But really like it now. all the stuff you need to know are on the cards and the data sheets, no fumbling through a huge book every time.


Finally, the rules just dont go quite far enough. There are a lot of gaps that could be filled. An example - the tailing rules state that tailing allows the attacker to fire more often and react to the enemy movement. Firing more often is covered, but nothing about watching your target and following their movement. Hits are simply 'two strikes and youre out'. It could be a lot more detailed, but perhaps that would spoil the feel of it, the fast paced play. I am tempted to leave it as it is and just play it as written, to stop it getting slowed down too much.


Finally, in this post which doesnt really go anywhere... there are a couple of things that act as speed bumps when reading. The most obvious omission is when things are 'seriously damaged'. Now, I assume that this is reduced to half or less of the original damage points, but unless I have missed it this is not defined anywhere in the rules at all,


Both are in there. Watching your target is in the advanced rules. If you are tailing a target you can ask them to show you their manoeuver card and then choose make a pilot roll  to change yours to theirs.. your right on serious damage, it's half hits,  it's at the beginning.


and yet determines victory points! Also not covered are the victory points awarded for destruction and damage of ground defence units. I guess that these work in the same way as air units, but again this is not specified.

Lastly, the victory point table confused me a little. I understand the intention - it is to try to stop a player shooting down a single enemy craft and rushing off the table to claim a victory, but if I have any craft left on the table at the end of the game, they are not worth any victoy points, despite the fact that they would be out of fuel?

Thanks for making it this far. Comments?

The damage of ground targets is in the scenario rules if I remember correctly. no they are in the end phase, 10 points for each hit point done. I agree on being left on the board past fuel limits though. I would change it to 50/50 100/100 if disengage happens on turn 12

BTW have you notice all alaitoc planes are attributed to Iyanden, damn Imperials have no clue whats going on.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
I feel the scenarios at the end are a really important part of the rules too.. this is where a lot of the depth is added

This is true, and I would agree that they do add to the enjoyment of the game, but they dont expand the game into new areas or introduce new general rules. But, you are correct, that theyshouldnt be discounted.

My main issue is there is no Ork Landa. which is really important if you want to play lots of the missions with orks. However this is only the first batch of rules, they have already stated they moved fighta bombas to fightas to allow room for them to realease a bomba and they have also stated a few other planes that are not in the initial release.

Yes, the Landa is not present... which is a shame. I have spoken to FW and they indicated that they are open to receiving rules suggestions from the players. I would like to put together a list of potential new rules and suggestions from this board and send it off to them.

Wasn't sure at first. But really like it now. all the stuff you need to know are on the cards and the data sheets, no fumbling through a huge book every time.

Maybe it will grow on me... but I doubt it. About that 'no fumbling through the book...

Watching your target is in the advanced rules... your right on serious damage, it's half hits,  it's at the beginning...The damage of ground targets is in the scenario rules if I remember correctly. no they are in the end phase...

Doesnt work so well!  :;):

Thanks for pointing out the location of the rules that I was missing.

BTW have you notice all alaitoc planes are attributed to Iyanden, damn Imperials have no clue whats going on.

Maybe they are correct, and Iyanden is trying to put a positive spin on things by painting their planes in different craftworld colours and avoid further losses through retaliation???
Author:  orangesm [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
So what should we try to do first to improve the game?  Add additional units?  Especially those that are available from various sources like the Hunter (if it needs to be different from the Hyperios Whirlwind), Ork Landa, Space Marine Lander?

There was a request over at Warseer for a scenario for a Titan kill.  I think this is again something we could develop.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
It's worth mentioning that the Hunter isn't mentioned in the IA:3 Epic scenarios... but the Hyperios is.

As far as GW/FW is concerned, the name of the Hunter is now Hyperios.
Author:  orangesm [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
That is fair then.
Author:  CyberShadow [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 13 2007,18:49)
QUOTE
As far as GW/FW is concerned, the name of the Hunter is now Hyperios.

Except that they are different beasts. The Hunter is a single launcher, while the Hyperios is a standard Whirlwind turret with additional warheads.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
Yep... *we* know that, but as far as GW is concerned the Hunter is now a sub-class of the Hyperios, and as such will probably never be mentioned again. It's Hyperii from here-on out!

Something like that anyways.
Author:  ragnarok [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI

(orangesm @ Jan. 13 2007,16:02)
QUOTE
There was a request over at Warseer for a scenario for a Titan kill. ?I think this is again something we could develop.

I've been paying around with titan kill missions  :D .  My conclusion is that aircraft are not going to kill anything with more than 8 hit points, which would be an unshieled reaver.  You just don't hit enough.

It could work with battle class titans being hit on a 4+

The hits I have ballparked are

titan           hits voids
warhound    6      2
Reaver        10     6
warlord       18     8

With voids acting like damage pointys but they don't award VPs when they are taken down

In addittion all titans are armed with a single sabre defence platform (to represent their point defences)
Reavers may take an additional 2 defences and warlords may take 4.

Now talking about CS's gripe about the manouver cards.  I like them.  They help mark where the plane is when you pick it up to change its altitude and position (so you don't nudge it.

However I don't like the fixed turns.  I would prefer it if the arrow represented the maximum turn the plane could make but you could turn less if you wanted to.
Author:  MaksimSmelchak [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
Hi Iain,

Well, I'm reserving judgmen until I have my hands on my copy.

Thanks for yours though... good insights.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.
Author:  illuvitar [ Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
oh damn, i shouldn't of been reading this. my love of aircraft is getting the better of my wallet and now i'm gonna have to spend the $70 for the game rules. :) :)
Author:  CyberShadow [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
One question: If flak defences are noted with a range of +3, and are set up on a mountain at altitude 4, then they can fire at craft at altitude 7. OK so far. But, can they also fire at aircraft at altitude 2? Do they have the depression to do this?
Author:  mageboltrat [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
I would say they can only fire up. Technically you can only strafe if you are at height 1. that would mean your plane would have to be under the hill to fire on a target on a hill.. I would take it as 1 level higher
Author:  vanvlak [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
Basing on history, I wouldn't agree. In WWII, German Ju87b s flew into Grand Harbour (here in Malta) at altitudes lower than some of the cannon - because the cannon had railings preventing excessive depression, to avoid hitting stuff on the opposite coast or in the harbour. The pilots would actually wave at the gunners, knowing they couldn't target them; until at least one gun post removed the railing. According to apocrypha, the sergeant commanding this gun jumped up and down on the removed railing at the edge of a bastion, making rude gestures at the pilots as his gun finally opened fire on the aircraft flying below....
Author:  orangesm [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  My thoughts on AI
In modern warfare, other than the A-10, aircraft with guns have to get a really high negative angle of attack since their guns are canted up for air to air combat. So firing at a higher target would actually be easier, but dangerous at high velocity.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/