Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

[Total War] Hold at any cost

 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:14 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
So I pursuaded TRC to try out one of Chroma's excellent scenarios, and this got drawn at random. He had already decided to use Siegmasters (with a revised costing), while I picked out one of my tournament lists.

Rules - standard + 2008 changes
table 6' x 4'

Marines
650 Reaver
500 Terminators + Dreadnoughts + Chaplain
350 Terminators
350 Landing Craft
300 Tacticals + Rhinos
300 Tacticals + Rhinos
200 Landspeeders
200 ThunderHawk
150 Thunderbolts

Siegmasters
300 Ragnaroks Heavy tanks
300 Ragnaroks Heavy tanks
150 Siegfrieds Light tanks
150 Siegfrieds Light tanks
100 Hydra battery
150 Artillery battery in emplacements
200 Deathstrikes
150 Thunderbolts
150 Thunderbolts
250 Sapper company
175 Infantry company
175 Infantry company
175 Infantry company
350 HQ Company + Thudd guns + Snipers
100 six bunkers and 50cm Fortifications
100 six bunkers and 50cm Fortifications
(2975)

Deployment
Marines put the terminators in the Landing Craft and THawk, with the TBolts off table.

Siegies put a double line of wire and trenches around the 30cm perimeter in a horseshoe shape with the opening facing their rear, and six bunkers on the left end. The remaining 6x bunkers were set up in the town that occupied the centre of the table, with some wire protecting the rear edge of the town.

Siegies placed their infantry in the trenches and bunkers, one set of Ragnaroks facing the Marines line of approach to the front, with the other Ragnaroks and Siegfrieds covering the rear. The artillery and AA were place on the left side of the town. The Death Strikes being the only formation that could not garrison were set up on the Siege line of approach (to arrive on turn #2)

Marines placed the lead units of the two tacticals, Landspeeders and Reaver slightly left of centre ready to arrive as required, and crossed their fingers (and a lot of other extremities and items)

GAME #1

    Turn #1
    The Reaver advanced into a hail of Ragnarok fire which stripped all shields and saved a single hit. In reply it blasted the Heavy tanks and nearby HQ company killing a single tank. Then the tacticals and Landspeeders doubled behind cover in preparation for turn #2.
    Meanwhile various Siegie formations went on OW adding to the 50% that were set up on OW and used their TBolts to shoot a Rhino off one of the Tacticals which resulted in a dogfight between the opposing fighters, one Siegie TBolt being downed.

    At last, the Landing Craft did a fly past to prepare for an assault by the ThunderHawk, suffering a single hit as it did so. However when the assault finally occurred, the OW fire from five formations and the supporting fire eradicated the Transport and its contents for no loss.
    Finally the Siegies place a couple more OW markers

    At the end of the turn the Landing craft was shot at and exited with 3 BM, and everything rallied.

    Turn #2
    The Reaver sustained breaking the Ragnaroks, and the Marines shuffled a bit more and stood down their TBolts as the Landing Craft failed to activate. Meanwhile the Sieges placed a lot of OW markers, and used their TBolts to shoot a LandSpeeder. They also advanced their Deathstrikes to the top of a hill from where they could draw a bead on the Reaver - - - - - one missile mis-fired while the other scored a single point of damage that was deflected by the restored shield (I blame my dice that we were both sharing for the entire game :whistle: )

    Everything rallied again

    Turn #3
    The Reaver did a bit more shooting and - - - we decided that the game was going nowhere because the Marines were being too timid in the face of all the potential OW fire.


GAME #2

    Using the same setup, the marines were played a lot more aggressively - - -

    Turn #1
    The Reaver doubled forwards near the Siegie perimeter. By shere chance, the Ragnarok OW fire duplicated the first game stripping the shields but failing to damage the titan, and the Reaver fire was equally inneffective.

    The Marines then retained using the Landing craft to assault the front of the trench lines. The reinforced Terminators were disgorded into another hail of OW fire and once the dust had settled, the Marines lost the assault by two from tied factors and reeled back from the fearless Transport.

    Siegies put another formation on OW and the ThunderHawk assaulted the Ragnaroks. Amazingly, this went two rounds before the stubborn defence was overwhelmed resulting in a pyric victory as the ThunderHawk was destroyed and the terminators also broken.

    Siegies then consolidated their armour forwards eliminating the 'pyric' terminators in the process while the Marines pounded the trenchline, finally breaking the infantry company there - which was promptly replaced by the Sappers from adjacent bunkers.

    End of turn the Landing Craft remained on the ground and rallied, as did the reinforced Terminators.

    Turn #2
    The Marines set their tacticals on a nearby group of Siegfrieds with little effect,  - - - - and then sadly we had to stop. Strategically this game was probably better for the Marines although they had suffered more losses, because they did have a toe-hold in the outer defences of the position.





_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Post battle comments:-

A really fun set of battles that were radically different from the usual 'tournament game. Evidently different armies and races will provide totally different battles, which will change again depending on whether they are attacking or defending. However, this does pose some questions
1) Should the current racial constraints be retained - eg Eldar cannot garrison (forcing them as defenders to leave the centre empty and arrive on turn#2)

2) Should the scenario mandate that the defender must place at least 25% of his forces in the central zone while keeping at least 25% of his formations back as reinforcements? As it was, the scenario played to the strengths of the Siegies by allowing the entire army to garrison except for the Death Strikes.

3) I also have a feeling that certain combinations will provide a very strange and potentially unbalanced game; Eg Marines decide that they will defend forcing the Siegies to attack (which obviously means that they have wasted 200 points of fortifications). So how can these be mitigated?

4) This scenario (and I suspect most of the others) needs to provide guidance on terrain density. We followed the '12 bits' rule by default, but this ought to be specified to avoid confusion.




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 3:17 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Thanks for taking the scenario for a spin!

More comments to come, just got back from a fund-raiser and I'm packing my wife off to Calgary *early* tomorrow morning.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
Quote: (Ginger @ 28 May 2009, 02:03 )

2) Should the scenario mandate that the defender must place at least 25% of his forces in the central zone while keeping at least 25% of his formations back as reinforcements? As it was, the scenario played to the strengths of the Siegies by allowing the entire army to garrison except for the Death Strikes.

3) I also have a feeling that certain combinations will provide a very strange and potentially unbalanced game; Eg Marines decide that they will defend forcing the Siegies to attack (which obviously means that they have wasted 200 points of fortifications). So how can these be mitigated?

There are many options. These two immediately come to mind:

1) Have the players use separate "attack" and "defend" lists. The attack list can have more points.

2) Allow "options" with a VP penalty. For example, an army list consists of

2500 points of Siegers.
500 points Option (including trenches and some other stuff).

If the player decides to use the Option, he incurs some penalty in the game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:52 am
Posts: 3078
Location: Bristol, UK
THese games sound great fun; will defintely give some a spin soon :-)

"we decided that the game was going nowhere because the Marines were being too timid in the face of all the potential OW fire."

...that's a lesson i learnt well against Rug last tourney, all that OW fire is almost a no brainers; it's only gonna get bigger so you just have to get in there straight away! I prefer to prep with a t.hawk due to it's 75cm range and then get in close and personal with the landing craft; barging units aside so as i can use it 4+RA save with impunity before allocating any other hits.

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 4:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Quote: (Man of kent @ 28 May 2009, 07:59 )

...that's a lesson i learnt well against Rug last tourney, all that OW fire is almost a no brainers; it's only gonna get bigger so you just have to get in there straight away! I prefer to prep with a t.hawk due to it's 75cm range and then get in close and personal with the landing craft; barging units aside so as i can use it 4+RA save with impunity before allocating any other hits.

Umm, well we did try that in Game #2 with dire results. The Reaver had doubled forward to prep the Ragnaroks followed by the Landing Craft assault on the trench-line in front of the tanks. However, an AA hit on the Landing craft as it approached, and further LC and Dreadnought hits from enemy FF and support fire gave the defenders 6+ on the assault resolution, which matched the five hits the assault managed to achieve on the defenders. Then the subsequent THawk assault was also held up by the stubborn defence.

The point here is that there were three formations on OW (from memory) and four supporting formations in range, so all-in-all the Siegies were laying down stupid amounts of firepower, some of which was bound to get through the 4+RA armour.

I might add that in this Game, the Marines assaulted the 'weaker' sector in trenches (Bunkers get 3+ saves)!

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 4:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (Ginger @ 28 May 2009, 02:03 )

Post battle comments:-

A really fun set of battles that were radically different from the usual 'tournament game.

Yeah, I like the differences in play style different scenarios produce. :agree:

1) Should the current racial constraints be retained - eg Eldar cannot garrison (forcing them as defenders to leave the centre empty and arrive on turn#2)

One of the special rules concepts is "Attacker/Defender" for games with opposed/different victory conditions.  Currently, I haven't posted that rule, just some scenarios that use it in its most basic form.  Generally, an army's stance is determined by an opposed Strategy Roll with high roll getting to choose which stance they'll take.  This may make for some odd or lop-sided battles, but "EPIC: Total War" is about "friendly games" at its heart, so that shouldn't be an issue and can make for some crazy stories!  *laugh*

In fact, the "Last Stand" scenario almost guarantee the defender is going to get massacred... but they can still win the scenario!  

Some armies, such as Eldar, will have a modifier to this roll, since they are *rarely* defending anything and will most likely be the ones conducting attacks.  In fact, the proposal for Necrons, is that, unless their army contains a Tomb Complex, they're *always* the "attacker".

2) Should the scenario mandate that the defender must place at least 25% of his forces in the central zone while keeping at least 25% of his formations back as reinforcements? As it was, the scenario played to the strengths of the Siegies by allowing the entire army to garrison except for the Death Strikes.
Most armies aren't usually fully garrisonable, so that's a bit of a quirk of the Siegemasters whose "schtick" that is... if you'd taken a planetfalling or barrage heavy army, you'd've had some nicely packed juicy targets, so that's luck of the draw, but it would be possible to place a "Contingents (2)" limitation on the defender and only allow them to garrison formations from a single Contingent.

The scenarios are, at the base, designed for casual, friendly pick-up games, instead of using the Tournament Scenario, often randomly chosen, unless playing in a campaign, so it would be *extremely* tough to tailor an army that was going to take advantage of each scenario... the Siegemasters just got lucky... both with the scenario *AND* that they got to be the defenders!  *LAUGH*

3) I also have a feeling that certain combinations will provide a very strange and potentially unbalanced game; Eg Marines decide that they will defend forcing the Siegies to attack (which obviously means that they have wasted 200 points of fortifications). So how can these be mitigated?

This leads me to the first sentence of the supplement: "War isn't fair."  And the followup: "But wargames need to be fun."

As I said above, "EPIC: Total War" is being produced to increase the *fun* available in EPIC and unusual circumstances like this shouldn't be looked at as unfair, but as challenges, the kind of bizarre challenges war can toss at a commander:  

"But we just dug all these trenches..."

"You're the only force close enough to take that teleport beacon..."

"Damnit... alright men, over the top!"

As the Marine player you gave up your strength (choosing the most advantageous stance vs your opponent) to allow, I assume in a gentelmanly way, your opponent to use all their assets... Sun Tzu would say you were a fool... *LAUGH*  But that is just the nature of war... I'm sure TRC would've found it a real challenge to dig out your Marines!  Perhaps you should try the reversal of positions with the same armies and see how it goes!

4) This scenario (and I suspect most of the others) needs to provide guidance on terrain density. We followed the '12 bits' rule by default, but this ought to be specified to avoid confusion.

Unless a scenario specifies terrain setup, the standard "two pieces per 60cm x 60cm section" is the terrain density to follow.  Again, this will be addressed in the "general concepts" about scenarios at the start of the book.

Thanks again for your testing and I look forward to more reports!




_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 4:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (asaura @ 28 May 2009, 07:19 )

There are many options. These two immediately come to mind:

1) Have the players use separate "attack" and "defend" lists. The attack list can have more points.

As I mentioned about, there will be more detailed rules about the "Attacker/Defender" stances and options.

Additionally, using the "Contingents" rule, the Defender army may not have their "full" army avaliable immediately (or at all!), depending on the scenario.

2) Allow "options" with a VP penalty. For example, an army list consists of

2500 points of Siegers.
500 points Option (including trenches and some other stuff).


The Siegemasters are the only "official" army with fortification organic to their list, so they're a bit of an oddity, but this will be addressed.

In any scenario that allows for "dug in" armies, there will be a "Fortifications (+X%)" listing, such as "Fortifications (+10%)" which means the army will be able to spend a bonus 10% of the point value being played on a "Fortifications List" (yet to be released); so, in a 3000 point game, the above army would have an additional 300 points to spend on things like Minefields, or Defense Lines, etc.

This number ranges from +5% to +20%, in increments of 5%, depending on the scenario.




_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 5:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Haha, that didn't occur to me! Yes siegers attacking would be horrendus.
It would take 2 turns of movement just to get to the marines. Actually I can't see any way of winning that as nothing has saves in the open, there is only thunderbolts for AA cover and there are only a handful of formations that can take on a reaver, and even then its normally as a counter attack from cover. Once thats gone I would still have to dig the marines out of cover and I am only allowed one formation of infantry that can do that (the sappers).

But it raises one question, if you have move zero units how do they move onto the table in these scenarios?

_________________
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: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (The_Real_Chris @ 28 May 2009, 17:40 )

But it raises one question, if you have move zero units how do they move onto the table in these scenarios?

Not all scenarios start "off board".

Don't most Sieger formations have the option to take Gun Emplacements or Land Crawlers?  Guess you'd pick Land Crawlers.  *laugh*

Also note that the Marines wouldn't have had as much stuff to garriosn as the Siegers...  still would've been ugly though... but I'm sure you're up to the challenge!  *laugh*

Move cover-to-cover to get saves if possible as you move forward...

Any pictures of your setup, gentlemen?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
As soon as I find the cable for the camera!
Can you believe I can't plug in a canon powershot s45 into a mac or a vista machine and have it natively recognised? Bugger.
The revised siege list forces stuff like arty companies to be stationary in emplacements, and armies like Tyranids have stationary stuff.
Of course if you aren't picking the scenario blind thats different :)
Still as for those marines - I think everything bar the Reaver (and obviously aircraft) could garrison and remember my stuff would come on in later turns due to the speed.




_________________
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: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote: (The_Real_Chris @ 28 May 2009, 22:03 )

Still as for those marines - I think everything bar the Reaver (and obviously aircraft) could garrison and remember my stuff would come on in later turns due to the speed.

No one said life in the infantry was easy... *laugh*

I'll examine the scenario and consider putting in a "Contingent" limit for garrisons.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Turn 1

_________________
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: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Umm, turn 1 again
?

_________________
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: [Total War] Hold at any cost
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Turn 2

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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