Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Skyray
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
BaronP, that's actually a pretty decent idea, although I'd prefer 75cm 2xAA5+, based on the strength of the Seeker missiles v (lack of) armor on aircraft.

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Actually having any markerlight able to track aircrafts does not seem realistic to me:

- Real world realisticness: just a gut feel, but I don't like the idea much. I would imagine that when you are an infantryman, aircrafts strike you at lightning speed. I doubt you can lock onto the aircraft long enought for a GM to reach it.


Our Real World ™ technology is capable of doing this today. Both the Russians and British have electro-optical beam guidance AA systems that emulate this ability.

The US is developing AA laser systems to track not just aircraft, but high speed cruise missiles.

From a real life perspective, I would not assume that we're talking about one guy with a flashlight, trying to figure out where to point it.

I've already expressed this point, but I have not seen where the AA ML has caused a list imbalance.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (Honda @ 14 Dec. 2005 (17:47))

I've already expressed this point, but I have not seen where the AA ML has caused a list imbalance.


That's the ultimate point - why did we change it if its been working?

Now we will need to reevaluate the ML value, the AA value in the list, and the impact each have on various games.

meanwhile, our AA definitely took a hit. Our ML don't have as much value as they no longer even remotely detur aircraft...

This is going to create a fairly significant amount of work - again, when it all was working.

ML against aircraft does not only exist in real world as Honda indicated, and would be easier to use against a 'perceived' slower moving due to distance target, but moreover, it's used in Tau fluff and in Tau 40K.

To remove it from E:A doesn't exactly make a hill of beans sense to me.... as my grand-pappy would say. :)

Cheers,

_________________
Rob
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
Quote (Honda @ 14 Dec. 2005 (09:47))
Our Real World ? technology is capable of doing this today. Both the Russians and British have electro-optical beam guidance AA systems that emulate this ability.

I doubt the Russians, British, or anyone have many handheld optical AA target designators like our FWs or PFs would be forced to use.

It is the equivelent of holding a scoped rifle on a fast(300kph and up) moving target, able to manuver in 3 dimensions, from distances ranging from 75 meters to 3+miles, for up to a minute (and possably more) while waiting for the missile to transition from the launcher to the target.

All while probablly being shot at.

Easy ways to avoid an optical "lock" include flying at night, or in poor weather, such as, er, fog.  Ways the "break" an optical "lock" are similarly easy;  Drop below the horizon, fly into a cloud, perhaps even into the sun.

Most of the successful anti-air missiles used in "real life", both surface-to-air and air-to-air, use either Radar guidance or Infrared (Ir) tracking after optical aiming (which is not the same as designation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile

Certinley not Janes, but its telling:

46 Radar Guided Missiles in the Article
17 IR Guided
2 Laser Guided
5 Optical Guided

Of the 7 Optical/Laser Missile types, the French Crotale might be mislabled as both vehicle and ship mounted versions appear to have a radar receiving "dish" and the guidence is listed as "command control," whatever that means.  Thats 6.  The German Wasserfall, well, is a WWII era missile that was developed but never reached operational status.  Thats 5.

Only 4 of these actually use handheld (manportable) optical or laser designators like our Firewarriors would.  All the articles for these missiles, espically the article for the Swedish RBS-70, stress the inherent diffaculties in maintaining a optical or laser on a aerial target.  None of them have ranges over 7 Km (4.3 miles), most are in the 3-5 Km (2-3 miles)band

On the other hand, the article lists 63 radar or infrared guided SAM missiles in use around the world.  63 to 7, it seems experiance has taught us a few things.

How all this applies to the 40K universe is, of course, a matter for debate.

It seems to me, however, that the Tau would reach the same conclusion us Earthlings have and find a way around it.  It seems to me that for the job of shooting down aircraft, the combination of Radar or IR and drone technology seems a match made in heaven.  Drone AI far exceedes what we are currently capable of, and would be able to guide a missile to a target while at the same time being able to counteract or ignore chaff, flares and jamming attempts and compensating for target manuvering.  A truely fire-and-forget weapon, a Tau Drone AA missile might even be able to use advanced IFF methods to avoid shooting down a stray civillian aircraft or a friendly aircraft by accident, even after launch, something our current technology can rarely achieve.  Hell, a Tau Drone AA Missile that decides not to kill its initial target (for whatever reason) could even request a new target or find a safe place to detonate without inflicting that collateral damage the Tau so loathe.

SO, For Epic, I reccommend:

2x Hunter Missile AA5+  75CM
2x Seeker Missile AT6+  75CM   Guided Missiles

Plus whatever secondary systems we are using today :p

75 Points.

Same AA shooting but longer range over IG Hydra for +25 points, lesser shooting but more shots and (slightly) better range than SM Hunter for same price.  Better range but lesser to-hit Vs Eldar Firestorm for +25 Points.

Way better than a Ork Flakwagon, as it should be. :P

Markerlights should be taken out of the equation for AA, so I think this should extend to the Scorpionfish and Dragonfish as well as anywhere else they pop up.

Since the use of MLs Vs AA stems from how they are used in 40K Vs Fliers, which is rare, expensive, and kinda pointless, I think we should discount the fluff on this one and use either Mine or baronpiero's suggestion.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Personally I would prefer the 2x 5+ attack and not have to worry about ML vs Aircraft if it's going to cause such long and drawn out debate. As I said earlier the ML/AA issue could be solved by including it in the fluff. You could even go as far as designating it as a long range ML that gets included in it's to hit value. This then, wouldn't be too problematic in the list when it comes to the comparison of the normal ML of 30cm. The fluff is enough to explain it and we have no need to add a new ML system.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tactica
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
Quote (HecklerMD @ 14 Dec. 2005 (23:33))


I doubt the Russians, British, or anyone have many handheld optical AA target designators like our FWs or PFs would be forced to use.


Even if they didn't ... inbetween now 21st century... and the 41st 'millenium' - about how many years is that for them to perfect it?

:p

It is the equivelent of holding a scoped rifle on a fast(300kph and up) moving target, able to manuver in 3 dimensions, from distances ranging from 75 meters to 3+miles, for up to a minute (and possably more) while waiting for the missile to transition from the launcher to the target.

All while probablly being shot at.

But distance reduces relative speed - as any AA mount gunnery can attest.

41st millenium magnoculars and technolgy assist targetting - AI, found on board an aircraft mount should all help rectify any typical AA targetting issues.


Easy ways to avoid an optical "lock" include flying at night, or in poor weather, such as, er, fog.  Ways the "break" an optical "lock" are similarly easy;  Drop below the horizon, fly into a cloud, perhaps even into the sun.

The counter to that of course is to have 'optical guide' with 'infrared assist locking'.  :alien:


Most of the successful anti-air missiles used in "real life", both surface-to-air and air-to-air, use either Radar guidance or Infrared (Ir) tracking after optical aiming (which is not the same as designation).

See 41st millenium vs. present day - technology bump... not to mention, Aun influence to overcome such learning curve hurdles.




Since the use of MLs Vs AA stems from how they are used in 40K Vs Fliers, which is rare, expensive, and kinda pointless,

Wow - 100% completely disagree!
1) markers against fliers... very common here. Fliers are common and allowed in all local non-GT games (and are now allowed in some GT venues)

2) Rare??? Only if tau and fliers are rare... 8 pathfinders firing 36" at a passing flier guarantees a hit. Then a S8 missle or a S10 twin-linked railcannon (reroll the miss in 40K) will follow hitting on a 2+ vs. the now marked aircraft... we call that VERY effective in my neck of the woods!

If anything, markerlights in general in a 40K army used to be rare. That's because markerlights are effectively flawed in 40K on most units, but that's being fixed in the near future. Example: Markerlights are a heavy weapon, but the pathfinders are forced to buy an 80 point devilfish... but they don't need it typically - so it makes the whole unit more expensive. FW fixed this problem and gave us mobile marker lights as well - another problem. The tetra filled a very important gap as a result. The Skyray is the second vehicle to follow suit and again give us mobile marker lights - another boon much needed in 40K to make the marker more effective... however, when taken, they are definitely used against planes!

3) Pointless? Ha... see above. Guess your Tau force has never been overrun by vultures and thunderbolts. Mine has... its not fun and not pretty. Markers spread thoughout the army will assist and make the enemy think twice. They also save you from wasting precious S10 thots erroneously hoping for a 6+ without the mark... no, very effective point in 40K.

Also - the premis is incorrect, markers in E:A vs. fliers are not solely based upon 40k markers vs. fliers... it's a supporting point. The fluff in IA3 (and likely the new codex) clearly shows a skyray with networked markers firing at enemy Aircraft - again, in fluff. The background on taros is such that the imperium named the skyray and feared its presence - both vs. the armor and vs. the aircraft. To say E:A markers are solely based upon 40k... blah, blah...blah... is incorrect.

I think we should discount the fluff on this one and use either Mine or baronpiero's suggestion.

Hmm... see above, I'll respectfully disagree. I am but one however.  :cool:

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
But distance reduces relative speed - as any AA mount gunnery can attest.


Your... your not seriously implying that distance makes targets easier to hit, are you?

Distance increases the magnatude of being off-target, as anyone who has fired any weapon will attest.

At 3 KM (300,000 CM), a tenth (.1)of a degree in deviation results in the target point shifting 5.236 meters.  A tenth of a degree shift can easily be the result of someones pulse, and anyone who's been on a battlefield will tell you its a heart-pounding experience.  Add into that breathing and the actual movements required to track the target, corrections and those oh-so-annoying over-corrections, and you have an immense challange even when not under enemy fire.

Harder than "Headshots" thats for sure.


Even if they didn't ... inbetween now 21st century... and the 41st 'millenium' - about how many years is that for them to perfect it?


6000.  The Tau went from stone age to space age in 6000 years.  Dont be coy.  They most definitley encountered the same challenges as we did when faced with attempting to take down fast movers, and if they were not smart enough to apply their excellent drone AI to solve the problem I'd be more than suprised.

In fact, as the "holy fluff" seems to indicate, the Tau relied on Aerial Superiority, rather that SAM networks, for most of their time as a exo-planatery combat force:  The concept of SAM weaponary, ground launched and aimed anti-air weaponary, is reletivley new to them.  There might be more parity than we're willing to acknowledge in this slim aspect of warefare.

Since the use of MLs Vs AA stems from how they are used in 40K Vs Fliers, which is rare, expensive, and kinda pointless,

Guess I'll explain rather than be taken out of context.

Rare:  GW sells no 40K Fliers, nor do their Codeces contain rules for general use of fliers, much less specific fliers.  Fliers (Models and their rules) are totally the domain of Forgeworld, and no matter how prevelent in your area (or mine, which is "not so much"), no matter how many tourneys they are allowed into, I doubt they will ever get the level of "official-ness" that regular codex items do.  That means "Rare" to me.

Expensive:  40K IN Lightning costs US$97; (Cheapest IN Flier I could Find) for a single unit thats expensive if you ask me.  100 Pts for a 40K Vulture W/O extra weapons aint so bad, but it aint cheap, either.  Hence, "expensive".

Pointless:  40K Is, supposedly, for the realistic portrayal of squad-level combat.  (Weather they achieve it or not is another story)  Attempting to mesh aireal combat into a squad-level game is a hack at best and may not be where we want to take our (air combat) cues from, hence "pointless".

Where do you play, Tactica, anyway?  I'd like to visit and pick some of the money trees that apparently grow there! :p  :p


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Incidentlally what level of air cover are people achieving at present with their Tau flak? Part of the army? All the army? All the army plus the advance? The whole table?

_________________
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  
 
Steele
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 15 Dec. 2005 (07:45))
Incidentlally what level of air cover are people achieving at present with their Tau flak? Part of the army? All the army? All the army plus the advance? The whole table?

Hi, at least I cover the whole Army, depends little on Setup and Objectives.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
HecklerMD
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 14 Dec. 2005 (22:45))
Incidentlally what level of air cover are people achieving at present with their Tau flak? Part of the army? All the army? All the army plus the advance? The whole table?

My 4K army has 5 Cadres, 2X FW, 2X Crisis, and 1X AMHC.

My FW and AMHC Cadres all have HH upgrades, and all of those are IC HHs.  So I have 6 IC HHs, 6x AA6+ shots @ 60CM ranged across the board, attached to 3 of my 5 main force groupings.  I Back those up with 2 flights of 3 Barracudas.

Given how my group uses air assets, its probablly overkill, but all of it is multi-mission capable, so little waste.  One of my opponents does have 8 fully painted Thunderhawks, enough marines to fill them, and a rather sick desire to do so, :p so I can never really let down my AA guard.

The current 1x AA6 @75 from the skyray does'nt impress me enough to buy the minis or spend the points.  Even though they do look cool.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Do you reckon though that the thunderhawk assualt wouldn't simply blow through the AA anyway (it is after all supposed to :) ). So for you its the skyray vs the hammerhead, slightly better AA vs all round ability.

_________________
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  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
Heckler: I wasn't attempting to prove that Optical is the best technology. A comment was made that they weren't sure they could envision the technology today.

The key though is that the mechanism was working and I'd question why the change was made. Just because we are able to change things, doesn't always mean that we should.

:8):

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
colonel_sponsz
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 pm
Posts: 390
For what it's worth here's my take on Skyray missiles and ML vs Aircraft:

(Yes, I know there will be such-and-such a missle (real or 40k fluff) that will won't work like this but:) Anti-aircraft missiles don't actually require a direct hit to be effective becuse, as has been noted, aircraft don't have much armour due to the wieght penalties.  AA missiles (like larger calibre AAA) work more on the shotgun principle and aim to place a large enough explosion close enough to the target to do sufficent damage to a vital piece to stop it functioning effectively.  A missile with the assumed payload of a Tau missle (they look quite big to me) would have a larger area of effect in order to score a 'hit'.  Obviousy the armour and manoeuverability of the target will come into play but that's what the armour save represents.

Regarding guidance.  Marker light guidance works by reflected light which means that any ML beams that are hitting the target will be able to be read by the sensor in an incoming missile.  This effectively means that you could paint entire areas of the sky with marker light beams (like a laser show) and as an aircraft flew through it would hit this light and be illuminated. This means that one infantry man does not have to keep his single designator locked on to the target, several designators can used in concert with at least one of them on the target for a sufficent proportion of the time. This broad brush technique would not work with ground based targets as it would also illuminate any trees, bushes, buildings, other cover and even the ground itself - not very useful - but when the only thing surrounding the target is fresh air it doesn't matter.  

Again, as I understand it, Tau AA missiles will also have some form of semi-intelligent drone guidance which will allow them to attempt to track a target when ML illumination is lost using optical, IR or radar sensors supplimented by predictive assumptions about where the target will be based on previous patterns of movement.

Combine these two and I feel that Tau AA using ML/GM should actually be pretty effective - possibly more so than other races.  This also ties in with how I see the Tau way of war - they place a high value on air superiority as it benefits their combined arms approach more than it would other armies approaches.

Just my 2% of a Tau credit (or what ever they use).

Orde




_________________
"I'm smelling a whole lot of 'if' coming off this plan."

Tau Army List Archive
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lion in the Stars
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:45 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
Quote (Honda @ 15 Dec. 2005 (13:53))
Heckler: I wasn't attempting to prove that Optical is the best technology. A comment was made that they weren't sure they could envision the technology today.

The key though is that the mechanism was working and I'd question why the change was made. Just because we are able to change things, doesn't always mean that we should.

:8):

Good point.  Why was a working part of the list changed?

I still believe that 2x 75cm AA5+ is warranted, but that's a different discussion.

I think that Tau air defences should scare the crap out of everyone, with the possible exception of the Eldar.  Sure, they should pay for it, but 3-4 Skyrays should make it hazardous enough for a Thunderhawk air assault to make the Marines think really hard about it.

I hate to keep pinging on this, but IA3 specifically mentions how afraid the Imperial forces were of Skyrays.  Instead of nerfing them, raise the points!

_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: Skyray
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

I hate to keep pinging on this, but IA3 specifically mentions how afraid the Imperial forces were of Skyrays.  Instead of nerfing them, raise the points!


That is the approach I would prefer as well.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net