Page 5 of 15

[ 218 posts ]

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next

Manta Tweaking - correct points or not?
Gotchaye	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:24 am
Brood Brother Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:25 am Posts: 59	Xisor - I just don't see it.  Sure, the Manta can warp-dive and, sure, it's a lot bigger.  However, if it can fly out to orbit and planetfall in, a Vampire or a Thunderhawk should be able to do it too.  When you say 'capable', I'm not sure what you're saying.  Surely, in every way that matters for determining ability to Planetfall, a Vampire is more capable than a Manta.  I imagine that it's faster, more maneuverable in space, and better able to stop quickly (keep in mind that Planetfall represents coming down very, very quickly in order to avoid fire).  No, they're not self-sufficient, but you don't need to be self-sufficient to fly up into orbit and land again. Dobbsy, my issue with that rule is the same as my issue with the Planetfall one - what makes Support Craft so special?  An Eldar Falcon is easily capable of upper-atmospheric flight, but it doesn't get immunity to normal FF (or an option to completely ignore terrain under the new skimmer rules, for that matter).  As well, I imagine that the standard FF weapons found in squads can shoot farther than a jump pack can carry you in a single burst.
Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 7:22 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Quote (Gotchaye @ 16 May 2006 (05:24)) Dobbsy, my issue with that rule is the same as my issue with the Planetfall one - what makes Support Craft so special? ?An Eldar Falcon is easily capable of upper-atmospheric flight, but it doesn't get immunity to normal FF (or an option to completely ignore terrain under the new skimmer rules, for that matter). ?As well, I imagine that the standard FF weapons found in squads can shoot farther than a jump pack can carry you in a single burst. Gotchaye - they are special because it says so in a special rule . It's written so they aren't the norm. I think a distinction could be drawn where the falcons don't operate in the upper atmosphere (they are not fliers) and remain mainly at ground level for the most part in battle. The Manta is specifically designed to operate in near-orbit. Also, your falcons will be able to assault it - if you really want them to be in an assault . But it seems silly given the fluff normal foot troops would engage this thing with las-rifles or the like in the upper atmosphere .
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:51 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	But it seems silly given the fluff normal foot troops would engage this thing with las-rifles or the like in the upper atmosphere . Does the support craft rule really represent the craft "in the upper atmosphere"?  That seems rather high, isn't the upper atmosphere a couple of miles up? I always thought that the support craft would hover a couple of hundred metres up or something like that.

Top

Dobbsy	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 10:08 am
Brood Brother Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am Posts: 4499 Location: Melbourne, Australia	maybe not Clausewitz... I dunno. Should I not bother trying to argue this? Does anyone even agree?
Top

clausewitz	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:08 am
Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland	Not trying to prevent you arguing your point Dobbsy It was just that my "mental picture" of the support craft didn't have them quite as high as it seemed you were suggesting.  It was as much to find out if I had the wrong idea all along.
Top

Steele

Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:26 am

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (clausewitz @ 16 May 2006 (10:51)) But it seems silly given the fluff normal foot troops would engage this thing with las-rifles or the like in the upper atmosphere . Does the support craft rule really represent the craft "in the upper atmosphere"? ?That seems rather high, isn't the upper atmosphere a couple of miles up? I always thought that the support craft would hover a couple of hundred metres up or something like that. Maybe when in close support it would hang that low. But in our game with our scale , where 30cm represent 1 km and then goes radically upwards ( 1m represents about 10 km) IIRC, the Craft simply couldn?t be seen any longer if there are any larger terrain pieces hanging around. So I doubt that in our game it hovers just a couple of hundred meters (200-300m) off ground. And even if it hangs 200 metres low - how effective would be small arms fire? Most actual slugs begin to loose punch at this distance besides the larger caliber guns like the Barret and co. Energy weapons may begin to disperse in coherency. And we the gamers and developers have to abstract that thing into playable and preferrable non special rules. I think sometimes we/you should at least keep in mind that physics are still in use.... Cheers! Steele _________________ Quid pro Quo

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 11:47 am

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Maybe when in close support it would hang that low. But in our game with our scale , where 30cm represent 1 km and then goes radically upwards ( 1m represents about 10 km) IIRC, the Craft simply couldn?t be seen any longer if there are any larger terrain pieces hanging around. So I doubt that in our game it hovers just a couple of hundred meters (200-300m) off ground. And even if it hangs 200 metres low - how effective would be small arms fire? Most actual slugs begin to loose punch at this distance besides the larger caliber guns like the Barret and co. Energy weapons may begin to disperse in coherency. And we the gamers and developers have to abstract that thing into playable and preferrable non special rules. I think sometimes we/you should at least keep in mind that physics are still in use.... So what height would you suggest that it does hover at?  It sounds as though you are suggesting that it must be higher than a few hundred metres, and that therefore small arms would not affect it? Are we saying that support craft should simply be "immune" to assaults?  And in return not be able to participate in their own assaults?  And if its that high up would it even have a ZOC?

Top

Xisor	Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:39 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm Posts: 515	Quote (Gotchaye @ 16 May 2006 (05:24)) No, they're not self-sufficient, but you don't need to be self-sufficient to fly up into orbit and land again. It's a fair way of looking at it, but they aren't going to make it back to orbit. They can probably do it once or twice and thats it. The Manta is said to be a pretty much self sufficient ship. Whilst a Vampire could do it[exit atmosphere, drop back] a couple of times at most, it's not going to be something that should be commonly present in the rules. What we're saying the distinction is that the Manta does this often. It's 'its thing', as it were. The Vampire still needs an orbital starship to refuel it, resupply it etc. The Manta is almost entirely independent in that sense. In BFG, it isn't as much so, but I think at Epic Level we should be looking at it in its '*is*' aspect: Ie it can do as we say with no problems. They may be better at Planetfall operations 'generally', but those are typically entire squadrons of them deploying from starships. Mantas, OTOH, are beasts which do the same thing on their own independently. Xisor _________________ "Number 6 calls to you The Cylon Detector beckons Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top

baronpiero

Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:21 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm Posts: 186

Gotchaye Xisor - I just don't see it. ?Sure, the Manta can warp-dive and, sure, it's a lot bigger. ?However, if it can fly out to orbit and planetfall in, a Vampire or a Thunderhawk should be able to do it too. IMO warp dive is the key here, for it allows a Manta to operate farther from its oparational basement than other landing crafts. Manta is more than a space shuttle: it's a spacecraft. And this also means a Manta would become invisible to ennemy defenses while positioning, meaning it wouldn't interfere much with larger spacecraft arrival (maybe place 1 blast marker on the manta if it arrives the same turn as an ennemy spacecraft before rolling for activate or something?) Personally I'm convinced there's something to chew on seriously. We just have to find out how to balance such an ability. To my experience, the current planetfall is readily self-balanced for the Manta so it shouldn't be hard. The more I think of it, the more it seems such an ability wouldn't apply to smaller spacecraft like Morays from a background perspective, so I would favour creating a new 'Warp Dive' special rule only for the Manta.

Top

Steele

Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:50 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am Posts: 423 Location: Duisburg , Germany

Quote (clausewitz @ 16 May 2006 (12:47)) Maybe when in close support it would hang that low. But in our game with our scale , where 30cm represent 1 km and then goes radically upwards ( 1m represents about 10 km) IIRC, the Craft simply couldn?t be seen any longer if there are any larger terrain pieces hanging around. So I doubt that in our game it hovers just a couple of hundred meters (200-300m) off ground. And even if it hangs 200 metres low - how effective would be small arms fire? Most actual slugs begin to loose punch at this distance besides the larger caliber guns like the Barret and co. Energy weapons may begin to disperse in coherency. And we the gamers and developers have to abstract that thing into playable and preferrable non special rules. I think sometimes we/you should at least keep in mind that physics are still in use.... So what height would you suggest that it does hover at? ?It sounds as though you are suggesting that it must be higher than a few hundred metres, and that therefore small arms would not affect it? Are we saying that support craft should simply be "immune" to assaults? ?And in return not be able to participate in their own assaults? ?And if its that high up would it even have a ZOC? I can?t tell for sure which height ought to be the right one. Although the couple of hundreds of metres sound ok for the engagement (for the games sake) it seems odd for me that it can be seen from all over the place and vice versa at this altitude. Maybe we could change this to an area around the Manta in which it can be seen and can see (Standard Tau Range? 75cm Diameter?) For the ZOC : Of course it does excert one, at least his own kill radius is a kind of. It shouldn?t participate in assaults if it has fired its normal weapons as it is high up. Heck, why should it at all hover down to an altitude that makes it vulnerable to small arms fire and the like? But , we have the Model , we can make Rules...   Cheers! Steele P.S.: Hope it makes sense, as I am not very good in explaining in english. _________________ Quid pro Quo

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Manta Tweaking - correct points or not? Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:06 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm Posts: 916 Location: Glasgow, Scotland

P.S.: Hope it makes sense, as I am not very good in explaining in english. Your English is infinitly better than my German!  But I do understand that the more esoteric and detailed the discussion gets the harder it becomes to make one's self understood. As for how far away you can see it...  just for example.. the empire state building* in New York is 381m tall (1250 feet).  Assuming that there were not lots of other buildings surrounding it, how far away could it be seen?  I would venture that the distance would be fairly reasonable.  Probably enough for our game purposes (the logarithmic scale often quoted for EA distances is such a confusing idea). *it was good enough for King Kong, so it seemed good enough for this example. Heck, why should it at all hover down to an altitude that makes it vulnerable to small arms fire and the like? But , we have the Model , we can make Rules...

My point regards ZOC etc was that IF the Manta was high enough that small arms could not affect it then surely the same would apply in reverse.  A trooper standing directly beneath the Manta could not be targeted with its main weapons as they point "forwards" and not directly at the ground.  And if it cannot affect things near and below it why would it exert a ZOC?

So, I believe that the Manta must therefore be close enough to the ground that it can shoot secondary weapons under and around it (and therefore can be shot in return) and close enough that it does exert an influence on the surrounding terrain (ZOC).  And I would conclude that it can't therefore be much more than a few hundred metres in altitude.  [There is a note in the description/design notes I read somewhere that explained why it wasn't fast (the energy required to keeping hovering a big beastie like that).  That could also explain why it cant just zip up to high altitude when in danger *shrug*]