| Author |
|
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Black Lightning NE001
Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6702
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 12:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So while I'm writing the data card tool I'm trying to keep in mind some of the rules that we'll have to follow for model customization. I thought it might help if we discussed a few of the old rules from the CAV 1 system and how we should convert them to CAV 2.
1) Components (TC, ECM, etc) are type specific. You can't put a Panther's ECM system on a Tsuiseki.
2) Should the weapons follow the same rules? (I don't remember if they did in CAV 1 w/out looking at the JOR.)
3) CAV components and weapons came in 3 sizes: light, heavy, and super. Light models (2-3 DT) could not use heavy or super items. Heavy models (4-6 DT) could use light items, but not super. Supers could mount anything.
4) Weapon mounts came in 2 types: Main and Secondary. I'm thinking about creating a third: Heavy, for stuff like the Rhino's DFMs.
5) A model could convert 2 Secondary mounts into 1 Main mount. Should we allow the reverse? 1 Main mount could hold 2 Secondary weapons? Could make for some interesting missile boats.
__________________
-Chrome
"Ritterlich Warriors bring a sense of dignity to the death that they deal out so efficiently that they almost make it look easy."
- Eleanor Syde, 2270
Syde's Guide to the Galaxy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning MA013
Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 1:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
1) Only one problem I see with this--some components currently aren't, e.g. Fire III missiles (Mantis and Wasp). Is it possible the weight restrictions might be sufficient to model this anyway? You could extend the weight categories, maybe something like this:
Light: CAVs up to 3 DT, soft vehicles up to 3 DT, hard vehicles up to 2 DT, all gunships.
Heavy: CAVs of 4-6 DT, soft vehicles of 4+ DT, hard vehicles of 3+ DT.
Super: CAVs with 7-8 DTs.
That would prevent any truly ridiculous combinations in terms of size and such (though you could still get some pretty large tank-mounted weapons...)
2) As mentioned above, can't build a Wasp unless the weapons are fully modular.
3) also covered in 1.
4) Heavy mounts could be a good way of preventing any oddball vehicle weapons. I'd go ahead and apply it to any particularly large main guns, probably all supers and the upper tier of heavies.
Another idea--perhaps we just make certain weapons limited to their type while others are more modular? Most missile packs would be fully exchangeable, while the biggest guns would be limited to CAVs, and perhaps certain turret-like weapons limited to vehicles.
5) I don't think this is a good idea--unless you also have an artificial limit on number of weapons systems. Otherwise, you could end up with 6+ attacks on one model, which would probably do a lot of damage just by odds...
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Jeremy
CAV Developer
Black Lightning OH003
Joined: 20 May 2002
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1623
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 1:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Maybe just state that you can only have a max of four attacks.
__________________
Million Dollar Strong!
Blitz fanboy #1!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning MA013
Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 1:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thought about it some more, here are some more ideas:
I feel like Repair systems should probably be type-specific--it seems to me the one that would be hardest to adapt in game-world terms (particularly for gunships).
ECM and TC, I have no problem with being fully universal...while the "software" end would likely have to be modified by model type, there's no reason the hardware can't be universal.
DV,if not fully integrated into the chassis to begin with, should probably be type-specific, since tanks are supposed to have heavier armor.
Not sure how you're calculating CCV. I think it would make most sense for it to be a calculation off of the main weapon systems--+1 for each MG, +2 or +3 for a flamer, etc.--with maybe an extra +1 available as an upgrade, representing various short-range weapons.
And that brings us back to weapons...
Missiles, while obeying the same divisions of light/heavy/super and Main/Secondary, are available across type categories so long as they fit the requirements.
For remaining weapons, I would classify them by type, but with one caveat--CAVs can mount weapons from any category, given their greater size and modularity.
You could even go further, and make it a tiered system--CAVs/vehicles/gunships; so gunships would be limited to their own weapons list, vehicles could mount vehicle or gunship weapons, and CAVs could mount anything.
Edited by Vil-hatarn on 30 July 2010 at 1:56pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Black Lightning NE001
Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6702
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 2:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jeremy wrote:
| Maybe just state that you can only have a max of four attacks. |
|
|
You guys haven't seen this card yet, but Pat and I already broke that rule w/the v2.3 Vanquisher that would have come out as part of the final RAGE Chronicles. Its GGC's were DA x4, plus the 2 missile systems.
We did that on several of the anti-infantry oriented models, giving them a lower RAV, but increasing their ROF. The idea was that they should be able to hit low DV infantry, but not be over-powering against AFVs or gunships.
Basically I thought it was silly that the model that could spit out 60,000 rounds/minute (the Vanq) could barely kill a Rifle Team in one turn.
__________________
-Chrome
"Ritterlich Warriors bring a sense of dignity to the death that they deal out so efficiently that they almost make it look easy."
- Eleanor Syde, 2270
Syde's Guide to the Galaxy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning MA013
Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 2:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
That was always my problem with the various anti-soft models...suppose that's reasonable.
Still, I'd be worried about a six-missile model...
Would it be possible to list a pair of the Vanq's GGCs as a single Main weapon? And then keep the old rule of not splitting a Main for two Secondaries.
Otherwise...all of the Vanquisher's weapons would have to be listed as Secondary, and you'd need to allow splitting Mains for it to work.
Edited by Vil-hatarn on 30 July 2010 at 2:30pm
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning MA013
Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 10:54pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So, with all the opportunities for customization that we're adding...how will this interact with faction doctrines and such? If I understand the intent correctly, there will be published cards for all of the "standard" models and the option to build models from the ground up using the same system...
Some ideas:
1) apply a "tax" to custom-built models, by discounting the premades slightly, say 5%. This keeps the customization from getting out of hand, but could be problematic because it does actually impact game balance.
2) Limit a given force to, say, 25% modified models; then add a mercenary doctrine which allows a higher % (similar to the one that lets them acquire faction models now; perhaps even included in it?)
I'm just a little concerned about people with 100% custom armies--it seems like it would get really confusing and borderline unfair, as your opponent would have no idea of your capabilities.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Black Lightning NE001
Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6702
|
| Posted: 30 July 2010 at 11:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chrome wrote:
| the v2.3 Vanquisher that would have come out as part of the final RAGE Chronicles. Its GGC's were DA x4, plus the 2 missile systems. |
|
|
Scratch that, I forgot we replaced that with the new Burst SA.
Vil-hatarn wrote:
| So, with all the opportunities for customization that we're adding...how will this interact with faction doctrines and such? If I understand the intent correctly, there will be published cards for all of the "standard" models and the option to build models from the ground up using the same system... |
|
|
Not from the ground up. Every model will have to start based on an existing chassis: Puma, Emperor, Tsuiseki, etc. Basically you'll be building variants.
A chassis' #DT, Mov, CCV, and DV would all be fixed, as would some of its GSA's. EXP is set by faction. Then you plug in whatever TC, RpR, EDV, and Weapons you want. Maybe add or remove a GSA or two and maybe we allow for the Mov, DV, etc to be bumped up or down a point.
Quote:
Some ideas:
1) apply a "tax" to custom-built models, by discounting the premades slightly, say 5%. This keeps the customization from getting out of hand, but could be problematic because it does actually impact game balance. |
|
|
CAV 1 had a pretty simple system: +10% for stuff from the same UCOR, +20% for stuff from any other UCOR. Before you freak out over 20%, realize that most components cost less than 10 points, so you're talking about a +2 pt "tax".
Weapons can get expensive tho, so we'll just have to see how those numbers work out and adjust them as we see fit.
Quote:
| I'm just a little concerned about people with 100% custom armies--it seems like it would get really confusing and borderline unfair, as your opponent would have no idea of your capabilities. |
|
|
At this point, you're only playing w/your friends, so I don't really see it being that big of a deal. I mean its not like 50 people are going to be showing up at GenCon to play in a CAV 2 tournament. House rules is probably the best way to handle it.
Edited by Chrome on 30 July 2010 at 11:18pm
__________________
-Chrome
"Ritterlich Warriors bring a sense of dignity to the death that they deal out so efficiently that they almost make it look easy."
- Eleanor Syde, 2270
Syde's Guide to the Galaxy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Papabees
Black Lightning
Black Lightning IN001
Joined: 26 December 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: 15 August 2010 at 5:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't think I'd restrict weapons to only their class but let you move up one class for weapons. Lights could use light and med weapons but not Super. heavies and supers could use them all. Give the lights some love in regards to firepower. They can be easy to kill but pack a whallop.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Saint of Sinners
Lieutenant
Joined: 08 February 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: 15 August 2010 at 10:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I like big papa's idea.
__________________
2nd Bohemian Guard Regiment
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
sethohman
1st Legionnaire
Joined: 10 May 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 458
|
| Posted: 16 August 2010 at 11:00pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Papabees wrote:
| I don't think I'd restrict weapons to only their class but let you move up one class for weapons. Lights could use light and med weapons but not Super. heavies and supers could use them all. Give the lights some love in regards to firepower. They can be easy to kill but pack a whallop. |
|
|
Yeah - without this, things like the Mogul wouldn't work - light chassis with a big gun.
__________________
Mike
- Is there any movie that wouldn't be made better with Zombies?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Black Lightning NE001
Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6702
|
| Posted: 30 August 2010 at 2:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Papabees wrote:
| I don't think I'd restrict weapons to only their class but let you move up one class for weapons. Lights could use light and med weapons but not Super. heavies and supers could use them all. Give the lights some love in regards to firepower. They can be easy to kill but pack a whallop. |
|
|
There's nothing to stop us from making more powerful weapons for smaller CAVs. I'm actually thinking about doing that already for the "new" recon class models. They should have a balance between speed and firepower, but they were usually just speed and light guns.
However the who DT concept isn't about potential, its about size, mass, and superstructure. Its like trying to mount the cannon off of an Abrams onto a Stryker. The Styker just isn't built to handle it.
I'm thinking tho that we should get rid of the 2 DT CAVs tho, which would leave us with:
Light: 3-4 DT
Heavy: 5-6 DT
Super: 7-8 DT
Having access to some 4 DT weapons would open things up a little for modding the 3 DT models.
Quote:
| Yeah - without this, things like the Mogul wouldn't work - light chassis with a big gun. |
|
|
If you look at the data card you'll notice that the Mogul doesn't use the exact same gun as the Dictator. Its a factory mod.
I'm all for flexibility, but there need to be some limitations too. Its the difference between a group of designers getting together and logically looking at an option and deciding if it breaks the game mechanics, and some local guy showing up at your tournament with a Sabertooth with 4 Maxim Ones on it. 
Edited by Chrome on 30 August 2010 at 2:53pm
__________________
-Chrome
"Ritterlich Warriors bring a sense of dignity to the death that they deal out so efficiently that they almost make it look easy."
- Eleanor Syde, 2270
Syde's Guide to the Galaxy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
sethohman
1st Legionnaire
Joined: 10 May 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 458
|
| Posted: 30 August 2010 at 11:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Chrome wrote:
some local guy showing up at your tournament with a Sabertooth with 4 Maxim Ones on it.
|
|
|
Whats wrong with that?
__________________
Mike
- Is there any movie that wouldn't be made better with Zombies?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Settings
Memberlist
Active Topics
Register
Login
Search
Help
Mil-Net Commstation : CAV: House Rules
Topic: Modification Rules
