Member Control Panel Menu Settings
Display List of Forum Members Memberlist
Active Topics Active Topics
Register Register

Login Login
Search The Forum Search
Help Help
CAV General Discussions
 Mil-Net Commstation : CAV General Discussions
Page of 3 Next >>
Subject Topic: Suggestions for future game developments Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Stubbdog
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning TX014

Joined: 05 May 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 12:42pm | IP Logged Quote Stubbdog

was having a discussion today with Chrome related to the Poxnora game he had found. It is obvious that there are some huge similarities between Pxnora and Reaper Warlord in terms of characters and abilities and such. Obviously there are a few differences too.

Anyway, after talking with him about it for a bit, it also got me to thinking about Warlord and CAV.

I am not gonna hide that I have been spending about 85% of my time and energies on Warlord compared to 15 on CAV.

Instead, I was trying to really be honest with myself and figure out why that is the case. I mean I like both games, but one is definitely taking top shelf over the other for now.

So, was trying to think about it some. The obvious first answer relates to model releases and the lack there of. But, I don't want to use that as the excuse. Cause it is just that, an excuse.

So, I was trying to concentrate on what was drawing me to warlord as opposed to what was pushing me away from CAV. And it kinda came to me, at least in a partial way.. its the SAs and their combinations and options, and having fun building armies with all sorts of possibilities.

Especially now with all the new datacards, there are just tons of options and tactics. Its a jigsaw puzzle of mixing and matching.

CAV has a bunch too, but its completely different. It is way more cookie cutter in CAV. Both games boil down to one thing.. rolling a dice that is higher than a defensive value to cause a point of damage. But, with Warlord there are about 15 different ways to do it, and 15-20 other things that you can do that dont necessarily cause damage but can change the game or caue havoc with it.

In CAV, it just doesnt have that same feel.

Example.. In warlord you can have a mage cast the ice shard for a point of damage, In CAV you can shoot someone. In warlord you can have an archer fire and arrow, in CAV you can shoot someone. In warlord you can have a model with frenzy that can multiply the number of attacks made. In cav, you can shoot someone. In warlord you have warmaster for dealing extra swings on defense and making people treat you different when they attack you, in CAV you only ever get the single return shot. In warlord, you can use a model with disable, or a mage with stun, or a ceric with hold to cause havoc and keep the enemy from doing things.. In CAV, there is nothing. You have ECM and EST that affect your armor and shooting abilities, but its still just shooting. In warlord you have spells to land flyers, surface burrowers (heck you have burrowers), push people backwards, teleport, etc.. In CAV you can throw up a smoke screen (actually i do think that there needs to be a spell like smokescreen in warlord).

I could go on and on..

So, what I am trying to do with this post is I want to have thread where we can suggest items that are not currently in CAV that could add to CAV and give our Mil-Net development suggestors things to think about... and things hopefully Reaper could think about...

So, of course starting out...

SA Taser/X ... Basically think of it as a Taser meant for a CAV. When a weapon system with this SA has a successful hit on n opponent, no damage is done. Instead the target model must pass an EXP check at minus (X) otherwise the model's system shuts down for a turn (the model loses its next activation).

SA Blowthru... Basically, bring back Wrecker... The shot travels thru and continues on until a non successful attack happens. Each successive target, the roll gets a -2 to the RAV with a 0 being the lowest possible.


SA Tunnel... Thats right... Lets get some burrowers going. Cannot make any attacks while burrowed, nor will any electronic type SAs work while underground, but protects from enemy fire.

SA Tremble.... a warhead device used with indirect fire that causes a small earth quake type of affect. all models within the AOE have to make a successful EXP check or lose control of their units temporarily (they lose 1 non combat action on their next activation). Also causes burrowed models to surface.

SA Teleport... This would be an infantry only SA (or maybe equipment upgrade). Hey we are in the future.. its possible... Allows the infantry squad to use their movement action to teleport to any spot within 24 inches. Must have LOS to that spot.



__________________
Jason
My Gallery
Back to Top View Stubbdog's Profile Search for other posts by Stubbdog
 
Stubbdog
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning TX014

Joined: 05 May 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 12:44pm | IP Logged Quote Stubbdog

SA Weapons specialist... Maybe its an upgrade, not sure.. If a modelgves up its not combat action, then it can fire all its weapons on any defensive shots made til its next activation.

__________________
Jason
My Gallery
Back to Top View Stubbdog's Profile Search for other posts by Stubbdog
 
Moezilla
CAV Developer


Black Lightning TX015

Joined: 01 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 1:08pm | IP Logged Quote Moezilla

All of the Warlord comparisons you made to CAV's attacks are the same, just worded differently.

Firing an arrow, shooting an ice shard etc those are the same as direct or indirect attacks, either way you are just shooting at a target. Granted I've not played Warlord so I could be wrong in my interpretation of the game and its attacks. I've never been much of a fantasy type gamer, the furthest into the realm of fantasy I generally go is sci-fi. lol That is one of the reasons I'm a big fan of CAV, it keeps things simple yet allows for pretty good depth in the realm of tactical options. It seems to keep things 'real world' as far as a sci-fi setting will allow.

SA recommendations are good, there can always be more to look at and explored. I had an idea I discussed with Pat after the first couple of weeks playing the game regarding pop up attacks for gunships.

Popup (Gunships) Why not modify the pop up SA a bit to allow a gunship to sit behind a terrain feature and popup to shoot and then drop back down. Imagine how that little Dragonfly could become a nuisance in the rear areas, especially against those ECM/EST CAV's? That would really be a special feature a recon/attack type aircraft should have. Why not, they are VTOL right?



Edited by Moezilla on 12 October 2007 at 1:10pm


__________________
United Terran Marine Corps - 22nd Legion - Task Force Prowler
Defending the Terran Federation, one battle at a time
Lacuna, Aeris, Terra

"You cratered my Nomad!"
Back to Top View Moezilla's Profile Search for other posts by Moezilla
 
FreeFall
Mil-Net Admin
Mil-Net Admin

Black Lightning SD001

Joined: 15 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1582
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 1:10pm | IP Logged Quote FreeFall

I've got a LOT of ideas like this and I know the rest fo the team does too. We're hoping to do some of this in the factionbooks we are planning for our next phase of development. I don't want to dwell on it too much because our ideas are all just notes at this point, since we're concentrating on our current project.

I don't really agree with you though on the fact that it boils down to rolling a higher dice. It is a totally different game than Warlord and you have to apply different tactics. Still, you have a lot of tactical options, but you ahve to think in tanklike tactics instead of infantry tactics. It's a different scale.

I've found CAV to be very tactically active, but I also had to do a lot of research on cavalry tactics. I'm not successful in tournaments becasue of my dice rolling, it is due to my tactical knowledge. I'll certainly agree that Warlord has more options than CAV, but there are still some there.

And it isn't really an excuse, it is a fact that the lack of units gives you a lack of options. We can't create new models to be released, but we can create some new units with the existing models we have. That's where those personalities came from. We'll see if we can't give you some of those options you seek.

__________________
Khardullis loves me, this I know
Cause the Inquisitors tell me so
Everyone to him belongs
We are weak but he is strong

Yes Khardullis loves me,
Yes Kahrdullis loves me,
Yes Khardullis loves me,
The Inquisitors tell me so.
Back to Top View FreeFall's Profile Search for other posts by FreeFall Visit FreeFall's Homepage
 
Saint of Sinners
Lieutenant



Joined: 08 February 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 802
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 2:28pm | IP Logged Quote Saint of Sinners

Engineers and FiST unit are the CAV equalient of Mages and Clerics

A mage can cast a icebolt-a Fist unit can call in an airstrike.

The major defenence is melee switch roles with range attack in CAV.


but I do think CAV needs more range attack SAs like Wrecker. And the Knight needs its Link back

Edited by Saint of Sinners on 12 October 2007 at 2:29pm


__________________
2nd Bohemian Guard Regiment
Back to Top View Saint of Sinners's Profile Search for other posts by Saint of Sinners
 
Papabees
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning IN001

Joined: 26 December 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 376
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 4:25pm | IP Logged Quote Papabees

How does Frenzy work in Warlord?
Back to Top View Papabees's Profile Search for other posts by Papabees
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 430
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 4:43pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

Frenzy lets you sacrifice MAV for attacks, 1-for-1 trade, up to double your basic attacks. So a model with MA3, MAV3 could make 3 attacks at +3, 4 attacks at +2, 5 attacks at +1, or 6 attacks with no bonus.

Going off of memory, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works...close, anyway.
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Stubbdog
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning TX014

Joined: 05 May 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 4:59pm | IP Logged Quote Stubbdog

I guess, I did spend too much talking about the corolation between melee, damage spells, and arrows with gun fire. I agree that all of those basically cross each other off.

What I was trying to concentrate on was the other side. As my given ideas suggest, I was trying to point out the areas outside of straight damage tactics that could also play a large roll.

My problem is not sure what the best words to use to say what I want to say are.

Yes, the engineers and FIST teams are kinda like the mages and such. And as such they should have a heck of a lot more options for creating havoc on the battlefield. Not just nanobarriers, smoke screens , or called strikes (or atleast more than types of strikes).

But even the heros and others have magic itms or special abilities that can do all sorts of things.

I am not trying to "trick" up the CAV game, but I do think that it could use more non damaging but more tactical edge aspects to the game. Hence some SAs, equipment, or FIST calls that do different things are what I am talking about.




__________________
Jason
My Gallery
Back to Top View Stubbdog's Profile Search for other posts by Stubbdog
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 430
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 5:40pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

The various engineer-based upgrades could also be written a bit clearer, I think. But there is definitely potential for more uses--minefields, maybe some different types/shapes of nanobarriers (temporary bunkers?)...
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Outkast Samurai
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning OH018

Joined: 22 January 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 6:13pm | IP Logged Quote Outkast Samurai

Stubbdog wrote:


I am not trying to "trick" up the CAV game, but I do think that it could use more non damaging but more tactical edge aspects to the game. Hence some SAs, equipment, or FIST calls that do different things are what I am talking about.




Exactly. A few new gizmos that will give a new tactical option or two. I'm sure some would only be good for senarios but that's ok too. We like making up senarios and this would just encourage that all the more.
Back to Top View Outkast Samurai's Profile Search for other posts by Outkast Samurai
 
Moezilla
CAV Developer


Black Lightning TX015

Joined: 01 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 6:23pm | IP Logged Quote Moezilla

One thing I would love to see with regards to minefields would need an impartial player (BL or game master etc) would be hidden minefields both in air and on ground. Visible ones are fine but not all minefields are easily seen.

Another would again need a 3rd party to referee or oversee the match, double blind rules.

__________________
United Terran Marine Corps - 22nd Legion - Task Force Prowler
Defending the Terran Federation, one battle at a time
Lacuna, Aeris, Terra

"You cratered my Nomad!"
Back to Top View Moezilla's Profile Search for other posts by Moezilla
 
Sgt Crunch
Lieutenant

Avatar

Joined: 15 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Posted: 12 October 2007 at 10:41pm | IP Logged Quote Sgt Crunch

Engineer assets definitely need more clearly written rules. I used minefields and nanobarriers in the RCon tournament and it caused some confusion on several accounts.

__________________
{THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK}
Back to Top View Sgt Crunch's Profile Search for other posts by Sgt Crunch Visit Sgt Crunch's Homepage
 
Mad Pat
CAV Developer

Avatar
Black Lightning TX001

Joined: 25 September 2003
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1587
Posted: 14 October 2007 at 3:26pm | IP Logged Quote Mad Pat

Some of the confusions that came up with Nano Barriers are what brought about our optional rules for those items.

I agree some more tools in the tool bag for Eng and FIST units would be fun.
Back to Top View Mad Pat's Profile Search for other posts by Mad Pat
 
Papabees
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning IN001

Joined: 26 December 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 376
Posted: 15 October 2007 at 6:18pm | IP Logged Quote Papabees

Vil-hatarn wrote:
Frenzy lets you sacrifice MAV for attacks, 1-for-1 trade, up to double your basic attacks. So a model with MA3, MAV3 could make 3 attacks at +3, 4 attacks at +2, 5 attacks at +1, or 6 attacks with no bonus.

Going off of memory, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works...close, anyway.


So as a house rule you could allow anything with a Guass Gat Cannon to have the ability to Rapid Fire and get the same thing. Hmmm maybe.
Back to Top View Papabees's Profile Search for other posts by Papabees
 
Moezilla
CAV Developer


Black Lightning TX015

Joined: 01 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 15 October 2007 at 8:32pm | IP Logged Quote Moezilla

One thing we need to keep in mind while we all add these ideas. We don't want to unbalance the game for the sake of adding more variety, either.

__________________
United Terran Marine Corps - 22nd Legion - Task Force Prowler
Defending the Terran Federation, one battle at a time
Lacuna, Aeris, Terra

"You cratered my Nomad!"
Back to Top View Moezilla's Profile Search for other posts by Moezilla
 
john1234
Legionaire
Legionaire


Joined: 29 May 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 87
Posted: 15 October 2007 at 9:57pm | IP Logged Quote john1234

Ive been kicking around a few Ideas in my head and I'll give you a sample here, let you all kick it around a bit. An up grade for flyers only. LAUNCH RAILS. Lets you put 1 rail on a flyer of every damage track it has, at a cost of like 1 pt. each. This lets you carry a mix of wing mounted ordonance( with an additional cost of ordance) like an air to air missle like an in game version of an AIM-9 sidewinder. With an in game effect of like it may only be fired at other fliers from the rear quarter of the target. Give it a modest RAV and high shedder with blaster.
Limited shots(only so many launch rails). Only usable aginst fliers. I got a few other working Ideas for Dive bomb attacks, Napalm, mini-gun pod strafing runs, what have you.
I figure a few mods and up grades to our fliers. Not a lot of differnce then air stricks but you must have a modle on the field to use it an it might get somthing other than Tsuiseki's, Kikyu's and Dragonfly's on the table, plus it could make fliers be a bit more then an exrta card in the deck.(My opion. I know!) tell me what you think.

__________________
Impressive! Most Impressive! I see your DIC. 60 is as big as mine!
Back to Top View john1234's Profile Search for other posts by john1234
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 430
Posted: 15 October 2007 at 10:37pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

Fliers could definitely use some sort of boost; most of them don't have enough firepower to do anything. Missiles would be one way of solving that; give them a limited number of high damage attacks, after which they have to fall back on normal systems. Though having to track individual missiles for each one might be a little complex.
And then you could have models with different mounting capabilities--the light, faster ones could only carry one or two, where a bomber type could carry four. If the game had naval units, could have torpedoes...might be a good scenario rule (assault the battleship?).
Don't want overlap with strikes, so they should probably be mostly direct attacks, leave the AoE to fire support and strikes.
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Mil-Net Admin

Black Lightning NE001

Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5921
Posted: 15 October 2007 at 11:42pm | IP Logged Quote Chrome

I'm really enjoying this discussion guys, keep it going. I've got a few things I'd like to say myself, but I don't want to change the course of the discussion quite yet. We're definately listening tho.

__________________
-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 View Chrome's Profile Search for other posts by Chrome Visit Chrome's Homepage
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 430
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 12:37am | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

I suppose a greater emphasis on objective-based games would also encourage use of aircraft, or at least lighter units in general...the rulebook hints at objectives, but doesn't give any real suggestions, which is a problem.
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Moezilla
CAV Developer


Black Lightning TX015

Joined: 01 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 9:47am | IP Logged Quote Moezilla

A campaign system would be nice too and would also allow for the use of special rules very easily.

__________________
United Terran Marine Corps - 22nd Legion - Task Force Prowler
Defending the Terran Federation, one battle at a time
Lacuna, Aeris, Terra

"You cratered my Nomad!"
Back to Top View Moezilla's Profile Search for other posts by Moezilla
 
Sgt Crunch
Lieutenant

Avatar

Joined: 15 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 3:25pm | IP Logged Quote Sgt Crunch

I second what V-H and Moe just said. I'm hoping that Shards introduces several objective based scenarios rather than just "kill 'em all."

A campaign system is desperately needed. The real trick though is how to balance book-keeping with fun.

__________________
{THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK}
Back to Top View Sgt Crunch's Profile Search for other posts by Sgt Crunch Visit Sgt Crunch's Homepage
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 430
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 3:45pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

Given the generally concentrated firepower of CAV, I'd think a more abstract system would be best suited--one where you don't have to be immediately next to something to attack it (though perhaps within a few territories, regions or whatever). Could be a pretty simple "unit recovery" chart--roll d10; on a 10, the pilot or wizzo has been killed, on a 9 the model is destroyed but the crew survives, on an 8 it's critically damaged and can't be used for a turn. Infantry table would be a bit more lethal. Maybe a higher chance of being permanently destroyed if the model went down from a critical. I'd stick to a fairly abstract resource system--just have territories provide "points" to use for replacement, fortification, etc.

Just some ideas.

As for scenarios, the ones used at Reapercon seem pretty good--why aren't they in the rulebook, for example?
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Sgt Crunch
Lieutenant

Avatar

Joined: 15 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 4:16pm | IP Logged Quote Sgt Crunch

IIRC the book was published before they came up with the scenarios. I liked scenario concepts, but the terrain needs to be different that originally used.

__________________
{THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK}
Back to Top View Sgt Crunch's Profile Search for other posts by Sgt Crunch Visit Sgt Crunch's Homepage
 
Moezilla
CAV Developer


Black Lightning TX015

Joined: 01 July 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 4:51pm | IP Logged Quote Moezilla

I've kicked some campaign ideas around, have notes written somewhere but off the top of my head I can think of a couple.

The defender and attacker would have xx amount of points to choose from to build their task force. This could be done in one of two ways, either pulling points from the resource pool before each battle to build a force or there could be a pre-determined (by the players) TO&E which they would pull from. Once something is destroyed, it's gone. While this may make for some extra book keeping up front, I think it offers a more 'realistic' and tactical feel. Do you risk your heavies right away or go light? Have you lost almost all of your EW CAV's? etc etc

The defender would be in the same boat but there could also be factories or repair bays he could rebuild CAV's from. Of course the attacker is going to want those too but each factory or repair facility would be different, winning one wouldn't guarantee you a bunch of free CAV's. If it was a light CAV facility, it isn't going to do your heavies any good. Or if it built Dictator parts, that's not going to help with that damaged Rhino.

I had some repair ideas as well, how they would be handled etc. If I can find them later I'll post them up.

__________________
United Terran Marine Corps - 22nd Legion - Task Force Prowler
Defending the Terran Federation, one battle at a time
Lacuna, Aeris, Terra

"You cratered my Nomad!"
Back to Top View Moezilla's Profile Search for other posts by Moezilla
 
cliintb311
Corporal Legionnaire
Corporal Legionnaire
Avatar

Joined: 15 September 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 194
Posted: 16 October 2007 at 5:07pm | IP Logged Quote cliintb311

Weapon systems for flyers would be very interesting. RANDOM THOUGHT TIME. 2 missiles per flyer. Recon flyers get slowed down a bit. Single shot versions of the infantry missiles. Launchable mine fields(both missile slots)? That could actually make mine fields useful usable. Additional machine guns. Napalm(flamer) missiles.   launchable ECCM pods. launchable targeting pods for IF or strike attacks.





Your dictator kung-fu is no mach for my scorpion kung-fu!!

__________________
And the Scorpion shall hunt!
Back to Top View cliintb311's Profile Search for other posts by cliintb311
 

Page of 3 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by Web Wiz Forums version 7.8
Copyright ©2001-2004 Web Wiz Guide

This page was generated in 0.7188 seconds.