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: House Rules
 Mil-Net Commstation : CAV: House Rules
<< Prev Page of 2
Subject Topic: Revised Strikes Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Mil-Net Admin
Avatar
Black Lightning NE001

Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6837
Posted: 22 June 2010 at 3:28pm | IP Logged Quote Chrome

Quote:
alot of tactical applications

Yeah, I like that.

Plus, it could still do 2 points of damage to a model. Everything in the AOE would take an attack roll on the turn the Strike hits, then they'd have to take another one on their turn when they move out of the AOE.

__________________
-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
 
Sgt Crunch
Lieutenant

Avatar

Joined: 15 September 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 956
Posted: 22 June 2010 at 5:06pm | IP Logged Quote Sgt Crunch

Chrome wrote:
Sgt Crunch wrote:
Chrome wrote:
I've always thought that calling that missile a nuke was kinda silly. I mean who would fire a nuke into a furball where only a few hundred yards separate the targets from the friendlies? And a nuke with only a 100 yard AOE?


Well, the Soviets did have a mortar (granted a rather large one) that was capable of firing a nuclear shell. Can't remember the name off the top of my head at the moment though.

Yes, but did they ever use it?

Plus you're talking about the soviets. They probably didn't really care if the mortar crew survived the blast or not.


Note that I didn't say that it was a good idea, just that there is a historical precedence. :)

__________________
{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
 
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Mil-Net Admin
Avatar
Black Lightning NE001

Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6837
Posted: 22 June 2010 at 11:09pm | IP Logged Quote Chrome

The best game of Warlord that I've ever played, I won by casting Firestorm in the middle of a melee, killing my own guys along w/my opponents. When the other guy complained and said I wouldn't do that in real life, I pointed out that I was playing Ashkrypt, a lich. What would he care about a few measly bond slaves?

__________________
-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: Online
Posts: 686
Posted: 22 June 2010 at 11:16pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

That reminds me of the game where shammond42, playing the Black Rose pirates, flamethrowered his own troops as well as the opponent's...those darn Nomad Firestarters
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Vil-hatarn
Black Lightning
Black Lightning
Avatar
Black Lightning MA013

Joined: 18 March 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 686
Posted: 27 September 2014 at 3:01am | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

Resurrecting the old thread because it's still on topic

I was just skimming Heavy Words again and was reminded of the orbital-strike-defense capability of the AA CAVs, and it got me wondering if that could or should be represented in the game. My first instinct is that it would be problematic as Strikes are the in-game counter to tricky defensive abilities like AA and ECM, but at the same time it might encourage more mixed unit composition (at least in my experience, soft-killer CAVs don't see much use, though I do have a fondness for the Ghost). And it already works against missile strikes and those seem balanced enough. Though how it would interact with artillery and air strikes could be more complex...it would also make a handful of recon models with AA (e.g. the Recluse) much harder to bring down.

Thoughts?
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: 956
Posted: 01 October 2014 at 10:44pm | IP Logged Quote Sgt Crunch

Just noodlin' here...

Allow a single free defensive fire per turn vs incoming artillery or airstrike, but not orbital (I thought
those were giant ship mounted PBGs, not projectiles, it's been a while) striking within 6" of the model.
However, there's a negative mod to the roll (-2? Half RAV?). A successful hit negates the attack.

__________________
{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: Online
Posts: 686
Posted: 02 October 2014 at 12:39am | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

I think the bombardment in Heavy Words was carried out with projectile weapons, including missiles in the case of the decisive final strike.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm having issues with the characterization of artillery vs orbital strikes as presented. Unless they're using 20th century Terran artillery, close bombardment should probably be more accurate than bombardment from orbit: it takes less time for it to reach the target, and current developments in ground-to-ground bombardment are moving towards remarkable precision (see: Navy rail gun testing). Even chemically propelled artillery should probably be more accurate than it is in the game. Would it be completely crazy to make orbital the high-powered, large area, but inaccurate set of strikes, and change artillery to be relatively precise and smaller radius?

I like the general idea on the defensive fire--basically make it function almost identically to shooting down cruise missiles. It shouldn't be blanket-resistance to strikes though...maybe it only functions against cruise missiles and orbital strikes, where there's sufficient time for it to identify and intercept the incoming projectiles?

Edited by Vil-hatarn on 02 October 2014 at 12:40am
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 
Chrome
Mil-Net Admin
Mil-Net Admin
Avatar
Black Lightning NE001

Joined: 13 July 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6837
Posted: 02 October 2014 at 9:26am | IP Logged Quote Chrome

I wouldn't limit the # of times the event could occur. That means you'd have to track it somehow and CAV has never (prior to 3e) been about tokens etc. I'd keep it
easy with something like -1 to the Strike's roll for every AA model in the AOE.

Alternately, since the Strike is coming from up above, you could treat it like Full-Flight aircraft and say every AA model on the board has LOS to the Strike, so
it's -1/AA model on the player's team. That would make the whole system a little more strategical, in that you'd have to take out your opponent's AA units before
you could use your Strikes. Then again it could be too powerful.

This is the kind of stuff that's good to add, but needs to be play tested first.

Edited by Chrome on 02 October 2014 at 9:26am


__________________
-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: Online
Posts: 686
Posted: 02 October 2014 at 12:41pm | IP Logged Quote Vil-hatarn

Huh, I like the thought of applying a penalty to the attack roll. Nice and simple, doesn't require the addition of rules for 'attacking' a strike. I suspect using all models would run into scaling problems in a larger game where you could have a large number of AA units (some of which would be ESM models which personally are my favorite target for strikes).

I'll work on throwing together a couple alternate versions of AA along with a few takes on strike pools.
Back to Top View Vil-hatarn's Profile Search for other posts by Vil-hatarn
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

<< Prev Page of 2
  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 0.1250 seconds.