| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
| Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 15 Dec. 2005 (12:42)) | The thing about LOS-blocking terrain is it impacts every weapon's swept area beyond the terrain by the same percentage. ?Weapon effectiveness is almost certainly not simply a square function (have to ask the Steves at ADB what variables they consider for weapons BPV), but it's close.
Some ships (like the Kzinti, with their numerous close-range weapons [I'm speaking rather generically here, so I don't lose the folks that have never played SFB]) actually 'increase' in point value rather dramatically (like 40+%!) once you get inside their PD envelope (we'd call it FF range in E:A). ?The basic assumption is that any competent opponent will (try to) stay out of FF range of units that are 'disproportionally' powerful in FF, and the point values are computed based on an assumed 'typical' engagement range. ?This works out to be just outside the move+engage range (to use the E:A description) of the unit in question.
I disagree with the assertation that ranges over 60-75cm are not important, but they are more dramatically impacted by blocking terrain. ?Remember the complaints about popping-up Vultures with Hellstrikes? ?That obviously shows that range matters greatly without LOS restrictions, but is heavily impacted with limits on swept area.
I, too am not a fan of the cult of the powerfist (too much time playing Tau, probably, aided and abetted with RL experience).
I believe that FF attacks should be costed as a ranged weapon (they are ranged, after all, even if it is only 15ish cm (modified some by base size!))
I'm not sure how to handle CC attacks, though.
[edit: ?fixed Blarg's quote for readabililty] |
I'd be interested in what the Steves at ADB have to say about the variables they use for costing weapons on SFB ships. ?The very first wargame I played (except for the Milton Bradly stuff) was SFB back when it first converted over from "Designers Edition" over to "Captains(?) Edition." ?Seeing the rules laid out as they were, and then all of the addenda and errata that came out (which I kept up with religiously), was quite a learning experience in how the interaction of rules are important.
One of the problems with citing the Kzinti ships (or any non-option mount SFB ships) is that the weapons suites are fixed, and because of that you can easily account for the tactics in the point costs. ?(Granted, there is some flexibility in the drone launchers and what type/speed/warhead they will have, but that can be assumed based upon what refit you are talking about.) ?With the Imperial titans and the ability to pick your weapons those assumptions go right out the door. ?That's the reason why with my formula I tried to incorporate the three basic variables that a titan weapon has: Range ?, Rate Of Fire (ROF), and Probability to Hit (PTH) and make sure that all of the weapons are equal (+/- 10%) to each other.
One of the inherent, basic assumptions about trying to do a system for mathematically evaluating titan weapon is that both players are sufficiently competant to play the game well, equally competant compared to each other, and that they will try to use maneuver to the best of their abilities. ?The one advantage that Imperial titans have compared to other titans (to make up for their advantages) is that they can mount any of a number of different weapons, compared to the other races where their weapons selection tends to be more predictable. ?If E:A were as tightly balanced and controlled as SFB this would be a problem for balance, but since E:A is only moderately detailed (at best) then I don't think the abiguity is that much of a problem.
I disagree with the assertation that ranges over 60-75cm are not important, but they are more dramatically impacted by blocking terrain. ?Remember the complaints about popping-up Vultures with Hellstrikes? ?That obviously shows that range matters greatly without LOS restrictions, but is heavily impacted with limits on swept area. |
I completely agree with you, with one caveat: Terrain density (square inches of LOS blocking terrain per square foot of table space) over the area of the board is what heavily impacts swept area. ?Assuming that there is an even distribution of terrain over the playing area then the higher the terrain density the more of an impact it will have on weapon ranges. ?If you have a lower terrain density with an uneven distribution over the board then the impact will be situation dependent, with smarter players making the impact negligible.
I handle FF attacks as 15cm ranged attacks, pure and simple. ?It's probably wrong, but I haven't had a chance to playtest the FF weapons too much. ?I used to handle CC weapons as 7.5cm weapons also, but I wanted to keep the numbers simple so I made the ranges expressed as a multiple of 15cm. ?This made the math for CC weapons screwy because it doubled the ROF since PTH is fixed by the titan. ?Another problem with CC and FF weapons is that the combat resolution for CC and FF weapons is not the same as regular weapons. ?Regardless, though, CC and FF weapons are pretty much the same as normal weapons: They have an ROF based upon the number of attacks, they have a PTH based upon the CC and FF stat of the chassis, and their range are all fixed as per the rules.
Corvus Assault Pod - The P.165 stats list it as being able to carry 8 marine assault stands (harkening back to when it was listed as carrying a detachment of Terminators) and no FF attacks. ?Since this is going to be for the AMTL, say that it can carry 8 infantry, whatever they may be. ?There is no clean way to say to prove it, so the only thing to do is assume on faith that the original stats were equal to the average of all of the other weapons. ?Excluding CC weapons, the average Firepower Potential of the p.165 weapons was around 6. ?By my calculations, adding the 4 FF attacks brings the Firepower Potential up to 8, which is the target set by the current (post Jervis boost) Gatling Blaster standard. ?As far as I'm concerned the CAP as presented is just fine, pending playtest.
Any of the non-standard weapons, such as the Corvus Assault Pod, the Carapace Landing Pad, the Fire Control Pad, etc. are going to have to be swagged and ironed out via playtest. ?I dare say that given the cumulative experiance around here this should not be that hard to do. ?Somewhat...
Cult Of The Powerfist - The idea that you are going to send a highly technical (or highly trained) piece of walking equipment (or space marine) half-way across the galaxy just so they can waltz up to some alien/traitor/heretic/guy with bad breath and smash him with a fist is pretty damn silly. ?The only reason why a CC weapon should be issued is because of expected terrain or enemy, not because it is standard operating procedure. ?The farther away that you are killing Mr. Bad Guy, the less chance you are giving him to kill you. ?Assault Marines on the open battlefield?!? ?Ha! ?If you see a CC troop/titan outside of a city or suburbia then he deserves to have a shot placed between the eyeballs.
_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...
|
