Tactical Command | View topic

Page 2 of 2

[ 29 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Co-Ord Fire

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:19 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

I'm fascinated why people see it as underpowered. I use combined assualt quite a bit and this is just as good, especially with all the disrupt weapons I can get my hands on. Something I miss to try is a lander followed by the disembarked infantry chewing into whatevers near them on sustained. All sorts of things are possible. For those that think it is underpowered what is your views on combined assualts?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

Jaldon

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:30 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am
Posts: 720
Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.

I have to agree with Chris, in execution a CF is really no different then a Combined Assault. How many Combined Assaults do you pull off on a regular basis with any other army?

I admit that in my battles I only average one CF per, but sometimes will get in two, and even more rarely three. Personnaly I like to set it up so I can CF anywhere on the battlefield 'as needed' as it keeps my opponent on his toes, alone this can be an advantage.

As for the activation curve, the same can be said of Combined Assaults, or retaining. In all cases the situation at the moment of the CF/Assault is the key to whether it is 'worth it' or not.

For example, if my CF/Combined Assault is going to remove an unactivated enemy formation from the loop then I have lost nothing. If the same assault removes an unactivated formation from the loop and forces another enemy formation to reposition then I am ahead.

The battlefield situation is what determines its effectiveness, not rules.

well that's my two cents anyways............

Jaldon

_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:16 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Quote (CyberShadow @ 18 Jan. 2006 (11:38))

I happen to be in the camp where we think CF is a sort of red herring bonus to the tau... i.e. is a bonus with many negatives. The tactical problems are layered with CF IMHO.

It may be best as a situational piece, or a party trick, and it may have various pay-offs, but this is what makes it interesting. The challenge in setting this up, and the buzz of seeing it work are one of the things about the Tau in EA. Make it too easy and it dominates, make it too tough and no-one uses. While I agree that some kind of disrupt/crossfire bonus is in character, I dont think that this is currently a necessary change to the mechanics as they are.

Given these statements I find it interesting that no one seems to see the imbalance in the Tau list vs established lists. Each established list so far generally has "heavy hitter" abilities - one or more things they do extremely well in combination with their special rules that is capable of breaking/obliterating a formation. I've put together a list of Pros and Cons

All heavy hitting things in italics...

Eldar ?
Pros - excellent assault ability with movement rate consolidation, Hit and Run, combined assault, good access to inspiring characters, Long range, strong firepower(to hit rolls), good artillery and all with double retain, good initiative and excellent blast marker removal, excellent air power, good strategy, good initiative and all-too cheap formation costs ?(given all the special abilities/capabilties vs the high number of hard formations they can muster IMO)

Cons - small formation sizes in general, average armour saves

Marines
Pros -Air Assault, excellent assault ability with TSKNF and combined assault, good access to inspiring characters, good firepower and artillery, excellent BM removal, high initiative, high strategy, excellent saves across the list

Cons - small formation sizes, short ranges, over priced formation costs:size ratio (IMO), no TKs

Orks
Pros - excellent assault abilties, Waaagh, huge numbers, combined assault, plenty of MW with long range TKs, decent-weak firepower, unrivalled large-formation air power, cheap formation costs:size ratio

Cons - average initiative, average strategy, average armour saves

Imperial Guard - excellent artillery, combined assault, large numbers of inspiring characters, long range, long range MW TK, strong firepower, reinforced armour, large numbers, good initiative, ?cheap formation costs:size ratio

Cons - low strategy, average assault

in comparison

Tau(pure form)
Pros - long range, co-ord fire
(which by the above statements isn't a game winner),
strong firepower, good air power
(but you don't win games with airpower - especially given the weak saves and small numbers/high cost of airpower vs cheap heavy AA),
marker lights, good initiative

Cons - no artillery, weak assault, average strategy, no combined assault, restricted access to inspiring characters, expensive formations costs:size ratio
(I say this because to get any decent size in a formation you pay a high price)

So, what I guess I'm trying to say here is that the Tau list (while fairly solid after 4.3.3) is still lacking a decent heavy hitter. Granted lots of shooting can break small formations, but in general I find it's all about the Assault Meta Game in Epic. If you get your forces into an assault you generally will win if you've prepped them with BMs like you should. Whereas, if you only shoot all you do is hope to destroy as many units as you can to put BMs and get a lucky break.

This is why I proposed an adjustment to CF as some other form of breaking a formation is needed if the Tau are to really trouble opposing forces (to break a formation with shooting is so much harder than assaulting) and seeing as CF uses up the all-precious activations it's no real supplement for a combined assault capability. This leaves the Tau weaker than the established lists IMO.

BTW, I'm not saying Tau can't win games - far from it - it's just more difficult to do so given the restriction they have compared to the others.

Top

Steele

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:47 am

Brood Brother

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

@Dobbsy,
while your analysis is correct , I still see no need for an heavy hitter in the Tau List. We have all the tools to counter any threat posed by any Army , you just have to use them at the right moment. Fielding a "Heavy Hitter" , IMHO, sounds like a no brainer , like IG Arty Co. , to demoralize opposition. BTW, I would gladly accept your proposed changes , like the one in the starting post, but I can?t see the need.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:32 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 19 Jan. 2006 (03:19))

For those that think it is underpowered what is your views on combined assualts?

One advantage coordinated fire has over combined assaults is that it's got a 15cm activation range as opposed to a mere 5cm one. So setting up for a combined assault leaves you very vulnerable to a co-mingled pre-emptive strike while, even with scout units Tau can keep their formations supporting each other but not as vulnerable.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:43 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Quote (Steele @ 19 Jan. 2006 (09:47))

We have all the tools to counter any threat posed by any Army , you just have to use them at the right moment. Fielding a "Heavy Hitter" , IMHO, sounds like a no brainer , like IG Arty Co. , to demoralize opposition.

Hmmm, I dunno, maybe you're right Steele. Only thing is, why should the Tau list be any different to the other armies? Other than just for the sake of being different. It should have a balance afterall. ?If they win a good number of their games then by all means let's carry on with what we've got, but I'm betting quite a bit less than 50% of Tau games get won vs players with equal game experience, simply because they lose the assault meta game the majority of the time.

I'd be interested to know how many Tau players lose a sizable chunk of their forces in assaults and are unable to come back from it over the course of the rest of those games i.e losing the battle of activation attrition.

One advantage coordinated fire has over combined assaults is that it's got a 15cm activation range as opposed to a mere 5cm one. ?So setting up for a combined assault leaves you very vulnerable to a co-mingled pre-emptive strike while, even with scout units Tau can keep their formations supporting each other but not as vulnerable

Yeah fair enough Chroma, but how effectively can you use it after turn 1-2?? I think the other guys' posts about it not being so great are fairly valid. Also, I can't see Tau being able to mount a decent assault counter attack...

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:21 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

I feel I have to point out that to get a decent fomation in the guard it costs as well (650 points).

The Tau have flexibility and every base covered as well as higher than average firepower. Want garrisson units? Have a human infantry company (cheaper than equivalent). Want tank formation, its here and you can build it for anything. Want flak - you can field more flak than any other army. You have teleporters, air assualters, guided missiles. Theres a lot there. Sure there nothing like a Leman Russ formation for 900 points that consists of 13 tanks and a Hydra - but what formation can you build with the list for 900 points?

Top

Steele

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:23 pm

Brood Brother

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

Quote (Dobbsy @ 19 Jan. 2006 (14:43))

Quote (Steele @ 19 Jan. 2006 (09:47))

In all my Games with Tau so far , I tried to avoid assault whenever possible , and when predictable , either by enemy positioning or knowing of offboard troops , I preset formations to minimize losses. Granted I don?t win every assault or even every Game , but still - Assault are my minor concern. The only real threat that I fear most are lots of Artillery Companies or Air Assault with Landing Crafts/T-Hawks that Land/shoots in the first Turn where deployment is crucial. Hindering me in the right movement of my own troops.

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo

Top

Tactica

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:25 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241

Quote (Dobbsy @ 19 Jan. 2006 (01:16))

So, what I guess I'm trying to say here is that the Tau list (while fairly solid after 4.3.3) is still lacking a decent heavy hitter. Granted lots of shooting can break small formations, but in general I find it's all about the Assault Meta Game in Epic. If you get your forces into an assault you generally will win if you've prepped them with BMs like you should. Whereas, if you only shoot all you do is hope to destroy as many units as you can to put BMs and get a lucky break.

This is why I proposed an adjustment to CF as some other form of breaking a formation is needed if the Tau are to really trouble opposing forces (to break a formation with shooting is so much harder than assaulting) and seeing as CF uses up the all-precious activations it's no real supplement for a combined assault capability. This leaves the Tau weaker than the established lists IMO.

BTW, I'm not saying Tau can't win games - far from it - it's just more difficult to do so given the restriction they have compared to the others.

@Dobbsy,

Its an interesting observation of the various established lists.

I do think we have some valuable formations, but exceptional areas as by your comparisons - I'll have to think about a bit more.

...

In 40K (a reference point, not a rule) Tau are feared for their use of technology and battlefield shooting tatics... number quality weaponry technology such as S5 shots and better non-overheating plasma, Smart Missles that do not need LOS to fire, Guided missles from any markerlight in the game, compared to the average of toughness of 3-4 toughness in the game, the fact that infantry crisis and stealths evade without penalty (modified E:A hit and run equivilent), crisis & broadside infantry which have tech that allows them to fire multiple weapons in a turn accurately without penalty where other infantry can only fire a single weapon per turn, unmatched mobile S10 rail weaponry at ranges that are unmatched both from skimming armor and from aircraft, lots of tau tech to make targetting better mess with enemy ranges and afford us the best night vision in the game, entire deep strike + evading army capability, entire mechanized army capability.... and tau marker lights are fired like guns that can be used by any weapon in the game to gain a 2+ to hit instead of the normal chance to hit - not just missles.

Its curious to see how much of that does move over to E:A and how much doesn't due to the abstract representation of some of these abilities in E:A. Its also interesting to see how much new stuff we have in E:A that we don't in 40K (planetfall, moray, stingray, scorpionfish, new missle types, etc)

...

It will be interesting to see other responses to your post Dobbsy.

I wish somebody had access to the new Tau codex too - I just know there's going to be a lot of info in there!

Cheers,

Rob

_________________
Rob

Top

Jaldon

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:36 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am
Posts: 720
Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year.

An army is defined as much by its strengths as it is its weaknesses, maybe even more so

This is as close as I can get to a statement JJ made long ago at the start of the Epic-A project.

The question shouldn't be "Other armies can do it so why can't this army?" (So lets fix it so it can)

It should be...........

"Is not being able to do it part of the army's character, and can the army work around it well enough and still win?"

IMHO the answer to the second question is, Yes.

Jaldon

_________________
Brave sir Robin, when danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled, Brave sir Robin.

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:52 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

Quote (Dobbsy @ 19 Jan. 2006 (13:43))

Yeah fair enough Chroma

Hey Dobbsy, I've tried emailing you but I'm getting a "Still on vacation" auto-response... where are you hiding?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

Dobbsy

Post subject: Co-Ord Fire

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:59 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia

The question shouldn't be "Other armies can do it so why can't this army?" (So lets fix it so it can)

It should be...........

"Is not being able to do it part of the army's character, and can the army work around it well enough and still win?"

Too true Jaldon. I agree with the second statement for sure, but what I'm aiming at is not that we need to have the exact same thing (like the first statement), but a balance, that seems to be lacking when you remove a staple game ability from an army list i.e weaken it's ability in assaults etc. etc. and don't replace it with some other way of dealing the same or similar destruction on the enemy forces. I'm all for the Tau's character being weak in assault - I'm just not keen on the lack of a solid replacement for it.

Hey Dobbsy, I've tried emailing you but I'm getting a "Still on vacation" auto-response... where are you hiding?

Oops! I'm still on vacation and that's my work addy :cool:

I'll check it now though. But I'll be back Tuesday if worse comes to worse.

I feel I have to point out that to get a decent fomation in the guard it costs as well (650 points).

The Tau have flexibility and every base covered as well as higher than average firepower. Want garrisson units? Have a human infantry company (cheaper than equivalent). Want tank formation, its here and you can build it for anything. Want flak - you can field more flak than any other army. You have teleporters, air assualters, guided missiles. Theres a lot there. Sure there nothing like a Leman Russ formation for 900 points that consists of 13 tanks and a Hydra - but what formation can you build with the list for 900 points?

Granted Chris, Tau get a lot. You'll get no argument from me on that point but like I've always been told, "Jack of all trades - Master of none."
On your question of building for 900 points - nothing as far as I'm aware. Which for me kinda segues into your other remark...
Your 13 tank formation with reo' is a hell of a lot harder to break than an 8 vehicle Hammerhead formation with no reo' wouldn't you say? Now, assaulting it would be the option of choice to break/destroy it... shooting it would be a distant second best choice as it takes so much to break that formation, and this is my main focus of this thread. The Tau can't do that unless they throw 2-3 formations at it with CF which forces them to give up precious activations.

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Co-Ord Fire

Who is online