BM Management |
|
Dobbsy
|
Post subject: BM Management  Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
|
That's actually not a bad idea Tasty. I like it too.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:46 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Tastyfish @ 12 Dec. 2005 (21:06)) | Perhaps rather than purely across the board, or near essential upgrade have it being linked to having leaders left on the board. So as long as Dragonfish, Shas'els and 'os are there they can link to the command net and spread their leader ability around.
Still 'combined armsy', but less tied to a single unit? |
This is very IG command influence to me. I love it for that army, but that is not how the Tau work at all.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
Its a peice of kit in the new codex - Command and Control node - lets units use the 'el's or 'o's Ld for target priority. Shadowsun has a larger drone based version.
Its not something the guard really do in epic though (though I seem to generally be horribly wrong as soon as I mention currently existing rules  ), but I suppose it's something reminiscant of the 40K rules - much like our seekers being a bit different ruleswise but designed to have the same feel. I'm not totally sure I agree with you though - seeing as in epic the IG have officers everywhere, rather than just a few lending aid where needed. Suggests to me that the Crisis suits will often be hanging around other formations ready to lend a hand like they do in 40k - its part the commander issuing new orders via Battlenet, part a few suits lending a hand to a seperate detachment.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:53 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
|
|
I gotta agree with Tactica. The Tau are very Marine-like in their flexible leadership style, not tied (bound hand and foot, rather) to a rigid chain of command like the IG.
I really think that we should look at 'Tau Bonding' being a +1 to rally across the board (or better?). Otherwise, we might see some leader-sniping. I know I would snipe the Etherial if he showed up in 40k, since it would break the entire army. Tasty's suggestion has the same problem.
_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:01 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Flexible? Its everyone knows their place and all are equal regardless of rank.
They would probably have a bit of trouble if they lost their commander and had no obvious choice to take over - not so much a conflict but certainly a fall back and wait for higher ups to sort it out. Its not their place to lead or chose who leads, you might as well ask them to paint, or build a house, or rule the Empire...that sort of behaviour would be not encouraged, its dangerous
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lion in the Stars
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:23 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:01 pm
Posts: 1455
|
|
Sure, the Tau would be in trouble if that happened. So would the Marines (they don't have any 'platoon commanders' so to speak). Any military force is in trouble in that situation, up until someone says, 'I'm Petty Officer Kenny, I'm the Man In Charge in Second Level' (to use a RL USNavy example). Militaries train around that (shoot, most NCOs expect their officers to get plugged, and already have contingency plans made).
IA3's example "Contingent Shi'eldi" mentions that a Contingent is an ad-hoc organization of Hunter Cadres, under the command of the most senior Shas'el. If that's not Marine-level flexible command&control, I don't know what is. If anything, it's even more flexible than an Astartes Battle company with attachments. Each separate Cadre is fully capable of independent operations, and has no fixed organization. It could be a heavily armored tank formation supported with infantry, it could be a battlesuit formation supported with tanks, it could be a scouting formation made up of Stealth suits, Pathfinders, and Tetras.
_________________
"For the Lion and the Emperor!"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:52 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Tastyfish @ 12 Dec. 2005 (23:01)) | Flexible? Its everyone knows their place and all are equal regardless of rank.
They would probably have a bit of trouble if they lost their commander and had no obvious choice to take over - not so much a conflict but certainly a fall back and wait for higher ups to sort it out. Its not their place to lead or chose who leads, you might as well ask them to paint, or build a house, or rule the Empire...that sort of behaviour would be not encouraged, its dangerous |
Tasty,
No disrespect meant, but we can say this for most if not all armies.
However, "command radius" is the realm of the Imperial Guard in the 41st millenium.
If they don't receive this benefit in Epic, who are the Tau to have it?
I do not want to infringe on that game herritage.
Furthermore, there's a very unbelivable element of this large of a command radius. The typical commander in Epic can command an entire formation of men and vehicles. That's already a significant sphere of influence. Marines can even further command nearby formations to further their bidding.
Why would tau, a lower strategy than marines, have a larger impact on nearby elements outside of their direct sphere of influence - ie. thier own formation?
For what this one person's vote is worth, I would avoid command radius rules for the tau.
Some infantry having bonding - and effect of initiative upgrade, and shas'el's or tech with the net effect of 'leader' are definitely more in line with the Tau philosphy of war IMHO.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:55 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 12 Dec. 2005 (23:23)) | | IA3's example "Contingent Shi'eldi" mentions that a Contingent is an ad-hoc organization of Hunter Cadres, under the command of the most senior Shas'el. ?If that's not Marine-level flexible command&control, I don't know what is. ?If anything, it's even more flexible than an Astartes Battle company with attachments. ?Each separate Cadre is fully capable of independent operations, and has no fixed organization. ?It could be a heavily armored tank formation supported with infantry, it could be a battlesuit formation supported with tanks, it could be a scouting formation made up of Stealth suits, Pathfinders, and Tetras. |
Very well put. I wish I had read your post before I responded. I fully agree.
Tau are very much more independent fully functional fighting elements which will work together for a common goal and the benefits of doing so - err - for the greater good.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:36 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Why would tau, a lower strategy than marines, have a larger impact on nearby elements outside of their direct sphere of influence - ie. thier own formation?
|
Not to put more cayenne in the chili, but let's not equate lower strategy rating with an inability to plan or facilitate complex command and control. One of the fluff items that is played up in the codex a fair amount is how much training, planning, and simulation the Tau favor before taking action.
I liken those comments to the old carpenter's creed, "measure twice, cut once". In the case of the Tau, I think they measure three or four times and then cut very sharply and quickly.
I'm not convinced yet that the Tau are as ingenious when it comes to improvisation, but I do believe that they are being portrayed as looking at things differently enough to cause problems...up until the enemy strikes back.
When I think about the Tau, I also can't help thinking about WWII Japanese and their plan to conquer the Pacific Rim. Everything was going along just fine until the Americans started doing crazy stuff like launching B-25's off of carriers, prosecuting the naval war with submarines, and building more B-29's in a month than the entire Japanese heavy bomber force.
So to bring this back on topic, the Tau prosecute their plan very well, where they tend to struggle is when the crazy humans do something off the wall.
How all this information becomes relevant to the discussion at hand, I shall leave to those who are much better at translating my grand visions into game mechanics.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tastyfish
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:40 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:35 pm
Posts: 120
|
|
Fair enough, I see you point about 'game heritage' though I respectfully reserve the right to mutter quietly in the corner about Tau assuming positions they shouldn't (its not a rank - its their name and very indentity!).
Perhaps a slight modification again, rather than a radius, have it like the Aun's rule in 40K. If there are leaders anywhere - there is a bonus everywhere. Let them die and it goes?
The Tau seem to have all their officers within the battlesuit ranks anyway ('vre and above) so if you've had the Shas'els killed then unless they have actually been sniped, the formations are probably gone anyway.
Whilst it may sort of encourage leader sniping, those units are generally the hard to get and dangerous ones anyway. If you are ignoring the battlesuits then you clearly have a good reason to anyway, not to mention most armies can do it anyway with actual snipers.
As for effecting units outside of their formation, these guys already do with co-ordinated fire.
Not to mention that surely +1 ini bonding becomes essential - no rolls to 1 automatically fail when it comes to action tests, this goes beyond making the Tau more resistant to Blast Markers but makes them a lot more dangerous early on in the game. Will also boost their armour slightly as it becomes vital to chuck as many BMs on the Tau as possible at the beginning to prevent them just doing whatever they like rather than being able to focus on one or two formations like they can and will. Least marines are expensive, very small formations and do require at least a reasonable amount of fire directed at them for it to have an effect.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: BM Management Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:02 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
| Quote (Honda @ 13 Dec. 2005 (01:36)) | |
Not to put more cayenne in the chili,
|
Spice is a good thing.
but let's not equate lower strategy rating with an inability to plan or facilitate complex command and control.
|
Agreed fully - however, the facts are what they are. In E:A - marines 'do it better' when it comes to strategic planning and thinking ahead at how the battle will flow. Otherwise, we'd have the higher strategy. Afterall, we exceed the highly militaristic (and beauracratic, hostile, and greedy) Imperial Gard in Stategy, but we don't outsmart the Eldar all that often, and things like chaos marines, Adeptus Astartes, and the necron super computer toasters are just at a higher level when it comes to strategic battlefield awareness.
Although I fully agree that C&C are completely different from Strategy, there is a significant amount of grey area when equating the impact of either to the E:A battlefield.
I can have great C&C and everyone may follow my orders to the letter... but if my Strategic plan is "everyone, make like an ostrich and stick your head into the ground until the enemy runs by" ... well. C&C is irrelivent as the strategy is flawed.
OK, seriously... if my C&C is well planned, and principly followed, but my strategy is limited to the formation level focus and individual flexible fighting elements are making their own calls, that is a lack of cohesive strategy in comparison to the marines who are fighting under a single warmaster ultimately. If shas'whatever is in charge of formation and Shas'blah is in charge of formation 2, and we are both working towards the same goal (a win for the greater good), but doing it in our own way... that is a strategy, maybe not the best one, but its a stategy that appears to be fairly centric to the Tau in IA3 when we start looking at multipe force orgs or multiple formations on the field of battle. C&C is therefore impacted by that view or principle of battle strategy IMHO. The Aun is political and guiding in evolutionary concerns, but his role on the battlefield is inspirational and uplifting for a given force org in 40K or a given formation in epic, but that's the extent of his reign even. Adeptus and Imperial and chaos all have warmasters and his/her clergy, retinue, staff, administratum, etc... that are all working to strategically coordinate much much much larger fronts from a single source or office. Tau just don't work in that manner.
One of the fluff items that is played up in the codex a fair amount is how much training, planning, and simulation the Tau favor before taking action.
Agreed. Tau definitely train and plan and simulate. No question about that. They also mirror other civilizations and seem to rapidly learn from mistakes.
The BFG background is great. Tau got absolutely pummled in intergalactic warefare up until very recently. They just came out with the latest version of craft and specifically focusing mass resources and effort into creating a new navy. Not only did the Imperium wreck them without really trying, but the Tyranids absolutely ran sacked them shortly after.
Planning and practicing what you know is one thing. Ability to control your troops and follow your orders is another. Innovative development and adaptation to environment is another. The list goes on... Ability to take all these _and more_ elements of a battle into consideration and apply your guiding strategic vision to that while expecting exacting execution is another.
I liken those comments to the old carpenter's creed, "measure twice, cut once". In the case of the Tau, I think they measure three or four times and then cut very sharply and quickly.
I would agree with that basically. I think they probably do follow the creed of measure twice and strike once. They have to carefully manage their resources and fight a battle intelligently. On the other hand, I don't think the firewarriors are overthinking a situation. I think a given shas'el is coordinating his force org or formation to the best of his ability - but to that end, he's working to coordinate with other formaitons and forward scouts to the best of his ability.
I'm not convinced yet that the Tau are as ingenious when it comes to improvisation, but I do believe that they are being portrayed as looking at things differently enough to cause problems...up until the enemy strikes back.
Agreed. Clearly their technology savvy, but that seems to heavily stem from Aun influence.
They definitely have a battle montra but these are relatively basic in principle and I would dare say many forces adopt the same battle strategies. The tau seem to be very dedicated to using one or the other and their evasion and manouverability with devestating weapons but inability to stick in and fight h-t-h seem to very accurately reflect that.
When I think about the Tau, I also can't help thinking about WWII Japanese and their plan to conquer the Pacific Rim. Everything was going along just fine until the Americans started doing crazy stuff like launching B-25's off of carriers, prosecuting the naval war with submarines, and building more B-29's in a month than the entire Japanese heavy bomber force.
LOL - and we digress... I would wager that the Japanese may have had a few more problems. Germany was going nuts with expansion... Japanese needed more oil than imaginable at that time. It was simply a matter of consume or be consumed from their perspectives. Americans were essentially protecting a very nearby large oil reserve. The only way to get to that oil reserve was to take out the only military fleet capable of rapidly deploying to the oil's location. So - pow, they strike at the US. This was as calculated risk as they figured it would take X amount of time for the US to rebuild and deploy, by that time, they would have capitialized on the reserves and would have been able to deal with any counter we could give them. Unfortunately for them, we rebuilt in a 1/3 of the time - Problem 1. We also adapted and developed new tech that was considered lightning fast for the era. We also came up with a new way to launch bombers. The list goes on.
Needless to say, the American Strategy and ability to react won the day, regardless of the Japanese plans and calculated risk.
So to bring this back on topic, the Tau prosecute their plan very well, where they tend to struggle is when the crazy humans do something off the wall.
How all this information becomes relevant to the discussion at hand, I shall leave to those who are much better at translating my grand visions into game mechanics.
LOL - good stuff.
Cheers,
