Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Co-Ord Fire

 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Just thinking out loud and fishing for comments here but...

What would happen if CF was changed so that formations firing cause disrupt hits? My main reasoning behind this thought is that Tau lack any combined assault and Assault seems to me to be the defining factor for breaking and destroying formations - not shooting.

If CF was Disrupting the Tau would have a way to "assault" by placing BMs.

Would this be too OTT?

Like I said I'm just curious to see what others think about this theory...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
Quote (Dobbsy @ 17 Jan. 2006 (09:48))
Just thinking out loud and fishing for comments here but...

What would happen if CF was changed so that formations firing cause disrupt hits? My main reasoning behind this thought is that Tau lack any combined assault and Assault seems to me to be the defining factor for breaking and destroying formations - not shooting.

If CF was Disrupting the Tau would have a way to "assault" by placing BMs.

Would this be too OTT?

Like I said I'm just curious to see what others think about this theory...

I think that would be definetely overpowered. We already have Formations that Fire Disruptive Shots , allowing any other Formation without it to do the same is cheesy in my Eyes, unless , and that is very temptative , you pay for it. But I don?t see any formal argument to justify this ability to spread on whole formations for free and technically. But , if you came across it , you may have ideas to resolve this issue?

Cheers!
Steele

_________________
Quid pro Quo


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:41 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
It is a very tempting idea, since I think that the Disrupt ability would be a fairly accurate description of the results, but I agree that it may be a little too much. It would pretty much guarantee a broken enemy formation each time, with blast markers to spare in most cases.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Its logical - no question. However, (I'm hip shooting here) I'm of the mind that its probably far from balanced and not really feasible.

Disrupt is a rather powerful ability.

Having mulitple units that can call CF in the army and bring other formations that don't have CF to all have the disrupt ability from anywhere at any time - well, that gets pretty ugly quick!

If I could CF with two units to break you, then follow up with AMHC, Moray, Manta, Stingray, or somethng with a lot of shots, then I could rid the field of non-fearless formations quickly.

Thinking about it a bit more, I think it would be way OTT.

:(

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote (Tactica @ 17 Jan. 2006 (15:31))
Thinking about it a bit more, I think it would be way OTT.

If people really think CF needs more of a "kick", a possible avenue is to consider CF attacks as always causing crossfire... not that it's not relatively easy to set up potential crossfires with CF as it is.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Its an interesting discussion. This isn't the first time the 'more meat to CF' topic has come up. (heh, I'm sure you're aware of that though!)

Some think the CF is overpowered as it allows you to plow over an enemy formation if the variables are right. that's true, three formations at one can indeed break or kill an enemy formation if things go right. Even better if you can set up the crossfire with it.

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.

1) Activating 3 formations to take out 1 still puts you 2 activations behind. We all know the results of losing the activation game in E:A.

2) Wasteful use of your force: if you estimate wrong (or roll good), you can overkill the target and waste formations. In essence, you simply use 3 formations to accomplish the job of 2 or you use 2 formations to accomplish what could have been the job of 1... had you just retained the initiative instead of using CF. Now your last formation to activate as part of the CF is still moving to fire on the broken foramation, but they've moved and the crossfire is not longer effective and now you are simply moving and taking a couple long range pot shots - with no real hope of doing much (waste).

3) Waste + Stranded: Formations can become stranded. If I CF with 3 formations, and the first 2 actaully kill the target formation, per a strict reading of CF - there's no more target, therefore formation 3 simply cannot move and cannot shoot, but does count as having already activated this turn as he was announced as part of the CF!

4) Pre CF Poor Positioning: CF can require you to field your force in more of a huddled deployment than ideal or can cause you to move certain formations in an abstract manner vs. logical manner, just so they can possibly use CF later.

5) Post CF poor positioning: The more formations you activate early in the turn, the closer you typically put yourself to the enemy to set up a crossfire or simply to put your weapons in range and make use of the CF hit. Therefore, the enemy doesn't have to move as far to get to you to retaliate and they can focus shots more because they are now ahead on the activation game (see item 1 above).

IMHO, Experience has shown _me_ that CF is a situational tool at best and to be avoided unless absolutely valuable. It seems to do better for me when the enemy makes an error and isolates their forces so they can be picked off but cannot retaliate with a nearby force to gain an assault or sustain fire (example: teleport and then they lose the strategy roll). It also works well to 'lock down' a situation that's already in my favor for the win, but I don't want to risk not killing enough enemy or having to retain to kill enough enemy after my SC is already dead - so I want 2-3 formations to activate together with a single init roll. Very situational as end game is usually objective grab too.

To me, CF is not a practice to follow as a game plan for the above reasons. Its not even something I use every game. In fact, I use it in the minority of the games I play. I'm sure this is a composite perspective of variables including my army comp, deployment, terrain, opponent, and perception of tactics overall as well as other factors.

Now, if there was a reasonable approach to adding some value to the tactic without taking it over the top, I'd be of the mind to give it some playtest.

Example: all formations receiving a crossfire bonus to the enemy target of formations involved in a crossfire might be too strong.

I'd be willing to say that all formations beyond the first in a given crossfire action automatically receive the crossfire bonus against the target formation without having to set up the crossfire line and 45cm range requirements normally needed.

Something like this would encourage its use, but would only yield a benefit to the second and beyond formations. The -1 to armor and extra blast marker may be just what the CF action needs to get me to use it a bit more. I would give that a go if deemed worthy of testing by the masses. It would give us something to relate to the hail of pin-point accurate fire by the tau without implimenting disrupt or blanket bonus' for all involved in the CF.

Cheers.

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Quote (Tactica @ 17 Jan. 2006 (19:50))
I'd be willing to say that all formations beyond the first in a given co-ordinated (edit) action automatically receive the crossfire bonus against the target formation without having to set up the crossfire line and 45cm range requirements normally needed.

Something like this would encourage its use, but would only yield a benefit to the second and beyond formations. The -1 to armor and extra blast marker may be just what the CF action needs to get me to use it a bit more. I would give that a go if deemed worthy of testing by the masses. It would give us something to relate to the hail of pin-point accurate fire by the tau without implimenting disrupt or blanket bonus' for all involved in the CF.

I think I like this. ?Of course it'll need mucho playtesting.

For me, I really like CF, but rarely use it. ?When I use it, I tend to see it, and definitely saw how it should tend to be used in my games with Dobbsy, as a 1-2 punch, only using two formations to attack instead of three. ?That certainly lessens the impact on activations a little and prevents wasted firepower.

With the firepower, at range, that most Tau formations can put out, it seems "two is enough" for most attack, at least against medium and small sized emeny formations... against Orks, that's a whole other story! ?*laugh* ?I look forward to trying this out.





_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

If you get the opportunity to give it a go, definitely let us know how it works out.

I'll throw it out there to my group as well as we've all kinda steered away from CF some time ago. May give us some new spirit into trying the tactic.

Hopefully others and CS will give us some insite as to what they think about this, well - I suppose its a proposition for CF modification.  :alien:

_________________
Rob


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:04 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
While my experience is not as negative as Tactica's, I agree that CF is a tactic of opportunity and not something to build a force around.

Personally, I think the "but the other guy ends up with more activations" argument is a red herring.  There are 2 points to an activation advantage - reacting to the enemy and stacking up a "mega-action."

I've been on the receiving end of way too many Eldar triple activations to think that pushing your force as far as possible into an IGOUGO situation isn't potentially devastating.  Choosing between taking a pre-emptive strike mega-activation or going second with better ability to react is hardly a clear choice.  It just depends on how effectively the army can make that first shot.

With most armies, I think it's worth it.  Take the shot.  Cripple them before the counterattack.

But not necessarily with Tau.

I think the issue is how it fits with the way the army plays.  I've found so far that the best tactic seems to be "Hold... Hold... Smack that one!... Hold... Smack it again!..."  Using CF tends to pull a big chunk out of the army formation if you're not careful, which works against a patience game.

It seems they play (for me) much more like bullfight where you are coaxing the enemy to come to you while you slowly pick at them waiting for an opening.  CF is just a way to take advantage of that opening - useful, but you really already did the hard work.

====

On the other hand, if the Tau did find themselves in an in-your-face situation where both sides were going "retain, retain, retain - Kill! Kill! Kill" CF would be extraordinarily useful.

That always seems to be where my Orks find themselves... :p

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
So tactica how do you rate other armies combined assault?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
Perhaps if each subsiquent (SP?) attack lays an additional blast marker, as so:

Declare CF with 3 Formations:
1st Formation attacks target, lays 1 BM for coming under fire +BMs for Kills (Or Disrupt hits)
2nd Formation attacks target, lays 1 BM for coming under fire, +1 for being part of a CF, +BMs for Kills (Or Disrupt hits)
3rd Formation attacks target, lays 1 BM for coming under fire, +1 for being part of a CF, +BMs for Kills (Or Disrupt hits)

Thats 5 BMs before any hits/kills are counted.

I was working up the moxie to propose that a CF be able to call an airstrike from ONE off-board Air Unit, in place of one of the ground units, basicly giving it ground attack orders.  The differences in how Air units activate with BMs may need some working, however.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
If disrupt is added,what happens if the CoF goes on an already broken formation it would be way too powerful for getting rid of already broken formations especially RA units .

It already seems powerful enough as it is,especially in turns 2 onwards when armies have closed up.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:38 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Quote (Tactica @ 17 Jan. 2006 (19:50))
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.

In general, I agre with this. However, I also dont necessarily feel that the core aspect of Co-Ord Fire needs changing. 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.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
I was working up the moxie to propose that a CF be able to call an airstrike from ONE off-board Air Unit, in place of one of the ground units, basicly giving it ground attack orders.  The differences in how Air units activate with BMs may need some working, however.

While this idea does have a nice concept it would need to be very carefully worked in.  As it stands with Crisis now at 1+ initiative CF is easier to pull off (as the Crisis with Shas'o/el can lead it with better initiative, both from the 1+ start and the lesser BMs due the the leader).  So it would be rather nice to "tag on" a BM laden aircraft formation to a CF led by BM-less Crisis formations to activate those planes on a 1+.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Co-Ord Fire
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
I would put myself between Tac and Neal on this.

I don't use it that often as so far, most of my situations where I could have used it would have hurt me later on in the turn. So it's a finesse tool, that only has applications in certain situations, primarily later in the turn assuming you have a basically equal number of activations.

However, I do see the value of the internal "retain" initiative aspect.

What would ?encourage me to try using this more was HecklerMD's proposal of getting a +1 BM for each formation in the CF. I think this is a very good way of adding to the teeth of the action without making it OTT. Getting the cross-fire bonus seems like we are stretching the rules for our sake, "Yeah, we get the cross fire bonus without having to cross fire if we use more than one formation". Just doesn't sound right to me.

Also, I was thinking that we might want to limit CF to two formations, but I think Real Life ™ circumstances already self-regulate the overuse of three formations. That means, most people are probably going to start using two formations as the base and only in extraordinary circumstances, use three.

As I will be fighting Orks this weekend, if we can agree on this, I'd be willing to give it a shot as well.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net