Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
Honda
 Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

A solution to these dilemmas might be to restrict A/c AA either to that formation it is intercepting, or the formation that is firing on it.
Thus D2 --> A2 --> D1 --> A1 --> D (target).
In this way, the LIFO rule works properly, D2 fires only at A2, A1 gets a full defensive shot against the remnants of D1, etc. This simplification also largely returns the game back to the current version which considers only one attacking and one defending formation at a time, (so A1 gets to fire at D1 before anything else happens to it), but would also allow multiple A/c formations and escorts (which I agree is sensible). (I also suspect that in practice this is actually what you have been doing in your multi-formation combats.)


I'd like to say that prior to finding out that we were playing the air rules incorrectly  :cool:  the above rules are how we managed the situation. It was probably flashbacks to E40K, but one formation on one target eliminated the shotgun approach to AA that appears to be the problem.

Neal? Thoughts?

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:08 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Ginger @ Sep. 04 2006,16:06)
QUOTE
Part of the issue as we agree is to ensure that each unit can only fire once at a given formation during the turn - markers can simplify this a bit, as can strict adherence to the LIFO principles propounded. (this is now also simplified by the proposal to limit AA in the disengagement moves)

However, the LIFO method also causes timing inconsistencies. Consider the (slightly contrived) example above (reproduced here)

D2 ---> A1 ---> D (target)
. . . . A2 ---> <--- D1

(1. ) We agree that D2 can shoot at A1 & A2 (after suffering attackers AA shots etc), possibly damaging A1, and placing at least one BM for coming under fire. When D1 attacks A1 (as well as A2), A1 now finds that it has been at least partly suppressed by D2, a formation that arrived after it ought to have completed the engagement with D1.

(2) Furthermore, the artificially static nature of the models means that aircraft can be set up to attack multiple formations that would not actually be in the same airspace so close together. In practice this 'force multiplier' can render a/c much more effective than they were intended to be.

1. Why should you assume that aircraft should fight each other in a precise gentlemanly order all the time?
What is actually happening? Commanders send more and more planes to an area... a snowball, a big whirling mass of planes and who knows what can happen.

Yes in some situations (in my experience rare) like the one you describe, some planes may engage multiple formations and in different seqences to the ones originally desired by their commander.

Sounds just like typical EA and not a problem to me.

Plus it can happen already even if you are not using extended CAP. For example if you are doing GA and CAP in an area with other planes already. Surely it makes more sense to happen in a extended CAP situation (snowball) than this latter currently legal (and more likely) example. If it can already happen in this latter case, why worry about it happening in the former?

2. Force multiplication is a principle used throughout the epic rules, it applies with supporting formations, flak and in actuality aircraft already - it is not unique to extended CAP by any means. I can't understand why people think it is such a problem here when it is not regarded as a problem elsewhere in the rules (including the air rules already).

It is up to players where they put their planes. If they put two formations in such a postiion that enemy CAP or Intercept moves can attack two formations that is a tough for them.




_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:12 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Honda @ Sep. 04 2006,19:32)
QUOTE

A solution to these dilemmas might be to restrict A/c AA either to that formation it is intercepting, or the formation that is firing on it.
Thus D2 --> A2 --> D1 --> A1 --> D (target).
In this way, the LIFO rule works properly, D2 fires only at A2, A1 gets a full defensive shot against the remnants of D1, etc. This simplification also largely returns the game back to the current version which considers only one attacking and one defending formation at a time, (so A1 gets to fire at D1 before anything else happens to it), but would also allow multiple A/c formations and escorts (which I agree is sensible). (I also suspect that in practice this is actually what you have been doing in your multi-formation combats.)


I'd like to say that prior to finding out that we were playing the air rules incorrectly ?:cool: ?the above rules are how we managed the situation. It was probably flashbacks to E40K, but one formation on one target eliminated the shotgun approach to AA that appears to be the problem.

Neal? Thoughts?

Well I'm glad our group hasn't been the only one Honda...  :cool:  Maybe it's an epic40k player thing...

On to your point. The one formation on one target approach could be used. I personally don't think it is necessary (though I would not object) because:

1. It tends to happen anway through actual game practicalities and players aircraft moves.
2. Force multiplicaton happens all the time in numerous other situations (support, flak, aircraft AA already). Therefore it seems a bit artificial and uneccessary to eliminate it just in the case of extended CAP.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:28 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
"Stacking" attacks like you describe can work but can also become quite confusing.  Even with no more than 2 aircraft formations involved in any single activation once you add in defensive AA and ground flak, the questions about the order in which things are resolved have been legion.  Clearly many people do find it to be a problem even without large stacks.

Other games with stacking effects have also encountered similar problems.  Magic:The Gathering comes to mind.  In the end they removed an entire category of cards in order to streamline their stacking process and with only 1 card/effect in play at each step, that's already inherently simpler than our situation where we have multiple potential formation "actions" affecting each aircraft formation.

That said, perhaps the description of how to resolve it that you just gave would go a long way towards explaining it.  I think it's relatively elegant.

==

Incidentally, I don't think E40K is a good precedent as the air rules for it were much more abstracted and it more easily lent itself to such things.  Personally, I preferred that kind of system but as many people have correctly objected it nearly removes teh models from the game.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Honda
 Post subject: BatRep: 1.6 Eldar vs 1.1 Marines.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Incidentally, I don't think E40K is a good precedent as the air rules for it were much more abstracted and it more easily lent itself to such things.  Personally, I preferred that kind of system but as many people have correctly objected it nearly removes teh models from the game.


I loved E40k. I liked how the game was about command decisions, not weapons. I think EA has found the happy medium between the previous versions, but I appreciated the "cleanness" of the previous set.

However, onwards and upwards we go...

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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:  


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