![]() ![]() |
Page 4 of 7 |
[ 102 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
JimmyGrill |
|
|||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 pm Posts: 61 |
|
|||||
Top | |
|||||
![]() |
Legion 4 |
|
|||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36989 Location: Ohio - USA |
|
|||||
Top | |
|||||
![]() |
The_Real_Chris |
|
|||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
This assumes that there is a linear progression on the effect of air on a game and that all air abilities are able to be correctly costed against all armies. Factors such as range have a big importance here. Against most Orks flak (integral to fighting units) a 60cm stand off weapon cannot be replied to. You are 45cm or so out of range (flak tending to be in the centre of formations) and flak has a whole slew of other problems which I?ll address below. Further aircraft that are scared of flak have a disproportionate effect in low point games where countermeasures are low. In high point games it requires a lot of effort to clear enough flak for them to safely operate (assuming they need to close the range). The air rules are a bolt on to the game and don?t fit seamlessly. Look even at the rules in relation to themselves. Interceptors with 30cm+ weapons completely ignore defensive bomber flak from most angles and at 45cm and above ignore all defensive air flak on existing fighters. There are too many ways air can avoid/negate the threats against it if the stats get to high. How do you point such things, especially when a abnormally high flak army can bring it down? Of course such armies would become the norm and there goes the variety we currently see. Air that can avoid flak for instance - how to point that? Hmm... just move the flak after it enters the board or use CAP. |
Tiny-Tim |
|
||||||
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire |
|
||||||
Top | |
||||||
![]() |
The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
Top | |
||||
![]() |
Tiny-Tim |
|
||||
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire |
|
||||
Top | |
||||
![]() |
nealhunt |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
That's all fine and dandy in the real world. I agree whole-heartedly that is how it works. The problem is that this is a game, restricted by game mechanics, which in this case don't deal particularly well with air cover. This is basically much the same problem as with the all-WE lists (AMTL and OGBM). The rules for those kinds of units are auxiliary to the primary mechanics and significant deviations from the original design assumptions are likely to cause balance problems that simply can't be resolved. A few WEs or modest air support does not cause problems because an army can divert a relatively modest amount of resources to anti- tactics. Mass-WE and significant air cover requires a radically different army composition in order to remain competitive. That is a bad thing for the balance (and variety) of a tournament environment. _________________ Neal |
Legion 4 |
|
|||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm Posts: 36989 Location: Ohio - USA |
|
|||||
Top | |
|||||
![]() |
Tiny-Tim |
|
||||||
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire |
|
||||||
Top | |
||||||
![]() |
Tiny-Tim |
|
||||
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:32 pm Posts: 4893 Location: North Yorkshire |
|
||||
Top | |
||||
![]() |
The_Real_Chris |
|
||||
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London |
|
||||
Top | |
||||
![]() |
nealhunt |
|
||||||
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA |
|
||||||
Top | |
||||||
![]() |
Jaldon |
|
||||
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 6:38 am Posts: 720 Location: Utah, pick a Pacific Island the other half of the year. |
|
||||
Top | |
||||
![]() |
Tas |
|
|||||
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:01 am Posts: 7823 Location: Sydney, NSW |
While I agree that there is an issue with this, remember that the LAST thing ANY commander wants to do is an opposed air landing, or amphibious assult for that matter. The defender has all the advantages and even a small amount of damage or a lucky hit to a troop transport in flight (or at sea beyond the surf zone) is going to have disproportionate causualties. D-Day style assaults are a thing of the past - nobody can afford the losses in men or materiel anymore. Especially when you can land 20miles away then meet them without that vulnerability. So how does this get back to Epic? In a larger game, that means the player should guess the relative amount o flak going to be present and use his lander smartly somewhere on the flank where th AAA will be minimised, or not take it at all. It is a vulnerability of the platform that the player needs to incorporate into his tactics _________________ Tas My General blog: http://tasmancave.blogspot.com/ My VSF Blog: http://pauljamesog.blogspot.com/ My ECW Blog: http://declaresir.blogspot.com/ |
Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
![]() ![]() |
Page 4 of 7 |
[ 102 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
Who is online |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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 |