Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Yes the delay is amusing considering the template must be placed to cover the most units, the rest radiating from there. Often it is quite obvious yet some try and inch it about for ages.

I personally have warmed over the year or so the idea came out to the system, though the exact to hit/no. of templates would need some work - also I would have thought the number of extra blast markers would be different for both, as dispersed can often hit two or more formations in some situations.

I think the simplist way would be to have two tables, one for converged and one for dispersed, reguardless of the mechanics, both to allow tweaking and for crystal clarity.

Further some rt units could be noted as allows firing converged and others dispersed (e.g. a single large shell from a squat WE cannon, or ill disiplined firing from a mob of orks).

_________________
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: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(The_Real_Chris @ Apr. 13 2007,23:09)
QUOTE
I think the simplist way would be to have two tables, one for converged and one for dispersed, reguardless of the mechanics, both to allow tweaking and for crystal clarity.

Further some rt units could be noted as allows firing converged and others dispersed (e.g. a single large shell from a squat WE cannon, or ill disiplined firing from a mob of orks).

Multiple tables = multiple pains in the ass  While I understand what you are trying to say, I have to respectfully disagree.  Epic:A is a simple game, let's keep it that way.

I do have to say, though, that I think your idea of restricting certain kinds of units to concentrated or dispersed barrages is fantastic!!!  Units like Manticores would be always dispersed while seige/mortar units would always be concentrated.  Brilliant!

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Hena @ Apr. 14 2007,03:12)
QUOTE
Here's the refined version of the table (pair) that I proposed earlier

Table 1. Effectiveness of BP on a single template
BPs ?? ? Ex Bms ? Firepower
1 ? ? ?? ? 0 ? ? ?? ? ? ?AP6+/AT6+
2 ? ? ? ?? 0 ?? ? ? ? ? ?AP5+/AT6+
3 ? ? ? ?? 0 ? ? ?? ? ? ?AP4+/AT5+
4-5 ? ? ??1 ? ? ? ? ?? ?AP4+/AT5+
6-8 ? ? ? 2 ? ? ?? ? ? ?AP4+/AT5+
9-12 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ?? ?AP3+/AT4+
13-16 ??3 ? ? ?? ? ? ?AP3+/AT4+
17+ ? ?? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ??AP2+/AT3+

Table 2. Dipersed barrage effectiveness per template. Extra BMs are not cumulative over multiple templates.
BP ? ? ?template*BP
4,5 ? ? 2*2
6 ? ? ? ?2*3
7 ? ? ? ?2*3
8 ? ? ? ?2*4
9 ? ? ? ?3*3 ?2*4
10 ? ? ?3*3 ?2*5
11 ? ? ?3*3 ?2*5
12 ? ? ?3*4 ?2*6
13 ? ? ?4*3 ?3*4 ?2*6
14 ? ? ?4*3 ?3*4 ?2*7
15 ? ? ?4*3 ?3*5 ?2*7
16 ? ? ?4*4 ?3*5 ?2*8
17 ? ? ?5*3 ?4*4 ?3*5 ?2*8
18+ ? 5*3 ?4*4 ?3*6 ?2*9

I wonder if 3BP should have AP4+/AT6+ and 4BP lose the 1 extra BM?

Wow!  It looks like you have put a lot of work into this.  I hate to tear apart other people's work...

Problem with your concentrated barrages table - one of the dirty little secrets about artillery is when you think that you have pounded the poop out of the other side with artillery and there is no way that anyone could have survived, the enemy proves you wrong.  I think that your table goes too far by going to a 2+, especially when you count in the +1 to hit for sustained fire.  Yes, you could have guided munitions as part of the fire mission, but to declare that everything would automatically get hit might be too much.  Just my opinion...

Your dispersed table - no offense, but I'm not really sure what I am looking at.  Huh?

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
All right, I dug out my rulebook, looked over the barrage points table, made a couple of observations, and I think I have something that might be of interest.

Assumptions / design goals

1) The proposed 3BP change in to-hits will be accepted and made standard.

2) Use as much of the existing rules as possible.

3) Strive for flexibility and simplicity.

4) Strive to avoid re-costing existing units that have BP weapons.

5) Increasing the flexibility of BP weapons by allowing them to change from how they operate currently to a more fluid structure is, in effect, a minor increase in their firepower.

Here is the current Barrage Table from the rulebook, with the semi-official change to the 3BP entry already reflected:

BP ? ? Extra Templates ? ? Extra Blast Markers ? ? AP/AT
1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 6+/6+
2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 5+/6+
3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
4-5 ? ? ? ? ? ? One ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
6-7 ? ? ? ? ? ? One ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?One ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
8-9 ? ? ? ? ? ? Two ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?One ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
10-12 ? ? ? ? Two ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Two ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
13-15 ? ? ? ? Two ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Three ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+
16-18 ? ? ? ? Two ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Four ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+

Observations:
1) Once you get beyond 3 BP everything is pretty much a 3BP template except for extra templates or extra blast markers.
2) For every level / step of the table the sum of the number of extra templates and extra blast markers increases by 1

<<< --- >>>

Assuming a set number of shots from barrage to barrage of the same BP strength, Extra Templates effectively represents the idea of spreading some of the shells fired over a larger area while extra blast markers effectively represents concentrating some of the shells in an area. ?Aside from varying the concentration of how many shells you land in a certain area there is only really one other thing an artillery officer can do to affect the performance of a fire mission: changing the warheads (and fuses) from a high explosive style warhead to other warheads, such as terminal guidance, sub-munitions, terminally guided sub-munitions, earth penetrating, chemical, biological, nuclear, or worse. ?(This is the future?) ?Since the over-riding strategic objective of most armies in Epic:A is the capture and later use of planets and their resources the nastier warheads can be assumed to not be used except for special cases. ?All of the other warheads can be abstracted into the idea that you are trying to enhance the likelihood that an individual artillery shell is going to hit an enemy in the target sheaf. ?In other words, improving accuracy to generate more kills.

So ideally we would like to represent artillery rules in a simple and concise way that will allow players to have their artillery either spread their area of effect, concentrate their fire so as to pin and degrade the target?s ability to operate, or concentrate their fire (or change warhead type) to increase the likelihood of a hit in an effort to get a kill. ?But the problem is that assuming that the time allowed to fire and the number of shells fired during a fire mission is fixed (the number of BP is fixed) there is only so much you can do. ?How do you represent that?

Allow me to present a slightly modified Barrage Table. ?There are two changes of note:

One of the changes is to split up the 6-7 BP level between the 4-5 BP level and the 8-9 BP level. ?This makes a 4-6 BP level and a 7-9 BP level. ?(You also might notice that aside from the really small barrages all of the barrage levels have their highest number divisible by 3.) ?This has the effect of reducing the number of extra templates and/or extra blast markers for the higher numbers of BP, bringing down the effectiveness of high BP levels a little. ?This is desired since the following rules that increase the flexibility of larger barrages will make them slightly more powerful. ?The hope is that this will all even out in the end.

The other change is that the Extra Templates and Extra Blast Markers columns have been summed up in a single column called Artillery Action Points. ?(If somebody has a better name for this I?m willing to listen.) ?Please see the rules following the table for what you can do with the Artillery Action Points.

BP ? ? ? ? ?AP/AT ? ? Artillery Action Points
1 ? ? ? ? ? ? 6+/6+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None
2 ? ? ? ? ? ? 5+/6+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None
3 ? ? ? ? ? ? 4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? None
4-6 ? ? ? ? ?4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? One
7-9 ? ? ? ? ?4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Two
10-12 ? ? ?4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Three
13-15 ? ? ?4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Four
16-18 ? ? ?4+/5+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Five

There are three different things you can do with the Artillery Action Points:

Disperse fire: Spending one Artillery Action Point allows you to create an extra template. ?The extra template has to be placed so that it is touching the initial template placed. ?This extra template does not have any BP associated with it, you have to reduce the number of BP that the initial template has to increase the number of BP that the new template has. ?The new template can never have more than 3 BP put into it and the initial template cannot have its number of BP reduced below 3. ?All extra templates must have 3 BP put into them before any additional templates can be added.

Concentrate fire: Spending one Artillery Action Point allows you to place an extra blast marker on a formation that is targeted by one of the templates in the attack. ?The only limitation is that you can only place one extra blast marker on a formation for each unit in that formation that is targeted by the artillery attack.

Increase accuracy: ignore this part, I have deleted the rules suggestion because it would give a quasi-sniper ability to artillery that they don't deserve.

<<< --- >>>

As part of these rules I?d like to introduce four new specialist weapon types for rules section 2.2 Specialist Weapons. ?These would be potential modifiers for weapons that list their firepower in BP. ?Note: not all BP weapons would have one or more of these modifiers, only selected ones.

Single Blast: These artillery weapons generate their area of effect by single large blasts instead of a rain of smaller shots. ?Artillery Action Points may not be used to increase the number of templates that an artillery attack makes.

Saturation Attack: These artillery weapons generate their area of effect by a rain of smaller shots instead of single large blasts. ?Artillery Action Points may not be used to place extra blast markers as part of an artillery attack.

Inaccurate: ignore this part, I have deleted the rules suggestion because it was associated with rules that would give a quasi-sniper ability to artillery that they don't deserve.

Spray Attack: These weapons may alter the way that they fire so that instead of multiple round templates area of attack they may instead opt to affect an area with a teardrop shaped template. ?Units/weapons that are capable of doing this may not combine barrage points with other units/weapons to create spray attacks; all units/weapons do this on an individual basis. ?The player wanting to do this must use one Artillery Action Point to create a second template. ?Don?t allocate BP to the second template, instead the barrage points that the weapon has are halved, rounding down, to determine what the AP/AT to-hit numbers are. ?Once this is done then any remaining artillery action points from the original number of barrage points must be spent on giving extra blast markers or generating +1 to-hit modifiers. ?Unless otherwise stated here all of the rules for flamer templates are used.

Walk Fire: These artillery weapons, which fire several times as part of a barrage attack, may start their area of effect in one location and move it as they fire instead of having to create a larger and larger area of effect. ?If the unit/weapon that is attacking spends all of its Artillery Action Points on Dispersing fire then it does not have to have all of the extra templates touching the initial template, only the first extra template has to touch the initial template. ?Any extra templates after the first one only have to touch either the initial template or one of the extra templates.

Bracket Fire: ignore this part, I have deleted the rules suggestion because it would give a quasi-sniper ability to artillery that they don't deserve.

<<< --- >>>

So, what do you think?





_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Some interesting thoughts there Blarg... not so sure about all the different firing types/orders at the end though... seems overly complex and in some cases exploitable.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Nice ideas, but too complicated for normal usage. I want to play, not thinking about a half dozen ways to use my barrage templates or barrage points.

just my thougts

Soren

_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
For a simple fix I think that the 3BP + Macro change is sufficient.


I agree, I'd be happy with just that also.  But there was a call for ideas...

On that you proposal. I think that you allow too fast new templates to be created.

Yes, you could very easily create a lot of extra templates.  But, you do that at the expense of placing extra blast markers or getting a +1 to hit on priority targets.  It depends on who you are fighting and what the situation is like.  If a giant screaming horde of Orks or Tyranids are coming you probably want a lot of templates, but if you really need to suppress a certain Space Marine detachment then the idea of placing lots of blast markers might seem rather nice.  It all depends upon situation.

Also that increased accuracy, does it then give +2 when combined with +1 from sustain? On the whole I think the effect is near my two table version above (except for the less chance to-hit).

Yes, it would give a +2 to-hit when combined with Sustained Fire.  But, it would only give that against individual targets, not everything under the template.  So if you want an extra +1 to-hit bonus against all three targets under your template then you would have to expend three of the Artillery Action Points.  Assuming you have the points.  And you don't need three extra templates.  And you don't want to place three extra blast markers.

Some of the special weapon systems though seems a nice idea. I like the Single Blast, Saturation Attack and Walk Fire ideas.

Thank you, I appreciate that!

I'm not too keen on Bracket Fire, Spray Attack or Inaccurate (Fire?).

Yeah, Bracket Fire is a bit of a stretch.  I was trying to come up with something that would replicate what field artillery forward observers do (used to do?) in Real Life.  In the days before GPS when you were a Forward Observer(FO) in the the field artillery and you are trying to hit a target you would send a single sounding shot out to the coordinates that you think are where your target is.  Once the round lands you would then tell the Fire Direction Center (FDC) to shift the next shot a certain number of meters in a certain direction.  You want to overcompensate some and have the shot land on the other side of the target, yet closer.  If you do that you have "closed the brackets."  Once that shot lands you then tell the FDC to send another shot, intending to again overcompensate yet get closer, thereby "walking in the brackets."  If you are really good and you have landed your round on / really close to the target you then stop sending single rounds in and instead tell the FDC to "Fire for effect."  That's when the whole battery opens up and lands a whole bunch on shells on your soon to be dead enemy.

By the way, if you don't overcompensate on your sounding shots and don't close the brackets you then have to start methodically getting your shots closer, "walking your fire" to your target.  In retrospect I probably should call the "Walking Fire" rule "Rolling Barrage" instead.

"Innaccurate" I see to be needed because it is the special rule that prevents you from getting a +1 to hit by blowing an Artillery Action Point.  I'd say that the Ork BP weapons would suffer from Inaccurate due to their low technology and the Eldar Night Spinner due to the nature of the weapon.

Spray Attack was intended for two reasons.  One was to represent the Real Life ability of howitzers to be able to fire giant shot-gun shells called "Beehive Rounds" that are intended to target nearby enemy infantry.  The other reason why is that it could serve as the rules basis for the various weapons that we want to have use spray attacks, but should also be able to fire normal barrage templates also.  Inferno Cannons on Imperial Titans should not only be able to fire a spray of flame like flamers in WH40K, but should be able to squirt a stream of ignited fuel into an area like the US flame thrower tanks of WW2.  What about allowing Quake Cannons to fire giant shotgun shells instead of building busters?  If you ever played Space Marine / Titan Legions you remember when Gargant Belly guns could fire different types of rounds.  While none of them were shotgun rounds, we could try to recreate that multi-fire ability with this.  If we decided to get really wacky (and maybe even realistic) we could re-do the IG Hellhounds to be able to fire barrages or spray attacks.

Just trying to make things interesting...

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Good stuff there Blarg. I was trained to call in Indirect Fire and adjust those fires. All Infantry Officers were ...  I think with GPS it may have changed a little ... But since I see Epic as a hi-tech version of WWII ... the effect should be the same.  And a Beehive round would be cool, I don't think they still use them, regardless, they'd use'm in Epic against Orks & 'Nids !       :)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Like everyone else i to have a table, yet there no point posting it whilst the discussion ambles around ideas. instead heres my key ideas.

Different units restricted to certain fire types
Like Blarg I really like this and it was conceved like all the arty stuff I think about as relavant to the basilisk/manticore conundrum. In this case basilisks would do either whilst manticore would be restricted to dispersed and so on.

2 tables
This is less for publication more for ease of comparison and testing as it is quite tricky to understand tables like henas without some referencing to the discussion. the final thing would be combined - or you go for something like Blargs which is an alternate take.

Split the key effects of barrages.
For me these are the following. Blast markers, extra templates and AT capability.
I would like to see the dispersed barrage be extra templates and good AP, poor AT. No extra blast markers, instead they come for the casualties/disrupt/whatever.
Concentrated on the other hand would be AT and extra blast markers. This is due to a concentrated volume of fire really shocking an opponent - think a MOAB being dropped - as opposed to a steady rain of shells which discourages on a similar level to loosing the same volume of men to direct fire/mortars/tank shells etc.

_________________
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: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
The old SM1 Vortex, was as close to a Tac Nuc or MOAB, as you can get !  :)

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:17 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Blarg:  Let me get this straight...

You are claiming that choosing 1 of 2 columns on a single chart creates "multiple pains in the ass" but choosing from a combo of 3 different abilities which can be used in any combination, some of which apply to the barrage as a whole, some of which apply per target formation, and some of which apply to individual targets, plus creating 4+ new specialist abilities solely for the use of artillery is straightforward?

Please explain.  To me, that's almost an entirely separate game.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


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