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

Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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


Ah I thought it was against everyone. But in this case I'd be against it. Barrage wasn't supposed to be about sniping important targets. And this is exactly that.

"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.

This is the problematic bit as I don't see that a barrage is accurate or inaccurate. It's just a mass of blasts in to an area. And effect depends on the amount of fire concentrated into area (eg. higher BP amount per template).

Don't let the simplistic abstraction of how artillery is handled by Epic make you think that artillery is only about lobbing a pile of shells into an area and hoping for the best.  If this were WW1, WW2 or the Korean War then that would be the case.  Even with the Imperium in a bit of a technological dark age, I'd dare say that they would still have the ability to produce more advanced munitions than the basic high explosive with contact fuse shells.  If you assume that the Imperial Guard (never mind the Space Marines or any other races) has field artillery that is comparable technologically with our modern day artillery then you are going to see the ability to snipe inherent to their abilities.  Radar activated airburst fuses have been around for at least 40 years, laser guided tube launched anti-tank missiles (Copperheads) have been around for about 25 to 30 years, top attack self forging warheads with heat seekers have been possible for about 20 years, GPS guided rockets (GMLRS) have been going in Iraq for the last year and GPS guided artillery shells (Excaliber rounds) are on the verge of being released.

In other words, yes, artillery can be all about sniping.

Example: When I was in US Army ROTC I was at Ft. Lewis for advanced camp in 1991.  (I should have gone to Ft. Knox, but Desert Storm screwed that up for everybody.)  On Field Artillery day when me and another guy from my platoon were doing the call for fire exercise we were talking with a couple of artillery officers about firing artillery onto a range.  They mentioned that their idea of fun while doing training was to find a deer that had wandered onto the range and drop a fragmentation warhead near the deer to kill it.  Then once enough vultures had come to feast on the carcass they would airburst a white phosphorous round over the group just to watch the vultures burn.  Yes, wasting an expensive airburst fuse on vultures was against regulations, but they thought it was worth the risk in the name of fun.  Good times!

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.

Indirect Fire already assumes forward observers (see the Indirect Fire description in the barrage table).

I'm well aware of that.  I was trying to give you a perspective on how FO do their job and where I had come up with Bracket Fire.

Spray Attack was intended for two reasons.

I don't disagree with the idea of allowing some barrage weapons to fire teardrop template instead of normal barrage. But I do think that dual mode weapon with 'OR' works better than making a new special rule for the effect.

True, that can be done.  But I think part of the reason why the Specialist Abilities were made was so that special rules that were common to some units could be printed once and then all you have to do is put a reference word / phrase to indicate the rules.  I figured it would beasier to do that than to go back and modify several units.

_________________
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  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
On the topic of Forward Observers: I would actually like to see the Indirect rule only be allowed to be used if you have another formation that can draw line of sight to the target.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Evil and Chaos @ Apr. 16 2007,09:44)
QUOTE
On the topic of Forward Observers: I would actually like to see the Indirect rule only be allowed to be used if you have another formation that can draw line of sight to the target.

Yeah, I somewhat agree, but I have to agree with the inherent assumption behind not needing LOS.

It used to be that you needed FO in Space Marine / Titan Legions.  Considering the higher level of abstraction in Epic:A compared to SM/TL I can understand why FO are not in the game.  But since the movement rules are different also, with higher speeds allowed, I think the probability of having a formation being out of sight of the enemy in Epic:A is pretty slim.

_________________
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  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(nealhunt @ Apr. 16 2007,09:17)
QUOTE
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,

Sorry I missed this earlier, I didn't mean to blow you off.

Yeah, lots of tables stink.  We should keep tables to a minimum, and keep them simple.  That was the main aim behind the slightly revised table I posted.

The table from the rulebook pretty much evenly spreads the addition of extra templates and the placing of extra blast markers.  It's nice, but you don't get any flexibility from your artillery.  If you were to completely ignore the +1 to hit option and the extra specialist abilities I have proposed there are only two differences between my barrage table and the barrage table in the book: a tweek in the structure of the table with a change in the distribution of BP, and the ability to select how you many templates -vs- blast markers you put on the table.  If you were to keep the 3BP change, the MW hitting on AP, my table and the ability to select number of extra templates and extra blast markers you would have a pretty decent set of artillery rules.

Everything else beyond that is simply extra options, abilities, and restrictions to add a little more flavor to the different races and weapons.  Don't like them?  Fine, ignore them.  But if you want the artillery to be more flexible and interesting then I suggest you playtest my rules and see how they go.

_________________
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  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
They mentioned that their idea of fun while doing training was to find a deer that had wandered onto the range and drop a fragmentation warhead near the deer to kill it. ?Then once enough vultures had come to feast on the carcass they would airburst a white phosphorous round over the group just to watch the vultures burn. ?Yes, wasting an expensive airburst fuse on vultures was against regulations, but they thought it was worth the risk in the name of fun. ?Good times!


I was a 13F FO for awhile before I switched to Intel. ?During my AIT at Ft. Sill a fella from the class before me called in fire on a herd of Elk. ?The instructors didn't realize it until it was too late. ?They were not amused and the guy was booted from the program (I think they made him a gun bunny).

Back OT, I like the idea of different options for artillery fire. ?Being able to split the templates seems like it could work, although it certainly means that artillery will be more valuable.




_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Hena @ Apr. 16 2007,14:34)
QUOTE

(Blarg D Impaler @ Apr. 16 2007,16:26)
QUOTE
Don't let the simplistic abstraction of how artillery is handled by Epic make you think that artillery is only about lobbing a pile of shells into an area and hoping for the best.

In other words, yes, artillery can be all about sniping.

However that could be done with special munitions as well. What the barrage rules allow is hitting units that wouldn't be hit by regular fire (due to front-to-back hit allocation). Abilities to give bonuses to certain units within the barrage template contradicts that very much. So why I can understand ways to do it, I don't agree mainly due to effects on the rules.

Ahh, I see...  I hadn't thought of that.  Hence the reason why you used the term "sniping" was in relation to the rules and not the general use of the term.  

Well, I guess I had better drop the idea of allowing the allocation of +1 to-hit bonuses as the shooting player sees fit because it would become a poor-man's sniper ability.  My bad, sorry.   :(

I'll go delete the offending passages from my previous entry.

_________________
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  
 
Legion 4
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Yes, we used to use the Indirect Fire rules, needing LOS to Target, as in SM1 ... but as time went on with E40K and now E:A, we don't need LOS for Indirect Fire ...  Drones, Orbital systems, etc., will give you your LOS ...

_________________
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  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:19 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(The_Real_Chris @ Apr. 16 2007,11:28)
QUOTE

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.

So no-ones a fan of splitting extra templates and extra bm's between the two fire modes?

Currently the concentrated fire mode offers nothing to me really. In nearly every situation (i.e. when not shooting artillary at 1 or 2 units) I am better with extra templates. Even if AT for dispersed remains at 6+ when firing indirect I am better off firing more templates at armour - 9bp of three templates at AT5+ for a company of russ is better than 1 giving me 3 or 4+ AT on 3 tanks.

Whereas if concentrating fire gave the bm's and the dispersed gave the templates thats a clear distintion balancing them.

As a side note how many templates can cluster round the first? 4 or 5?

_________________
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  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I feel everyone should remember teh +1 for sustain firing with arty with all these discussions!

The whole 'choose how many templates' is too fiddly in that it will encourage hours of deliberations. I do prefer choose fire mode (before touching templates actually) then lay the template over the densist collection of models. Then lay the rest if firing dispersed.

Blast marker wise they would be the main thing if firing concentrated, though they could be used to smooth dispresed increments.

Or of course the to hit value could drop every time a new template is added. As I've done in my mock up.

Somethign to keep refering back to is the original table and thinking of the various batteries out there and are they gaining or losing with your changes.

One option is to keep dispersed as is, however I don't want to leave the '4bp' break in place

Its hard to think how to do this withough power hits at various stages.

So using alternating to hits when templates increase gives the following, does mean the mid table is weaker. Add BM's back there?
Oh also weaker overall vs armour.

Dispersed
1 - AP6+/AT6+ (same)
2 - AP5+/AT6+ (same)
3 - AP4+/AT6+ (same)
4 - AP5+/AT6+ Extra template (weaker)
5-6 - AP4+/AT6+ Extra template (weaker)
7-8 - AP5+/AT6+ 2 extra templates (weaker)
9-10 - AP4+/AT6+ 2 extra templates (weaker)
11-13 - AP4+/AT6+ 3 extra templates (same)
14-17 - AP4+/AT6+ 4 extra templates (stronger)
18+ - AP4+/AT6+ 5 extra templates (stronger)

The drop in effectiveness makes sense when you consider to get from 1 to 2 templates you have to double the firepower. At 11+ though the volume of fire and table length means this doesn't matter much any more.

_________________
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  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:08 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
My working on barrages a couple of years ago was somewhat simpler than most of the ideas so far listed. It was based on the following assumptions:

1. The epic rules are designed to use the template sizes sold by GW. You get 1 of each... shame to not use that big one more, which would be easier than putting down additional templates.
2. Epic rules are more realistic and complicated than 40k, but they do not get into the level of detail that your average modern warfare rules-set does. It would be wrong to introduce too many details to consider each time you fire a barrage (except as optional house rules).
3. Some variety in artillery sheaf types would nonetheless be a nice addition and interesting. For example depending on whether you are targeting titan or a dispersed infantry formation it would be nice to concentrate or disperse your fire respectively.
4. As much as possible, increases in fire effectiveness should increase gradually in a linear, but plateauing fashion, rather than the sudden jumps that occur in the present table.

Therefore my system used the following ? you can fire either a concentrated or a dispersed barrage. A concentrated barrage uses a single small template, a dispersed barrage uses the large template.

Concentrated Barrage: Using Small Template.
1          0 BM     AP6+/AT6+
2          0          AP5+/AT6+
3          0          AP4+/AT6+
4-5       1          AP4+/AT5+
6-8       2          AP3+/AT5+
9-12     2          AP3+/AT4+
13-16   3          AP3+/AT4+
17+      4          AP3+/AT4+

Dispersed Barrage: Using Large Template.
4-5       0 BM    AP6+/AT6+
6-8       0         AP5+/AT6+
9-12    1+        AP4+/AT6+
13-16  1+        AP3+/AT5+
17+     2+        AP3+/AT5+

I can?t remember the exact numbers I had in the tables (unfortunately I lost them), but they were something like this IIRC.  Note that you needed at least 4BP to fire a dispersed barrage. I also played around at introducing ?rerolls to hit? at certain points in the table to introduce more variability but I wasn?t really happy with that additional complication.  Also I hadn't worked out how the orbital strikes would work with this change in the system.

In any case whatever ideas are used the number crunching will have to be very carefully considered to avoid screwing up points values or introducing further artificial min-maxing of unit numbers.  

So what do people think of this sort of idea?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 4
  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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