Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Attacker options for the "Assault" scenario
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=23417		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Profit [ Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Attacker options for the "Assault" scenario
Looking at the EA "Assault" Scenario (http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/13ea.pdf), we came upon some ideas for attacker options, and I would welcome any advice on how to price/scale/tweak the following, or if you have any additional ideas:

Additional barrage - gain 1 more pt of preliminary barrage - XX/pt, to a maximum of X pts.

Engineers - unit gains the engineer special rule - XX/model? XX/formation?, up to a maximum of X

Strategic Intelligence - attacker gets to ask defender yes/no question (regarding force composition, defender must answer truthfully) - XX/question, up to a maximum of X

Dawn infiltration - attacker's deployment zone is extended 15cm - XX/model? XX/formation? XX flatrate?

Smoke screens - attacker's formation counts as in cover first turn, fires at -1 - XX/model? XX/formation?

Reserves - attacker's formation need not be deployed at start of game, instead move in from own table edge when activated - XX/formation? Free?

Battle Plan - attacker's formation recieves +1 to initiative first turn - XX/formation, XX flatrate?

Additonal ideas: OBA? (Off Board Artilley), OBAAA? (Off Board Anti-Aircraft Artillery), tunneling? trenches? (yes, attackers use them too, in sieges)

Also, we noticed that while there are sizes given for razor wire and tank traps, there are none for the minefields, and no information on the specific rules for anti-infantry/anti-vehicle minefields?
Author:  madd0ct0r [ Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Attacker options for the "Assault" scenario
i think minefields are covered in the main rulebook.
Author:  Profit [ Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Attacker options for the "Assault" scenario
Not that I can find? I searched all documents of the rulebook for "minefield" but came up empty. The "Siegeline" Fanatic article has some sort of minefields, but I'm not sure they're supposed to be the same, and doesn't mention anti-personell/anti-vehicle either.
Author:  Profit [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Attacker options for the "Assault" scenario
We've now played three assaults; LatD > Orks (LatD win), Orks > LatD (Orks win), Vraks > SM (draw) and are thinking further on tweaking the scenario with more defender and attacker options, and perhaps some more goals for both sides.

Some observations:

We're running the minefields as per the siegeline article, and find that they are both rather inflexible and inneffective, pondering changing them to 5x5cm squares and making WEs roll one dice per DC when moving across.

It is effectively impossible to turn bombers when attacking playing short edge vs short edge.

Some armies (SM, LatD) proved incapable to deal with attacking titans/gargants, we're considering putting a "defense laser emplacement" in the defenders armoury.

Achieving the BTS is very difficult for the defending army.

We've been experimenting with different engineer rules, will try "add engineer ability to six units for 150 pts", engineers hit fortifications on 4+ regardless of CC value.

Personally, I much prefer the assault to the tournament scenario - as more variables are fixed, it is easier to form an interesting battle plan.

Attachment:
File comment: The Orks smash into the LatD line!
2012-07-02 18.10.48.jpg
2012-07-02 18.10.48.jpg [ 391.07 KiB | Viewed 2294 times ]
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/