Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 |
|
Nerroth
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2  Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
|
|
I think that the Spacecraft should be dealt with in a separate topic, when we try and debate them alongside the support craft one type of unit or the other takes over - which usually ends up being the Support Craft...
Gary
_________________  Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers v7.3 pdfHuman armed forces for the greater good.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
baronpiero
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:05 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 186
|
|
Nerroth is right, the discussion on spacecraft is growing so I will recentre this topic on support crafts only.
Just a quick answer to your lastest questions, Nerroth:
Remember, the Lunar costs the same as the Lar'shi as is and trades in the extra PP for that 3BP Macro-weapon barrage - |
You're right here. So it may not be appropriate yet. I tried to balance our cruisers according to Eldar cruisers that seem more similar in design and use (bombardment + planetfall).
you give the Tau pinpoint attacks D3+1 instead of just D3, was that intentional?) |
D3+1 was intentional. It is a way to tone down the 2x pin-point attack as well as representing Tau applying their firepower in a more focused way than usual.
The list isn't exactly crawling with TK hits as is
It's true for now. But with a beefed-up Railcannon Moray and the new Whiteshark bomber, this may change very quickly
, and I don't see a reason to keep a local imbalance then. Well, it is rather suspicion since you mentionned the Lunar being as good as the Hero for the points. I'll investigate further then
).
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
BaronP,
OK, digested all. I'm of the opinion that 2x PP on the light cruiser is working on a list that is long range MW light. For now, I'd like to leave it as it works and mess with the more critical things in the list.
The moray and Manta are more topical concerns for me so I'll reply there.
I want to make sure the Manta remains seperate from the Moray.
I like the Main Rail Gun alternatieve idea that Clausewitz had early on in a similar thread which suggested:
MORAY:
======
Cool Rail Tech Name: 2x 75cm MW3+ TK(D3) @ 300 pts each
(DC, other auxillary systems, notes, and crit remain)
MANTA:
======
I would see the main rail-tech gun on this one going to 90cm and I would see the MW going to 2+, but the same otherwise for this system... so:
BETTER-Rail-Tech Name: 2x 90cm MW2+ TK(D3)
Regarding Baron P's auxillary weapon proposals. I don't have any immediate problems with those at the moment. However, my focus is on the rail weapon system alternate for the Moray. Other considerations are tertiary for my focus on this topic. Furthermore, the Manta is really somewhat tied to the Moray development to me. So the main gun issue extends to that vessel for my consideration in development.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:44 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
Ok, it's late, but I feel the need to ask something that nags at me because I'm not sure what the intent is. Here goes:
Why don't we have one range for the same weapon? Isn't a rail cannon a rail cannon regardless of what's carrying it?
The reason I ask is that Tactica lists two ranges for what I thought was supposed to be the same weapon. What are we going to do when we start looking at the Whiteshark? Does it get the Manta RC or the Moray RC? Seems like there ought to be one stat line for the RC and it gets mounted in different vehicles that have different capabilities, but the vehicle doesn't change the weapon.
Thoughts?
?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:22 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Honda,
1) the _existing_ E:A 4.1 list does not have both Moray and Manta Support Craft with the same weapon system. So the precident is for them to be similar, but different.
Moray Today:
RailCannon, 75cm, MW2+, TKd6, Slow Firing, FF Arc
Manta Today:
TwinRailCannon, 75cm, MW2+, TKd6, FF Arc
2) I'm not proposing the Moray and Manta have the same weapon system in the future either.
3) My proposed weapon systems do not specify RailCannon as a name intentionally. In fact, one uses the name of "Cool Rail Tech Name" and the other has "Better Rail Tech Name" just for this purpose.
4) You'll notice in our list today that ALL rail technology has 75cm precident.
5) You'll notice in our list today that there's six different types of Rail Technology today and each has varying name differences.
Broadsides: 2x Twin-Linked Rail Gun, 75cm, AT2+
Hamerhead: Railgun, 75cm, AT3+
Swordfish: Twin-linked Railgun, 75cm, AT2+/AP3+
Whiteshark Bomber: 2x Railgun, 45cm, AT3+
Moray: Railcannon,75cm, MW2+, TKD6, Slow Firing, FFA
Manta: Twin Railcannons, 75cm, MW2+, TKd6, FFA
5) I think the Manta should have longer ranged Rail tech compared to the Moray and the shots should be even more accurate, thus the recomendation of MW 2+ and 90cm on this vessel. I think the moray should have the same amount of shots, but be limited in range to 75cm like all other rail tech in our list. MW 3+ on the moray is also adequate considering the rest of my suggestion IMHO.
6) The Whiteshark is a seperate beast. Its a flier. Their are flier potency considerations and what not to consider when talking about E:A fliers. First off, I don't think the rail-tech on the whiteshark flier should exceed 45cm. This however is a different discussion... ?
7) Although FW:IA3:TC describes both the 1) Tiger Shark alternate main weapon system and 2) the Manta rail main weapon system as the same system - i.e. TL Heavy Railguns, this is for 40K. This is not necessarily the vision in E:A.
Before anyone says FW:IA3:TC in the epic section also has the Manta and the Whiteshark with the same weapon system there too - I would ask you to consider this... E:A has lots of planes that have the same weapon system as ground units, but they are typically reduced in effectiveness due to speed of plane, limited reaction times, and game balance. Also, look close at that FW:IA3:TC E:A Tau list - its all messed up. Its based upon an older version of the E:A Tau list and has concepts we've long since dropped. It also lacks enhancements we've long since adopted too. There wasn't much consideration given to Epic:A list in FW:IA3:TC. So although FW appears to have the same name weapon system extended to whiteshark and Manta, as developers, I would argue that we should know better.
Hope that helps explain my perspective and recomendation Honda.
PS - I know you're not simple minded either. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
Ok, I understand your logic and some of your concerns. So I would also like us to think about "simple" logistics.
>>
Broadsides: 2x Twin-Linked Rail Gun, 75cm, AT2+
Hamerhead: Railgun, 75cm, AT3+
Swordfish: Twin-linked Railgun, 75cm, AT2+/AP3+
Whiteshark Bomber: 2x Railgun, 45cm, AT3+
Moray: Railcannon,75cm, MW2+, TKD6, Slow Firing, FFA
Manta: Twin Railcannons, 75cm, MW2+, TKd6, FFA
<<
So it seems like we have some trends that might let us set some definitions like:
(I'm only stating these for the purpose of the discussion)
a) Railgun = 75 cm, AT3+, twin-linked AT2+
b) Rail cannon = 90 cm, AT3+, twin-linked AT2+ or (enter appropriate MW value)
Then it becomes a matter of what does the vehicle carry? Item A? Then A does this...
Item B? Then B does this...
That was along the lines of what I was thinking. So define the weapon and match vehicle abilities, then you have some sort of common ground for comparison.
Thoughts?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Honda,
If you are familiar with HTML tags, this will be very easy to understand.
Explanation 1:
==========
Open bracket, followed by the word QUOTE folloed by closed bracket.
Then type quoted text.
Then Open Bracket, followed by forward slash, followed by QUOTE followed by closed bracket.
Explanation 2:
==========
The process is Use a 7 character string to identify text to be quoted. Then type text. Then use an 8 character string to indicate the text should no longer be quoted.
Start Quote String looks like this, but with now " marks:
"[""QUOTE""]"
Next you type or cut and past the text you wish to highlight.
Then the Quote Close string, looks like this but no " marks:
"[""/""quote""]"
The result is:
Showing honda how to quote text.
|
Explanation 3:
If none of the above makes sense, find the "Quote" button on the page. Press it. now type text. Press it again.
_________________
Rob
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Tau support Crafts and Spacecrafts for 4.2 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
[quote="Honda,27 Oct. 2005 (18:36)"][/quote]
Honda,
Great question.
I would counter that what you've suggested is exactly what we have. Con-fuzzled yet?
I'll attempt to explain....
As you know in 40K, the broadside formation can fire more shots than the hammerhead, but cannot fire the submunitions round. Thus, the broadsides Railgun must only have an AT stat but more shots per unit - as is the precident with devistator squads, obliterators, and the alike. The Broadside however is also twin-linked, so it does have +1 to the 'to hit' value. Thus, it's 2x shots and is AT2+ instead of AT3+.
The Hammerhead does have a submunitions round, so it has an AP value as well as an AT value. The Hammerhead is not twin-linked though, so its one less accurate AT3+/AP4+. It doesn't have the shots that a broadside formation has either. Therefore, it only has a single main railgun shot per unit instead of 2 like the broadsides.
The swordfish has a modified version a twin-linked version of the Hammerhead system. So it does have equally good broadside AT value due to that twin-linking and also has +1 AP value when compared to the hammerhead. Like the Hammerhead though, it only has one shot per unit. Thus AT2+/AP3+.
So you see, we have exactly what you suggest here.
Note, Jervis has also stated that any gun which has different stats, must have a different name, so that's already three different guns.
TODAY:
Broadsides: 2x Twin-Linked Rail Gun, 75cm, AT2+
Hamerhead: Railgun, 75cm, AT3+/AP4+
Swordfish: Twin-linked Railgun, 75cm, AT2+/AP3+
|
And these units have proven to work - no changes needed.
Now we look at the Moray, Manta and Whiteshark. As the latter (Whiteshark) is a flier, let's table that one for a second as there are special design considerations with fliers.
First, nobody says we have to have the same main gun on the Moray that we have on the Manta. We know we don't want slow firing on the Moray. We also don't want to lose the value of the Manta.
TODAY:
Moray: Railcannon,75cm, MW2+, TKD6, Slow Firing, FFA
Manta: Twin Railcannons, 75cm, MW2+, TKd6, FFA
|
MY SUGGESTION FOR TOMORROW:Moray: 2x RailCannon, 75cm, MW3+, TK(D3), FFA
Manta: 2x Long Barrelled Twin-Railcannons, 90cm, MW2+, TK(D3), FFA
The Moray's Railcannon would be the base system, and has base rail-tech range. It has 2 of these guns - (thus the x2). The range is still 75cm.
The Manta gains the "long barrelled" feature (+15cm range) and gains the "twin" feature (+1 to hit) and still has 2 of these systems (thus the x2)
So here still, I follow your suggested modus operandi, still adhere to design considerations of naming conventions, and the Moray and Manta do not have the same main rail weapon system.
Now that takes us to the Whiteshark....
Today:Whiteshark Bomber: 2x Railgun, 45cm, AT3+
The concerns for this thing are layered:
1) Originally, the Tau development community designed this v4.1 Whiteshark before we knew of the new AX-10 or Tigershark alternate model in FW:IA3:TC was going to debut. So the current stats are not even representative of the FW vision of this thing.
2) In the 40K reference as well as the E:A reference in FW:IA3:TC, they have made both the main railguns on the alternate Tigershark and the Manta the same. They had no regard for current Epic:A development practices of 'toning down' fliers. In 40K, flier weaponry and ground weaponry of the same name has the same stats and the same effect on the game.
3) In E:A, there is a precident that fliers absolutely _cannot_ have the same weapon _effects_ as a ground unit with the equivilents weapon. Thus, the _effect_ of the same weapon on a flier must be reduced and thus, the weapon name must be changed.
4) Fliers generally should not have main weapons with ranges exceeding the 45cm precident.
Ergo a 6th weapon name and stats needed for our tigershark alternate (Whiteshark) flier. Regardless if it has the same gun as the Manta in theory.
Now, I think the Whiteshark gun should be more representative of a Moray variant rather than a Manta variant in E:A - for balance.
MY SUGGESTION FOR TOMORROW:Whiteshark: 2x Shark Railcannons, 45cm, MW3+, TK(1), FFA
Honda, so you see - in the end, we need 6 different guns, and we are already following your suggested practice of simplification.
Hope that helps.
PS, knowing some more of the background behind these concepts, what do you think of the suggestions?
I am too of the opinion that the Manta is a little undergunned for its cost. Upgunning it is an option, but in truth I had other plans for it (see next post).
, but IMO having varying stats for the same weapon complicates the understanding of the list. So I don?t see this as a favoured solution unless we have a reason to do that. And in the case of the Manta, I don?t think it?s necessarily the best way to solve a balance issue. I?d rather have a look at the point cost first.
