Coordinated Fire |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire  Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:20 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
A shooting army should be taking firing actions. A shooting army should be using fire discipline and concentrating fire on single formations until they are broken or destroyed. Those are, therefore, effectively not restrictions.
That only leaves the 15cm CF range and the possibility of misjudging the amount of firepower needed. That is, imho, a modest restriction.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
As you said, a shooting army will be shooting.
That said, a shooting army doesn't want to waste shots that are precious!
Having to decide on 1 or 2 additional formations is the real negative from my experience. If I commit too many foramtions up front, regardless of their action taken - then I may over project and waste activations. Declaration of action is minor compared to the upfront +1 or +2 commitment.
Allowing a logical flow of action and reaction is natural and works to balance the negatives.
Yes, I get to activate three formations - but they must have the same target. I must declare before knowing how much its really going to take to get the job done.
Forcing me to reslove one at a time and then allowing you to resolve and possibly leave prior to my next formation firing is fine, but you cannot force me to pick my orders all at the same time then... that's just not logical flow IMHO.
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
I'm for early declarations. From a military and simulative perspective, coordinated actions are difficult to pull off and often do go wrong. Having a big planned CF of Double-to-mark-and-envelop - Sustain-to-break - Advance-to-finish-off go right is so beautiful it almost brings tears to my eyes... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Asaura,
Up front declaration of Tau formations to participate in an attempted CF - agreed.
Up front declaration of _order actions_ each Tau foramation is to take, - I do not agree... *IF* the enemy target is allowed to break and run inbetween subsequent formation activations. If we allow a break in the chain resolution, we have to allow a reaction to the movement.
Military background here too. 
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:41 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
How about this:
1. Declare formations to participate in CF
2. Declare orders and target
3. 1st formation fires, resolves
If target survives and is in range goto 4, otw remaining formations go to Overwatch
4. 2nd formation fires, resolves
If target survives and is in range goto 4, otw remaining formations go to Overwatch
From a fluff perspective it would work like this:
1. Command to CF issued
2. Formations ready, pop-up to fire
3. First formation does a bang up job
4. The other guys now are looking for targets of opportunity
Thoughts?
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:01 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Honda,
That gets more, what I call "Kloogie" (is that a word) but it eliminates the double negative effect some were considering.
I'd be OK with that.
Heck, I'd be OK declaring all actions if CF was successful - as long as the enemy formation takes the beating before they check to split! (I'd prefer it even from a power perspective!) but I don't think its the right way to go from a balance perspective.
Frankly, I think the way we have it is quite balanced from the penalty side!
It was the inferred way in v4.1
We've had power gamers playing it this way for months in my group - and its damn hard to break the rule!
The sacrifice for possibly over commiting the number of units is the big balancer. (...And it happens more times than you'd think!)
However, I'd be willing to give your suggestion a go too. I just don't want a (*)net-negative on an ability that's supposed to be a positive thing for us.
(*)net-egative = commit # of units, disclose all formations actions in advance of any execution, allow enemy to check for escape inbetween each formation, if he escapes - tough luck!
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:11 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I have to admit that I dont like the idea of formations going on over watch if the first formation that fires in a co-ordinated fire attack. Strikes me you could use this to pick on an almost broken formation to quickly get your army on over watch en-masse. I think this could lead to abuse of the CF concept.
I tend to think that the risk inherent in activating too many formations in a co-ordinated fire attack must remain. You are not forced to use CF if it seems excessive, and you can choose to activate 2 or 3 formations at its initiation.
After all if you activate three formations in a co-ordinated fire you have already "decided" that the purpose of these three formations is to break the target formation with massed fire. If that is acheived then the plan worked, if not all the formations weren't needed to achieve this then its easier a poor choice or lucky dice, either way that shouldnt be compensated for.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Honda
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:43 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
I have to admit that I dont like the idea of formations going on over watch if the first formation that fires in a co-ordinated fire attack. Strikes me you could use this to pick on an almost broken formation to quickly get your army on over watch en-masse. I think this could lead to abuse of the CF concept.
|
Yes, that occurred to me as well and I wanted to see if anyone else picked up on that real quick.
So, no harm, no foul.
It was just an idea and I can live with what we currently have. I think we just have to recognize that the use of CF is more of an art, than a science...which seems to be a feature of our list.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:54 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
CF is more of an art, than a science |
Absolutely agree. Definitely a trick, definitely a tool, but you better have a clear grasp on things to come post CF and you better guestimate not to much and not too little FP for the intended task.
Sounds like we'll play it like it is and see what comes.
Cheers gents,
_________________
Rob
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:02 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (clausewitz @ 03 Nov. 2005 (02:11)) | | After all if you activate three formations in a co-ordinated fire you have already "decided" that the purpose of these three formations is to break the target formation with massed fire. ?If that is acheived then the plan worked, if not all the formations weren't needed to achieve this then its easier a poor choice or lucky dice, either way that shouldnt be compensated for. |
Very well put. Note that you can also plan for break-then-pursue.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Coordinated Fire Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:42 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
I agree, if you've committed the 'amount' of formations to participate, no declaration of orders is necessary.
The commitment has happened up front. The sacrifice is made.
Orders should then precede each formations activation after the enemy is allowed to test for break and move if necessary/warranted.
Now - to gets some playtest with it as written!
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
