0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Discuss the mechanics of Dark Potential here.
Forum rules
Please understand that by posting anything in this area of the forum that you are acknowledging that MiniWarGaming has permission to use your ideas without compensation.
User avatar
Sabet
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:09 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by Sabet » Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:36 am

Personally i prefer Cmyru's idea, though your's has some merit too. Maybe as an elite or special unit, rather than something common. It wouldn't be hard to do an airdrop of an artillery piece, especially with the fancy new techs.

A note on buying extra models Cymru: Only so many can affect the fire rate of the gun at a time. Why not allow the extra models to shoot freely themselves? Taking lucky potshots at the enemy when unneeded, while not very disciplined, i feel very likely. If I was just forced to sit there and wait while others did all the work, and wasn't under strict orders not too (like trying to stay silent), i'd take a few shots to hopefully be at least a little bit of help. If their ablative wounds, why would they just stand there doing absolutely nothing?
The Beasts are rising...

Cyrmuvoodoo deserves a reward for the massive contribution to this game

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by cymruvoodoo » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:22 pm

Well, I mean, I am always pleased when my ideas are well received, but it's just a rough cut. I can already see a few tweaks which might should be made, but more on that later. First up, the idea of grenade launchers.

Great idea! I think that it's probably a good thing to consider for any of the human factions, of course with specifics determined by the faction. Bandits probably won't have the same munitions that the Reclaimers have, for example, and if the Reclaimers are sharing with the Corporation, it will only be in a limited way. The thing about the Grenade Launcher that I see is that its likely to be a Solo weapon rather than a squad deal, and the entire feel of an artillery piece is in that it has a whole crew firing the thing. However, a grenade launcher for a solo would be a nifty thing for factions to have available. My one concern is that it won't feel significantly different from some of the other special weapons available.

Now, I did say this a while back and I want to say it again - a Rocket Launcher is a stupid weapon to have in this scale of game. They are primarily intended for anti-tank work and there are a lot of restrictions on where and how you can use them. For example, not firing them in enclosed spaces is very important. In that regard, I would love to see the Reclaimer and Salvager units with Rocket Launchers given grenade launchers instead.

Now as for my earlier suggestions on Crew Served Weapons, I think it would be reasonable to add to the "Extra Crew" upgrades that for having any extra crew in the unit the unit may split its actions such that the minimum unit size fires the weapon and the rest fire other weapons they may have, make an active perception check, or take some sort of scenario-conditional action. I did want to make sure that units with Crew Served Weapon were focused on operating that weapon and my original thought was that in military history, overstrength weapon crews are still all working on firing the weapon, they're just all assigned very specific tasks to let them fire the weapon faster and more smoothly. So, my thought was that extra crew would most definitely not be sitting around doing nothing. I was originally contemplating the idea that for purchasing extra crew the Crew Served Weapon would get additional RoF, say 1 for every 2 crew up to a predetermined limit, but I wasn't sure if that would be balanced or OP.

The other suggestion I would make would be to say that units with Crew Served Weapon cannot capture objectives or fulfill scenario criteria unless the scenario specifically allows them to do that. This is for a variety of reasons, including because the crew are going to be too busy manning the weapon to actually do things for the scenario and because I think that if you allowed an artillery piece to park on an objective and just stay there it doesn't have to choose between doing something for the scenario and shooting the big gun. Other units generally have to make that choice when it comes to getting into a good range to shoot, getting a good line of fire, or getting onto/into/up to the objective.

User avatar
slaughtergames
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:37 pm
Location: Drenthe, Holland

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by slaughtergames » Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:54 pm

are rocket lawnchairs really like that? I mean, I know that they have this back-blast from the thrust when they fire, but other than that I see no reason for it to be "stupid".

to say that a unit with Crew-served Weapon can't fulfill mission critieria is rather (please don't take offence) dumb. at this point, the only 'mission criteria' are to kill your enemy. if the arty's kills don't count, that may actually backfire pretty badly... it's weird at the least. now ofcourse you could say that they can't capture objectives (which probably is more like what you meant), but actually, I think they should be able to capture/control if they are outside of their initial deploymentzone, because realistically, this means the commander is desperate and sends out the arty's crew to do something they weren't meant for; which is pretty much the same as what happens on the tabletop.

whoops,, no time... see ya later
"i buy me new deffkopta!!"
"waaaagh!"
"i did research, to find out how to minimize the randomness of the shock-attack gun."
"huh?"
"waaaagh!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!"

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by cymruvoodoo » Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:35 pm

I was thinking that it generally takes a lot of work to run a gun and so half the crew can't be off foraging, hacking into a database, or what have you. Obviously a kill is a kill is a kill, and if the gun crew gets a kill, then it counts for scoring the same as anyone else's. That's something that will need to be specified in the rules properly. I still think that if there are game objectives like seizing key points, taking control of buildings, foraging for supplies, or recovering data from the body of a downed pilot/discovered spy, gun crews should not be allowed to "score" those objectives. Think about it, a piece of artillery is going to be very valuable, especially if it's maneuverable and light enough to be man-packed or what have you. Abandoning that to get some other objective just doesn't make sense. You might loose more than you gained if someone got in there and stole the gun.

Regardless of the physics, although I am given to understand that it is a really, really terrible idea to fire recoilless guns indoors, most man-packed, shoulder fired rockets are not great anti-personnel weapons regardless of what video-games have taught people. If you think about it, a rocket round is not very big. It has to have a substantial quantity of propellant on-board, which means the amount of HE payload is correspondingly smaller. An RPG, since that's what we're talking about in antipersonnel terms, is technically viable but if you are willing to accept the shorter powered range, a grenade launcher will give you a much better boom at the end.

User avatar
IPlayThisGame
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:29 am
Ribbons Earned: Took part in a Painting Deathmatch Headline EventWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge Entry
Location: Canada

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by IPlayThisGame » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:42 pm

Voodoo is 100% correct regarding rocket launchers. The majority of rocket launchers use a shaped charge, which means the explosive energy is primarily used to force a cone of metal to invert and create a "slug" which penetrates armoured targets. Not only do they use a relatively small amount of explosive to do this, but the warhead also includes a hallow space known as the "stand off" to allow the slug to fully form before contacting the target (think of the shape of the classic RPG-7 warhead. The big cone in front is actually just empty space, not explosive or fragmentation). They create very little in the way of fragmentation and blast overpressure, which are the big infantry killers as far as explosives are concerned. Additionally, the back blast from firing a recoilless rocket launcher is not only dangerous, but can be very lethal when used in confined spaces or too close to your buddies. So given the scale and environment this game revolves around, rocket launchers would be a very poor weapon to bring along.

Back on the topic of artillery pieces, just got this idea so I figured I'd throw it out there (not really sure if even I like it yet). The Artillery piece itself is purchased on its own and pre-deployed on the board in the same manner as Battle Engines/Colossal in WarmaHordes. Then, any unit in the army that is within a certain distance may elect to forfeit their movement/action/both to operate the Artillery piece. The unit uses their own RA skill, and each piece requires a minimum squad size to operate it, and a maximum squad size for more efficient firing (for mortars, a minimum of 1 operators giving it a RoF of 1 and maximum of 3 giving it RoF 2; for howitzers, minimum 3 operators for RoF 1 and maximum of 5 for RoF 2).

User avatar
dragon1010
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:49 am
Location: RPI, probably doing homework

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by dragon1010 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:44 am

now were you thinking of something like a smaller version of this? that would make sense.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discove ... -video.htm
armies i play: tyranids (14000 pts), marines (4000 pts) orks (1750 pts) eldar (4000 pts) ig (3000 pts) lizardmen (2500 pts) high elves (3000 pts) cryx (100 pts) blindwater congregation (50 pts) trollbloods (25 pts) Legion of Everblight (50 pts)

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by cymruvoodoo » Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:06 am

Well, something like that is not a bad example. I was thinking a bit less enclosed-box, obviously - perhaps just a lightweight forward gun shield? The mk 110 has no useful model aesthetics. But yes, the idea of a fairly small round, something in the 40-60mm range, with a programmable fuse and perhaps even multiple-ammunition-type bins so that the gunner can switch from APDS to HE on the fly would be about right. The way they had it laid out in that video, with the emplacement on the shore of the lake, commanding a good stretch of water, is something the Reclaimers could use to great advantage as a force multiplier. They would, I'm guessing, be afraid of committing too many men to the planet's surface, certainly afraid of committing more than they absolutely must, given the risks involved.

I think the best plan, regardless of whether artillery pieces like this are bought independently and must be crewed by some other unit from your army, or are bought as a unit complete with crew, is to keep the base purchase as cheap as possible and then give the players a variety of upgrades so they may customise their purchase to the degree they desire. The problem I have seen in a lot of games is that some of the most interesting and unique models available for factions are under-utilized if they are considered viable purchases at all simply because they only come complete with every bell and whistle.

The one thing I will say about buying guns as an emplacement with no crew is that points balance is going to be difficult. How do you assign a fair points value to the gun when the utility of the piece is so keyed to the RA stat of the crew? I would assume it has to be a unit, instead of a solo, but that may not be a valid assumption, and in any case, how do you also point in a fair cost for when the gun is manned by a basic 3-man unit of Reclaimer troops with its RA 16 as compared to a full-size 6-man unit with RA 19? I think this, for no other reason (although I'd really like to have actual gun crew figures, I think it's a lot of the peripheral figs which bring the flavor to the game on the tabletop) is a critical reason for the weapon to be bought with a dedicated crew.

User avatar
IPlayThisGame
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:29 am
Ribbons Earned: Took part in a Painting Deathmatch Headline EventWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge Entry
Location: Canada

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by IPlayThisGame » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:01 pm

The way I saw it, yes the artillery piece will cost the same no matter how skilled the unit using it is, but the cost of the unit operating is the balancing factor. Sure a unit with RA 19 will be able to use the artillery piece to greater affect than a RA 16 unit, but that RA 19 unit is also giving up its ability to perform any other actions by operating the artillery, so you're essentially removing that unit from the game for a turn for any purpose other than firing the artillery.

User avatar
dragon1010
Silver Vault Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:49 am
Location: RPI, probably doing homework

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by dragon1010 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:24 pm

obviously it wont be an emplacement but i was talking about the gun itself. but i agree no emplacements.
armies i play: tyranids (14000 pts), marines (4000 pts) orks (1750 pts) eldar (4000 pts) ig (3000 pts) lizardmen (2500 pts) high elves (3000 pts) cryx (100 pts) blindwater congregation (50 pts) trollbloods (25 pts) Legion of Everblight (50 pts)

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by cymruvoodoo » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:01 pm

I am not sure the opportunity cost you pay for not using a squad to fire as themselves or take some other action is quite a proper balance. I haven't got any sort of real proof, I am just arguing from what my instincts say I'd be comfortable with, and I am concerned that it would be too much risk of abuse there. I suppose the main point I would make is that it's best to try and keep everything paid for using the same currency as often as possible - as soon as you start talking about balancing things with opportunity costs, with combo costs, you're tracking the cost of a model in two different payment schemes, which makes balance very tough to achieve since opportunity costs and points costs never have an even exchange ratio. Just by virtue of the fact that opportunity costs are determined on a situational level, the amount of points a thing would be worth must change.

As for the emplacements thing, I didn't mean to place so much emphasis on the issue of emplacements, that never really crossed my mind. As for the gun itself, as I said, I thought you were right on about being in the same place as I am there. Small caliber compared to what we think of as artillery, but intended for a very specific role and more than adequate for the task at hand (ventilating infantry of various levels of armour protection). Rate of Fire doesn't have to be insanely high, but should be reasonably so (ergo, my suggestion of 2) and the AoE is the real winner there.

User avatar
IPlayThisGame
MiniWarGaming Crazed Zealot
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:29 am
Ribbons Earned: Took part in a Painting Deathmatch Headline EventWon a Painting Deathmatch Side ChallengeCompleted a Painting Deathmatch Side Challenge Entry
Location: Canada

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by IPlayThisGame » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:50 pm

You do make a good point on the "opportunity cost" being impossible to truly balance, just like you have no proof it wouldn't work, I have no proof that it would either. The possibility for abuse is there, and in reality the idea that all troops are trained to operate the artillery is kind of far-fetched. It was mainly just an idea I threw out there because it crossed my mind, I'm a fan of having gun crews myself (having more unique models is always a good thing).

User avatar
miniwargaming
Site Admin
Posts: 2837
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by miniwargaming » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:14 pm

I'm adding in rules for gun platforms now. Your discussion here is giving me a lot of great ideas.

ashan46
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:35 pm

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by ashan46 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:35 pm

I think gun platforms are a good idea to include into the game, especially if a drawn out slugfest is expected. As well, it can be used perhaps a defensive measure that maybe a faction can implement. That could give factions like the corporation a large amount of hard hitting firepower.

cymruvoodoo
MiniWarGaming Zealot
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by cymruvoodoo » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:03 pm

Well, I'll be very excited to see how this works out, although as a thought exercise I'd like to suggest that it's actually not about the firepower enabling a defensive or "campy" playstyle so much as the threat of projected firepower allowing a raiding mentality to control where and when engagements happen. Good artillery, good fire support in general should be about allowing you more room to maneuver than your opponent has as much as anything else (although if they line up to eat a round each, that's good too).

ashan46
MiniWarGaming Beginner
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:35 pm

Re: 0.3.4 Stat Line Feedback

Post by ashan46 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:16 am

Mainly as I said, platform weapons help when you need to hold a position and after all who knows what kind of battle could pop up. It could turn into a drawn out shoot out if the teams are well entrenched.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest