Re: [NetEpic ML] Brainstorm session

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:02:12 -0400

Hi!

> PR> 1. While I could go either way on the holofield for Eldar super heavies, it did bring up a more important issue regarding the super heavy damage tables. Do people like the very simple one or are
> PR> you using the more detailed ones? Whats the preference?
>
> we mainly use the more detailed ones to keep up athmosphere

I thought so, thats my preference to. While super heavies are not as powerful as titans/praetorians they are pretty important units and an extra layer of detail does become their importance. I wouldn't eliminate the simple ones for epople who want a quicker resolution, but perhaps make the detailed ones core too.
 
> PR> 2. Praetorian costs are too low. This has been discussed before and after much playtest I agree that they need to be increased. The fact that they have templates make them as powerful as titans
> PR> and sould be priced accordingly. For example, look at the Colossus, with its 8 battle cannon hitting on 4+ and shields. This thing is as good as most warlord titans! I tinkered with the points
> PR> formula and would suggest that most praetorians need a price hike of 150 points on average. Comments?
>
> thats my opinion as well...but not too much

For example a leviathan would be worth 500 points ( an increase of 150 points), because all game I have seen them in they have the same power and resileince of a reaver (average 500 points). A colossus would be around 650-700 points and worth every penny.

> PR> 4. AA guns should probably be defined as one of two types :static and mobile. Static AA are expensive, have long range and may only fire at either air or ground in a turn (not both). Mobile AA
> PR> are cheap, shorter range and can fire at both ground and air units indescriminately.
>
> sounds good to me.
> one comment to the range debate in generell - i like games where i
> have to make myself a plan to avoid beeing shot by aa (with my fliers)
> - it prevents the player to use too many of them becoming to strong. i
> always try to concentrate against aa (by bike-attcks, etc.) to make the
> air "free" for my flyer attacks or thunderhawk landing
> PR> These are but some, more will come to me in time and I'll post them.

Agree. It adds a lot of dimension to an air campaign. For example you need to make a sortie with bombers to take out AA guns so you transports can come in, just like in real life.

You reminded me of another idea for the flier rules. One thing that has been problematic in the flier rules is how you simulate a bomber wing going in for a bomb run and gets intercepted. The idea I have tested basically adds one rule. Fliers can't be pinned, even by other fliers. It makes sense since these things dont stand still and there is no phyisical way to "pin" an aircraft. What this means in practical terms is that when a bomber wimg comes in and is intercepted those bombers that survive can still complete their attacks in the advance phase no pinning ocurrs. Thus you need to destroy all bombers to thwart an attack. This makes cooperation between AA and interceptors crucial.

The other one is that fliers dont use the first fire order and I was thinking what useful thing the orders can represent. Then I realized that an important aspect of air warfare was missing- escort missions . A flier on first fire orders would serve as escort to any other detachment of bombers on advance orders. Such a unit cannot fire or initiate close combat. However any fliers on charge orders that desire to intercept the protected unit MUST engage the fliers with first fire orders first. Thus simulating fighter cover.

Comments.

Peter
Received on Tue Mar 26 2002 - 13:02:12 UTC