[NetEpic ML] Re: Helping Titans Survive the Modern World.....

From: Peter Ramos <pramos2_at_...>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:40:29 -0600


In regards to to the ideas on making titans tougher, the ideas thrown around
are very close to the spirit of the rules I wrote for Incoming!

In summary this is what they are:

It uses a modified template where all the traditional parts are listed, but
areas now have a damage rating or armor points or whatever you'd like to
name it. The effect is that armor thickness is represented between heavier
and lighter titan types. Certain location remain vulnerable while areas that
attract more fire are more heavily armored.

Locations may suffer catastrophic damage as the hits pile up, lucky shots
may occur but titans are more resilient.

Once all damage points in a major locale (head, hull or leg) are gone the
titan is destroyed. Catastrophic damage accelerates this process or takes
the titan out altogether.

I suggest a review of these rules because they were created with bridging
titan deficiencies in mind.


----- Original Message -----
From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 1999 4:48 PM
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Helping Titans Survive the Modern World.....

> At 10:16 PM 12/9/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Kelvin, I like your Armor System, even better than the one in Incoming.
> >It would address the armor thickness problem, little titans having less
> >vs. big titans having more, without giving up the titan templates.
> Thanks.
> >A couple of things I don't like about it. It would make all titans even
> >tougher than they are now, and I'm pretty happy with thier current
> >strenghs and weaknesses. The other problem, as I see it, is that all
> >the titans would have to be adjusted and ballanced against each other.
> >That would take a lot of work, and playtesting.
> O.K. With the overhaul of the current edition of the NetEpic rules, we
> talking about introducing saves for infantry, making them somwhat tougher.
> If this is going to be the case, then I think Titans need an increase to
> their toughness. I agree that they should not be too tough but currently,
> once a titan's shields go down, they are vulnerable to all weapons, even
> infantry ones. That's a bit too much for me. Titans are supposed to be
> lord of the battlefield. They need the support of other forces, sure but
> in the end, they should be kings. We need rules to represent this.
> Everyone, don't get me wrong. I think Titans need to be vulnerable and
> should be made so that people need to use a bit of tactical thinking to
> them. But in their current form I think they are too vulnerable. I only
> seek to make them a bit more survivable.
> With the changes I proposed, we can protect the more vulnerable areas of
> the Titans (heads, reactors, shield generators, etc) while leaving the
> of the locations as vulnerable as they used to be. Anti-armour and
> anti-Titan weapons can simply do more than one point of damage to the
> Armour rating of the location while lighter weapons will on do one point.
> This way, the enemy is forced to either concentrate lighter firepower on
> the Titan or use the anti-armour or anti-Titan weapons in their arsenal to
> take care of it (which is as it should be). Currently, you use
> Devastator-style troops to take out the shields and then just unload any
> other firepower you have into it. Once unshielded it doesn't take too
> to knock a Titan out. With the increased damage capacity, there is less
> guarentee of knocking the Titan down with anything but the most powerful
> weapons (like a Volcano cannon or Quake Cannon).
> Yes, points values will probably need to be increased for the Titans, but
> by limiting the areas significantly protected by the armour ratings I
> think they will need to be increased by much at all. On a Warlord for
> example, I think the Head and Reactor locations would need 3 points each,
> the Legs and Carapace locations 2 (to represent the extra toughness of
> those areas) and everywhere else either 1 or 0. All actual Saves for
> areas stay the same (i.e., 1+ for the Head, 2+ for the Reactor, etc). Now
> it is harder (but not impossible) to take out a Warlord. It is still
> vulnerable to weapons that ignore shields (and I would make them ignore
> Armour Ratings as well) such as Warp Missiles, Deth Rays, Tremor Cannons
> and Vortex Missiles but infantry and lighter vehicle weapons will have a
> harder (and usually longer) time taking the thing down. Gargants would
> have very little (at most 2 in the Boiler's front with 1 on the Head,
> Boiler locations and weapons and 0 everywhere else) and the Eldar could
> have a similar spread to a Warlord or Reaver. The Imperator and Mega
> gargant could have them too, but we'd need to be careful with the
> as it is already pretty darned tough!
> >I really do like your idea though.
> Thanks. It needs some scrutiny, but I think we could make it work very
> -Kelvin....
> ============================================
> "Of course I'm paranoid!
> Everyone's trying to kill me."
> ============================================
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to tablesaws.
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1701
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/netepic/?m=1
Received on Wed Dec 15 1999 - 01:40:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:58:49 UTC