[NetEpic ML] Re: Shield Systems

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:54:44 +1100

At 08:14 PM 12/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Actually, although I think some of the neat rules alternatives I came up
>with were interesting, and maybe even better than what the game
>designers came up with. (Yes, my head has begun to swell) :) The
>trouble with titans boils down to one thing. The reactors on Warlord
>titans blow up a little too easily.
>
>Hey, how about ANOTHER solution?
>
>1) Increase the save of the reactor on the front template to 1+.

Could do, but the reason for the lower armour is that the reactor needs to
be cooled, so the armour there is not nearly as thick as it could be
(otherwise the reactor overheats and Nuclear Meltdown insues)

>2) Increase the repair ability from 5+, to 3+. So shields come back
> more often, and damaged parts that CAN be repaired, have double the
> chance. (Of course this would apply to all titans!)

This sounds a bit better.

Truly while Warprats idea of ablative shielding is O.K. (sorry, I think its
just O.K.) I prefered the idea of having shields take saves, just like any
other vehicle or location on a Titan. A 2+ save on the shield (3+ on Ork
Power Fields) or it drops. I like. Lighter weapons may not take it out
while heavier weapons should. Simple and it uses a mechanic that is
already in use (that of saves and save modifiers). The Cyclops cannon and
similar weapons can (as previously mentioned) force the first shield to
save with a -5, the next on a -4, then a -3, then a -2, etc until a shield
saves. Simple and easy. And it increases Titan survivavility without any
new messy systems.

>> So what is the general consensus from everyone with the discussion on
Titans?
>>
>> a) Leave them as they are.
>> b) Make shields tougher.
>> c) Make the Titan itself tougher.
>> d) Make BOTH the shields and the Titan tougher.
>>
>
> Otherwise, my vote is A.
>
>
> I don't want titans to be so powerfull that they can strut around
>the battlefield killing everything they come across.

I'm all for that, but as they stand, the just don't represent the tower
machines of destruction they really should be. I don't want invulnerable
killing machines, I want tough scary ones that can still be brought down.
The way I see it, a Titan's greatest enemy is either another Titan or
masses upon masses of smaller units. A single Titan should be the
equivalent of 1-2 infantry/tank companies in damage capacity and firepower.
 The way they are right now, they barely make 1.

> Titans, to me, are part of Combined Arms force selection. Infantry,
>artillery, tanks, aircraft, and Titans. Each unit has it's own
>strenghts and weaknesses. The army that wins, is usually the army that
>most sucessfully combined it's strenghts to the enemys weaknesses.

Sure. This I support too. But as I have said before, they simply don't
live up to the towering kings of the battlefield image they should have.

> Luck, although it seams to run hot and cold, is averaged in the end.
>Most of the time when you think you are rolling hot, your just rolling
>average.

Nah. I KNOW when I'm rolling hot (Full Thrust) and when I'm not (any other
game I tend to play). Trust me.....

>I like the fact that a Ratling can bring down a Titan! A real David and
>Goliath story. Kind of gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. ;)

No it shouldn't. 5 hobbits with laser-propelled needle rifles that fire
crystals of toxin can take out the massively armoured Plasma Reactor of a
10-storey walking land-battleship? Yeah, right. That's just stupid. 5
Marines with bolters and a missile launcher (a Tactical unit) I can
understand but hobbits with glorified flashlights? Come on...... ;-)


-Kelvin....

============================================
         "Of course I'm paranoid!
       Everyone's trying to kill me."
============================================
Received on Thu Dec 16 1999 - 04:54:44 UTC