Just wondering what comments peoples had on size 6,7 veichles and walkers. My
main concern is they are too easy to kill with tank mounted guns although i do
agree they should be easy to hit but To give them any chance of surving a tank
hit you have load them down with stealth wich make them cost about
1000-1500 points. While i am on the subject MDC's are too cheap as they
cost 2 more points per size than HVC's and they have more range and do more
dammage.
I've had the same problem with over sized vehicles. I love ATATs and
incorporated something like them into a few games. I didn't take the time to
really figure out a good way of giving them the life expectancy they deserved
I just basically treated them like smaller vehicles or gave them free
stealth???
any one have any good ideas for the mech/mecha fans?
Christopher cmccurr@tca.net
[quoted original message omitted]
> Just wondering what comments peoples had on size 6,7 veichles and
Which is why you will probably never see *huge* walker type vehicles on any
battlefield! I remember an interesting comment about mecha in an old RPG
called Living Steel (a sci-fi game with a realistic twist). There was a
short background write-up that had a couple of officers and engineers
talking about a new 30' tall mech- the engineer pointed out that the
mecha
had as much armor as a standard battlesuit- and the officer wirely
pointed out that it was way more visible too! That is the problem with
mecha/walkers- they simply are far more visible than other conventional
units and WILL attract tons of fire. You have to conpensate for this by giving
them extensive defenses... which makes you wonder why you're pouring all of
these resourses into one unit instead of several smaller units.
The only way to get around this is to do away with the points and build what
you want and field it as you please! Otherwise, I think Dirtside is giving a
fair and realistic treatment to what is really a VERY unrealistic unit type.
> Nathan rolfe wrote:
> Just wondering what comments peoples had on size 6,7 veichles and
Oversized walkers are very well handled IMO - the rules make them just
as ridiculous as they ought to be :-) You need either massive stealth
levels (aka "Eldar Holofields" :-) ) or house rules for powerfields
("Void shields") to make them worthwhile. Funny, that - GW actually got
it right for once, while FASA got it badly wrong... <G>
Not so sure about supertanks, but I've never used any. IMO, any
supertank which isn't Grav-engined should treat all terrain as either
"difficult" or "impassable" due to the extreme ground pressure :-)
> To give them any chance of surving a tank hit you have load them down
The level-6 or -7 armour helps a bit too, though. You need at least a
size-4 weapon to have a decent chance of inflicting damage - sure, BOOM
chits are always possible, but there aren't that many of them.
Mind you, I've had a fair share of success with Eldar Titans in DSII
(massive stealth, cost about 1200 pts), often taking out 1500+ points
of enemy troops with them (well, "often" compared to how often I play DSII,
anyway <g>), so I wouldn't say that they're overpriced.
> While i am on the subject MDC's are too cheap as they cost
Don't forget the power requirement. HVCs and HKPs can be used with CFE
engines, but you need at least a HMT if you want a large MDC. Sure,
it's only 20% of the BVP, but that's another 1-2 points per size for an
MDC on a tracked or wheeled vehicle. If you don't want GEV or grav
propulsion, the MDC effectively costs 40-50% more than the HVC and
10-20% more than the HKP.
'Course, if you only use big/fast GEVs, or grav tanks, you have the
power to spare anyway... but if you have that kind of technology,
there's no real reason why you should use primitive chemichal-energy
weapons anyway <g>
Regards,
G'day Scott,
OK maybe I should explain the situation. Nathan, in true gentlemanly fashion,
is trying to help me out. You see my Dalek army consists of what the various
Dr Who writers have perscribed for Daleks, that is a heap of
Daleks, few VTOL-like hoverbouts, a couple of Dalek tanks and some VERY
big walkers. Needless to say when I ran into Nathan's MDCs (when they finally
came out of cover!!!) my walkers toppled and he systematically surrounded the
Dalek squads until he had enough objective chits in his hand. One of the added
challenges of playing the "universe's master race" I guess;)
> You have to conpensate for this by
Main reason I've got them is so that at least some of troops go faster than 6"
foot speed and I've actually got some vehicles, guns, on the board;) What
Nathan also neglected to mention was my walkers are that little bit more
expensive because they're armed with power guns (based on, but not identical
to, St^3 Jon's Slammin' The Dirt weapons) which cost 18x (I was trying to
guess costs based on the DFFG which comes in at 15x). Also probably the reason
Nathan stayed in cover until he did;)
> Otherwise, I think Dirtside is giving a
Which means they're perfect match for the rest of my unrealistic force
;)
Cheers
Beth
> OK maybe I should explain the situation. Nathan, in true gentlemanly
> surrounded the Dalek squads until he had enough >objective chits in his
> hand. One of the added challenges of playing >the "universe's master
Ouch! I would love to read that after action report!
I know what you mean- my first army in Dirtside (and it was so long ago
that I'm not even going to think about the date) was a force that I build from
a
pair of 1/300 scale Battle of Hoth kits. I fielded about 4 AT-ATs, 2
AT-STs,
several teams of imperial snow troopers (with 1 team in three were APSW
teams), and a couple of tanks (the nasty three PPC tank from FASA)- I
wasn't trying to field a force that would win, just one that looked cool, and
would be fun to play:)
My opponent simply fielded a mass of conventional tanks (armed with HELs)
and mech infantry. It was an ugly match for me as you can well guess- I
think over 50% of my force's point total was sunk in the AT-ATs... not
pretty when those things started going "boom";)
After that day I always stuck with fairly cheap tanks!
By the way, what did you use for the Daleks?
> > While i am on the subject MDC's are too cheap as they cost
> engines, but you need at least a HMT if you want a large MDC.
Interesting comments, but I have an observation that kinda flys in the face of
that. Mind you though, this isn't from a technology stand point, but from some
hard won Dirtside experience.
We had this guy who built a 'soviet' style armor force from a mass of toy
tanks he bought a few years ago at a Toys-Are-Us. His tanks were dirt
simple slow tracks with CFEs and mounting HKPs with basic fire control. He
simply outnumbered my side by a huge margin (I had a company of fairly
hightech
MBTs with MDCs and superior fire cons). My tanks nailed his at nearly 1.5:1...
but I was slaughtered by the sheer mass of tanks (which made me
grumble about superior fire cons not being so superior...)
So the moral of the story is- points can make or break your force if you
let them. You've got to balance out the technology factors in your vehicles
with the sheer fact that you need to keep a fairly large force to compete with
the numbers that your opponent might field- a few supertanks in Dirtside
might slaughter several cheaper enemy tanks, but if they are all you have,
you're in a world of hurt when you start loosing them.
As for the MDCs- I think the price tag for them is pretty high! :)
> Scott Case wrote:
> > > While i am on the subject MDC's are too cheap as they cost
Your experience doesn't fly in the face of what I'm saying. It
*confirms* what I'm saying - ie, that the MDC costs more than its
visible price tag suggests :-)
> We had this guy who built a 'soviet' style armor force from a mass of
> simple slow tracks with CFEs and mounting HKPs with basic fire
You must've used more armour and/or better transmission, though -
otherwise they wouldn't have been that much more expensive.
> My tanks nailed his at nearly
> me grumble about superior fire cons not being so superior...)
Depends on the range you're fighting at. The Superior FCs have a much
bigger advantage over the Basics at long range than at short - which is
quite realistic, of course. (Desert Storm, anyone? <g>) 'Course, if you
can't roll anything but 1s on your to-hit dice
> As for the MDCs- I think the price tag for them is pretty high! :)
Which was exactly my point :-) But if you have already decided on HMT
power for other reasons, there's no reason to use HKP instead of MDC
<g>
> > simple slow tracks with CFEs and mounting HKPs with basic fire
I screwed up a bit with those first generation tanks and loaded 'em up with
more *crap* than they needed- such as ablative armor, point defense
guns, ecm (all of which was enhanced or better), APFCs, etc... So my tanks
costed a pretty penny. His tanks were big, well armored, and packed HKP 4s! It
wasn't pretty at all...
> > My tanks nailed his at nearly
> >made
> bigger advantage over the Basics at long range than at short - >which
It was ages ago, but I remember that the board was pretty cluttered with LOS
blocks (hills, trees, buildings, etc), so ranges were 'danger close' all the
way... thus nullifying my better fire cons. Plus... it didn't help that the
fight was a movement to contact type (lots of objectives in the middle of the
board).
I learned my lesson though. The next game I played against the guy I fielded a
force with cheaper tanks and a large fleet of hovercrafts mounting
GMS/Hs... Pay back was definately a .... ;)