|
Post by Tomahawk on Apr 28, 2010 11:44:55 GMT -5
I agree. Artillery should be an "off board" asset. Possibly air strikes/strafes as well. I like the idea of air strikes. That could work out really well, but I still think I would like to see at least some sort of on-board artillery. Maybe mortar infantry teams as well as off-board traditional artillery? I think it would be easy to add a new mortar weapon - use the same ranges as missiles (including the minimum range), but have it affect a template rather than a single unit, say 3", 4", and 5" diameter circle for light, medium, and heavy mortars. Everything under the template suffers a damage roll similar to a missile blast. Have it cost 2/3/4 Bp's. The only thing I'm leery about about with adding new weapons systems is adding additional rules, which adds complexity, which adds time and confusion. Like the proposed mortars: what if they miss? Do they just miss, or do the developers now add deviation rules and "near miss" damage? Adding variety = good. Adding complexity to an already great game = bad.
|
|
|
Post by kronusjohn on Apr 28, 2010 11:58:42 GMT -5
I don't think it would be too complex. Like tomahawk said, you could use a blast template for the mortars but instead of circles, why not make them hexes? It fits with the style of the game AND it conveniently has six sides. Just number the sides and roll 2d6. One die represents the direction of drift (according to the token) and the other represents distance of drift in inches. Then, you could say that if you roll doubles (a 2 on direction and 2 on distance for example), then it's a direct hit with no drift.
|
|
|
Post by Tomahawk on Apr 28, 2010 12:04:57 GMT -5
It fits with the style of the game AND it conveniently has six sides. Just number the sides and roll 2d6. One die represents the direction of drift (according to the token) and the other represents distance of drift in inches. Then, you could say that if you roll doubles (a 2 on direction and 2 on distance for example), then it's a direct hit with no drift. Except that the rest of the game uses d10's.
|
|
|
Post by kronusjohn on Apr 28, 2010 12:19:42 GMT -5
It fits with the style of the game AND it conveniently has six sides. Just number the sides and roll 2d6. One die represents the direction of drift (according to the token) and the other represents distance of drift in inches. Then, you could say that if you roll doubles (a 2 on direction and 2 on distance for example), then it's a direct hit with no drift. Except that the rest of the game uses d10's. True. I did overlook that very fundamental aspect. ;D I suppose if you wanted, you could divide a circle template into ten equal portions for facings instead of using hexes. For distance though, I'm not sure. Ten inches seems like a pretty far margin of error. I suppose you could say 1-2 is 1", 3-4 is 2", etc. That would probably work out even better. I think I might work on some blast tokens for mortar house rules!
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 28, 2010 16:45:23 GMT -5
Amen, brother! Tell it on the mountain!.... sorry, got carried away. I wholeheartedly agree. There will be new weapons, there are things I still want to add. I will, however, do my best to adhere to my original mantra... keep it simple. Too many games today turn away players because they look at it and just walk away because they don't want to tackle the complexity. A game is no fun if you can't play it without constantly looking up rules or arguing over complex issues.
With that being said... Mortars are planned.
|
|
|
Post by Tomahawk on Apr 30, 2010 7:23:09 GMT -5
How about "ace pilots" and "ace gunners" for mechs and vehicles? Ace pilots could do something like add another inch of movement and/or if scanning (i.e. not firing) add one to the Tp of the vehicle/mech, making it harder to hit (i.e. the pilot is "dodging"). An ace gunner could give +1 to the attack roll and/or shift the damage column by one in either direction.
Either an ace pilot or gunner would add one or two the the unit's Bp total, in addition to the unit's normal Bp maximum.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 30, 2010 16:02:29 GMT -5
I like the idea of pilot skills... but I want to reserve that mechanic for scenarios and campaigns... where experienced players appreciate more complexity. I want to keep the core rules lean and fast-playing because that is what you are going to use for those big massive battles.
|
|
|
Post by Tomahawk on Apr 30, 2010 16:09:11 GMT -5
I like the idea of pilot skills... but I want to reserve that mechanic for scenarios and campaigns... where experienced players appreciate more complexity. I want to keep the core rules lean and fast-playing because that is what you are going to use for those big massive battles. Understood and approved!
|
|