|
Post by artbraune on Jan 11, 2013 11:04:20 GMT -5
Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Maybe only allow FA for vehicle weapons and give anti infantry weapons an AE?
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 11, 2013 11:28:27 GMT -5
Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Maybe only allow FA for vehicle weapons and give anti infantry weapons an AE? Sorry I don't follow this. Could you expand on what you mean? I am sure there is a solution and the wit to come up with one in the community. The vehicle light laser is the worst offender but even the most basic FA weapon the medium projectile is too good against vehicles to my mind. Two hits can take out any size of specialist vehicle and probably will against anything but the heaviest. How would FA weapons if given an AE effect differ from gatling weapons? The more I think about it, IMHO, the answer seems to be that FA weapons used in FA mode do not get their AP value. The advantages to this are: No need for changes to existing stats. FA weapons are refocused as anti infantry. FA weapons are still good value points wise. FA weapons are still a strong threat to light armour. I would play them as -1 to hit in FA mode with no further modifiers for being secondary weapons or per shot. Anybody coming up with anything better or see a problem with the above?
|
|
|
Post by artbraune on Jan 11, 2013 17:14:11 GMT -5
This sounds like it may work. Curious as to what Robin thinks about this solution... Sorry I don't follow this. Could you expand on what you mean? I am sure there is a solution and the wit to come up with one in the community. The vehicle light laser is the worst offender but even the most basic FA weapon the medium projectile is too good against vehicles to my mind. Two hits can take out any size of specialist vehicle and probably will against anything but the heaviest. How would FA weapons if given an AE effect differ from gatling weapons? The more I think about it, IMHO, the answer seems to be that FA weapons used in FA mode do not get their AP value. The advantages to this are: No need for changes to existing stats. FA weapons are refocused as anti infantry. FA weapons are still good value points wise. FA weapons are still a strong threat to light armour. I would play them as -1 to hit in FA mode with no further modifiers for being secondary weapons or per shot. Anybody coming up with anything better or see a problem with the above?
|
|
|
Post by timvidlak on Jan 11, 2013 17:42:29 GMT -5
One problem I see is that lasers Jump up from SAW Medium Laser Dam 8 AP 1 to Dam 10 AP 3 for Spec Heavy Laser. I can see the Damage Jump of 2 but the AP should only Jump up 1 as the SAW Medium Laser & Medium Projectile Start with the Same AP. Why is it that the Lasers Increase their AP Quicker than any other Weapon even Plasma weapons Increase at a Slower rate as they star with an AP of 1 & both end up at AP 3 & 4 at the same level.
From what I have read & observed in my own games the Specialist Heavy Laser & Vehicle Light Laser both are slightly overpowering weather full auto or single shot variants. I myself have lowered all lasers from Specialist on up to match the AP of Projectile weapons of the equivalent class. Also as lasers are a focused weapon I have imposed a -1 AP if the Laser is Fired Full Auto. This has worked well for me eliminating the Devastating effects that were mentioned above while still keeping the weapons viable.
The problem with eliminating AP for all auto fire is that auto cannons, chain-guns, ect will have the same penetration weather a single round is fired or it is firing on full auto.
|
|
|
Post by dustyskunk on Jan 11, 2013 19:01:21 GMT -5
What about introducing heat management for laser weapons i.e. Battletech?
So... Firing full auto will generate heat which must be dissipated or bad things happen... Keeps the awesomeness of the laser but puts the breaks on abusing the awesomeness =)
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 12, 2013 4:30:24 GMT -5
One problem I see is that lasers Jump up from SAW Medium Laser Dam 8 AP 1 to Dam 10 AP 3 for Spec Heavy Laser. I can see the Damage Jump of 2 but the AP should only Jump up 1 as the SAW Medium Laser & Medium Projectile Start with the Same AP. Why is it that the Lasers Increase their AP Quicker than any other Weapon even Plasma weapons Increase at a Slower rate as they star with an AP of 1 & both end up at AP 3 & 4 at the same level. From what I have read & observed in my own games the Specialist Heavy Laser & Vehicle Light Laser both are slightly overpowering weather full auto or single shot variants. I myself have lowered all lasers from Specialist on up to match the AP of Projectile weapons of the equivalent class. Also as lasers are a focused weapon I have imposed a -1 AP if the Laser is Fired Full Auto. This has worked well for me eliminating the Devastating effects that were mentioned above while still keeping the weapons viable. The problem with eliminating AP for all auto fire is that auto cannons, chain-guns, ect will have the same penetration weather a single round is fired or it is firing on full auto. Not quite. My proposal would be that AP applies to FA weapons when fired in normal single shot mode just not when fired in full auto mode. The rational being a single shot can concentrate on one area, full auto is a spray effect.
|
|
|
Post by demonetrigan on Jan 12, 2013 7:18:43 GMT -5
What about introducing heat management for laser weapons i.e. Battletech? So... Firing full auto will generate heat which must be dissipated or bad things happen... Keeps the awesomeness of the laser but puts the breaks on abusing the awesomeness =) given the lack of things in Gruntz you have to keep track of I think the only way that would work would be if it was a cool down mechanism i.e. fire then cannot fire on the next turn or for n turns depending on the weapon.
|
|
|
Post by getwrecked on Jan 12, 2013 11:24:37 GMT -5
What if you change the full auto rules so that instead of extra shots with the dice roll, the result instead turns into the size of template you put down. Roll 1 and you get a 1 inch template, 2 and you get a 2 inch template, 3 is a 3 inch template and so on. Then you treat everyone under the template just like any other template. This would allow full auto weapons to have a bigger affect on infantry than on vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by dustyskunk on Jan 12, 2013 11:28:16 GMT -5
What about introducing heat management for laser weapons i.e. Battletech? So... Firing full auto will generate heat which must be dissipated or bad things happen... Keeps the awesomeness of the laser but puts the breaks on abusing the awesomeness =) given the lack of things in Gruntz you have to keep track of I think the only way that would work would be if it was a cool down mechanism i.e. fire then cannot fire on the next turn or for n turns depending on the weapon. To expand on the idea: Implementing a heat/cool-down mechanism for FA light lasers essentially doesn't change the way the weapon operates; it simply implements a soft restriction on how much you can use it for any given set of turns. This way there need not be any changes to the AP value of the weapon for firing FA, which may be hard to rationalize other than for gameplay balance ("Why would multiple shots be less effective than a single shot?") and/or changes to the accuracy/to-hit modifiers of the weapon ("Since when do lasers have kick-back?"). For each FA shot taken, add a point of heat. When heat hits certain thresholds, roll to see if bad things happen (i.e. weapon seizes, explodes, etc.). The higher the heat, the more likely bad things happen. If heat gets too high, the weapon gets fried and can no longer be used. The onus is on the player if they want to chance a FA shot(s) with a high heat level, which could then pay dividends or end up hurting them. Reduced heat by a fix number each turn the weapon is not fired to simulate heat dissipation. The exact mechanics of the heat index would have to be worked out to ensure correct gameplay balance, of course. However I believe the idea to be sound. Also, fluff-wise this makes sense. Laser damage is essentially heat damage anyway. Since there is no real world counterpart to a FA laser, it can be rationalized that firing one at a high rate of speed would generate heat. Please don't get me wrong, I think that the suggestions thus far have been valid from a balance/gameplay perspective. Reducing the AP of the weapon, making it AE, or reducing its accuracy would all have a positive balancing effect on how the laser operates. Removing FA altogether would solve the problem as well. However I feel that each one of these suggestions moves the implementation of the weapon away from the spirit of the weapon.
|
|
|
Post by demonetrigan on Jan 12, 2013 12:03:44 GMT -5
given the lack of things in Gruntz you have to keep track of I think the only way that would work would be if it was a cool down mechanism i.e. fire then cannot fire on the next turn or for n turns depending on the weapon. To expand on the idea: Implementing a heat/cool-down mechanism for FA light lasers essentially doesn't change the way the weapon operates; it simply implements a soft restriction on how much you can use it for any given set of turns. This way there need not be any changes to the AP value of the weapon for firing FA, which may be hard to rationalize other than for gameplay balance ("Why would multiple shots be less effective than a single shot?") and/or changes to the accuracy/to-hit modifiers of the weapon ("Since when do lasers have kick-back?"). For each FA shot taken, add a point of heat. When heat hits certain thresholds, roll to see if bad things happen (i.e. weapon seizes, explodes, etc.). The higher the heat, the more likely bad things happen. If heat gets too high, the weapon gets fried and can no longer be used. The onus is on the player if they want to chance a FA shot(s) with a high heat level, which could then pay dividends or end up hurting them. Reduced heat by a fix number each turn the weapon is not fired to simulate heat dissipation. The exact mechanics of the heat index would have to be worked out to ensure correct gameplay balance, of course. However I believe the idea to be sound. Also, fluff-wise this makes sense. Laser damage is essentially heat damage anyway. Since there is no real world counterpart to a FA laser, it can be rationalized that firing one at a high rate of speed would generate heat. Please don't get me wrong, I think that the suggestions thus far have been valid from a balance/gameplay perspective. Reducing the AP of the weapon, making it AE, or reducing its accuracy would all have a positive balancing effect on how the laser operates. Removing FA altogether would solve the problem as well. However I feel that each one of these suggestions moves the implementation of the weapon away from the spirit of the weapon. the big problem here is that this becomes a level of heat that has to be tracked for each individual instance of the weapon in the force!! too much like battletech, too little like Gruntz remember the spirit of Gruntz (to an extent) is to be representative rather than detailed. So you can say the weapon fired on FA heats up too much....but you don't keep track of the heat, you give the unit a counter and at the end of the next unit activation you remove the counter.
|
|
|
Post by dustyskunk on Jan 12, 2013 12:15:21 GMT -5
the big problem here is that this becomes a level of heat that has to be tracked for each individual instance of the weapon in the force!! too much like battletech, too little like Gruntz remember the spirit of Gruntz (to an extent) is to be representative rather than detailed. So you can say the weapon fired on FA heats up too much....but you don't keep track of the heat, you give the unit a counter and at the end of the next unit activation you remove the counter. Putting it that way, I totally agree with you I lost sight of the core mechanic that make Gruntz what it is. Leave Battletech to Battletech!
|
|
|
Post by ski2060 on Jan 13, 2013 12:42:27 GMT -5
I'm going to try this when I get a chance to play. I think this is the simplest, and most elegant way to handle FA. It brings FA into it's role as a suppression use against infantry, while not being overpowered against vehicles. This allows FA with high AP to still be useful against vehicles, but not be too overpowered against them. What if you change the full auto rules so that instead of extra shots with the dice roll, the result instead turns into the size of template you put down. Roll 1 and you get a 1 inch template, 2 and you get a 2 inch template, 3 is a 3 inch template and so on. Then you treat everyone under the template just like any other template. This would allow full auto weapons to have a bigger affect on infantry than on vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by timvidlak on Jan 27, 2013 8:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Aristo on Apr 21, 2013 13:50:58 GMT -5
Don't mean to thread necro, but I think this is a significant thing to note in the current version of the rules. To me, a vehicle-mounted light projectile or laser weapon would be something akin to an LMG on a modern-day tank. I don't think it makes sense to give them AP ratings, as they're meant for anti-infantry in the first place. An LMG won't do you much good against a tank, yet in the rules, they're plenty capable of dealing damage to large vehicles. I think the anti-infantry weapons ought to be more in-line with the SA. medium counterparts.
I'd suggest that vehicles also be limited in shooting a single weapon in their shooting phase. Say you're deciding whether to shoot a tank or a gruntz unit with an MBT of your own. It doesn't make sense to fire an anti-infantry weapon at a tank (if the above changes are reflected), and shooting your main gun at infantry is questionable, depending on the weapon. Now you have to determine which target has greater priority, adding more depth to the game.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Apr 21, 2013 14:15:37 GMT -5
The big problem is that these are effectivly light vehicle weapons not really anti infantry (I personally think the name is very misleading). So it's more like 20mm cannon not a LMG. In V1 of the rules they were just called light vehicle weapons. But it was changed with the new assault rules in V1.1.
|
|