|
Post by comstar on Jan 5, 2013 8:10:00 GMT -5
That's true but actual is 8 damage each 26 - 18 = 8 and 44 - 36 = 8 against a heavy vehicle! I agree on Robin confirming the shooting for extra shots is it the same as each weapon ?
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 5, 2013 9:10:29 GMT -5
That's true but actual is 8 damage each 26 - 18 = 8 and 44 - 36 = 8 against a heavy vehicle! I agree on Robin confirming the shooting for extra shots is it the same as each weapon ? This illustrates my point. Why should an anti infantry weapon be as good at damaging a heavy vehicle as a the best available anti armour weapon two weapon sizes larger? Against less well armoured vehicles the anti infantry weapon has a better chance of destroying them than the two classes larger dedicated anti armour weapon.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Jan 5, 2013 13:25:55 GMT -5
Hi Tim I have managed to get my old laptop working (just) to see if this is what your saying. GSV Tank Now both are same cost both have two weapon systems for 51pts. Now I think your issue is that the vehicle light laser has 11 damage and 4 AP. Giving it 15 damage potential plus 2D6 per shot. The Heavy Plasma is 15 Damage AP4 plus 2D6 per shot. Both vehicles have the same Guard at 10 and same Skill of 5. Now two shots to hit at normal range for the Plasma will be 5 on one pair and 6 for the second shot. The average roll both should hit and average damage is 19 + 7 which is 26. This is 10 damage to the GSV for each hit. So 20 damage the vehicle is dead. Now for the shots from the Laser first average of D3 is 2 plus the 1 is 3 so two guns is 6 shots. The first three need 6 to hit then 7 for the second batch of three. So all six on average will hit and the average damage is 15 + 7 which is 22. This is 5 damage to the tank for each shot killing it on the last shot with 4 points left over. So if either pointed vehicle gets in range they will both potentially kill either side so I think the points are reasonably fair. It does mean that the GSV can also carry three points of infantry and be fairly effective as a support vehicle. I personally think the Vehicle Light Laser should be AP2 not AP4 to keep it in line with the Vehicle Light Projectile but that may be sorted in the next print run.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 5, 2013 14:35:46 GMT -5
Hi Tim I have managed to get my old laptop working (just) to see if this is what your saying. GSV Tank Now both are same cost both have two weapon systems for 51pts. Now I think your issue is that the vehicle light laser has 11 damage and 4 AP. Giving it 15 damage potential plus 2D6 per shot. The Heavy Plasma is 15 Damage AP4 plus 2D6 per shot. Both vehicles have the same Guard at 10 and same Skill of 5. Now two shots to hit at normal range for the Plasma will be 5 on one pair and 6 for the second shot. The average roll both should hit and average damage is 19 + 7 which is 26. This is 10 damage to the GSV for each hit. So 20 damage the vehicle is dead. Now for the shots from the Laser first average of D3 is 2 plus the 1 is 3 so two guns is 6 shots. The first three need 6 to hit then 7 for the second batch of three. So all six on average will hit and the average damage is 15 + 7 which is 22. This is 5 damage to the tank for each shot killing it on the last shot with 4 points left over. So if either pointed vehicle gets in range they will both potentially kill either side so I think the points are reasonably fair. It does mean that the GSV can also carry three points of infantry and be fairly effective as a support vehicle. I personally think the Vehicle Light Laser should be AP2 not AP4 to keep it in line with the Vehicle Light Projectile but that may be sorted in the next print run. Hi Matt, I think we will end up having to agree to disagree on this one. It wasn't particularly a duel between the two vehicles I was thinking of. At the risk of repeating myself I just don't get why an anti infantry weapon should be as good at taking out heavy armour as a heavy anti armour weapon. It is better at taking out light armour because there are more chances to hit and the lack of AP punch does not hinder it so much. Why take a SA missile weapon which can only cause one casualty on infantry when a FA MP is probably just as good if not better at taking out light armour and can cause up to 4 hits on infantry? It would be brilliant if somebody good at maths could compare the relative effectiveness of similarly costed weapons (FA and non FA) against a range of targets. How the to hit modifiers are applied are also very significant. I have just bought a few tanks. I have statted them as having a main plasma weapon and FA projectile weapon for the turret machine gun. Now wondering if the FA weapon should have a base modifier of -2 (-1 full auto, -1 vehicle firing second ) and further shots potentially worse than that. Very different from what I have been playing.
|
|
|
Post by baldlea on Jan 5, 2013 20:42:36 GMT -5
The FA laser as written does make some of the bigger weapons pointless. The Christmas break has allowed some of the Winchester crew to try the game at last. We played FA by the book last week and small support vehicles were tearing MBTs apart.
Tonight we had a 300pt per side game and house ruled that targeting vehicles with a FA weapon only allowed one shot but kept AP. This worked well as the Damage 11 lasers were picking off a couple Gruntz on average each time and only taking a few damage off big vehicles (perhaps causing a critical check if they got lucky).
I think we are likely to keep this ruling for our games but would still be interested in tweaks that other people try.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 7, 2013 13:06:38 GMT -5
Just bumping this up. After Matt and I's epic debate a definitive answer on what modifiers to hit that apply to full auto weapons would really be appreciated Robin. Especially if the -1 for firing as a vehicle secondary weapon applies on top of the -1 for full auto and if there is a further modifier for later shots. That is, does the fourth shot if there one, hit on the same modifier as the first.
|
|
|
Post by baldlea on Jan 8, 2013 7:15:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Jan 8, 2013 14:04:57 GMT -5
Hi Tim I did read through your posts and redid your example above and as you said agree to disagree. The reason the full auto was added was that a lot of machine guns and light cannon were not punchy enough so this was a compromise to get them working now some of the light weapons work well in my opinion but it does fall down with that particular weapon as it was bumped up because it was not that affective as a light vehicle weapon then full auto was added. I think the main issue you have is that this weapon is labled anti infantry weapon and I personally don't see them as that I see them as light vehicle weapons. They are a step up to the Specialist weapons which in there own right can hurt vehicles quiet well. The issue is that the system we use in Gruntz is a armour and hit point system and getting everything to fit into a level playing field can be quiet hard and a small bunus can really tip the balance one way or the other. The vehicle light laser is an odd one out of the bunch and I personally as stated above think it should be only AP 2 as this would aliviate the issue some what from being the uber weapon of choice. I also think that the extra shots should have the extra -1 per shot as this again is sorta explained in the rules but is not very clear (Robin please confirm on this one) So that's my view on this one
|
|
|
Post by timvidlak on Jan 9, 2013 5:26:53 GMT -5
Hi Tim I did read through your posts and redid your example above and as you said agree to disagree. The reason the full auto was added was that a lot of machine guns and light cannon were not punchy enough so this was a compromise to get them working now some of the light weapons work well in my opinion but it does fall down with that particular weapon as it was bumped up because it was not that affective as a light vehicle weapon then full auto was added. I think the main issue you have is that this weapon is labled anti infantry weapon and I personally don't see them as that I see them as light vehicle weapons. They are a step up to the Specialist weapons which in there own right can hurt vehicles quiet well. The issue is that the system we use in Gruntz is a armour and hit point system and getting everything to fit into a level playing field can be quiet hard and a small bunus can really tip the balance one way or the other. The vehicle light laser is an odd one out of the bunch and I personally as stated above think it should be only AP 2 as this would aliviate the issue some what from being the uber weapon of choice. I also think that the extra shots should have the extra -1 per shot as this again is sorta explained in the rules but is not very clear (Robin please confirm on this one) So that's my view on this one I agree with the AP value should be lowered by 1 for all Lasers. keeping them slightly better than projectiles verses armor. I completely disagree with the extra -1 per shot as auto fire weapons receive a -1 to all their shots. Why would a vehicle mounted weapon be less accurate than an infantry weapon. Additionally if you fire 2 weapons on a vehicle you are at -1 with the second weapon, If I was going to change anything I would make it -1 with both weapons fired.
|
|
|
Post by inrepose on Jan 9, 2013 6:56:17 GMT -5
I think some further tweaks could be proposed but I do support Comstar with regard to balance because it is very hard to create a perfect playing field.
It will be very interesting to continue to work through and refine it though. I don't want to rush out with many adjustments directly after release though and we can see how more players find the new version as time passes this year. More play and game reports would be great.
It is worth noting that I was resisting Full Auto for some time because my initial vision for the game was one where weapons had an abstract damage output, rather than something that represented automatic fire specifically by modelling multi-fire. This was in part due to the fact that high-rate-of-fire weapons would probably be the norm on a future battefield from the basic bull-pup side arm through to accelerated rapid fire tanks that can fire large shells or plasma at very high rates. So the goal was rather than modelling every weapon with multiple damage, you instead roll one set of attack and damage rolls which represented a fair balance of damage output from a particular squad or vehicle. However I actually really like Full Auto because it adds some fun and a little bit of a wild card with regard to getting every additional shot to land on target.
One quick fix might be to just agree to play a game without Full Auto weapons which keeps it more in line with the v1 rules. I think we should keep discussing and refining though, it would be great to continue to evolve and tweak the rules to reach a better balance for the community. Some fix's could be based on adjustments to the weapons, others could be points based only - if it feels too powerful in every circumstance, lets look at an increase in points or a stat change.
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Jan 9, 2013 12:45:29 GMT -5
I agree getting the balance is difficult and I don't think it is there at the moment although it is difficult to tell as there is no clarification on to hit modifiers. Hopefully we can work something out together.
To expand my thoughts. I see most sci-fi wargames and Gruntz based around WWII warfare. I can see why different types of units exist in Gruntz. Infantry are core, specialists give them some protection against armour. GSV's provide transport and some additional firepower. Mechs have better mobility than most armour but are not quite as tough. I would have thought tanks should have the most staying power and the highest damage output. Their role being to take out major vehicle or monster threats in the opposition. At the moment they seem worse than GSV's. Equal firepower against heavy targets, less effective against light armour due to a smaller number of shots and no transport capacity. What role do they have, why would they be there?
I agree entirely that there did seem a need to have weapons causing multiple casualties on Gruntz.
|
|
|
Post by demonetrigan on Jan 10, 2013 17:02:55 GMT -5
might one solution be to remove FA as it currently exists and replace it with an AE effect for the weapon?
this way you get the benefit of being able to hit multiple targets to represent the hail of bullets, but don't create the current situation we are discussing here.
On the other hand it does appear that it is really only this one weapon that is REALLY broken by FA so a simple fix to the VLL stats might be enough.
|
|
|
Post by artbraune on Jan 10, 2013 18:27:41 GMT -5
Fixing the VLL may be enough to keep the FA cheese factor in check? might one solution be to remove FA as it currently exists and replace it with an AE effect for the weapon? this way you get the benefit of being able to hit multiple targets to represent the hail of bullets, but don't create the current situation we are discussing here. On the other hand it does appear that it is really only this one weapon that is REALLY broken by FA so a simple fix to the VLL stats might be enough.
|
|
|
Post by papabees on Jan 11, 2013 0:17:44 GMT -5
I've always thought an AE actually made more sense.
|
|
|
Post by demonetrigan on Jan 11, 2013 2:57:27 GMT -5
I've always thought an AE actually made more sense. Maybe only allow FA for vehicle weapons and give anti infantry weapons an AE?
|
|