Excelsior Entertainment Forums

Warzone => Open Discussion => Topic started by: Enker on October 05, 2005, 02:17:12 AM

Title: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on October 05, 2005, 02:17:12 AM
What do you think, are vehicles to good?

I think vehicles are to good. The Mounted HMG's are by far the best weapons in UWZ.
They nearly have the range of a Sniper, but the damage of a HMG in shorter distances.
The are hard to kill. The bonus to hit a large target is not big enough. The Rocket Launchers
have to bad range modifiers, so you often miss with the rockets. They should be able to track on vehicles to hit them better.
Especially the single crewed vehicles are to good. +3 RC when they are standing. Why?
They should get no bonus when they are standing (as any other model) and should get a
penalty if they are moving and shooting in one action, because that is difficult to hand.
Multicrewed vehicles are more realistic with their rules. Moving and shooting in one action is a very big advantage.
All vehicles shoot get big penalties if they are doing this.

The best vehicle I have stood against so far is the Mishima Battlewalker.
Why? Mounted HMG, MV 5, single crewed, cheap and you are able to buy two of it for just one support slot.
(I want to buy two Great Greys for one support slot, too!)
So with faceless you can bring plenty of them. And of course Bauhaus Battlesuits are nasty, but I
don't want to get into the old BH Battlesuit discussion.   


Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: jjdodger on October 05, 2005, 05:44:33 AM
I think vehicles are balanced nicely, as you can only have 1 per 2 squads of grunts. Keeps the quantity of vehicles to a reasonable amount.

when shooting them with rockets (and everything else) dont forget the +1 to hit them due to size, if possible.

For the single crewed vehicles, because the driver is not concentrating on both driving and shooting, he gets the +3, which makes sense that he gets a bonus for that (even though, in some vehicles it CAN get extreme[Cough EDD needing a base 16 in SR when standing still Cough]), and some vehicles DO give penalties to gunners who are shooting while moving (Orca's, for example, the gunner on the back can only shoot once per turn if the vehicle is moving)

As to the mishima vehicles, they are not the only ones where you get multiple vehicles in one support squad - orca's come in squads of 1-3, and up to 3 HMG's as well.

The battlesuits are elites, and are not vehicles, so thats a completely different topic.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PhillySniper on October 05, 2005, 05:57:34 AM
What do you think, are vehicles to good?

I think vehicles add an interesting dynamic to the game. As a Bauhaus player, Ive seen the strike skimmer used to devestating effectiveness. Ive seen Cybers EDD singlehandedly control and win a game. Theres nothing like the feeling of being pinned down in a  corner cowering at the sight of a great grey.

I think vehicles are to good. The Mounted HMG's are by far the best weapons in UWZ.
They nearly have the range of a Sniper, but the damage of a HMG in shorter distances.
The are hard to kill. The bonus to hit a large target is not big enough. The Rocket Launchers
have to bad range modifiers, so you often miss with the rockets. They should be able to track on vehicles to hit them better.

Vehicles ARE deadly when used properly. A Mounted HMG will rip your force to shreds if you let it. Most MHMGs are  only good to medium range <which puts them into effective range of just about every AR in the game>. Rockets arent the only way to kill a vehicle. I have tasked a whole squade to the sole purpose of taking an EDD out, quickly. I have also used a Strike Skimmer as a decoy to draw fire. That being said, template weapons are more of a pain to me than a vehicle <especially when a certain Cyber player has tons of them and never seems to miss, right jjdodger ;D> As far as tracking on a vehicle that might not be a bad idea seeing as they are larger< im not real sure how it could be done> but  I think thats what AIM can be used for if im not mistake

Especially the single crewed vehicles are to good. +3 RC when they are standing. Why?
They should get no bonus when they are standing (as any other model) and should get a
penalty if they are moving and shooting in one action, because that is difficult to hand.
Multicrewed vehicles are more realistic with their rules. Moving and shooting in one action is a very big advantage.
All vehicles shoot get big penalties if they are doing this.

First let me start off with my feelings on Multi-crewed vehicles. I think the way MCs are designed is very effective and realistic. <having been  in the back of a deuce or a bradley trying to fire accurately while its moving I can attest to that>
Now single crewed are a different story all together. THEY ARE A PAIN!!!! :D Having been on the wrong end of a EDD doing a richard dance< because I stupidly left my forces with no cover, none on wait and clustered together  :o> I can feel the dislike of the +3 when not moving. I agree that they maybe should get a small penalty <-1 maybe> when moving and shooting in the same action because as we have all found out, its not easy to do many things well at once < driving while drinking coffee with a smoke in your mouth and talking on a cell :P> I think the +3 is a bit much for not moving to shoot. A +2 might make it not quite as deadly but still take into effect that it is a vehicle that is losing its greatest attribute<mobility> to fire at your sorry cowering arse ;D But with all that said Ive hated the +3 for a vehicle when playing against it, have loved it when using it to my advantage and actually like the strategy that it needs to be taken out without heavy losses.

Thats just my two cents and I hope I was able to state it without offending anyone as that was not my intention

Philly

Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: kwegibu on October 05, 2005, 06:33:24 AM
I always manage to blow them up really quickly :) So they don't much bother me.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Gallagher_Standard_Barer on October 05, 2005, 08:51:03 AM
One inequity I see in vehicle rules is that it puts DL armies which depend on Big Fuglies, at a potential disadvantage.  If my Hurricane were staring down a behemoth, or Maculator, or Contagion Collosus, he could move out of cover, fire, stand still and fire, fire and move back into cover, while the DL units which fill a similar niche on the opposing force could move out of cover, fire, and move back into cover, and he doesn't even recieve the +3 to hit on his shot, granted the big guys don't have to roll system failure, which is likely a balencing factor.

On the  whole I find the vehicles very well balenced, and excepting my above concern, which I don't see as a big problem due to being balenced in other areas, I see no problems with the current rules.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: monte_kev on October 05, 2005, 09:41:26 AM
I'll let you know after tonight I plan on testing the death angel in a game tonight. by far not the best vehicle but I have never used one.

Nick range uses two ED's in his tourny 1000pt army and it is simple leathal
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 05, 2005, 10:37:28 AM
I do not see any reason for the +3 RC bonus on single-crewed vehicles (except for the fact, that the enlightened ones from EE thought it to be appropriate). C'mon, people - having a dedicated gunner is a disadvantage? Do you think that all the armies in the world are intentionally crippling the capabilities of their combat vehicles by getting them separate drivers and gunners (and commanders)?  Have you ever tried to drive a combat vehicle? In rough terrain? Under fire? The driver is usually too occupied to do anything else, spotting enemies and shooting them is out of question...
Small vehicles in Warzone are definitely too powerful. The fact that their availability is limited does not make them any less so. A vehicle like Necromower or Mishima Battlewalker (or Capitolian Great Grey) has firepower and survivalability far superior to that of grunt/elite troopers with similar PC cost (with the exception of the blue powered armour), usually they may also be fielded in quite large amounts thanks to the low-cost grunt squads that are available (in a 1k points army it is possible to field 8 necromowers - low availability my @#%$). They also have superior mobility... practically no disadvantages (except for impenetrability - but the DL fuglies also suffer from this one).
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Dragon62 on October 05, 2005, 11:40:23 AM
I like vehicles in the game but most of the time they can be taken out fairly quick and if they have high armor use a havoc grenade to lower the ac by 3 if the vehicle is ground based.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 05, 2005, 11:55:49 AM
Have you ever tried to take out even a single Orca, Battlewalker or Great Grey played smartly? Just put some meatshield in front of them, find a nice hiding place for the vehicle, pop out, shoot, shoot while standing, hide again. Tac Sense - useless ('cause you do not see the vehicle, when you're able to use it). Wait - useless (the meatshield...)... If the vehicle owner is smart, those buggers are practically immortal.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PhillySniper on October 05, 2005, 12:59:55 PM
Have you ever tried to take out even a single Orca, Battlewalker or Great Grey played smartly? Just put some meatshield in front of them, find a nice hiding place for the vehicle, pop out, shoot, shoot while standing, hide again. Tac Sense - useless ('cause you do not see the vehicle, when you're able to use it). Wait - useless (the meatshield...)... If the vehicle owner is smart, those buggers are practically immortal.

Thats when you have to use your own tactics to make make the Orca, Great Grey or Battle walker out pace its meat shields. The MV of the vehicle can be used against it in that way Or concentrate your fire. You can use an entire squad on wait or if you are Bauhaus use your sniper to chose that vehicle and attempt to take it out. One mistake I have seen people make against Great Greys and Orcas is to move to them. If you move to them and get within their optimum firing range you are going to die. Try making them come to you or move a distance with no targets- you can walk them into a firepower trap< with BH anyway.>
I will agree that vehicles are deadly but not unbeatable. Ive used a Jaeger HMG to hold a Great Grey at bay- I think thats a fair trade off  a HMG out of play to keep a Great Grey out of play?
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 05, 2005, 01:38:42 PM
Oh, they are beatable... or possible to avoid. But they are far tougher and more destructive than they should be for their PC cost.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on October 05, 2005, 11:22:00 PM
I agree fully with Pieta.
The presens of a gunner is a disadvantage in UWZ. That can't be right.
One person can do two things simultanious better than two persons concentration each on one thing?
And if the one person must only do one thing he gets a bonus of +3RC? Damn who is he? X-Superbatman?
And the pop out and hide play with vehicles is really nasty and unfair, but unfortunatly legal.

Beside: The Battlewalkers are better than the Great Grey, because you can buy two of them, and they
are better than the Battlesuits, because they have MV 5 and a better HMG.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Nscaalcn on October 05, 2005, 11:27:28 PM
I play Bauhaus myself and whenever I have taken either GT Offroad or Strike Skimmer, they have always been blown to pieces. I admit that I use them to provocatively to draw as much enemy fire as possible. Try to get to optimal firing range with vehicle and most cases enemy must concentrate enough firepower to blow it up. Depending of the game size (in points) and dice, it could take enemy's all fire for one game round. That let's you to activate all your squads and do what you want with them, without taking too much return fire. I think that is fair trade off too.

But usually I don't take any vehicles, at least in smaller games. Infantry is cheaper, packs more firepower than single HMG on vehicle and is more difficult to shoot at. I have learned that nearly nothing is better that a horde of Ducal Militia! I wouldn't even think of a Bauhaus force without Ducal's except when it's possible that enemy has Bio Giant or any other has-los-over-all-battlefield and packs a template weapon thingy.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 05, 2005, 11:49:16 PM
Nscaalcn... have you ever tried to fight a Demnogonis army with infantry only? I assure you, trying to hit a unit which is in level 6 smoke behind hard cover with infantry is a serious pain in the backside. Most units hit them on 1s and 2s... WITH aiming. Great Greys for the same cost as 3-4 grunts hit them on 5s or 6s (depending on the range) WITHOUT aiming. In damage output per PC they are far superior to infantry, especially if things get difficult. They are also soo much more survivable (the pop out and hide trick), and mobile - even if the infantry is able to lay down the same amount of firepower as a vehicle, it has to stay in place in order to shoot. A vehicle does not have to...
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: LAWwaldo on October 06, 2005, 01:54:42 AM
  I find that with adequate cover (IE, not 40k style cover...gah I hate open battlefields), vehicles aren't overpowering.  Ya, if you play with an open area or sit in front of an Orca, you deserve whats coming.  However, if you make them move around a bit, and take out their screen, then it becomes a lot simpler.  Yes, it requires a bit more strategy, but thats what I like about the game.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on October 06, 2005, 01:57:21 AM
this is c/p'ed from the thread on Technicals and addresses the bonus that single pilot vehicles get.

 
Quote
On the issue of gunners being less accurate than single pilot vehicles, try standing (or even sitting) in a moving vehicle as a passenger and shooting stop signs.  It's not the easiest thing in the world.  Now imagine sitting in the drivers seat and using a built in Aiming device, that is by extension the entire vehicle, and just driving at what you want to shoot.  It's a little easier as the driver because you know which way you're moving next and aren't having to react to unannounced violent bumps and dips inaddition to drawing a bead on your target.


I have played with and against all sorts of Vehicle heavy forces and invariably the vehicles go down to massed Rifle fire within the first few turns of engagement.  If a Vehicle is going to dick dance then I'm going to deny it an open firing lane, I do not march my forces into kill zones and I actively use cover or MP w/smoke.  From the way it sounds you've lost every match the moment a Vehicle card is activated.

   The only vehicle that I have any qualms with is the Grey and that is only because of the high RC stat on the driver (who doesn't even have Tac Sense)  and even then it's extremly difficult to field any sort of coherent fighting force and field more than one, two at the most, Greys.   I know this from personal experience.  I played a force with three greys and lost (and when it comes down to it I'm possibly the cheapest SOB on the planet when I want to be).  I was outmaneuvered and the greys were brought down by careful AR fire and a rather well placed Paradeployed FT unit.  Without the supposed muscle of the greys the rest of my force (a lotta LI) were gutted and strung out to dry.


Here is a trick that you can use

You can't shoot through your own troops when the gap between their bases is too small.

Place three or four (depending on the squad size) of your guys in Hard cover spaced a little less than an inch apart.  Place the rest of the squad behind them several inches.  Leave everyone on wait.  When the flyer pops out (I'm assuming you have a problem with greys as that's all you've moaned about) pop your waits.  The front rank can shoot at the meat shield to their hearts content but the rear rank can not as there are interviening friendlies.  The rear rank can only shoot at the model that is at a higher elevation, ie the Grey.  A little unprecidented return fire will dissuade most cheddar hounds from being to lame about their tactics, especially after they start taking wounds.  This works for Walkers too as they are much, much taller than surrounding meaty troops.


Honestly, Vehicles are in no way overpowerful and other than the Grey, and even then it takes someone that lets them have free reign,  are fairly hard to abuse. 


"the novice blames his tools, the master blames himself"


-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 06, 2005, 02:13:05 AM
From the way it sounds you've lost every match the moment a Vehicle card is activated.
Nope I have quite an average tourney record - vehicles or not. Each tourney is 1 win, 1 lose, 1 draw.
The problem is - in a single activation a vehicle like GG is easily able to take out 2-3 times their own PCs worth, move around a lot and come out unharmed. If you go GG hunting with your "put half of the army on wait" technique (lets see.... half of those guys will come off wait, 1/3rd of them hit, half of them will wound - you need to put at least 12 guys on Wait trying to shoot at the GG, not the meatshield, just to wound it once, unless you're one of the lucky guys who have army with units with ambush) you're hurting yourself more than the enemy is - a smart oponent would utilize GGs mobility and go after somebody else (I would). As for the numbers - fielding 2 great greys or 4 Battlewalkers in 1200 points army (tourney standard in Poland) requires practically no effort and is a real "no brainer".
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on October 06, 2005, 02:33:54 AM
It doesn't take a whole army on wait, at most it takes a squad if done properly.
   So what if only one or two hit, it takes the initive away from his tactics, he is revealed to be vulnerable in that respect.  As long as you control who he shoots at, ie closest squad in hardest cover/smoke with best armor then you can exploit his known route of advance and hit him where it counts.  My goodness, you make it sound as if he's at fault for making mincemeat out of exposed units.  If it's really as bad as that sounds take one of those medium priced individuals with good armor and lots of wounds that most Corps have, attach them to the squad and stick them in the front lines (second or third) and let them absorb some of the fire.

Is dick dancing a cheap tactic when used by any unit? yes

can it be overcome by manuever and concentrated fire every single time?  yes (unless he has the one piece of terrain on the board)



just outta curiosity, how are the Polish tourny's set up?  1200 points is a good sized game regardless of where it's being played

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 06, 2005, 02:58:48 AM
Quote
It doesn't take a whole army on wait, at most it takes a squad if done properly.
The dice must love you. 8 to 12 guys to put a single wound on it is a minimum, statistically speaking. If the GG is hunting this particular squad, 4-5 of those guys will die...
Quote
So what if only one or two hit, it takes the initive away from his tactics, he is revealed to be vulnerable in that respect
Not exactly. This forces YOU to put a superior (in PC terms) force on wait in order to just deter a single model from doing harm to them. It is going to strike elsewhere. Seems that it is YOU, not the vehicle owner that loses the initiative - you're reacting to a threat with a much superior force.
Quote
My goodness, you make it sound as if he's at fault for making mincemeat out of exposed units.
Erm... are you playing this game at all sometimes? You advocate lots of terrain (I do too, but for different reasons). This increases the strength of the vehicles - putting the most forward units in smoke and hard cover is not gonna to help much - the vehicle will use terrain to get a fire lane that allows it to shoot at an unprotected unit, and it can shoot without losing movement actions. Infantry OTOH needs to move more to find targets. With the mobility of an average vehicle, there's always some kind of exposed unit.
Quote
Is dick dancing a cheap tactic when used by any unit? yes
Unfortunately, it is a legal tactic. If it is the only smart element in the way somebody plays, well... he can be beaten, easily, if with great loses. If he is a good player and uses this "cheap tactic"... you're in for a world of hurt.

Quote
just outta curiosity, how are the Polish tourny's set up?  1200 points is a good sized game regardless of where it's being played
1200 points, more or less half of the table-tennis table size as the battlefield, some restrictions (e.g. up to 2 support choices or repeated elite units - to avoid armies like 15 Praetorians and 20 Necromutants). Varied terrain - both environmental level and table setup.
Usually 3 games per day, each lasts 2.5 hour. 5 objectives on the table, it takes one action to claim each - you get one "big point" per each claimed objective + 1 "big point" if you've had more of them than the enemy (so that 3:2 in big points becomes 4:2). Places are determined by the number of big points, in the case of ties we calculate the difference between models killed and lost, person with better kill:lose ratio is first. In the first rounds players may issue chalenges or be assigned random oponents, in later rounds they are paired according to current scores (first two best scores, next two..., of course no pair is going to play twice in a tourney). Usually tournaments in Warsaw have 12-20 players (not everybody can come to each one - a lot of us work on weekends), this month we have two days long Championships with 40 players.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: monte_kev on October 06, 2005, 08:30:45 AM
well I played 2 games with the death angel last night, so now I have some imput.
well first I was playing a capital team that basically just bunkers itself in hard cover just outside the deployment zone and shoots away.

So having the death angel in the army worked ok, it deffently took attention off the rest of my army, and it acted as a decent meat sheild.

although sadly without LR it was only able to take out a few cappy grunts before it became rubble.

so with that performance....vehicles are just fine...lol
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: T Prime on October 06, 2005, 10:17:19 AM
Let me preface my posting that I appreciate the discourse on this topic, even when the sarcasm bubbles up unnessarily (IMO). As the "Enlightened" person here at EE, I was intrigued by Petias observation about single-crewed vs. multi-crewed vehicles vis-a-vis the bonus for not moving.

That +3 advantage does apply to multi-crewed vehicles when the driver spends his action to simply idle (ie-not move). It was intended to show a progression but that seems to have been misread. I am sorry for that.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on October 06, 2005, 11:12:15 AM
huh, and no one thought to ask.


(back to the books)

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 07, 2005, 06:47:25 PM
What do you think, are vehicles to good?

I think vehicles add an interesting dynamic to the game. As a Bauhaus player, Ive seen the strike skimmer used to devestating effectiveness. Ive seen Cybers EDD singlehandedly control and win a game. Theres nothing like the feeling of being pinned down in a  corner cowering at the sight of a great grey.

I think vehicles are to good. The Mounted HMG's are by far the best weapons in UWZ.
They nearly have the range of a Sniper, but the damage of a HMG in shorter distances.
The are hard to kill. The bonus to hit a large target is not big enough. The Rocket Launchers
have to bad range modifiers, so you often miss with the rockets. They should be able to track on vehicles to hit them better.

Vehicles ARE deadly when used properly. A Mounted HMG will rip your force to shreds if you let it. Most MHMGs are  only good to medium range <which puts them into effective range of just about every AR in the game>. Rockets arent the only way to kill a vehicle. I have tasked a whole squade to the sole purpose of taking an EDD out, quickly. I have also used a Strike Skimmer as a decoy to draw fire. That being said, template weapons are more of a pain to me than a vehicle <especially when a certain Cyber player has tons of them and never seems to miss, right jjdodger ;D> As far as tracking on a vehicle that might not be a bad idea seeing as they are larger< im not real sure how it could be done> but  I think thats what AIM can be used for if im not mistake

Especially the single crewed vehicles are to good. +3 RC when they are standing. Why?
They should get no bonus when they are standing (as any other model) and should get a
penalty if they are moving and shooting in one action, because that is difficult to hand.
Multicrewed vehicles are more realistic with their rules. Moving and shooting in one action is a very big advantage.
All vehicles shoot get big penalties if they are doing this.

First let me start off with my feelings on Multi-crewed vehicles. I think the way MCs are designed is very effective and realistic. <having been  in the back of a deuce or a bradley trying to fire accurately while its moving I can attest to that>
Now single crewed are a different story all together. THEY ARE A PAIN!!!! :D Having been on the wrong end of a EDD doing a richard dance< because I stupidly left my forces with no cover, none on wait and clustered together  :o> I can feel the dislike of the +3 when not moving. I agree that they maybe should get a small penalty <-1 maybe> when moving and shooting in the same action because as we have all found out, its not easy to do many things well at once < driving while drinking coffee with a smoke in your mouth and talking on a cell :P> I think the +3 is a bit much for not moving to shoot. A +2 might make it not quite as deadly but still take into effect that it is a vehicle that is losing its greatest attribute<mobility> to fire at your sorry cowering arse ;D But with all that said Ive hated the +3 for a vehicle when playing against it, have loved it when using it to my advantage and actually like the strategy that it needs to be taken out without heavy losses.

Thats just my two cents and I hope I was able to state it without offending anyone as that was not my intention

Philly



Offensive?  On the contrary.  It couldn't have been much more eloquent.  Well stated, Bryon.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 07, 2005, 07:05:51 PM
Now, for my two cents worth...


Pietia, Enker - you guys seem to be in the minority here; forgive me for singling you out of the crowd.  I have played armies that contained vehicles, Vulkans/Viktors, vehicles and/or Vulkans/Viktors and armies that contained neither vehicles nor 'suits.  I have had my share of defeats at the hands of armies with vehicles in them.  I can say that when I looked back on those defeats, I can point to where I lost the games.  It never had anything to do with the fact that the vehicles were present.  I had simply to do with my own tactics with a bit of bad luck thrown in (sometimes it wasn't even the luck - just my own poor tactics).

I know nothing of either of your playing styles, so I will not even attempt to say that you need a change in tactics or strategy.  However, in all of the negatives I've read, so far, about your opinions of vehicles, I have not seen what tactics you have tried to use to be more successful against them.

I know that when I am handed my bravado, I go back and look at what I could have (and should have) done differently.  In doing so, I have learned.  I have found weaknesses in not only my opponents tactics (and have used those against them, later) but found ways to make fighting vehicles easier, as well.

Joe mentioned some great ways to fight them.  You poo-pooed his idea by saying that "Not exactly. This forces YOU to put a superior (in PC terms) force on wait in order to just deter a single model from doing harm to them. It is going to strike elsewhere. Seems that it is YOU, not the vehicle owner that loses the initiative - you're reacting to a threat with a much superior force." To me, that is a viable tactic.  However, if you fall prey to letting the force get distracted by the vehicle, again, it is the tactics - not the rules - that might need review.

Forgive me if I've reiterated what's already been iterated, but it is my opinon (all well as some others, by the poll results) that vehicles are fine the way they are.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 08, 2005, 12:39:45 AM
dmcgee1 - I CAN handle vehicles. No problem there. I also USE vehicles - at least when I play Capitol. I've never lost one... except for a DL Reaver which I drove into the middle of enemy force... I know the tactics for beating them, and I assure you, that when seeing the battlefield in front of me, I can think of several much better ones than those mentioned here by PFC or other guys and implement them. Or simply decide, that fighting the vehicle is not worth my attention and proceed with winning the game by fulfilling mission objectives.

However... As far as I am aware, the goal of any Point Cost system is to ensure, that units with similar battlefield performance have similar costs (and vice-versa)*. So - 2 minimal squads of Light Infantry and a Great Grey should have roughly the same battlefield value as two six-men-and-sarge squads of the same Light Infantry (245 vs 248 PC). Try it. I assure you, unless the guy with Great Grey plays like a complete idiot, he'll win every time. Vehicles CAN be beaten, but their performance - just like it is in the case of some other units (Vulkans, anyone?) is not reflected by their PC cost - maybe, because a lot of their resilence comes from sources other than their armor and number of wounds (unlike in the case of the big vehicles) and this "rubric" software does not take this into account. No PC system is perfect...

While EE managed to get it right with most of the big ones - Hurricane, Eradicator and other such vehicles, the small ones seem to be undercosted. Seriously. Of course "I don't know the Rubric...." . The case here is very similar to that of Eldar Wraithlord in 40K - a model, which also could be beaten (as argued by GW defenders) - which was true, but beating it required concerted effort by a quite large part of the army, which was worth several times more than itself - and had enough firepower to be too dangerous to be ignored. I hoped not to see similar problems when I came back to Warzone... unfortunately, they exist.

And... getting small vehicles back in line would not be really that difficult - just clearly stating that e.g. a vehicle may shoot only at the end of its move.

*Maybe I'm mistaken and the PC cost is there just to make the statline one number longer
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 08, 2005, 08:25:51 AM
Pietia, I did not mean to impugn your playing.  If I did, I apologize.  I guess I was really long-winded when all I really wanted to say was, the poll above, so far, shows that most think that vehicles are not too powerful, in this game.

On a side note, I have seen and/or read many battle reports that have very sparse terrain.  This can make vehicles deadly, as in real life, open ground is great for manuevering vehicles.  Are you liberal with your terrain in setup, as the ryles highly suggest?  If so, then I do not think that I can contribute much more to the discussion.

Again, my apologies if I came across as deriding your tactics.  :)
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 08, 2005, 12:05:27 PM
Don't worry, I am extremely thick skinned - the only person in history that managed to annoy me had to work really hard to do this ;-) .
back on topic
As for my experiences so far - dense terrain in fact favors vehicles over infantry. Vehicles do not lose chance to fire if they have to relocate (and moving in order to find new targets is more common in dense terrain - on a clear table it is possible not to move some units at all) AND less models have LOS to them - as vehicles are generally tougher than infantry, this works in their favor (lower risk of getting hurt). The vehicle may simply chose who it fights. The denser terrain, the easier it is. On a clear table infantry has better chance - with proper application of Tactical Sense it is possible to take out vehicles with assault rifles. In dense terrain very often you will not have LOS to the vehicle, and troops which DO have LOS to, say, Battlewalker, Orca or a Great Grey tend to die very quickly for some reason (lead poisoning usually).
Some situations may work in favor of infantry - 12" LOS limitation may spell doom on lighter vehicles, if the enemy has a lot of SMGs/HMGs or anything else with high ROF on wait - but only if the vehicle decides to take the chance and meet such unit head-on. In other cases it may also work in favor of the vehicle - a technique similar to "shoot&hide" (or "dick dancing" you called it ;-) ) may be used, only it is not necessary to seek cover, but only retreat beyond LOS (with a supporting infantry unit lying few inches back on wait or ambush it may be very devastating).
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 08, 2005, 07:30:10 PM
Don't worry, I am extremely thick skinned - the only person in history that managed to annoy me had to work really hard to do this ;-) .
back on topic
As for my experiences so far - dense terrain in fact favors vehicles over infantry. Vehicles do not lose chance to fire if they have to relocate (and moving in order to find new targets is more common in dense terrain - on a clear table it is possible not to move some units at all) AND less models have LOS to them - as vehicles are generally tougher than infantry, this works in their favor (lower risk of getting hurt). The vehicle may simply chose who it fights. The denser terrain, the easier it is.

Really?  I find the opposite to be true.  I find that it restricts vehicular movement as most vehicles can't turn more than 90° once per AC.

On a clear table infantry has better chance - with proper application of Tactical Sense it is possible to take out vehicles with assault rifles. In dense terrain very often you will not have LOS to the vehicle, and troops which DO have LOS to, say, Battlewalker, Orca or a Great Grey tend to die very quickly for some reason (lead poisoning usually).
Some situations may work in favor of infantry - 12" LOS limitation may spell doom on lighter vehicles, if the enemy has a lot of SMGs/HMGs or anything else with high ROF on wait - but only if the vehicle decides to take the chance and meet such unit head-on. In other cases it may also work in favor of the vehicle - a technique similar to "shoot&hide" (or "dick dancing" you called it ;-) )
NOT MY WORDS - ;) 
may be used, only it is not necessary to seek cover, but only retreat beyond LOS (with a supporting infantry unit lying few inches back on wait or ambush it may be very devastating).

I have been the target of said manuever, but was, eventually, able to get my three Vulkans within firing range on a 15" visibility board.  All three were on wait when EDD decided to dance a jig too many.

I do see your points, Pietia, but think that they're in the category of "certain situations.'  One could argue any given circumstance, but, on a whole, vehicles in this game work very well, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 09, 2005, 12:18:15 AM
Really?  I find the opposite to be true.  I find that it restricts vehicular movement as most vehicles can't turn more than 90° once per AC.
Walkers - 180, skimmer - 360... there are a lot of walkers and skimmers in this game. True, wheeled vehicles have only 90 degrees turns, but they're usually open vehicles, so there's no problems with drive-by shooting. You don't have to be able to ride in circles to utilize terrain.
Large vehicles - like Vermin or Reaver are somewhat limited by dense terrain, since it is not always possible to find a path for them (the vehicle does not fit), but the smaller ones - like e.g. necromower, are pretty easy to fit anywhere...
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on October 10, 2005, 02:21:16 AM
In our Group we have decided, that vehicles must choose to first move and then shoot or the other way around, but you cannot change it in on activation. That means if you shoot first an the first action, you have to do this the other two actions, too. So with the "pop out and hide" tactiv you can only shoot with two actions, not with all three. This makes it a little bit fairer.
You always talk about tactics to take a vehicle out, but the vehicle owner also use tactics to play the vehicle and maximum effort.
And a vehicle have definetly more and better tactical options than a trooper with an assault rifle
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 10, 2005, 12:19:19 PM
Yes, the vehicle does have more options, hence it's PC.  I don't see the problem, there.  Even if the turning radius is 360º, they are still only allowed one turn per AC, unlike troops (which allowed to turn  as many times as they like in a given AC).  I have seen many players "sidestep," or other illegal manuevers, and have politely reminded them that they need to follow the rules.  When a vehicle can only make one turn in a constricted area, one of two things happens - they get slowed down because they have to exchange forward speed for manueverability, or they find themselves out of position as they attempt to use all their MV value.

Again, I think we are, really, just discussing play styles here.  I still believe that there is, currently, nothing wrong with the way vehicles work, in this game.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Pietia on October 10, 2005, 12:37:42 PM
Yes, the vehicle does have more options, hence it's PC. 
A vehicle costs roughly 10-11 points more than comparable (in terms of weapons, SAs, RC, wounds, armor etc) infantry unit (autocannon-armed meka vs Viktor). That's not much at that PC-cost level, especially if you consider such bonuses like "standing-still bonus" or that "fire-on-the-move" thing... Hell... i'd gladly pay 11 (even 15) points to upgrade some of my Dark Legion troops to get those options (even if I had to restrict them to 1 turn per action....)
Even if the turning radius is 360º, they are still only allowed one turn per AC, unlike troops (which allowed to turn  as many times as they like in a given AC).
Yep. But vehicles also have options unavailable to soldiers. While a soldier has to maneuver around a 1.5 inch wall, an Orca may step over it (even though the model is no taller than the wall). A Great Grey may simply fly over it, with no need to worry about terrain... Not what I'd call reduced maneuverability. And in anything but a really messy terrain, 1 turn per action is enough, if you plan your actions well.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 10, 2005, 02:03:38 PM
I will no longer try to dissuade you.  Evidently, we have, each, our opinions and we stand by them.  On to other discussions... ;)
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Galen on October 11, 2005, 10:24:42 AM
    I hope people don't think I'm beating a dead horse, but I happened on the discussion a little late.   I've read that all vehicles get +3RC for standing still due to the stablility of the firing platform.
    How does this relate/compare to MMG teams and other associated armament?  It seems that MHMG like the HMG-85T or the Schwerwaffe are built to provide a stable firing platform for a MMG (an thats about it.)
    Are these weapons that much less stable than one mounted on a Great Grey or Battlewalker, both of which are built as much for movement as for shooting?
    Do you all think that the points difference between the Necromower at 54pt and the ducal militia HMG team at 43pt is enough to take into account the increased survivability/mobility/accuracy of the Necromower?

Don't know how I feel about it all, but would like to hear some opinions.  Based on the army lists I have seen posted people only take associated armament when a vehicle mounted weapon is unavailable.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: masherking on October 11, 2005, 01:54:36 PM
I've played many mini games and vehicles in warzone work just fine.
I found that people would look at stats in the book and say "OH MY GOD thats crazy broken!!". and never see it played on table, but once they do its like "uh that wasnt to bad".
The great thing about this game is everything is kill'able, Tough as nails sure but at the end of day kill'able. I know because I have a 8 man cartel grunt squad thats gone and killed all kinds of crazy huge vehicles and monstes and I'm NOT crazy lucky with the dice.  ::)

-steve

 




Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on October 11, 2005, 03:32:14 PM
Amen, brutha'
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on November 02, 2005, 12:12:46 AM
With the discussion coming to an end I have closed the voting.
2/3 think that the vehicle are well balanced compared to other troops
1/3 think that the vehicles are to good for their point cost.
Nobody could convice the other of his oppinion.
All in all vehciles seems to be not "broken" at least.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: behemoth on November 02, 2005, 05:24:41 AM
Aww... I missed the poll!

Now make a poll about how Medics perform and is it worthwhile taking Medics as opposed to taking some other kind of specialist.


*INCOMING!*
*ducks*


==============
There is one specific thing "broken" with one particular vehicle IMO - and that is the Comm Officer Purple Shark. I've yet to understand the logic how calling Fire Missions high-up in the air (like, say, flying in height-band of 6 inches having visibility far superior than on the ground) is harder than calling them on the ground (as in if you're flying up in 6 inches you can call the fire mission only 10 inches away even when you most definately have a broader view of the battlefield) . Distances are calculated by adding the vertical + horizontal distance and Fire Missions can only be called up to 16 inches away. ... Now back to the regular programming.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on November 02, 2005, 05:51:00 AM
The only way to make the Purple Shark Commo Spec work is to drop him off somewhere way in advance of the forces and have him Form Fireteam in an advantagious position, ie a good vantage point or very highly protected area.  That way he gains the ability to call it in while the enemy forces are still somewhat clustered and has a much decreased chance of deviating back onto foward friendlies.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: behemoth on November 02, 2005, 08:35:06 AM
Yup. I know that.
It's pretty shame, though, that it can't be used effectively on board the vehicle where the model actually can see more than on the ground.

Kind of makes the Purple Shark only a transport platform instead of a mobile fire-control platform. Shame really.


Edited for the inevitable typos ... no matter how small a post you make there's always at least one typo in there. Doesn't much help that my cat decided that she wants attention RIGHT NOW and is crawling all over the keyboard.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: WarlordtheFT on November 02, 2005, 09:47:18 AM
    I hope people don't think I'm beating a dead horse, but I happened on the discussion a little late.   I've read that all vehicles get +3RC for standing still due to the stablility of the firing platform.
    How does this relate/compare to MMG teams and other associated armament?  It seems that MHMG like the HMG-85T or the Schwerwaffe are built to provide a stable firing platform for a MMG (an thats about it.)
    Are these weapons that much less stable than one mounted on a Great Grey or Battlewalker, both of which are built as much for movement as for shooting?
    Do you all think that the points difference between the Necromower at 54pt and the ducal militia HMG team at 43pt is enough to take into account the increased survivability/mobility/accuracy of the Necromower?

Don't know how I feel about it all, but would like to hear some opinions.  Based on the army lists I have seen posted people only take associated armament when a vehicle mounted weapon is unavailable.

Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: chribu on January 14, 2006, 05:48:40 PM
Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.
does the HMG-85T provide cover to the gunner behind it?
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on January 14, 2006, 08:23:39 PM
Keep in mind that the associated armament has some advantages that a vehicle would not. Mostly in the form of being able to better utilize cover.  However, I think that most players would prefer to have the mobility.
does the HMG-85T provide cover to the gunner behind it?

No
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on January 30, 2006, 12:18:02 AM
For all who think, that vehicles are to good.
Last game we changed a rule.
Vehicles get no +3 to RC when standing.
They get -3RC when they are moving and shooting in one action.
For us this seemes to be fair and it worked well.
So vehicles are still good and have many tactical options, but
are not the superior killing machine. 
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on January 30, 2006, 03:44:01 AM
For all who think, that vehicles are to good.
Last game we changed a rule.
Vehicles get no +3 to RC when standing.
They get -3RC when they are moving and shooting in one action.
For us this seemes to be fair and it worked well.
So vehicles are still good and have many tactical options, but
are not the superior killing machine. 

So, basically, you nuetered vehicles.  Why not just give all models that spend at least one of their AC's moving a -3 to their RC?  I am a bit confused as to why a vehicle cannot, by your reckoning, be a stable weapons platform for it's crew.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on January 30, 2006, 04:58:50 AM
Because other models do not move and shot in ONE action.
And in our group we all think, that vehicles are to good.
Have you ever played against 4x Battlewalker in 1000 Pts Force?

Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Ruther on January 30, 2006, 05:06:21 AM
Where i play we dont use such lists coz we all want to have fun with a good game not finding out who can build the most evil list ^^.

So no i never saw a problem with the use of the vehicles as they are now.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on January 30, 2006, 12:53:51 PM
Because other models do not move and shot in ONE action.
And in our group we all think, that vehicles are to good.
Have you ever played against 4x Battlewalker in 1000 Pts Force?



I am the originator of the Vulkan Army of Death (insofar as I know) and have seen the limits of good sportsmanship with it.  I do not[/b] play this list in tournies.  Further, I only bring it out when it is challenged, as it has become a bone of contention (here, on the forums) as to whether or not it is a "cheesy" force.  4x Battlewalkers may be in this category.

Rather than hindering the vehicles, perhaps you should discourage players from creating armies that lack imagination and fluff.  Conversely, you could fight fire with fire and show the player the error of their ways.

Another point - doesn't the poll at the top of this thread give the overwhelming opinion that vehicles are just fine the way that they are?  I fight my buddies' EDD's, Dragon Bikes, Skimmers and Orcas on a regualr basis and have never had a problem defeating them.  I find that good tactics (in a point-balanced system) can overcome even bad dice rolls. ;)

What vehicles, in particualr, do you have a problem defeating?  Perhaps I can give you some advice on how to tackle them.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Gallagher_Standard_Barer on January 30, 2006, 01:01:17 PM
I really don't think vehicles are too powerful, but I'll second Dave's comments about fighting fire with fire.  If I'm not mistaken you play capitol Enker, you could make quite the "Sharks and Barks" army using K-9s as cheap grunts and purple sharks as support (I know the Great Grey is better but then you couldn't make your army title rhyme).
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on January 30, 2006, 01:02:52 PM
actually, i've played against 4X walkers and six snipers (two squads of two snipers and two more snipers in the grunts).  i won.   while it was a cheesy force it was perfectly beatable.

-pFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Ruther on January 30, 2006, 01:12:42 PM
Its ofc beatable but not without the right terrain and some missions help there as well.Another good way is to counter it with another cheesy list, wich is just fine than^^.

I just see that as very boring force and very poor sportsmanship (thats my personal opinion so dont bash me for it  ;D)

/me waits for all the smites  :'(
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: chribu on January 30, 2006, 01:23:24 PM
well, I was planning on what dmcgee calls VAoD, after putting all the unit stats into one database and running complex math simulations, before I even read about it on this forum. :D
(not because i tried this before it was written, but because I hadn't yet seen this forum  ;))
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on January 31, 2006, 02:02:21 AM
I don't want to persuade you that vehicles are too good.
I think this discussion goes round in circles.
It was just a proposal for the one third who think that vehicles are too good.

actually, i've played against 4X walkers and six snipers (two squads of two snipers and two more snipers in the grunts).  i won.   while it was a cheesy force it was perfectly beatable.

-pFC joe

Yes , I know this force very well and it is cheasy. Add Ameterasu "the healing machine" to it and you have to be a tactical master and have extrem luck to beat this force, if your opponent isn't a total newbe.
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on January 31, 2006, 10:14:58 AM
Actually, the Mish player has fielded that force several times.  (with Ameratsu included)  I have yet to lose to it.  I find it challenging yes, but the use of fairly simple tactics (don't get shot, don't stand where you can get shot) anda little luck always win out.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Enker on February 01, 2006, 12:11:28 AM
Actually, the Mish player has fielded that force several times.  (with Ameratsu included)  I have yet to lose to it.  I find it challenging yes, but the use of fairly simple tactics (don't get shot, don't stand where you can get shot) anda little luck always win out.

-PFC joe

What if your opponent does the same?
Isnt't that a pretty boring match?
"Hmm, I can't shot you. It's your turn."
"I can't shot, too. I spend my actions for smoking some cigaretts."
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: PFC joe on February 01, 2006, 01:04:54 AM
where I come from we call it "maneuvering".  I find that it adds a ton of tension, who is going to slip up first and who can take advantage of the terrain and equipment to the greatest effect.

-PFC joe
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: dmcgee1 on February 01, 2006, 06:05:59 PM
Preach on, Brutha Joe, preach on...
Title: Re: Are vehicles to good?
Post by: Dr. Nick on June 14, 2007, 11:02:32 PM
i just read this old toppic here, and because

the +3 bonus toppic (http://forum54.oli.us/index.php?topic=818.new#new)


my opinion on vehicles, incl. the +3 bonus here:


in our games we use a lot of vehicles (1 support / 2 units)


what i learned is, that vehicles get shot up rather easy and don´t do overly much damage (3 A)

(they can shoot ~6 times most efficient -> ~3/4 hits D13 ->2-3 dead INF
-> 2 full activations to kill a small squad. the squad will shoot 3-4 wounds, maybe (-> vehicle efficiently dead))

_however_

vehicles ARE very strong

why:

longer lasting

even though a badly damaged vehicle can be killed quite easyly,
IF it is not, it can continue to shoot
-> will shoot with equal efficiency, while squads loose A / W

stability. move your vehicle in front and 1 round you are save.
(-> you can´t remove a new EDD in just 1 round (if played not too risky..))

aiming.

aiming is very efficient with vehicles. here is where the +3 bonus shines most, imho
-> perfect monster/vehicle killer

@+3 bonus:
the examples (s.b.) gives a little inaccurate picture.
often troops are behind cover (-3) or other things.

together with the +3 bonus the total bonus is ~+5 raising RC to 13-14  (EDD even 16..)
without this +3 bonus the hit chance remains at ~50%,
with the bonus (or even aiming) it is possible to shoot very good insted ~70%-80%

-> as even simple cover reduces 50% -> 35% (->-30%!)
or 80% -> 65% (->-~20%)

i feel that even balance wise the +3 should remain!!
(-> thats how you clear out troops in hard cover.. !! grunts with RC 4-5 just can´t do it..
therefore it´s either the vehicles at ~50% hit or CC troops---)


-> even the dreaded strike stimmer:

3 A (incl ambush rule at +3): 9 Shots RC 11+Wbonus -> 5-6 hits dam 13  vs. A 19 -> ~4 W

(against ICS gendarmes, A 16, of course 5-6..)

thats painfull 80 P in trenchers, but this maneuver exposes you to shooting back..
lets say they where just 11 trenchers, now 7 (hey, no specialists here..)
21 shots RC 9 -> ~ 12 hits ~4 W


==> vehicles + infantry is what makes the mix nice..
the MHMG alone is not the victory, but to keep it in the game even if it takes 3-5 wounds!


disclaimer: to field a lot of MHMG´s like 4 or 6 RLBW works, but only because the extreme concentration at one spot.. (and the rather good price)


==> i fear the walker less than the protecting infantry.. 6 W Hurricane is quite tough, yes, but with aiming and RL/MHMG easy to kill.. to shoot 16 P gendarmes or 20 P trenchers in -3 (chassour RC 5..) before attacking him is bad..


uh, long text..
-> vehicles, incl. +3 are ok

(but, i agree, pointwise they are always good to very good and to have any 2/1 slot types is even better)