Author Topic: Are vehicles to good?  (Read 15945 times)

Offline PFC joe

  • Private First Class
  • Private First Class
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +57/-2
  • assistance from a distance
    • PFC joe's After Action Reviews
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #15 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
Qui desiderat pacem pręparet bellum

Offline Pietia

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +33/-5
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #16 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".
« Last Edit: October 06, 2005, 02:15:14 AM by Pietia »

Offline PFC joe

  • Private First Class
  • Private First Class
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +57/-2
  • assistance from a distance
    • PFC joe's After Action Reviews
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #17 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
Qui desiderat pacem pręparet bellum

Offline Pietia

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +33/-5
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #18 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.

Offline monte_kev

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #19 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
Kevin
Avid Drag racer + TTGamer
currently running
Bauhaus and Brotherhood
www.miniartofwar.com

Offline T Prime

  • Big Kahuna, Chairman of the Board
  • Administrator
  • Member Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 6468
  • Karma: +75/-0
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #20 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.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Excelsior!!

Offline PFC joe

  • Private First Class
  • Private First Class
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 874
  • Karma: +57/-2
  • assistance from a distance
    • PFC joe's After Action Reviews
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2005, 11:12:15 AM »
huh, and no one thought to ask.


(back to the books)

-PFC joe
Qui desiderat pacem pręparet bellum

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #22 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.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #23 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.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pietia

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +33/-5
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #24 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

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #25 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.  :)
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pietia

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +33/-5
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #26 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).

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #27 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.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pietia

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma: +33/-5
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #28 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...

Offline Enker

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Karma: +16/-1
Re: Are vehicles to good?
« Reply #29 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
Marines! Lets kick some A S S!