Jump to content



Photo

So I have been trying to understand the reasoning behind the SSU walkers.


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:12 AM

 I guess part of my problem is that I started gaming 30 yrs ago with D&D and I've always cared more about the "flavor" than the rules.  If the strategy has no logical basis except as a loophole in the rules, it just doesn't sit well with me.  Isn't that what "meta-game" means?  



#42 Panzer soldier

Panzer soldier

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

I think you are rite we have had that conversation before. I also started with D&D and a few years before you.
 

I prefer the term power gamer.  Yes I will use any legal means at my disposal to win. Why would you not.
 

So maybe you and yours view this as bad form. Don't hate the player hate the game.

If you don't mind though explain to me why 4 spotter units is bad form and a loophole to you. While Rosie in a Fireball is dandy and sporting.

You are using the rules to your advantage just like me. So why point your finger at me and cry fowl?
I think you are a hypocrite.



#43 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:11 AM

 Again, we have had this conversation before.  If the sole purpose of the spotters is to out activate your opponent, I feel it is not in the spirit of the game.  The game is meant as a simulation of real combat in an alternate timeline.  Ask someone with tactical military training if having more spotters than your force can effectively use could really help you win the battle.  I do not argue that it is legal, and perhaps even effective.  I don't care for it because it has no connection to real world tactics.  It only works within the limited structure of this particular rule set.  As I said before, if I wanted to play the "meta-game" with power gamers, I would have stuck with 40k or Magic:TG.

 Rosie riding in the Fireball and then repairing it, may not be totally realistic, but it at least has some connection to reality.  Field mechanics have always been essential to any mechanized force.  While Rosie's ability is quite an exaggeration, some of the actual field repairs done in WWII were quite amazing.  More importantly, the tactic of having a field repair unit, and keeping them protected in a transport until needed, would be valid in any game system that allows field repair and transports.  I have seen the same thing in Mechwarrior: DarkAge just off the top of my head.  Because it has a real world connection, it will appear in games across the board, regardless of rules.  The spotter trick only works within the context of these rules.  Having no real world connection, you will only find this tactic within the limited group of games that use this activation system.  

I was trying to be polite earlier, and maintain a "to each his own" attitude.  I don't enjoy playing with "power gamers" in any kind of game (even checkers), because too many of them have forgotten the true point of the game is for EVERYONE to have fun.  Most of the "power gamers" I have had to deal with are more concerned with how to manipulate the rules to their maximum advantage, than if they're having a good time with friends.  Maybe that's the only way they know how to have fun.  All I know is that I've seen "power gamers" spoil games on more than one occasion.

 I don't enjoy being called a hypocrite for my views, and I will be ending my part in this discussion before I say/hear something truly rude.  



#44 Panzer soldier

Panzer soldier

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:03 PM

I don't have ask some one with tactical experience anything. I am a retired U.S. Army Staff Sergeant. My Mos was 19k30, that's a tank commander. I have had combat deployments in both the first and second Gulf Wars.

So their you go making assumptions again. You are the one that got all high and mighty about meta games and all that garbage.

What did you expect me to say?  Ooooh your rite all knowing rules and fairness guy! I will change my eeevil ways!
 

So have you had enough or do you want to go another round?



#45 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 12:44 AM

 So I'll ask you with your tactical experience.  Could having more spotters in your force than you could ever actually use ever really help you win a battle in real life?

I've tried to be polite, and that apparently hasn't worked, so I'm going to walk away.  Never wrestle with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.



#46 Panzer soldier

Panzer soldier

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 05:38 PM

I use my spotters all the time. They allowed to keep my lothars in cover and still kill my friend Fury of Ivan walker in a game today. One more victory for the Father Land!
 

As for real tactical forward observers, they were used heavily in WWII.
 

I use mine much like scout units that are used in the modern military. You see artillery is often miles away from the target they are engaging. If an artillery unit is engaging the enemy with direct fire then something at the front has gone horribly wrong.
 

The point here is that my use of spotters is historically accurate, legal within the game, and a successful tactic.
So you can be butt hurt and call me names because you didn't win the argument. I value your opinion of me less than two *****.



#47 SolennelBern

SolennelBern

    Member

  • Members
  • 952 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:41 AM

@fhaugh: I really like your points and comments and i'm all with you on this one.  I'd love to play games against you, would be fun as hell!



#48 fhaugh

fhaugh

    Member

  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:16 PM

 If you use spotter as spotters, I have no problem with your tactics.  My problem lies in using spotters solely to out-activate your opponent.  When people do this they are using a loophole in the rules to bypass one of the basic building blocks of the game, the back and forth activations.

 I enjoy the fact that Tactics doesn't have force building rules.  I like being able to construct my army without having to take a bunch of mandatory choices.  Unfortunately, this kind of abuse is one of the reasons many games have force building rules.

Panzer - You are choosing to ignore the vital point I'm trying to make.  Yes, forward observers were and are used to good effect.  I asked you if having more spotters THAN YOUR FORCE CAN EFFECTIVELY USE could help you win a battle.  That is what is being done by some people to win a game.  I saw a force list that included 5 spotter units AND NO ARTILLERY.  The spotters were there only to activate first, and effectively force his opponent to move and shoot with his force at once, thus bypassing the core rule of "I activate one, You activate one".  This is what I, and the people I enjoy playing with, call "rule lawyering", and it takes the fun out of the game for me.  If it makes you feel better to call it "power gaming", go for it.  It doesn't change the fact that it is a loophole around one of the core rules.



#49 Panzer soldier

Panzer soldier

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 04:41 PM

Look I appreciate your passion for game, I really do. Spotters are a two edged sword. In my experience 5spotters is too many. You tie up too many points in weak units. The small advantage you get during the first two rounds is minimal. After that at least two units are usually dead and you opponent better units slowly defeat you.
 

I really don't see this as an over whelming strategy. Just one more strategy in a game of many strategies. I have certainly lost plenty  of games using it, and I don't see how it is the terrible monster you want me to think it is.
 

Now another point you bring up is fair play. Don't get the idea that I am some idiot who's entire self esteem rest on winning a game at any cost. I think enjoying the game is more important, and that has allot to do with your opponent. I don't think I have ever met a dust player that wasn't a decent sort. Now 40K, wow you could get some real twisted ones their.
 

Most of people I play with are really good games, and are very competitive. I personally like a real knock out drag out challenge. This way victory is sweater, or there is pride in a well fought loss.
 

So I guess what I am saying that I agree with you as far as the spirit of your argument. But I think that using multiple spotters is just one more tactic in a game that has many.



#50 ??!

??!

    Member

  • Members
  • 513 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:25 AM

I know that this thread is quite old and gone way off topic as well, but I'd like to go back to the original topic: Are the SSU walker transport and its walkers worth it? They have been out for some time now, and I suppose a lot of people have bought them and played them several times - or put them in a box after some games because they just weren't good enough. As I am still wondering whether I should get a walker transport or not, I'd really like to know if the airlifted walkers are as useless as some people here inthis thread claimed them to be, or if one or more of them can be put to good use in the game. Or is the combination of transport and walker just too expensive (concerning points) to be included in an army?



#51 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:11 AM

Not used mine yet as its hard to figure out a use for it.  If you advance deploy or steam of ahead of the rest of the force, all it will do is get anhilated by superior firepower out there all on its own.  I've just started to play the hades campaign, I hope to use it somewhere in there (I'm defending) any idea's?

 



#52 Lska

Lska

    Member

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:14 AM

They made a lot of problems when deployed normaly. They then are pretty decnt walkers that can drop off almost anywhere on a 3x3 battlefield. Just wait for the opponent to run out of activations for their AA.

As for reasoning behind the SSU walkers, it was only a illusion! The real war maschines are coming on their rural equipment! Agrimotor FTW!

http://fantasyflight...s.asp?eidn=3864

 



#53 Gothik

Gothik

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

I agree with Lska. In our gaming gruop we found that AD of all choppers just by enemy lines ends with rapid and brutal slaughter of them. Because in first round all enemy AA units are on the first two lines and usually close to each other, if they survive first chopper attacks, they counterattack will be punishing and resulting on destruction of the helis. However, placing helis with AD just outside of  enemy AA range, in the middle of the board can improve survivability of the choppers and transported units and be more effective, believe me.

As for the walker transport chopper, my only choice is Nina, as my SSU still lacks seriuos anti-walker solutions (don`t have the Babushka/Matrioshka yet), Paired with Nikolai as a pilot and delivered to the frontline with chopper may be a serious pain in the ass of enemy walkers.

 



#54 Ulrike Meinhof

Ulrike Meinhof

    Member

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:36 AM

Majority belief is irrelevant…

The original post made some assumptions I don't agree with about what the "majority" believes.

1) This hasn't been measured in any good and statistically reliable way, but  let's for the sake of the argument assume it is a correct claim that the majority has the view that the walkers are x: So what?

2) That the majority has an opinion about something is reall only relevant in a democracy, if even there, and it doesn't show if a claim is true or not, if the walkers are unbalanced or not. The amount of people that believe something doesn't make what they believe "truer" in any sense. So, regardless of the subject matter, let's help each other to avoid these kind of argumentative traps.

 

X could benefit from y: Yups. Always.

Furthermore, the original post states that something could benefit from something, but lacks that. Hence something is wrong. Well, that holds true for every single unit in the game. We can all name units and conclude that they could benefit from some additional perk. It, in itself, doesn't really show that the unit is broken or unblanaced. It could be broken, and giving it perk y could perhaps fix it, but that's a completley different topic. 

 

SSU Walkers: Cannon fodder?

I love the SSU as a concept and personally I find the aestehtics of their walkers overly gorgeous. I want to have them all, I want to be able to consider them as fully playable. That said, I am still sceptical about them in theory (as I haven't shelled out the cash to get them yet due to me being a premium only player): By looking at the stats for them I often question how they will ever reach their targets in time, most of the time or even half of the time, before they get destroyed.

Sure, they aren't overly expensive in points value and some can take a beating, but that doesn't negate the fact that you have to cross a whole field and will have a very very hard time doing it "incognito" and behind stuff that usually hides your walker from the opponents line of sight.

All of this does of course also depend on who you play against, if it's a all out skirmish or a mission/scenario, and so on. I'm sure they can work wonders in some very specific settings, but overal on the general battlefield in a skrimish game I just don't see them working out all too good. They feel clunky and slow, and I think most players fielding them would have an issue with their life expectancy not being fullfilled.

I agree with the original post that something seems wicked with the walkers, but I have no hard evidence for that (yet) and wouldn't state that I'm necessarily correct. Nor do I expect a company to read and reply to every input that comes in a public forum, even if it would be nice if they did in cases where the posts are well founded and arguments are solid and backed up by more research. In this post I fail to find such research, even if there is a good initial start where a point is beginning to be made, it isn't followed through. 

 

Local patch: Aka "house rules"

 

If indeed the walkers are overly hard to play successfully this is what I'd do, where each could work on itself or maybe combined with others if needed, in no particular order:

a) I wouldn't want to see a rule that stated that all  SSU walkers can be airlifted, as it would always force the future walker-designs to take that into account and more or less rely on the airlifting being done for them to be properly used. Summed up, it would be restricting SSU walker designs more than helping. Hence I would recommend some middle-ground and open up for more of them having the air lift-ability. 

b) Let them be agile: Give them the ability to round corners in ways other vehicles can't.

c) Give them Fast.

d) Equip them with Self-repair.

d) Add Scout.

 

Different combinations of one or two of the above slapped on different walkers should suffice to make them very viable without touching much of anything else.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS