Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gimp2

Operation Zverograd

Recommended Posts

Loophole Master said:

Gimp said:

How does acid suddenly become capable of things acid can't do?

 

Acid is capable of killing people and disabling machinery. As far as I know, that's what the sulfur throwers will be capable of doing in Dust Tactics. Just because we haven't found a way to use acid as an effective offensive weapon, it doesn't mean the pararel Dust universe haven't either. We haven't found a way to use lasers as effective offensive weapons, but the Dust guys have.

You might not like the idea of sulfur weapons, and that's totally fine. I didn't like the inclusion of the apes initially. But I think at this point it's unfair to say a simple sulfur thrower is the one thing that throws Dust into the realm of ridiculous fantasy.

It is an alternate world, where things are obviously different, but it is also a world where things work the same.

Lasers I have no problem with, as that's simply taking physical constraints and adding sufficient power to make the laser combat effective.

Acid can kill people, and it can disable machinery.  That I have no issue with. 

The problems I have with the concept of weaponized acid are that it would be ridiculously dangerous to the unit when a flamethrower would be capable of the same things for less risk, the quantities required for effective combat capability would be enormous, the time required for it to eat through armor would be extreme for combat purposes, and so flamethrowers would be capable of the same kind of effects far more easily and at less risk to friendly forces.  Why would they bother?

Lasers in Tactics follow logical constraints based on possibilities inherent in lasers.   Acid as a weaponised agent misses the mark significantly based on the physical constraints of acid.  You can't make acid react as other than acid.  It has specific properties, and consumes itself during the specific chemical reactions of the acid if it is used against something it can react with.  'Alien' blood eating throgh anything was fine for the movie; but even there they acknowledged both time and reaction mechanics.  They only pushed and cheated reality by not specifying what acid was being used to allow such a reaction.

The end result is simply that they added acid sprayers simply to give the SSU something different, when there was no reason to do so, and their chosen replacement was rather ludicrous.  Why can't the SSU use flamethrowers when the other countries do, and if acid sprayers are somehow more capable, why aren't the other countries using them as well?

Every country in WW2 used similar weapon concepts.  The Allies and SSU don't have acces to Vril blood to make zombies or enhance apes, and may have moral objections to using them, but effective weapon systems using the same principles were being used by all sides.

The Germans developed the panzerfaust, and the Allies and Soviets didn't, because they had similar weapons and an overwhelming advantage in their number of tanks.  They were happy to use them if they captured them, but they didn't really need them.

The Germans developed the StG44 as the first assault rifle ahead of the others, but they were working on similar concepts.  The same can be said for jets, rockets, or just about anything else.  Anything that was fielded had similar designs from the other side. 

Acid sprayers, if they could come up with a reasonable explanation for them, would be dealt with the same way.  If they were better than flamethrowers, the other countries would use them.  If they were not as effective, which everything about the science of acids suggests, the SSU wouldn't bother with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

daniello_s said:

Guys, u know that u r arguing about the game, where zombies exists next to the walkers, right? :D

 

 

 

Don't forget the aliens and flying saucers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acid could be very dangerous, Anyone who saw the movie Aliens? No prob at all that it takes apart an futuristic APC with just acid blood in a few minutes. And nobody can deny that this is a VERY classical theme in SciFi. But generally I think its quite silly to argue about the capabilites of chemical substances in an alternate SciFi universe where zombies are running around in order to kill jumping tanks. Such arguing reminds me of a similar silly discussion about the question if Darth Vader really could stop a laser shot with his hands or not, so I will stop here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what- if you don't like the idea of the sulfur thrower being an acid-based weapon, do what I did when I first saw the entry. I thought sulfur as in "sulfur and brimstone", as in another version of a flamethrower, just a different fuel being used, instead of jellied gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see why a sci fi game would use flame throwers. They were used in WW II, but not in the modern military.They are very short ranged have very few shots and lets not forget about having a tank of napalm strapped to your back. Were do I sign up for that?

Trust me a couple of tank round or a nice air strike makes short work of any infantry strong point.Now one can make the argument that we need to take the building. Well again setting the building on fire that command wants you to take sound a little stupid to me.

Hay we can make fire extinguisher troopers, now it all make sense to me. partido_risa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer soldier said:

Personally I don't see why a sci fi game would use flame throwers. They were used in WW II, but not in the modern military.They are very short ranged have very few shots and lets not forget about having a tank of napalm strapped to your back. Were do I sign up for that?

Trust me a couple of tank round or a nice air strike makes short work of any infantry strong point.Now one can make the argument that we need to take the building. Well again setting the building on fire that command wants you to take sound a little stupid to me.

Hay we can make fire extinguisher troopers, now it all make sense to me. partido_risa.gif

Even more stupid when you have to be in the building flaming directly above you to take out a unit on the second floor :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theguildllc said:

The SSU use acid throwers rather than Flamethrowers because the infantry keeps drinking the flamer fuel.  Something about 'shortage of wadka rations'.  That will be all.

 

That was good one! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

daniello_s said:

Guys, u know that u r arguing about the game, where zombies exists next to the walkers, right? :D

Yet gravity still works the same, and physics is still physics, and chemistry is still chemistry, so they all work under logical constraints that mirror the real world.  That's what makes a wargame a simulation of combat.  When things don't fit reality, there should be a rational explanation within the game's fluff, whether it's due to alien science, magic, or whatever.

'Aliens' gave us acid blood that ate through many things, but not all.  That's great, but even there, they had the acid coming in a concentrated area and it stopped after a while like an acid would.  That was the silliest part about the Alien movies, but it still matched science to a degree.

Acid throwers would not be throwing out acid in the quantities needed, or they would need huge tanks to carry enough.  Without quantity, acid would simply be scarring vehicle hulls until its reaction completed.  Acid is a finite reaction, while fire spreads and consumes oxygen so long as fuel is available.  Vehicles could be treated to withstand acid rather easily, just as they were treated to defeat magnetic mines.  Troops could operate in NBC suits and have protection against acid, as well.  Acid also takes time, regardless of the silly science of 'Aliens.'

Modern armies don't use flamethrowers that often because of their risk, but they still have a lot of flame weapons soldiers can use.  There've been rockets that fire incendiaries with much greater range and a hotter flame effect available for decades.  There have also been single shot flame weapons that were dosposable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to let this be the focus of the Zverograd Campaign discussion.

 

So, anyway. I heard on facebook that the campaign has a an optional prologue mission if you're playing it axis vs allies, with no SSU army. Whoever wins that mission gains Koshka as an ally. So throughout the campaign, they can pay the points to use the Babushka walker and they get Koshka for free! To compensate for this bonus, the other side gets a "spymaster" ability: One of their heroes gains the BlackOps skill and an extra Health.

Sounds like a cool way of integrating the units that come with the campaign box for players who have no interest in buying SSU units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loophole Master said:

I refuse to let this be the focus of the Zverograd Campaign discussion.

 

So, anyway. I heard on facebook that the campaign has a an optional prologue mission if you're playing it axis vs allies, with no SSU army. Whoever wins that mission gains Koshka as an ally. So throughout the campaign, they can pay the points to use the Babushka walker and they get Koshka for free! To compensate for this bonus, the other side gets a "spymaster" ability: One of their heroes gains the BlackOps skill and an extra Health.

Sounds like a cool way of integrating the units that come with the campaign box for players who have no interest in buying SSU units.

Sorry, but you've noticed what a simulationist I am by now.

The Zverograd campaign does indeed allow for Koshka and the Spy Master as you noted.

Koshka comes free every game, with the option to purchase Grand'Ma.

The Spy Master can be included if purchased, but has to sit out the next mission if eliminated in the current mission (except for the finale).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loophole Master said:

 Do you have to pay anything extra to have the spymaster? Or only the normal cost of the hero that will become it? Can you make a different hero the spymaster on different missions?

The Spy Master ability comes free to balance Koshka being free, but the ability has to be asigned to a specific hero, and stays with them.  That hero stays the same point cost as normal, and just gets the boost of Black Ops and increased damage.

It's odd that Koshka won't miss a single fight, while the chosen Spy Master has to skip a fight if they are eliminated, but it isn't game breaking.  It does add a fun story element.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loophole Master said:

So, anyway. I heard on facebook that the campaign has a an optional prologue mission if you're playing it axis vs allies, with no SSU army. Whoever wins that mission gains Koshka as an ally. So throughout the campaign, they can pay the points to use the Babushka walker and they get Koshka for free! To compensate for this bonus, the other side gets a "spymaster" ability: One of their heroes gains the BlackOps skill and an extra Health.

 

I have no intention of going with SSU, but this actually makes me interested in picking up this box.  For non-campaign games, perhaps the unit could still be a mercenary for hire for my axis / allies armies.  Thanks for the heads up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimp said:

<snip>

If the chopper with the canon has a limited range, that mitigates the balance issue, but we don't know what is actually coming out.  Unlimited range from the air against a six space range on the ground would be huge, as even a 3x3 grid can have a maximum range of 15 on the diagonal.  If the range is limited, it's rather silly, as one of the advantages of air power is its long range strike capability.  Limiting AA guns that shoot down planes at 30,000' to a six space range is stupid.  Read some WW2 history about low level bombing raids for examples on why.

They would have done far better allowing choppers to use terrain like real choppers do, and let them fly at specified levels like the levels of a building.  Choppers don't fly high in combat areas, especially not when delivering troops.

<snip>

Acid sprayers simply to make the SSU different then flamethrower units is like making a rule that normal troops can fly: there is no rational explanation on why it works differently than acid would in real life.  Is it playable?  Yes.  Is it stupid?  Yes.  That doesn't even mean it can't be fun, but it moves Tactics further from Sci-Fi and into ridiculous fantasy.  Simulationists prefer inherent logical structure that makes sense in a game.  Acid sprayers don't, for the reasons I noted and others. 

Ahh, have to jump in here, since I actually don't have an issue with this.  Well, I do, for some of the same reasons you do, but…I can deal with them.  Treating it somewhat simply the helicopters are considered to be doing a lot of hop and popping so they are always visible at some time during the turn so anyone can get a shot.  At close range, the issue isn't how far a weapon can shoot, but how fast they can track the chopper, something we (US Army) have been relying on for decades to not get our birds hit.  So, they are always visible and you can only shoot so far to hit them.

Acid sprayers are a bit silly, but if it is just a name to give a different "flavor" to an alternate flamethrower, then I can live with it, even if it is silly..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to see choppers have some kind of modifier due to their speed, at least with the range modifier units on an upper floor of a building get.

As you noted, choppers speed and hugging the ground is what keeps them alive.  Allowing constant line of sight, while limiting the range of anti-aircraft weapons designed to shoot down faster flyers at longer ranges, strikes me as a very poor way to represent that.

WW2 showed low flying aircraft were at risk to anti-aircraft fire.  Normal infantry had more of a problem with it, but dedicated anti-aircraft weapons could track and fire at aircraft flying at low levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...