Altitude rule

[LtLeonJonson]

okay, i have managed to get this out as a rule for altitude, if you guys could rate it i'd be happy,

Altitude/X: This is the altitude the Air Unit may fly at.

The X Represents the following bands of altitude:
1. Low level flight. Close Air Support and other such aircraft fit in this category.
2. Medium Altitude. Fighters and Ground Support Aircraft are often at this level.
3. High Altitude. This would be the Bombers and Scout aircraft.
4. Orbital. This applies on to Dropships and other very rare units will have this level of the trait. Anti-Orbital Missiles are other such units.

An Air Unit may change it altitude as part of its Move. It may change its Altitude according to the number in the Altitude/X Trait.

The use of this trait also expands the Anti-Aircraft Trait. The Trait then becomes the following:

AA/X: The Number of the trait tells you what altitude the weapon may reach up to and no higher. The other parts of the Anti-Aircraft Trait apply as normal.

It seems to be simple enough and it allows you to get around the whole thing without a great deal of time lost, i mean you put a die next to the model to show which level it is at and that's that, so for example a Plasma Bug would be AA/4, while the TAC fighter would be Altitude 2, and a Hopper Altitude 1, fast drop boat would be Altitude 4, but a slow and heavy one would be Altitude 2, and something in between would be Altitude 3, Missile are Altitude 4.

MI Birdbolt and Falcon warheads would be AA/2, you get the idea here.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I like the idea, but I don't like the implications for the game. It just seems to make fleet assets more powerful, while making AA less powerful, and Air units are strong enough as it is. If the skinnies or bugs had any less AA firepower they'd become almost pointless to play against many MI armies.

 

[joewolz]

Me thinks it's a tad complicated for the game as written. It's a nice little rule, and it's certainly going somewhere, but it's more work than necessary.

 

[Hiromoon]

Actually if we do an air skirmish game for SST, this is perfect!

 

[Kristovich]

Like I said just this mornin' (or night for you), I like it.

 

[LtLeonJonson]

well, i can hardly say more powerful over all, not having the Skinny Book i can make no comment there, how ever i am sure they have AA assets that would be the quality of the Birdbolt at least, and possbily up to the plasma, but if you guys would consider that it was not designed for SST, but for somethign else it and it happens to be neat enough it you ask me for testing in SST, and that makes me feel good.

I can understand why it can seem unbalanced, but Human vs Bug, nothing is safe from the Plasma, and just because your Skinnies can't reach Alt three, well then how can you strafe your target at high altitude?

If you wondered how I voted, it needs more work, its almost there, but not quite.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I really don't buy the excuse that, "Well unit/weapon X can hurt them, so it's ok."

Taking a Plasma bug requires you to be PL2, so already, you are restricting what bugs can take in order to hurt certain units by your altitude rules. Secondly, Plasma bugs can be taken out a variety of ways by the MI before any air units come in, which means in order to have any SURE AA defense from higher Altitude, you'll need to take multiple plasma bugs, and if you do that, then you've walled bug players into forcing them to take 2 units which comprise of 30% of their army AND force them to be PL3.

Every army book should have at least a few ways to take out any other enemy unit, and the altitude rules would give the bugs only 1 way to take out certain fleet assets.

Now, maybe if you made flying at higher Altitudes riskier, then it might be ok. Like Every Altitude level makes it harder to bomb. So at Alt2, bombs also deviate D3-1" to the left or right of the target in addition to the normal deviation. Then at Alt3, the Artillery deviates on both Axis. Then at Alt4, well, maybe that's only One shot bombardments, so they could have special rules.

I like the idea of multiple altitudes, but what you're proposing needs to be reworked before it's even used in friendly games.

 

[logan]

This could work for friendly games, but |I think it complecates things to much for normal everyday game play. I think the air rules work brinliantly as is. I mean, the speed modifiers on saves etc. I would say also take into account the Altitude the aircraft is flying at.

A comendable idea, but I have to say a deffinate NO. If the rules aren't broke, why attempt to fix em?

 

[LtLeonJonson]

what about the Rippler's, can you take them in a PL 1 force?

While it does need work for SST implimentation, how many PL 1 forces would have alot of air/fleet assets? PL1 is rather well limited in that way, so the advanatge goes to them in another form.

Also i can understand something about how it would change the design of a list, but proper placement and tactics can prevent the plasma even being touched by fire, short of artillery in the 50"-60" range and then you are looking at having been able to eliminate then weapons before then with careful planning.

It's not as bad as you make it sound, but since I am planning on using SST for a test of some of my other ideas, I'll clean this one up some more and then hopefully it should be usable and counterable in at least 1001 ways.

 

[logan]

While it does need work for SST implimentation, how many PL 1 forces would have alot of air/fleet assets? PL1 is rather well limited in that way, so the advanatge goes to them in another form.

OK, i might be missing the point to this comment, but just because your force is PL1, it doesn't mean your opponent is going to be using PL1....

Sorry dude, I'm just no convinced it needs the rules change. Everything you mention is covered, atleast in an abstract way, by the way the existing rules work.

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

[LtLeonJonson]

are you working under the assumption that I am writing for SST or not, because it seems to sound(well read) like i am, when in fact I am not, however the similarities between what i am writing and adapting and SST give me SST as a test ground for usable rules that i would need some feedback on.

I have got nightfighting rules that need testing but since my work has got tanks in it, I'd need to as much work to write them for SST as i did to create them in the first place, but the testign is just as important for something like this.

 

[logan]

are you working under the assumption that I am writing for SST

No, I assumed u were doing this for yourself. You asked me to rate it,m and I rate it low because IMHO, all of these new rules are already covered in the existing rules, but in a more abstract but less complicated way.

 

[LtLeonJonson]

how is an air units altitude is covered in the current set of rules? The increased libne of sight, that just represents height over the battlefield in combination with RADR(possibly) there is nothing which covers how an Air Unit is a X Height above the battlefield, there is nothing like that and considering how few people actually read anc commented it's the last time I ask any of you to rate an idea.

Lat time every.

 

[gorkamorka]

For what you advocate, I recommend a air combat game in the same scale as Call to Arms.

For SST. I think that the addition of air combat is sweet, but the rules don't seem to add to the fact of new units- interaction with ground forces- or orbital to air combat, which is the natural extention of combat in the future.

Thinking in the same sphere as the B5 starfuries, I can see tacfighters starting and finishing in the air,and if that were to happen, you will have to take the battleships into account. Almost in a mirror image of combat on the ground, you should theoreticly be able to fight air combat on almost a totally seperate table.
What about droptroopers, fire from the battle suites on the way down, anti-air fire, chaff rounds and the effects on combat, orbital bombardment prior to assult, called satallite barrages, etc? You have a good start, but Id suggest a totally seperate game for this line of thinking. Almost as in fighting a real battle, you will have to start with recons, drops, etc.

 

[MarkNorfolk]

are you working under the assumption that I am writing for SST or not, because it seems to sound(well read) like i am, when in fact I am not, however the similarities between what i am writing and adapting and SST give me SST as a test ground for usable rules that i would need some feedback on.

I have got nightfighting rules that need testing but since my work has got tanks in it, I'd need to as much work to write them for SST as i did to create them in the first place, but the testign is just as important for something like this.

Well, this is a SST forum and your rules do seem to use the SST format....

...but aside from that:


I think it needs some work. Altitude rules in 30mm ground combat game do add a level of complexity that is, in most cases not required. Even in starfighter/air combat games the 3rd dimension is ignored in most cases.

It sounds cool, fighters and ripplers dogfighting above the ground but perhaps this is more suited to a 6mm wargame (if that).

Cheers
Mark

 

[LtLeonJonson]

perhaps, but then if two people had lots of TAC's and rippler would it be interesting to be able to use the rules to get away from the horde of rippler to allign yourself for an atatck and then sweep down it attack?

I know I'd like to be able to do that, but then i had other ideas in writing the rule.