SST:Evo ... Can Arachnids be Shattered?
- Thread starter Ragnarok
- Start date
Col_stone said:
That actually makes sense. But saying that you've beaten a king tanker with a morita-equiped LAMI's because you manage to kill it's warrior screen is something else. Warriors are a dime a dozen, and bug royalty cares nothing for them.
Maybe some units such as warriors and cliff mites should be excluded from the shatter point numbers.
Poko, I like your comment about "Pitched Battles"
For Arachnids, ALL battles are pitched battles. In the Arachnid section of the Rulebook (p. 105) under Force Value & Priority Levels: "For Arachnids, Priority Level is tightly linked to the Force Value for the game. To the bugs, if something is important, you send more bugs."
Col_stone wrote:
This is very true - to human thinking. Does a Hive Mind even bother to consider a Pyrric Victory? I think the bugs would be fully on board with the IG slogan of "If it's worth doing, it's worth dying for."
Remember the Roughnecks - Tophet Campaign mission with the CHAS? The CHAS was busy most of the mission figuring out "acceptable losses." I think bugs have moved beyond that point even as humans have not reached it. "Moved beyond that point" means that Arachnids don't consider acceptable losses - the decision to do something automatically includes acceptance of the loss of all assets assigned to the task.
I remember a Battalion Commander telling me that of course a solder was guilty - if he wasn't then he wouldn't have been court martialled in the first place! This fits in with a job worth doing is worth dying for. I think that bugs decide to attack and commit the resources they determine they need. Those resources are then considered expended. The more important the objective, the more bugs are allocated (and considered expended). If any survive, it's a bonus asset for the next tasks.
There have been some analogies to WWII Eastern Front Russians. I agree. Regiments were assigned hilltop objectives and keep attacking until the Germans and/or their own NKVD and commisars slaughtered them. Units assigned to break a road through deep snow and spending a battalion to tromp down the snow, throwing the exhausted soldiers to the side to freeze. Units ordered to charge with only the front rank having weapons. Dropping Soviet paratroops without parachutes into what they think are deep snowdrifts. Heinlein likened the bugs to a perfect communist society. The Arachnid warrior is a picture of the New Soviet Man - a selfless individual totally committed to the communal goals set before him. The adjunct to that is that the community is quite willing to ruthless expend that individual to achieve their communal goals. The individual is a means to a common end, and is expended as any other commodity. If the Hive Mind decides that there isn't enough power to achieve an objective, it will continue to amass power until that threshold for success is achieved. It will then launch an attack in the same way as we would fire a grenade launcher - fire and forget. We don't expect a grenade to save itself in exploding. Neither does a Arachnid assault hold back any of its assets (except as tactically sound) to achieve its mission.
For Arachnids, ALL battles are pitched battles. In the Arachnid section of the Rulebook (p. 105) under Force Value & Priority Levels: "For Arachnids, Priority Level is tightly linked to the Force Value for the game. To the bugs, if something is important, you send more bugs."
Col_stone wrote:
This is very true - to human thinking. Does a Hive Mind even bother to consider a Pyrric Victory? I think the bugs would be fully on board with the IG slogan of "If it's worth doing, it's worth dying for."
Remember the Roughnecks - Tophet Campaign mission with the CHAS? The CHAS was busy most of the mission figuring out "acceptable losses." I think bugs have moved beyond that point even as humans have not reached it. "Moved beyond that point" means that Arachnids don't consider acceptable losses - the decision to do something automatically includes acceptance of the loss of all assets assigned to the task.
I remember a Battalion Commander telling me that of course a solder was guilty - if he wasn't then he wouldn't have been court martialled in the first place! This fits in with a job worth doing is worth dying for. I think that bugs decide to attack and commit the resources they determine they need. Those resources are then considered expended. The more important the objective, the more bugs are allocated (and considered expended). If any survive, it's a bonus asset for the next tasks.
There have been some analogies to WWII Eastern Front Russians. I agree. Regiments were assigned hilltop objectives and keep attacking until the Germans and/or their own NKVD and commisars slaughtered them. Units assigned to break a road through deep snow and spending a battalion to tromp down the snow, throwing the exhausted soldiers to the side to freeze. Units ordered to charge with only the front rank having weapons. Dropping Soviet paratroops without parachutes into what they think are deep snowdrifts. Heinlein likened the bugs to a perfect communist society. The Arachnid warrior is a picture of the New Soviet Man - a selfless individual totally committed to the communal goals set before him. The adjunct to that is that the community is quite willing to ruthless expend that individual to achieve their communal goals. The individual is a means to a common end, and is expended as any other commodity. If the Hive Mind decides that there isn't enough power to achieve an objective, it will continue to amass power until that threshold for success is achieved. It will then launch an attack in the same way as we would fire a grenade launcher - fire and forget. We don't expect a grenade to save itself in exploding. Neither does a Arachnid assault hold back any of its assets (except as tactically sound) to achieve its mission.
Hiromoon said:
There's still only so many losses they can replace.
Again: Do you think humans have no hope whatsoever of actually winning the war? Is mankind doomed to extinction?
If not then that means arachnids can be beaten and that means they cannot afford infinite casualties...
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
But they're much more able to replace any losses than the MI.
Asside from the loss of command assets I dont think the Arachnids would even register it.
MI have to retrain the troops, equip them, stick them on a spaceship and ship them back to frount, arachnids have to squeeze out a few more eggs and wait for them to hatch (Which if I recall the army book implies takes next to no time), do you see the difference?
Its not a matter of mankind being doomed, its a matter of two different ideologies toward combat, and differing ideas on acceptable losses.
If the Arachnids kill nearly everyone but loose 99% of their troops its still a win for them at wose they'll just move some workers up to the frount till more warriors hatch, if the MI do the same its a straight up loss.
Asside from the loss of command assets I dont think the Arachnids would even register it.
MI have to retrain the troops, equip them, stick them on a spaceship and ship them back to frount, arachnids have to squeeze out a few more eggs and wait for them to hatch (Which if I recall the army book implies takes next to no time), do you see the difference?
Its not a matter of mankind being doomed, its a matter of two different ideologies toward combat, and differing ideas on acceptable losses.
If the Arachnids kill nearly everyone but loose 99% of their troops its still a win for them at wose they'll just move some workers up to the frount till more warriors hatch, if the MI do the same its a straight up loss.
captainsmirk
Mongoose
I may of course be missing something here, but if you don't like the rule, then surely you can just ignore it...
Its not like its an integral part of the base rule system, if you want to fight to the death, then do it...
Plus I would argue that it does actually match the MIs behavior in the book. The Book MI were a small elite force who couldn't afford to fight to the last man, they spent most of their time launching hit and run attacks, completing their objectives and pulling out. They also had a big thing about not leaving anyone behind, I doubt they would condone such reckless tactics as suggested.
They were a volunteer force which had an attrition rate of trainees of about 99%, in a society which if you look closely didn't actually particularly like the military. When only 1% of all the trainees complete the training, I don't think you can afford wasteful losses.
Not that this of course effects the game much as it draws more inspiration from the film and series.
Nick
Its not like its an integral part of the base rule system, if you want to fight to the death, then do it...
Plus I would argue that it does actually match the MIs behavior in the book. The Book MI were a small elite force who couldn't afford to fight to the last man, they spent most of their time launching hit and run attacks, completing their objectives and pulling out. They also had a big thing about not leaving anyone behind, I doubt they would condone such reckless tactics as suggested.
They were a volunteer force which had an attrition rate of trainees of about 99%, in a society which if you look closely didn't actually particularly like the military. When only 1% of all the trainees complete the training, I don't think you can afford wasteful losses.
Not that this of course effects the game much as it draws more inspiration from the film and series.
Nick
MaxSteiner
Mongoose
But the question was can arachnids be shattered 
It does make sense for the MI (Although like you say I seriously doubt they'd just turn and run halfway through a battle, no one stays behind and all that), but for the bugs it just seems to change how they're meant to work (The larger minimum sized unit is a good example of this).
Still I agree with you about just ignoring rules you find stupid, or just play V1 if it does ruin the game for you (I get the impression for tourny play though its a matter oflike it or leave it...)
It does make sense for the MI (Although like you say I seriously doubt they'd just turn and run halfway through a battle, no one stays behind and all that), but for the bugs it just seems to change how they're meant to work (The larger minimum sized unit is a good example of this).
Still I agree with you about just ignoring rules you find stupid, or just play V1 if it does ruin the game for you
(I get the impression for tourny play though its a matter oflike it or leave it...)bleh.you all think that the actual mission of the bigs is to wipe out the enemy on board.but the bugs do plan,and they do think in strategic terms,that much is given,right?
so the game played might just as well be an unexpected meeting of a a patrol with a bug task force sent do destroy a commo tower, or MI trying to stop a concentration of bug forces before a major attack.
in both cases, if you kill enough bugs, the main objective of the bugs is no longer obtainable due to loss of majority of the force, and thus the game ends with a victory for the MI/skinnies.
a bit of imagination is all it takes :wink:
so the game played might just as well be an unexpected meeting of a a patrol with a bug task force sent do destroy a commo tower, or MI trying to stop a concentration of bug forces before a major attack.
in both cases, if you kill enough bugs, the main objective of the bugs is no longer obtainable due to loss of majority of the force, and thus the game ends with a victory for the MI/skinnies.
a bit of imagination is all it takes :wink:
I think the best thing isn't to try and rationalize it in comparison to any one thing in real life.
Shattered represents a wide variety of effects on an army.
It's always an option to ignore it, or change it, but frankly both sides can throw all the rationalizing about the rule, until they realize that it's just an abstract rule made for an abstract game.
I don't think it's a stupid rule at all, it's just a rule that's meant to work in the absence of scenario objectives. Probably the best way to play is using objectives anyway.
Shattered represents a wide variety of effects on an army.
It's always an option to ignore it, or change it, but frankly both sides can throw all the rationalizing about the rule, until they realize that it's just an abstract rule made for an abstract game.
I don't think it's a stupid rule at all, it's just a rule that's meant to work in the absence of scenario objectives. Probably the best way to play is using objectives anyway.
Lorcan Nagle
Mongoose
I was very uneasy over the Shattering rule when I read it first, but when you get into playing, it actually works quite organically - it promotes more thoughtful manouvres and strategy as you can even less afford to throw troops away. Plus, it's only an essential part of the basic scenario, there'll be plenty of scenarios in the advanced rules with more concrete objectives.
Yes, they do shatter.
It stops full flying armies as well as full tunnelling armies. The two key factors towards a shite game, having someone use a fully tunnelling army really ruins the fun. It also means you cannot just take hard stuff otherwise you shatter too quickly. There becomes a necessity for troops rather than nukes. :wink:
Good idea really.
It stops full flying armies as well as full tunnelling armies. The two key factors towards a shite game, having someone use a fully tunnelling army really ruins the fun. It also means you cannot just take hard stuff otherwise you shatter too quickly. There becomes a necessity for troops rather than nukes. :wink:
Good idea really.
MaxSteiner said:
If arachnids can afford infinite casualties then mankind IS doomed because they cannot hopefully wipe out the arachnids(and thus win the war) and are doomed to extinction as arachnids will simply crush them.
If arachnids can afford to lose forces regardless of rate then mankind has no hope whatsoever.
Oh we lost 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 warriors in second? No worries...
Similar threads
