Captain_Nemo
Mongoose
So, LBH, You feeling any better about this Tournament yet?
Unwinnable tournament scenario - Who Dares Wins Game 1
- Thread starter lastbesthope
- Start date
Mr Evil said:how about a huge bunker where you can hide so far from the edge the enemy cant atrget you, then surround it with mine feilds so infantry cant assualt you
ok guys lets get building them bunkers lol
Well you do get small, large (bunkers) and military fortified structures.... They do have a max size score, I assume that a large bunker max size 6 will be something about 6" per side (or is it diamater, or even radius?) if its 6" per side that will give you 36 sqr" to hide a squad in... should be easy
nezeray said:
I can't find anything in the book that says how you work out the max size of an emplacement. Under structures it says
It then goes on to show someone measureing a building, ignoring that there is an upstairs on part of the roof :roll: so they should be measuring the other side..... Also the tape measure doesn't start in the bottem corner but 1/2 and inch off
It makes logical sense to use this to state the size of an emplacement. I suppose this would make the maximum length per side of 5" (with a height of 2") a 5x5 building still gives you a square inchage of 25 which is plently large enough (it leaves 4x4) to hide a full squad inside.....
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Captain_Nemo said:
I never felt bad about the tournament, I just think that Scenario 1 is unfair for a defending EFTF or USMC force, and I still do.
Especially if they are up against a PLA attacker who takes two Type 99s
LBH
cordas said:
This will only be easy to do using a ruler when tabletop holographic projections are a gaming standard and we can poke our rulers into them :wink:. Until then, we'll have to use the old standby of an "ABC" right triangle to do the calculations. Measure the height of the structiure and then the horizontal diagonal line inside the structure. Since A² + B² = C², using the previous measurements for A & B we can arrive at C.
For example, my tallest skyscraper is about 33" high and is 11" across its diagonal. Thus, the hypotenuse of 'C' equals 35" (skipping a few boring steps here) and thus the structure is a Size 35 building.
This should make for an accurate method of figuring out structure sizes, if they are a single basic cubed design. For more complex structures I'd recommend breaking them down into separate cubes. Then calculate each cube's Size and add them all together for a total structure Size.
Actually, the aforementioned skyscraper has a top floor "cube" measuring 3.25" x 5", making it a Size 6. The reason that I did not "round up" the two initial measurements is that to be true to the rules you would not round up until you found out what the "C" length was and then you would round that answer up. So adding the two cube Sizes together would give me a total structure Size of 41. I'm of course ignoring things like antennas on the top as they are not structural contributions.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Buships, you're over thinking it, the size is the diagonal of the longest face, not the diagonal of the cube.
LBH
LBH
lastbesthope said:
Drat, as I rather liked my take on it :lol:. You are correct from the way it is worded, of course. My mistaken interpretation does however allow something to account for the differences between two structures that are similar if viewed from one side and different ninety-degrees off.
Please do not take this as directed at you but I was of course thinking in a 3d viewpoint and not in a 2d one, as our tabletop structures are not two-dimensional but are "X-Y-Z" models. I thought "how clever" of that rule but then you brought me back to reality, lol. :roll: :wink:
On my particular structure, a Size factor drops from each "rectangle" (not "cube" anymore), leaving 34 & 5 or a Size 39 structure. I do not know what MGP would say regarding "structures on structures" but I don't see a problem as my small "penthouse suite" could be destroyed without knocking down its supporting tower. The reverse of course would be disaster for both. :twisted:
lastbesthope
Mongoose
I'll talk to my Dad when he gets back from his weekend away, he's a Civil Engineer, I'll ask him a good way to estimate a building's strength
LBH
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Well the reason for this topic will have occurred within a few hours so feel free to OT here if you like :lol:
LBH
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Well my campaign wortkd (as all my forum campaigns thus far have 8) ) the first scenario was changed to vanilla Engagement, but with Shatter point rules removed VPs used instead.
LBH
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
You feel free to if you wish, I only have so many campaigns a year, I'm trying to cut down. Maybe my next one will be Ted Chang for World President.
LBH
LBH
lastbesthope
Mongoose
No, I jsut don't want to spoil my unbroken winning streak, plus I already know of other campaigns on that line I don't want to run afoul of.
BH
BH
the point of that scenario was to give the mea a chance befor the EFTF and USMC run over everything though, if i was usin USMC or EFTF and they droped that scenario id feel a little hollow from it, and sorry for the MEA and PLA, as that was the only real scenario they had a good footing.
