Most of the threads these days seem to be focused around the proposed rules changes and about charging. One of the reasons people argue charge should not be taken away is that it is about the only thing to combat tank drop. I haven’t used tank-drop in ages but I have been thinking about it lately. Do you ever see large vehicles generally used on their own? I’m talking about the big beasties … like the Behemoth. Without a APC … generally no … an experienced player would never utilize such a unit. Why? The minimum range of course. Did you realize a non-augmented human being in the form of a 4 point Peasant can run 54 kph?!? That is how fast WK says they can run as they have no trouble keeping up with a Behemoth cruising along at max speed. I’d like to know where the soldiers in the game get their Wheaties from cause I could sure use some of that! So … why use a 100 point tank when 4 points can tie it up all game?

I would like to see non-VTOL & non-arty vehicles actually have some use without an APC needing to be involved. The question is … how to do so?

This is a call to the community to give me your ideas on how to put some use back in to combat vehicles without using APCs. Now … in order to do this we have to make a few assumptions first.

#1: Tank-drop is no longer a valid tactic. Let’s assume that WK puts out a FAQ that states that vehicles with a movement value greater than 0 cannot be transported by APCs.
#2: Assume the charge mechanic has been nerfed or eliminated. Let’s say WK produces a FAQ that states that charge damage is primary damage -1 to a minimum of 1 and is only within 1x the mechs movement … but it still blows through armor. Or maybe WK makes some other change that makes charge less attractive and thus not done anywhere near as much.
#3: Assume that WK produces a FAQ that states that once a VTOL takes a shot it may no longer move even if it has movement points left that turn. Between this and the introduction of the new AA units in Counterassault let’s assume that VTOLs are no longer anywhere near as powerful as they used to be.

With those assumptions in place … how do you make a vehicle useful without giving it too much power? How do you deal with infantry basing it?

My initial thoughts were to give vehicles some sort of break damage much like mechs but maybe not as severe. That or maybe allow vehicles to deal damage to units basing it somehow even though they are under the min range. Finally, maybe allow vehicles to fire out of base contact but with a penalty on their to hit roll.

I’d like to see people make constructive suggestions on this and especially if they have had a chance to playtest any such ideas.

Please don’t degenerate down in to discussions about tank-drop, VTOLs, arty, or charges. I’m simply looking for ideas to playtest to see if this can be done without having to do a total rules re-write.

I think allowing vehicles to ram infantry, possibly without a roll required, would help vehicles without resorting to tank drop. This would give vehicles some sort of surefire way to damage an infantry unit for two damage, no luck involved. I would even allow a vehicle to ram an infantry unit in base contact, so it wouldn't need to perform some seen-as-cheesy break and ram. Only one infantry unit per ram though, not all in base contact.

I have a feeling the speeds of units are influenced heavily by the size of the average playing field. I'd like to see tanks beefed up a bit, esp. the large ones like DI Morgan, DI Schmitt, Behemoth, and Marksman.

Allow vehicles to shoot under minimum range with ONE of these two penalties:

Half damage, rounded down, to a minimum of 1
OR
+3 to target's defense, only one target allowed, no fire-formations allowed (same rules as indirect fire)

The vehicles that really suffer include:

Big tanks with AP and minimum ranges (Behemoths)
Energy tanks (weak vs. most infantry, powerless vs. some)

Here's a simple solution, easy to implement:

Any vehicle that does not have speed mode VTOL may make a close combat attack. (This simulates firing point defense weapons, not whacking their enemies with the gun barrels). Like all close combat attacks:

* these attacks are neither ballistic or energy, so no damage SE's can be used other than Flamers.
* can only attack a single unit in base contact with the unit's front arc

In addition, apply a +2 to the target's defense unless the vehicle is using its Repair or Flamer SE. Vehicles can only be the primary attacker in a close combat formation.

Vehicles with no minimum range will usually still want to do ranged combat, since they get to use AP or AnP or Pulse SE's (or add heat with energy weapons) and don't suffer the +2 defense penalty.

I realize that this gives all vehicles a way to get around Evade, Decoy, Camouflage, Reactive and Reflective armor. Then again, I suppose they all have this capability already - it's called Ramming.

With those assumptions you posted vehicles would be alot more playable. Some of them are playable right now (reg 2, po 2). The heavy tanks with a 3+ min range are the guys excluded from the game.

They need something like:

1) Units may fire when based as long as they have LOS.

or

2) Vehicles may close combat at -2 damage.

All vehicles could be usable with these changes.

Yeah mlotoole0 I know. The Po's and most Glory Fires would work nicely. But I am referring to the bigger lumbering beasts like the Mars and Behemoth. Basically the ones that cost an arm and a leg and don't have the speed to get away from infantry even if they are lucky enough to break away and have no way to defend themselves vs even a piddly lil 4 pt. peasant due to arc or min range issues. :)

topgun,

We use the close combat idea for our house rules. It gives the big tanks some options when based but does not nullify the advantages of a 0 min range. Plus, these tanks are obviously armed with a host of close defense weapons. Limited close combat makes sense.

I like these ideas, but I do think damage should be minimized. In fact, I wouldn't suggest any negative modifiers to damage...rather a static 1 damage. A tank w/ base 5 dam is still going to do 3 if there is a -2 penalty imparted. However, my assumption with most of these "close combat" and "below minimum range" actions is that the weapons being used are NOT the standard weapons printed on the dial. And I DO think armor should still affect this (so any armor would negate the attack).

If a tank was built with a min range, then it should be severely limited in attacking within that range. As it stands, they are not allowed to attack below min ranges, so adding anything will simply make them more powerful. If an armored infantry or vehicle (or mech for that matter) gets in close to a tank with a min range, it SHOULD be screwed.

Minimum range violations in CBT was a to hit modifier, so that's what I'd like to see implemented even if it's a huge modifier like +3 or 4 to the target's defense.
Something like half damage rounded down or max 2 damage would be ok too though. The Behemoths and their ilk need some
help, this would also save the hatchemen from the agility mechs somewhat.

S

Ok, -2 to hit, 1/2 damage (rounded down, min 1). And if you're in base contact max dam is 1. I like that idea...

HOWEVER, what are these changes going to do to the whole point system for vehicles? In "for fun" games, it's all good. But, competitively (if these rules are considered) is this going to alter game balance...?

I still dont think that a crush rule will do much to help the playability of tanks. Lumbering brutes, theyre too easily neutralized by artillery. Tank moves... arty pogs it. Tank pushes to get out of the way (maybe the arty drifts and hits him anyway), arty pushes to pog it again. JI100 repairs the arty push. Etc etc. Basically, tanks provide the firepower of a medium/heavy mech at the price of a light mech... the tradeoff is mobility, since tanks have to push and are generally slower. With the exception of tankdrop (where those mobility issues do not exist, thanks to good synergy) most competitive players arent willing to make the tradeoff. Why would they, when you can field VTOLs or artillery for fewer points and have far superior mobility?

Only a handful of tanks have 5 damage and its only for one click. If you limited the damage to 1, it would take 5 or more attacks to clear one infantry. That is essentially the whole game. Big tanks would still be a waste of plastic without a MEANINGFUL close combat attack.

Have you read the dossiers on any of these tanks?? They have srms, grenade launchers, minguns, flamers and more. Basing with infantry should not be a free ride.

Here's a thought. Vehicles may conduct a close combat attack against any units it is in base contact with and in its front arc. It may target as many units as it normally could with its ranged attack. This attack, however, is considered a ballistic attack (regardless what the normal primary attack type is). Make 1 attack roll and compare the result vs the defense rating of all the targets. Any targets hit take x damage (which can be prevented by normal means).

I stated it should be considered ballistic because, let's face it, generally the close-in defense weaponry on tanks like what we are talking about is generally geared towards combating infantry. This makes other vehicles and mechs with heavy, hardened, or reactive armor most likely immune to such small weapons (as it should be). If you want to damage a target with armor you will have to have AP or ram instead (or deal enough damage with a ranged attack to blow through the armor).

The big question is what to make the 'x' value. 1 damage? 2? Primary damage / 2 rounded down, to a min of 1? Primary -2 to a min of 1? Shrugs. I don't know. It would make sense that the bigger an assault tank is, the more close in self defense weapons it would have and thus deal out more damage than a smaller vehicle.

I don't think the attack should damage ALL units in the front arc as that would make vehicles deal out too much damage. On the flip side I don't think all vehicles should only be able to target 1 unit as it doesn't reflect the number of weapons the unit has (plus it would STILL take an ice age to dust off infantry at that rate).

For simplicity, and to make vehicles not totally vulnerable to basing (by infantry or scout VTOLS):

Vehicle close combat:

Treated as a close combat (if that VTOL is basing your tank, I don't think it should still get evade)

Arc is 360 degrees (this might be too powerful, but it's intended to make up for the lack of a free spin. Might need to drop it to front arc, I guess a tank should have some disadvantages)

Damage type is same as primary attack (these are still guns, not karate chops).

Target Defense is +1 (hard to hit a guy with a machine gun if he's swinging from the barrel)

Damage is primary damage up to a max of 2 (these are the small caliber secondary guns, not the AC/20)

Most of these were already suggested, and I don't pretend to have invented this.

Just my vote on the subject.