Karagin
07/17/02 05:05 PM
63.173.170.226
|
Why is it against the rules for aerospace or conventional fighters to use their Ballistic weapons to straff enemy units?
In games like Steel Panthers 1, 2 and 3, the fighters would come in line up on the target fire it's cannons, MGs, and rockets at the target as they came into range, then if it had bombe, be them iron dumb bombs or cluster it would drop the those around the target and then fly off hoping not to get shot down.
The whole time the plane is making the straffing run it is under fire from all of the vehicle and some times infantry fire as well, AAA fire that can reach it. SAMs try to take them as well.
If the plane is hit and taken out then no attack happens to the target. If plane is hit and damage then the plane flees.
All simple and straight foward. Now for those not fimilar with the STEEL PANTHER games it a series of games that let's you refight WW2 and current battles with tanks, infantry etc...on a hex map with each hex being 50 meters long.
The idea that you are only allowed to use your laser or engery weapons in a straffing run is silly. Maybe the term needs to be changed or something, but as written the rule makes it pointless to put ballistic weapons on a ground attack fighter.
Yes I know you can strike with Ballistic weapons, but there are big draw backs to that as well.
Anyone have ideas on how to make a balanced change that would allow the fighters to straff with the ballistic weapons?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
07/17/02 05:52 PM
209.242.100.230
|
The original rules were based on slow-firing ballistics. Theoretically a rotary AC would strafe almost as well as any energy weapon, and machine guns should fill the area with tiny divots.
meow
|
Karagin
07/17/02 06:50 PM
63.173.170.74
|
All very true...but AT2 say they can't and the reasoning behind it...to make fighters less of threat to mechs, isn't very sound...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
07/17/02 11:18 PM
24.44.238.62
|
When the reasoning is "playability" or "balance", then, by definition it isn't sound! 
How 'bout this: for each clip (i.e. Ultra or RAC "shot"; I refuse to think of ACs as non-burst weapons) you fire, you can strafe that many hexes. So a RAC will let you strafe six. You only do half damage, or 1/3 with RACs, (round down), to each hex's unit(s).
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
07/17/02 11:26 PM
63.173.170.216
|
What you suggested seems balanced and reasonable. I like it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|