[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 488: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/bbcode.php on line 112: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4762: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4764: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4765: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4766: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3897)
Mobile Frame Hangar • View topic - Battle Simulations (Sim 9 Posted)

Battle Simulations (Sim 9 Posted)

Battle reports and play-by-post games
Forum rules
This is a game - This is fun - Your posts should reflect this

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 6 Posted)

Postby Tetrajak » Wed May 23, 2012 7:48 pm

User avatar
Tetrajak
Talkative
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 6 Posted)

Postby Axhead » Thu May 24, 2012 12:17 am

I am interested in doing a Sim of a Rush & Run the Clock company as well, but don't let that stop you from doing one as well. I think different people's interpretations of the same theme could be very interesting and educational. Plus we are unlikely to use the same opposing force, and the terrain could have a significant effect as well.
Axhead
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:12 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 6 Posted)

Postby Ced23Ric » Thu May 24, 2012 6:09 am

I'd be curious how this would fare against a regular force. Because something tells me they'd get shot to bits by a force that's built to combat another regular force - only d6Rh means that the normal force could step up their game because there's less worry about return fire - and now overlapping fields of fire generate a killzone that those R&RtC 'frames just can't weather.
Image - An Ijad-controlled system, where SU and FC are still fighting.
"The moon will guide you on your path when the sun long has set." - Trinity Of-The-Many.
User avatar
Ced23Ric
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 6 Posted)

Postby Tetrajak » Thu May 24, 2012 10:46 pm



Orange Company (defenders)
Solar Union - Jade Guardians
Commander (4 Systems) d6Rh d6Rh d8Rh d6B d6G d8G d6W d6W
Archer (4 Systems) d6Ra d6Ra d8Ra d6B d6Y d6W d6W
Spotter (4 Systems) d6Y d6Y d6B d6G d8G d6W d6W d8Rr d8Rr d8Rr
Mixed Combat (4 Systems) d6Rd d6Rd d6Rh d6Rh d6B d6G d6W d6W
Rapid Attack (4 Systems) d6Rd d6Rd d6B d6G d6G d6W d6W

Purple Company (attackers)
1st Sachmet Liberators
2x Partisans d6Rd d6Rd d6Y d6Y d6G d6W d6W
2x fusiliers d6Rd d6Rd d8Rr d6B d6B d6G d6W d6W
1x Artillery Crawler d6Ra d6Ra d8Ra d6B d6B d6W d6W
1x duelist d6Rh d6Rh d8Rh d8Rr d6Y d8G d6G d6W d6W

Battle Setup
Image

Round 1 End
Image

Round 2 End
Image

Round 3 End
Image

Round 4 End
Image

Round 5 End
Image

Round 6 End
Image

If the defenders have been ticking down the DDC every round (and why wouldn't you, when you're on defense), the defenders win. If not, they are quickly finished off in the next two rounds, and the attackers win.

Due to the lack of spotting on both sides, and the abundance of entire-map spotting on the attackers, I decided to see how guarding the stations would work out. There weren't any lost, but I realise I should have made a run for the defenders stations earlier.

The aforementioned lack of spotting meant that a lot of cover was destroyed in attempts to get spots in with frames that had no spotting attachments. This also resulted in the run to the defenders stations being a daunting thing, due to the lack of cover for the run. This was an interesting side effect, and I may experiment with the destruction of cover to herd my enemies in the future.

Once again, SSRs on frames that are never going to use them prove useless. I'm learning that SSRs should always be put on DF range frames that have only a single DF weapon.

The next Battle Sim should be up tomorrow, or the day after that.
User avatar
Tetrajak
Talkative
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 7 Posted)

Postby calculus » Fri May 25, 2012 6:03 am

Nice work!

I envy the gameplay skills you are picking up with this series.
calculus
Talkative
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:46 am

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 6 Posted)

Postby CrimsonKMR » Fri May 25, 2012 7:02 am

User avatar
CrimsonKMR
Talkative
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:01 am

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 7 Posted)

Postby Tetrajak » Fri May 25, 2012 5:26 pm

User avatar
Tetrajak
Talkative
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 7 Posted)

Postby Tetrajak » Tue May 29, 2012 4:35 am



Orange Team (defense)
Axhadi's Badi Ijadi Jihadis
3x Ijad Soldier: d6Rh d6Rh d6Y d6B d8G d6W d6W d8Rr
1x Ijad Runt: d6Rh d6Rh d6B d8G d6W d6W
2x Ijad Shooter: d6Ra d6Rd d6G d6Y d6Y d6W d6W

Purple Team (offense)
Pit Vipers
LT Asher's Heavy Chub d6Rd d6Rd d8Rd d6B d6B
Sgt Calwell's Heavy Chub d6Rh d6Rh d8Rh d6B d6B d8G
Recon Iguana d6Rd d6Rd d6Rh d6Rh d6Y d6Y
Longbow Iguana d6Ra d6Ra d6Ra d6Rd d6Rd d6Rd d6Y
Commando Iguana d6Rd d6Rd d8Rd d6Rh d6Rh d6Y

Battle Setup
Image

Round 1 End
Image

Round 2 End
Image

Round 3 End
Image

Round 4 End
Image

Round 5 End
Image

Sorry this is later than I intended to post it. I was ill on the weekend, and didn't have the brains to finish it.

Once again, this is a great example of how melee units can be used to devastating effect on defense (which is about the only place they're anywhere near this effective).

Also interesting to see a company with fewer than maximum systems doing so much damage, which I hadn't anticipated.

Had fun caging the attackers as well, which made them very easy to hunt down with melee frames. This is definitely worth noting, if you've got a small enough table to do it on.

The next sim should be done sometime next weekend.
User avatar
Tetrajak
Talkative
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:54 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby Ced23Ric » Tue May 29, 2012 5:00 am

Image - An Ijad-controlled system, where SU and FC are still fighting.
"The moon will guide you on your path when the sun long has set." - Trinity Of-The-Many.
User avatar
Ced23Ric
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1681
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby Axhead » Tue May 29, 2012 10:35 am

I thought that a high frame count/low attachment count/high initiative force would be effective but that result was a bit more than anticipated.

The one consistant thing I have noticed is that whoever goes first (in 2 player games) tends to get a free kill. In this case I was lucky enough to get the equivalent of slightly more than 2 kills (1 full frame, 5 damage & 2 damage). I think the higher damage output on turn 1 was due to a heavy reliance on HTH which hits harder in general. Since I started with a one frame advantage, I don't see how any company could come back from a 3 frame disadvantage especially when my company was already engaged at their optimal range.

Two things that might have kept the Intiative split less one sided would be for the ambushed frames to have run away from their own stations, by going towards them it made it easier for my guys to get a second engagement which was right on the doorstep of the opposing "station park". At the same time the Longbow Iguana guarding the stations could have backed off to buy more shooting time while the remaining two frames dashed for the ABIJ stations.
Axhead
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:12 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby MittenNinja » Tue May 29, 2012 12:44 pm


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
User avatar
MittenNinja
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: St Paul, MN

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby randolph » Tue May 29, 2012 1:03 pm

The rules preview pdf says if you place them outside the perimeter, you'll want to put them in the best cover you can. That sounds more like a suggestion than a requirement.

I think I'd want some clarification from Josh/Vincent on both updated wording and intent:
1) Is placing outside-perimeter-Defensive units in cover a requirement or a suggestion?
2) If it's a requirement, do they need to be in cover from every Attacking unit, or just in HtH range of cover, regardless of whether it's useful cover at the moment.

Inexorable. Progress.
randolph
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby MittenNinja » Tue May 29, 2012 1:14 pm


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
User avatar
MittenNinja
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: St Paul, MN

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby randolph » Tue May 29, 2012 2:00 pm


Inexorable. Progress.
randolph
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby MittenNinja » Tue May 29, 2012 2:04 pm


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
User avatar
MittenNinja
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: St Paul, MN

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby randolph » Tue May 29, 2012 2:17 pm


Inexorable. Progress.
randolph
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby MittenNinja » Tue May 29, 2012 2:24 pm


Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
User avatar
MittenNinja
Old Guard
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: St Paul, MN

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby randolph » Tue May 29, 2012 2:29 pm

Heh. I guess the takeaway is: if you're fielding HtH, litter the battlefield with thin cover during setup, so there's no place for the Attacker to set up that's not near cover.

Inexorable. Progress.
randolph
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby Axhead » Tue May 29, 2012 3:13 pm

Both from fluff and game balance (ie slightly harder to HTH bushwack) it makes sense that the defenders out of the defensive perimeter should be in cover -OR- at the edge of the table representing a flank march or encirclement.

In the case of this game I don't think it would have made any difference as there is a big block of cover just south of and easily within d8G range of the ambush site.
Axhead
Grizzled Veteran
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:12 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Re: Battle Simulations (Sim 8 Posted)

Postby Tetrajak » Tue May 29, 2012 3:33 pm

Yes, placing HtH as the defender is brutal, as demonstrated in sim 8. However, the game's creators still haven't made up their minds about placement rules regarding the defense and cover. Until they do, I'm operating on what Josh said in the rules preview (I don't remember which one), that states that it is a good idea to place the defense in cover, but sometimes this isn't possible due to the positions of the enemy frames and the amount of cover available. What I take away from this is that you can place your defense frames wherever you want, but that you should do so tactically. In the case of HtH, this is in ambush of the least well-defended, and greatest threat, of the enemy.

It appears that Vincent and Josh both disagree on this aspect of the rules. Vincent is convinced that the defense must be in cover from the attackers, while Josh takes the more practical approach of making such a rule a suggestion instead. Since it's not always possible to be in cover from your attackers (think of those in the community who don't really have enough bricks to make a decent amount of cover for every frame on the field), this 'rule' becomes a requirement, for practical reasons.

It's quite obvious that this aspect of the rules needs to be reworded in such a way as to achieve the effect that Vincent is after (i.e. balance, with something like sim 8 not happening), while still maintaining the practical approach and admitting that it's not always possible to put the defense frames in cover from the attackers. As it's early morning where I am, I'm afraid I don't have the brains to suggest an alternative wording to this rule. Perhaps this should be the subject of a separate discussion in the rules subforum?
User avatar
Tetrajak
Talkative
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mobile Frame Battle Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron