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

Axhead wrote:Rush & Run the Clock The problem with HTH is the other guys run away and shoot you to pieces. So this idea involves preventing them from running away, it is designed for being the Attacker but could also apply when Defending with HTH only troops. The two most valuable things in the game are time and stations, so with that in mind cluster your Attacking Stations as close as possible to the enemy defensive perimeter. Set up to do a maximum swarm (duh) and heres the important part RUN THE CLOCK. You should be able to get all over the enemy stations in the limited time and if any of the enemy get in the way great just tear them up on your way to the Stations. If they run away, great you get to eat up all their stations. With only 3 turns of shooting they should only get 3 of your Mechs (9 Initiative lost) while you ideally pick up all of their stations which swing the VP by 10 per, giving you an estimated net +21 and them a net -9 and thats if you dont even catch anybody.

Rush & Run the Clock Frame: d6Rh d6Rh d6B d6B d6Y d6W d6W d8G

I think Rush & Run the Clock wont work if your opponent knows its comming, she could scatter her stations and disperse her Frames and then choose to NOT count down the clock. But then when ever you go with a dedicated one trick pony and the other person see's it comming you are in trouble.

Now I really want to try this...

If someone else doesn't get to it first, I'm definitely going to run a sim of this company, and try and come up with an opposing company to fight against it. I will most likely run this sim this weekend, along with a sim with companies from the Your Companies thread.
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 Vesopia - 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

Battle Simulation 7

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

Tetrajak wrote: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.


So if I'm reading your charts right, my company won, but it wasnt pretty? And to move those SSRs XD
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

calculus wrote:Nice work!

I envy the gameplay skills you are picking up with this series.

Thanks! Yea, I'm certainly learning a lot from doing these sims! Hopefully it means I wont be wasting money when I order parts for frames and their respective systems :lol:

CrimsonKMR wrote:So if I'm reading your charts right, my company won, but it wasnt pretty? And to move those SSRs XD

Yes, that's correct. It would have only taken a concerted effort from the attackers to steal away your stations, and thus take the initiative from the defenders.
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

Battle Simulation 8

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

Holy hell, the Serpent Legion ate it pretty hard here. It seems like their only potential winning move would've been a grouped movement NE, trying to get to that single station there and abandon all hopes in the south. But his enemy was faster, and he needed to win the material battle to have any hope for a positive outcome. I would've tried to rip the runt apart to level the initiative level,

Initiative:
Axhead: 6 frames, 15 systems. -1 most 'frames, +1 least systems | AV = 5, Initiative: 45 (6+3*5)
Mittens: 5 frames, 20 systems. +1 least 'frames, -1 systems | AV = 5, Initiative: 40 (5+3*5)

This is hilarious. The larger force defends. Oh boy, oh boy. What I'm seeing is that Mittens' company lacked the d6Y to back up the d8Rd, and his melee 'frames were ripped apart because even d6B at 6 is not strong enough to stop an decent attack roll with a spot on top.

Conclusions:
  • d6B d6B setup seemed ineffective.
  • d8Rd is not damage, d6Y is damage.
  • Stay away from melees in bunches.
  • Don't setup in clusters or they will hutch your stuff up. This includes stations. Don't give your stuff away for free!
  • Overlapping fields of fire are important.
  • Negate their movement by making it mandatory, yet insufficient for them to move.
  • Stay agile - d6G goes a longer way than d6B d6B.
Image Vesopia - 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

Wait, I thought the defending frames had to be placed in cover?

lumpley wrote:Final Defense
The player with the high initiative finishes.

Place your remaining mobile frames on the battlefield. Place them wherever you want, but if you place them outside of your perimeter, place them in cover to any potential enemies.

The battle starts now, at the moment the point mobile frame exposed itself to fire.

Questions welcome!

-Vincent
The Transit Gate: A MFZ Podcast
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.
WangTech, Inc.
Inexorable. Progress.
Company Overview
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

randolph wrote: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.


Looking at the description of the "point frame" being the first frame to break cover, it doesn't make any sense that youd be able to place all of your frames right next to your attacker. But yes, i think we need some clarification.
The Transit Gate: A MFZ Podcast
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

Well, here's what Josh said after the rules preview came out:
Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
ferrelferret wrote:
Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:Forged, I don't know why we said that before. It's just a good idea to put them in cover, though I can see reasons that sometimes you wouldn't want that. It's more that you can put them in cover, unlike the point frame.

It was stated that you put them in cover outside of the perimeter because combat would have started sooner, since my army wouldn't willingly walk past an enemy frame And let them have the flank once combat starts.

Oh, there's a practical thing there: very often, by the time there are that many frames on the table, you can't put them in cover to everyone.

I'll have to discuss with Vincent his thinking on that, though. The reasoning's good, it's just that often it's not an option.

It sounds like:
1) The flavortext/intent is for all out-of-perimeter Defenders to be in cover from every Attacker, but
2) There are practical limitations on the number of locations where that is possible, so
3) As of the preview pdf, playability trumps flavortext, but they were still talking about it at the time, with no posted updates since.
WangTech, Inc.
Inexorable. Progress.
Company Overview
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

It sounds like:
1) The flavortext/intent is for all out-of-perimeter Defenders to be in cover from every Attacker, but
2) There are practical limitations on the number of locations where that is possible, so
3) As of the preview pdf, playability trumps flavortext, but they were still talking about it at the time, with no posted updates since.


My only gripe with that is that it does affect playability since the defender would have a massive advantage if they can place right next to the attacking force especially since they have the initiative. As seen above, nearly equal forces ended up being a significantly one sided battle because of it. (I'm not griping that I lost, just that it seems that there is a significant balance flaw if that is the case).
The Transit Gate: A MFZ Podcast
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

MittenNinja wrote:My only gripe with that is that it does affect playability since the defender would have a massive advantage if they can place right next to the attacking force especially since they have the initiative. As seen above, nearly equal forces ended up being a significantly one sided battle because of it. (I'm not griping that I lost, just that it seems that there is a significant balance flaw if that is the case).

The intent for that part seems kind of confused:
randolph wrote:So, as the Defender, I can put my HtH shredders right on top of the enemy artillery? I know it's probably because I've never physically played, but this seems brutal to me.

lumpley wrote:Randolph: Potentially quite brutal, yes.

Usually the defender can't afford to place defensive units so offensively, but give it a shot, maybe you can make it work.

And yes, correct, defending frames outside of the defensive perimeter must be placed in cover to all attackers. (Otherwise, the battle would have started sooner, when they came into view!)

So, in the same post, I'm told that I'm allowed to place my frames next to the enemy Artillery, but they need to be in cover ;)

Maybe he's referring to a corner case where the Attacking Artillery is adjacent to a thin (less than 1 unit thick) piece of cover, so a HtH frame behind that would be "in cover" but the HtH frame is still able to hit the Artillery right away, because it can reach (< 1 unit away), and HtH ignores cover?
WangTech, Inc.
Inexorable. Progress.
Company Overview
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

randolph wrote:
MittenNinja wrote:My only gripe with that is that it does affect playability since the defender would have a massive advantage if they can place right next to the attacking force especially since they have the initiative. As seen above, nearly equal forces ended up being a significantly one sided battle because of it. (I'm not griping that I lost, just that it seems that there is a significant balance flaw if that is the case).

The intent for that part seems kind of confused:
randolph wrote:So, as the Defender, I can put my HtH shredders right on top of the enemy artillery? I know it's probably because I've never physically played, but this seems brutal to me.

lumpley wrote:Randolph: Potentially quite brutal, yes.

Usually the defender can't afford to place defensive units so offensively, but give it a shot, maybe you can make it work.

And yes, correct, defending frames outside of the defensive perimeter must be placed in cover to all attackers. (Otherwise, the battle would have started sooner, when they came into view!)

So, in the same post, I'm told that I'm allowed to place my frames next to the enemy Artillery, but they need to be in cover ;)

Maybe he's referring to a corner case where the Attacking Artillery is adjacent to a thin (less than 1 unit thick) piece of cover, so a HtH frame behind that would be "in cover" but the HtH frame is still able to hit the Artillery right away, because it can reach (< 1 unit away), and HtH ignores cover?


That would make sense as it fits with all frames need to be in cover.
The Transit Gate: A MFZ Podcast
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.
WangTech, Inc.
Inexorable. Progress.
Company Overview
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