Page 1 of 2

Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Quarry

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:48 pm
by randolph
The Battle of Hogland Quarry
Overview thread: here
Battle thread: here

(56) Black Adders [Defender]
6 frames (22 systems), 2 stations / 7 IPA (Initiative Per Asset)
Commander: MittenNinja

Grand Naga 1: d6Rd d6Rd , d6Rh d6Rh , d6B , d6G , d6W , d6W
Grand Naga 2: d6Rd d6Rd , d6Rh d6Rh , d6B , d6G , d6W , d6W
Uri Reed's Naga: d6Rh d6Rh , d8Rh , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr
"Fat Snake" Chub 1: d6Rd d6Rd , d6Rd d6Rh , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8Rr
"Fat Snake" Chub 2: d6Rd d6Rd , d6Rd d6Rh , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8Rr
Spitting Dragon: d6Ra d6Ra , d8Ra , d6Y , d6Y , d6W , d6W


(48) 5/4 Light Expeditionary
6 frames (23 systems), 2 stations / 6 IPA
Commander: calculus

Shepard: d6Ra d6Rd , d6Y , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W
Russian: d6Ra d6Rd , d6Y , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W
Boxer: d6Ra d6Rd , d6Y , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W
Tomahawk: d6Ra d6Rd , d6Y , d6Y , d6W , d6W
Hacksaw: d6Rh d6Rh , d6Y , d6B , d6G , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr
Shiv: d6Y , d6Y , d6B , d6G , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr d8Rr


(27) Blade of Vervoo
7 frames (27 systems), 2 stations / 3 IPA
Commander: FerrelFerret

Locust Alpha: d6Rh d6Rh , d8Rh , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr
Locust Bravo: d6Rh d6Rh , d8Rh , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr
Locust Delta: d6Rh d6Rh , d8Rh , d6Y , d6B , d6W , d6W + d8G d8Rr
Ice Golem: d6Rd d6Rd , d6Rd d6Rh , d6B , d6B , d6W , d6W
Roadblock: d6Rd d6Rd , d8Rd , d6B , d6B , d6W , d6W
Longbow: d6Ra d6Ra , d8Ra , d6B , d6G , d6W , d6W
Control: d6Rh d6Rh , d6Y , d6Y , d6W , d6W + d8G

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:01 pm
by randolph
Here comes the peanut gallery!

First off, I noticed:
6 frames (22 systems)
6 frames (23 systems)
7 frames (27 systems)

Everyone made an attempt at underbidding, FF by a system, calculus by a frame and a system, and MN by a frame and two systems! The outcome is interesting, because if you don't go far enough, you could have been better off not underbidding - FF and calculus both could have +1 system with no drawbacks compared to the current situation, and calculus would additionally have had the potential tradeoff of adding a 3-system frame for a total cost of 3 initiative.

I'm not going to get into the company rock-paper-scissors discussion - and I urge all of you not to either - until each commander has placed their companies so we don't affect the outcome.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:01 am
by Forged
I'm interested in the way they are deploying, Calculus seems to be sticking strictly to cover, while FerrelFerret is massing his troops in the open.

MittenNinja's placement of his objectives let him keep his back to the wall so to speak, but there are 2 hexes that people could put mechs in that are "behind" him.

Lastly, the "ring of cover" I put into the center is still unused. Is it too obvious? Or did it's location in the center seem to risky?

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:16 pm
by Ced23Ric
Calculus will most likely shell targets of opportunity, spot the hell out of both and stay down there, cleaning the table, but moving in for Mittens stations. He has firepower at any range, and prefers artillery. Melee protects artillery or runs for forlorn stations. Calculus brings to most iffy-to-fight company to the game, being able to dish out damage long before his targets can fire back. Having 4 Ra platforms gives him the option to shell many targets or focus-fire one and with those spots, he can also bring it down for sure.

Mittens doesn't have that much artillery, so he will probably guard his stations with the spot/Ra 'Frame, while the rest of the Adders await ferrets crew. Potentially, he could desert his position entirely, make a run for calculus, while calculus shells away, so Mittens can drop DF system to receive d8G. It doesn't look good for him. But he only needs to survive to win. Tough.

Ferret has the biggest force. If he splits, he might not be able to survive Mittens' defenders. If he doesn't, calculus might just win by obliberating Mittens and snatching ferrets stations in the rear, because as soon as ferret and Mittens have lost their Ra 'Frames, calculus is free to shoot their companies without backlash.

Curious how it'll go down. So far, I put two peaches on calculus. It'll come down to asset value/doomsday clock management.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:00 pm
by Forged
Deployment is now finished, feel free to speculate to your hearts content!

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:43 pm
by Ced23Ric
*points up* ^^

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:53 pm
by calculus
Right now my money is on Ferret. MittenNinja has split his forces, and seems to be going to war with two players simultaneously.

The likely result of the next two turns will be MittenNinja loosing two frames in the south, and possibly one in the north. He's certain to lose one station, and might loose the other. Calculus is likely to loose a frame.

This would put MittenNinja in last place, behind Ferret in initive, with no way to move back ahead - he can't regain frames, he can't retake his old stations if Ferret is sweeping down through them, and he's outnumbered on taking Calculus' stations. This two front war is setup to destroy MittenNinja.

Ferret though, can move the biggest force on the map, completly intact, down through the green stations, and onwards.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:12 pm
by calculus
In a three player game, combat is generally bad for you - your forces will be taking a one way trip down getting weaker street. The defender, especially, wants to avoid combat, because his frames are worth a huge number of points.

The attackers chief disadvantage is that he is forced into combat and forced to initiate combat. Otherwise a three player game would be all about everyone hiding in the corner.

So for the defender to voluntarily to throw aways his frames and stations with the goal of hurting someone who gets hurt less points than he does on losses, against unfavorable combat odds, is suicidal.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 7:40 pm
by randolph
What's interesting to me is that d6Y is less advantageous in a 3+ player game than in a 2-player game - because unless you're constantly in a super-strong position, you're going to be benefiting from Opponent A's spots on Opponent B, and Opponent B's spots on Opponent A. It's still strong to dictate spot targets by having your own spotters, but there's room for opportunism here.

I also notice that this is a very spread out engagement, with only one artillery unit per company except for Red.

Five peaches on calculus.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 11:03 pm
by Dukayn
I physically cringed at that Naga's set of rolls. Poor Mittens.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 11:08 pm
by MittenNinja
Dukayn wrote:I physically cringed at that Naga's set of rolls. Poor Mittens.

yeah its pretty bad. but its not over yet!

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:15 am
by Ced23Ric
Dukayn wrote:I physically cringed at that Naga's set of rolls. Poor Mittens.

So did I. I felt so bad for him. :D

Also, I retract my two peaches on calculus and stock them up to five, putting them on Mittens.

The thing is, he still has only one less 'Frame than ferrelferret, and only one system less than calculus, but grabbed both Initiative bonusses. Mittens has a fair point advantage, and if he can inflict just a fair amount of damage and race the DDC down, he has a good chance of winning this. Calculus maybe has some serious artillery, but artillery doesn't capture stations, and with being the second placed, that's what he should look for - stations give him more points than ferrelferret. ferrelferret needs to put the hammer down, but is so far away from calculus withoutserious artillery power that he might be able to smash into Mittens, but Mittens is not his problem - his problem is that he is still going to lose even if he eradicates Mittens.

Interesting. It really appears as if, despite what the initiative says, that calculus is the problem of both Mittens and ferrelferret. Especially since Mittens can expect more damage from calculus and ferrelferret is less threatening just because of his lower Initiative.

Can't wait to see this one pan out. And I wish Mittens a better roll on the next Naga. :D

Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Quarry

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:51 am
by Forged
Replace forged with ferrelferret! I'm the eye on the sky not the fighter!

Ceditâ„¢: Ssh. It's just a nightmare. You are hallucinating. None of that ever happened. *JediMindTrick*

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:38 pm
by addking
I'm enjoying watching this go down.

Since this is sorta for all to watch, newbie question: why wouldn't Mittens try and down the doomsday clock a notch on his first go?

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:45 pm
by Mantisking
addking wrote:Since this is sorta for all to watch, newbie question: why wouldn't Mittens try and down the doomsday clock a notch on his first go?

You have to wait until the end of the turn. I'd be very surprised if he doesn't tick it down though.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:31 pm
by Ced23Ric
Yeah, Mittens will want to race that DDC like it's a sportscar.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:45 pm
by Inksplat
randolph wrote:What's interesting to me is that d6Y is less advantageous in a 3+ player game than in a 2-player game - because unless you're constantly in a super-strong position, you're going to be benefiting from Opponent A's spots on Opponent B, and Opponent B's spots on Opponent A. It's still strong to dictate spot targets by having your own spotters, but there's room for opportunism here.

I also notice that this is a very spread out engagement, with only one artillery unit per company except for Red.

Five peaches on calculus.


Using other players' spots really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not sure that should be a thing.

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:48 pm
by Mantisking
Inksplat wrote:Using other players' spots really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not sure that should be a thing.

Why? If one opponent's mech is standing in the beam of a spotlight targeted by a different opponent, you shouldn't be able to use it?

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:30 pm
by Ced23Ric
Inksplat wrote:Using other players' spots really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not sure that should be a thing.

It's already a thing. You need to abstract. It's a) not so much secret data in closed circuit networks, but a beacon, tag laser, shouting, smoke signals or tracer fire and b) why shouldn't your opponent A be able to use your spot on player C? Hell, he is doing your work, why look a gift horse in the mouth? ;)

Re: Armchair Strategizing/Betting: The Battle of Hogland Qua

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:44 pm
by Inksplat
Ced23Ric wrote:
Inksplat wrote:Using other players' spots really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not sure that should be a thing.

It's already a thing. You need to abstract. It's a) not so much secret data in closed circuit networks, but a beacon, tag laser, shouting, smoke signals or tracer fire and b) why shouldn't your opponent A be able to use your spot on player C? Hell, he is doing your work, why look a gift horse in the mouth? ;)


In that case, Spotting should be an automatic Reverse-Spot, because if you're pointing a laser that apparently just anyone can see, it leads back to you. If you're shouting, I can hear you.

Why would a bunch of high-tech mechs be using technology that even the modern United States military doesn't use? We already mark targets digitally, or via invisible lasers...why would space men in robots find the need to go backwards?