|
|
Post by Ketara on Jan 2, 2010 21:39:06 GMT -5
Tell me what you think of these edits, in regards to MS teams, everybody.
MS Teams: An MS team can consist of up to 4 units, or 6 if they are entirely vehicles/infantry. An MS team in space can consist of up to 2 units, or 3 if they are entirely vehicles/infantry.
EF Rule - Every EF Battleship in space can carry up to 2 additional vehicles or mobile suits. EF Space ships can additionally carry up to 10 Balls as support.
Zeon Rule - Every Zeon Battleship can carry up to 1 additional vehicle, mobile suit or mobile armor.
Gallop - Hangar changed from 4 MS 1 Infantry to 4 MS 2 Infantry
Gaw - Changed from Battleship to Carrier
Medea - Hangar changed from 3 MS 1 vehicle to 3 MS 1 vehicle 1 aircraft
|
|
Feyd
ZMF Officer 
Major
Your favorite Tin Cod now with more GUNDAMU
Posts: 1,911
|
Post by Feyd on Jan 2, 2010 21:45:04 GMT -5
I don't think the EF/Zeon Space Battleship rules need to change. They seemed to work well before.
I think the Medea change makes them too good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jan 2, 2010 21:47:35 GMT -5
These would be Mk 6 changes, all you people in the chat who are freaking the fuck out.
What the hell =P
|
|
sasorizero
New Member
Corporal
Aim for the Top!
Posts: 68
|
Post by sasorizero on Jan 2, 2010 21:51:00 GMT -5
These would be Mk 6 changes, all you people in the chat who are freaking the fuck out. What the hell =P Slander! Although I think 5 balls for Salamis and 10 for Magellan (Kai) is more fair. |
|
Frenzy
ZMF Officer
Commander
Could be Ramsus.
Posts: 2,152
|
Post by Frenzy on Jan 2, 2010 21:52:46 GMT -5
I agree that the ship rules work fine as-is, and that the Medea change would make them a little too good for their cost.
But how would changing the Gaw from Battleship to Carrier change anything?
But the MS teams change looks good to me. May I ask why these rules wouldn't be implimented in the next shop change, for example?
|
|
Gray
EFF Officer 
Colonel
I admit; I'm impressed
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by Gray on Jan 2, 2010 22:10:33 GMT -5
OlSalamis with 1 GM (855) versus OlMusai with 5 Zaku II (1350)
NuSalamis with 2 GM and 10 Balls (1030) versus NuMusai with 6 Zaku II (1395)
OlSalamis Kai with 5 GM (1575) versus OlMusai Late Type with 6 Zaku II (1485)
NuSalamis Kai with 6 GM and 10 Balls (1750) versus NuMusai Late Type with 7 Zaku II (1530)
OlSalamis with 1 GM E (913) versus OlMusai with 5 Rick Dom (2025)
NuSalamis with 2 GM E and 10 Balls (1146) versus NuMusai with 6 Rick Dom (2205)
OlSalamis Kai with 5 GM E (1865) versus OlMusai Late Type with 6 Rick Dom (2295)
NuSalamis Kai with 6 GM E and 10 Balls (2205) versus NuMusai Late Type with 7 Rick Dom (2475)
I think the proposal swings things a bit too far towards the EFSF's side.
|
|
|
|
Post by MING on Jan 2, 2010 22:27:57 GMT -5
I thought the arguement was not to generally increase the size of MS teams, but rather increase the numbers of non-MS within them. Three additional Mobile Suits. Infantry already comes in greater numbers, 12 per squad of Marines, six of Panzergrenadiers.
I believe what the tank and aircraft people are going for is a ratio deal. Such as 2 tanks = 1 MS. This could also be applied in reverse toward mobile armors, where 2 MS = 1 MA, though the cost of mobile armors really offsets the need to make a team of three Adzams already.
Personally, I don't see too much of a problem with allowing a "tank group" or "squadron" size increase, where instead of three Tin Cods or Type 61s, there would be potentially be six. Tanks and aircraft are simpler to manufacture, and the logistics are kind of moot because most of the time it's not really a situation that warrants logistical concerns.
And there is already in-game precedent with Balls and Saberfish in space.
|
|
Draco
Rogue
Anaheim Electronics Employee
Anaheim Hitman
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by Draco on Jan 2, 2010 23:08:30 GMT -5
But how would changing the Gaw from Battleship to Carrier change anything? If the Gaw were a carrier, then it couldn't tow one MA above its listed capacity. |
|
Advocate
EFF
Chief Petty Officer
Youkai Moe~
Posts: 473
|
Post by Advocate on Jan 2, 2010 23:19:03 GMT -5
MS Teams: An MS team can consist of up to 4 units, or 6 if they are entirely vehicles/infantry. An MS team in space can consist of up to 2 units, or 3 if they are entirely vehicles/infantry. I like this idea, it basically addresses support vehicles inherent weakness. It boils down to what Ming said ratios, how many vehicles are equal to an MS in combat? Or at the very least like Fyed said how can we fight off patrols if we can't at least match them in size. All we non MS units have going for us is numbers and outside of fleets we can't have that. Well enough devil's advocate I knew what I was signing up for and I'm happy so far but I can understand people's concerns since I was thinking the same for a while. Oh by the way can Type 61's get those cool flash bangs from MS Igloo 2 as optional equipment? That would be awesome. |
|
jon
Junior Member
Palm Pilot
Posts: 169
|
Post by jon on Jan 3, 2010 4:16:45 GMT -5
Just got home. I'd like to just jump in here and check that people aren't actually arguing that 6 tanks are the general equivalent in firepower/capability to 4 MS. Alternatively, if they are arguing that, and they're right, then why the hell would anybody ever buy an MS when they can purchase tanks and planes for a tenth of the cost? Yes, I know, context matters, but 6 Type 61s are much closer in cost to ONE Zaku I/II than to three or four of them. Clearly part of that increase in cost comes from the fact that MS team slots ARE limited. Even so, I'm not sure I really see how going from 4 tanks to 6 makes THAT much difference.
I highly doubt this is an opinion that will be shared, but I think that the tank/infantry "MS" teams (misnomer, really) should be increased in size SIGNIFICANTLY if they're comprised of only tanks/infantry (as opposed to tank/ms or infantry/ms, when the suits are the primary forces and the tank/inf are clearly support units).
As an aside, aircraft, I feel, should basically not be permitted to form a team at all, unless staging from a base or ship - I mean, what, they just hover around or stack one on top of the other when they're not flying? This handles the "ms teams > ships" issue for aircraft Ket mentioned earlier.
Not that I expect this to make much headway, but I did want to take the opportunity to put my thoughts out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jan 3, 2010 12:30:36 GMT -5
Jons point about tank teams is pretty sage
|
|
|
|
Post by Ketara on Jan 3, 2010 18:54:45 GMT -5
What do you guys think about certain ships not having minovski particle generators, such as Medeas or Jukons.
And maybe a service for M particle fields in environments with no ships.
DISCUSS
|
|
tylatz
EFF
Sergeant
Posts: 261
|
Post by tylatz on Jan 3, 2010 19:07:52 GMT -5
I'd like to suggest adding Zannys to the rogue shop. They'd add a bit more variety to a shop that is pretty stagnant and perfectly represents the scrounging that rogues do to remain relevant against the much stronger Zeon and Federation forces. It's a hodge podge of pieces reassembled to create something that's actually combat worthy. Going by the picture I think it's a Zaku II F, but I'm guessing the armor rating would be a bit lower and the movement capabilities a bit higher since it has some design improvements you see in the GM. I'd also guess it has the superior GM sensors. www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/mobilityfleet/rrf-06.htmIf it was added I'd also like to see a refit for a land and space version similar to the Dom one we have. Or could that be done through a Harsh Climate Refit? |
|
|
|
Post by on Jan 3, 2010 19:09:46 GMT -5
Good idea, but then you'd have to have a list of particle severity and what could and could not be used in certain locations on earth. Would the fields stay around due to them being there in the past? Would weapons like cruise missiles ect be usable from Hillocks if there were no particles active in the battle? How would bases and fortresses handle this?
|
|
|
|
Post by flippmoke on Jan 3, 2010 20:16:02 GMT -5
But how would changing the Gaw from Battleship to Carrier change anything? If the Gaw were a carrier, then it couldn't tow one MA above its listed capacity. It also wouldn't be considered for long range attacks in siege warfare. |
|
