Jump to content
ckpmax1108

RC Bombardment group discussion

Recommended Posts

The nerf of the Dudinka is really hard cause I field him every game...

But the missing of a surface hunter challenges the whole carrier-segment?!

What u guys think about?

Only one good thing... Today i will order the Bombardement Group cause the chany is really nice :-)

Edit: in case of using Tunguska instead of Dudinka... I like the weapons and stats of the carrier more. Do u really would prefer the Tunguska and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having dive bombers with hunter diving 1 is sweet. That is a seriuos threat to submerged targets as concentrated bombing has sub killer, ignores shields, and unlike torpes bombs can not be knocked down by cc. Personally I never used dive bombers very much, I would more often use torpedo bombers and fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see your point re the dive bombers, but I want to bring an aircraft carrier because it is a versatile and drop dead gorgeous mini, not just because I am expecting submarines. Now they don't have anything to threaten the majority of other minis like their counterparts do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Chany, this right?

RB4, sq. of three shoot 10 AD at a small or larger target with concussive and piercing weapons.

3+ ( 3+3/2) + (2+2 ---pack tactics)= 10

Hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Chany, this right?

RB4, sq. of three shoot 10 AD at a small or larger target with concussive and piercing weapons.

3+ ( 3+3/2) + (2+2 ---pack tactics)= 10

Hmmm

Your math symbol order isn't quite right, but your math looks right.

3 + (3 + 3) / 2 + (2 + 2) = 10

 

This is under the assumption that packtactics +2 is +2 dice per ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldnt it be

 

3 + ((3 +3)/2) + (2 +2) = 10

 

 

if you want to really split hairs :P

No (3 + 3 /2) is mathematically different from (3 + 3)/2.

 

By the order of operations 3 + (3 +3)/2 + (2 +2) = 10 = 3 + ((3 +3)/2) + (2 +2) = 3 + (3 +3)/2 + 2 + 2 = 3 + ((3 +3)/2) + 2 +2.

 

I said what I said because the typo made me have to read his math three or four times to be sure of what he was doing.

 

He asked if his math/example was right. Given that he meant to say what I suggested and not what he miss spoke he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more my gaming group look at the Russian Towers the more it seems like a missprint:

1 RoF are mentioned in Die Hard MAR on comms tower.

2 Heavy ack ack specified on ack ack tower when they the have it as default.

3 Inclusion of a nullification generator on mortar tower which is a usually a RoF capability.

I have asked Spartan for clarification by email, will post if they get back to me.

Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence over other changes haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Russian Coalition is the only force without surface hunter mar for its SAW? Not to mention the complete absence of any other MAR (heavy back back really doesn't cut it)

Oh well, looks like my carriers are being retired.

I for one welcome a bit more anti sub as I have had difficulties with submerged. With a Russian list you usually have lots of surface options that you don't need tiny flyers as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, but now we have 2x types of SAW dedicated to the destruction of submerged minis, which, don't make it into many list in such a number to warrant such a sub killing platform.

Carriers and SAW are supposed to be versatile platform, for any engagement, and with a couple of repair cruisers keeping the flight deck I order, the kostroma was a beast.... now, not so much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flak tower still says that it "gains" heavy AA. Which is definitely incorrect, as all Russian models are supposed to have that as standard with their universal rules.

Yes looks like they have updated the typo and left everything else as is. Would towers taken as part of an alliance force to another faction get heavy ack ack or do these drop off as part of the factional allies rules? If so then it would need to be specified I guess in the rare case a RC tower is used in another faction's force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the update of the towers, ther is a base point of 35 (up corner right) and you must add options, like 50 pts for the mortar.

So according to this a morta tower costs 85pts... typo error don't you think ?

Edit: after seeing the others orbats it's a typo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all the same in the others ORBATS. I think the "35+*" means, the cheapest tower is 35 points.

If you were right, this would mean the points costs of the towers would have doubled with the change in the ORBATs. And they come in squads of 2. 210 points for a squad of 2 shield towers is a little bit overdone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back to the bombard models.

 

How are peoples experiences of them?

 

I haven't whipped up any Chany subs yet, but I have used the heavy bomber twice now, and it is definitely a new favorite. In the first game against a Covenant opponent it got chewed up in two turns by some Capeks. It only managed to put the fore guns on a light cruiser and bomb one frigate before going down. In the second game, it was a super star. This one was against a Danish fleet, and my opponent didn't really have the tools to deal with it. It stayed at obscured the entire game to avoid being boarded, and harassed everything it could line up with and did two crits and a damage to a Ragnarok with the bombs (very lucky rolls for me). My opponent played very well but got unlucky with some crucial rolls against it, that and the ablative armor made it a chore to take down. In the end, it went down to AA from a group of gunships. It was in this game that I discovered it doesn't have combat patrol, so the 3 fighters it deploys with can't actually run CAP on it, somewhat of a disadvantage, but the toughness more than makes up for that.

 

Overall, my personal experience with it is that it does exactly what it says on the tin, amazing surface bombardment capabilities on a chassis more than tough enough to get it where it needs to go to make use of all that ordnance. I wouldn't call it an auto-include as it competes with the battle cruiser points and slot wise, and is only 40 points cheaper than a Tunguska, one of my favorite Russian units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used a group of the subs last night and one of the bombers, the subs done well at long range shooting at other mediums but got in close shot a Assault carrier and just did a point of damage then got torpedo bombed before I could get closer and board. The Heavy bomber however done really well doing some good hits turn one and then soaking up almost all of the enemy fire power and still flying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, about the changes to the Russian SAS. The dive bombers lost surface hunter but gained Diving +1, while the torpedo bombers have only submerged +2? Surely this is a typo, I would like someone to confirm that this is the case. The dive bombers losing surface hunter is meh, but Hunter (Diving, +1) implies that they get +1 to hit on everything in the diving height band (includes Submerged and Deep Diving) but this makes no sense because on page 65 under Concentrated Bombing it states bombers may only target Surface and Submerged things, making half of the MAR useless? For the torpedo bombers, +2 Submerged only means they are hitting submerged subs on 3's, but still hitting Deep Diving targets on the usual 6, it seems like it should be +2 Diving.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, about the changes to the Russian SAS. The dive bombers lost surface hunter but gained Diving +1, while the torpedo bombers have only submerged +2? Surely this is a typo, I would like someone to confirm that this is the case. The dive bombers losing surface hunter is meh, but Hunter (Diving, +1) implies that they get +1 to hit on everything in the diving height band (includes Submerged and Deep Diving) but this makes no sense because on page 65 under Concentrated Bombing it states bombers may only target Surface and Submerged things, making half of the MAR useless? For the torpedo bombers, +2 Submerged only means they are hitting submerged subs on 3's, but still hitting Deep Diving targets on the usual 6, it seems like it should be +2 Diving.

Thoughts?

it's a typo. The SAWs should be:

•Fighters: Hunter(Aerial +1)

•Torpedo Bombers: Hunter(Diving +2)

•Dive Bombers: Hunter(Surface +1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.