Brikwars Metagame?

[AZKAMAT]

I've wondered about this for a long time; is there a metagame for Brikwars like there is for virtually all other tabletop games? I'm talking in particular about the broad genre of post-medieval settings, as they all seem to be very similar (i.e. modern, sci-fi, etc).

In my Brikwarsing experience, Rockets were god-tier weapons, able to swipe away most of a squad in one shot. As a result, nearly all of my vehicles got at least one put on them somewhere. I haven't had a chance to try out the new cannon weapon, but I expect it to displace the preeminence of rockets.

For infantry, I've found that dispersing/spacing them out over a wide area and in as much cover as possible is the only way to make them viable. Trying to replicate IRL IGA Infiltration Tactics has worked best. Otherwise they just get machine-gunned and exploded too easily. I truly cringe whenever I see a batrep or forum battle where somebody just launches a squad-plate of infantry against a tank or doom mecha as though they had a chance to stop it. IME if you're gonna do that you might as well just take all those infantry off the table, because sending them out like that versus such an opponent is gonna have the same result.

I suppose I'll talk a little more about infantry squads because, to toot my own horn, I think I specialize in them. Squad plates are handy for moving outside of combat, but tend to be a death sentence once in combat. An infantry squad's best strength is its ability to present what I call a multi-dimensional threat. If your dudes are spread way the fuck out, some can go up high and around the threat while a few hold its attention to its front while in cover. This way if a tank, say, suppresses or kills the figs to its front it could find a bazooka dude on the roof beside it looking down, or more infantry approaching its sides prepping to do a close assault maneuver and kill the crew. Let tanks and other such vehicles do their thing as the big threats; infantry are the tool of a thousand cuts.

[stubby]

Grouped infantry isn't great on an open field against heavy weapons, that's a fact. But that's pretty accurate to real life. If your battlefield is full of heavy cover, tight quarters, room-to-room fighting, etc., then infantry is king again and your rocket tanks have a much rougher time. If your battlefield is pre-industrial mass combat, then formation fighting gives you an advantage. The metagame for that kind of stuff is more about what type of battles you're staging rather than something universal to the game itself, I think.

[AZKAMAT]

If your battlefield is pre-industrial mass combat, then formation fighting gives you an advantage. The metagame for that kind of stuff is more about what type of battles you're staging rather than something universal to the game itself, I think.

You mean this in reference to pre-industrial settings or the whole game?

Most of my battles are pretty open but with clusters of heavy cover scattered around. The few close-combat maps I've set up have seen infantry be really powerful without nearly as much care and setup as for a more open battle.

I feel like I should have been more specific about what kind of metagame I was talking about. Big chaos-driven battles of the like that are popular (the 4chan battle for example) are not what I was thinking of. I was thinking more in terms of industrial and later battles that are big enough to accommodate combined arms. Except for a few medieval battles, those are pretty much my exclusive jam.

The main reason I made this thread, though, is to ask what main strategies others employ, out of curiosity and a desire to copy anything ossum. So, whoever reads this, what do you do?

[Captain-Camper]

The game balances itself or what the players build do

[dilanski]

When building my army, I thought long and hard about what would be the crucial elements to it. In my mind, vehicles of various sizes are counters to those below themselves, up until they become points inefficient, and can be swarmed.

I first noticed this when deploying dreads, they were great at clearing out their points cost in infantry, but got shredded by larger vehicles. But said larger vehicles are generally weak to massed infantry. Now as has already been pointed out, Infantry need lots of effective cover.

If I lack cover, then I'd probably deploy armour instead, unless the enemy has fortifications, at which point it's transport vehicles for infantry to try and storm them. I also wonder if large shields could be used as a replacement for cover, I have drones with shields equipped, but the points efficiency is really poor.

I'd also be interested to know what kind of weapons sizes people prefer. As I have set myself up to be able to slaughter and support infantry, I have lots of S2 automatics, and some S3 automatics for putting holes in lighter vehicles. There are only 2 S4, and a single S5 weapon in my army. In my mind, a size 5 cannon shell should be sufficient for most targets, it's got a great chance (with a little extra combined fire) of knocking a structure level off of your death tanks, while able to vapourise a baseplates worth of infantry. Makes me wonder however how I'd fare up against "medium" sized armour. A size 8 MBT would be a tough nut for this setup to crack, demanding fire from the largest guns.

At the same time, this is a setup for keeping infantry alive, and countering the kind of smaller vehicles that I think infantry are most weak to. Those infantry that can respond to an MBT with massed rocket fire.

So yeah, what kind of weapon sizes are people fielding?

[AZKAMAT]

So yeah, what kind of weapon sizes are people fielding?

I use Mk. II & III Rockets to deal with infantry. Super deadly, just beware of crit fails! For dealing with tanks, I've built a few tank-destroyers. My classic one mounts a twin-shot Size 5 Gun, so when it hits it rocks the world of whatever took the shots. In the opposing faction's army I built a Size 6(!) Gun to play around with. It's not very good . Most of my proper tanks use Size 3 or 4 guns though. My planes usually carry Mk. IV bombs to drop. Sometimes smaller though.

I also use a lot of homebrew weapons. Mostly variations of bastard weapons for infantry.

This is the kind of discussion I wanted to see!

[stubby]

If you're having trouble finding cover for an infantry advance, consider bringing along some smoke grenades.

[dilanski]

If you're having trouble finding cover for an infantry advance, consider bringing along some smoke grenades.

Ooh, -5 penalty to the attacker, practically as good as full cover. My shield drones have a size 5, strength 2 shield (2x Size 5), at 10cp. While a size 2 "cannon" (just a downward firing port) and accompanying size 2 smoke shell is 8cp, and will affect a 8" diameter area around the walker.

So, slightly cheaper points cost, wider area covered, and able to protect more units against more damage types. Also able to deploy multiple smoke grenades as the walker moves, with lingering effects.

I suppose I could take both, and set the shield to d10's to protect against explosives, as a missed shot, or one strategically placed, could bypass the smoke. When it comes to area attacks.

[AZKAMAT]

You use CP a lot don't you?

[dilanski]

You use CP a lot don't you?

I've started using it more. U" is a great measurement when you're dealing with simple units, or need to come up with two roughly equal armies quickly. U" also seems to favour vehicles, so anyone who wants to focus on their infantry should probably use U"

A size 14 SHDT rocking in at 169CP is the points equivalent of 24 figures armed with bastard guns, or 18 cannon toting figures. You'll only get 14 figures, regardless of armament when you use U"

The sky is also the limit when it comes to vehicles and U", forget everything when it comes to arming vehicles. You can take multiples of every weapon type in a menagerie of sizes. Can't decide what combination of phasic, armour piercing and explosive makes a good shell? Doesn't matter, take every combination you can think of. Perhaps take some glitter confetti loaded penetrating shells for shits and giggles. Shields? Yeah, I'll take them, large enough to cover the base plate over with multiples of every dice. Sure you won't have enough power to use all of them, but better to have them anyway. Want to really be a class A+ ballerina? Strap the largest smoke bomb possible on top of every vehicle, and make the game unplayable as everyone is hitting at -5.

The last one admittedly isn't limited to U", but U" makes it all the cheesier.

[stubby]

Want to really be a class A+ ballerina? Strap the largest smoke bomb possible on top of every vehicle, and make the game unplayable as everyone is hitting at -5.

The last one admittedly isn't limited to U", but U" makes it all the cheesier.

If your vehicles are under smoke bombs, all your opponent has to do is stroll their troops into Automatic Hit range (in relative safety, since your ensmokened vehicles can't see them), climb on board, and start grinding away with impunity while your vehicles sit there helpless. The -5 doesn't matter if they never have to make an attack roll to begin with. The smoke bomb plan ends up being cheesy but not in your favor.

Alternately, a Scout targets them and the -5s all disappear.

[dilanski]

Alternately, a Scout targets them and the -5s all disappear.

I thought a scout could just grant a +1 bonus to a target within 8"? The strategy was less a way of winning, more a way of mechanically stopping any game in its tracks.

[stubby]

It's kind of a judgment call. The -5 penalty is because objects in a smokescreen aren't visible, but Scouts make targets visible:

"A Scout is able to instantly communicate detected enemy positions to all of his allies, which is useful for firing artillery shells or archery volleys over the top of an obstacle at enemies hiding behind it. Any target visible to a Scout is visible to all of his allies."

So the question is whether a Scout's ability to automatically detect targets that are stealthed, invisible, or camouflaged also allows them to see through smokescreens.

[dilanski]

It's kind of a judgment call. The -5 penalty is because objects in a smokescreen aren't visible, but Scouts make targets visible:

"A Scout is able to instantly communicate detected enemy positions to all of his allies, which is useful for firing artillery shells or archery volleys over the top of an obstacle at enemies hiding behind it. Any target visible to a Scout is visible to all of his allies."

So the question is whether a Scout's ability to automatically detect targets that are stealthed, invisible, or camouflaged also allows them to see through smokescreens.

Provides 100% visual cover

Hmm, if we say that Smoke automatically removes any chance of having line of sight, then no. It'd be the equivalent of a scout seeing through a wall.

But that makes me wonder if you are even able to use blind-fire to shoot at a target in smoke. I mean sure, if a minifig throws a smoke grenade at his feet, then obviously minifigs can spray their weapons into the smoke with some chance of hitting. But if I set off some ungodly smoke bomb that covers the entire battlefield, how can a minifigure know even remotely where an enemy is. It no longer really satisfies the rules of blind-fire.

If a scout can see through smoke fields, then smoke is now worthless if the enemy brings a contingent of scouts.

Has anyone play-tested massive smoke bombs? I still think they have the potential to ruin a game. Obviously if they do, then anyone who is wanting to actually use them in this capacity probably should be playing a different game.

[stubby]

But that makes me wonder if you are even able to use blind-fire to shoot at a target in smoke. I mean sure, if a minifig throws a smoke grenade at his feet, then obviously minifigs can spray their weapons into the smoke with some chance of hitting. But if I set off some ungodly smoke bomb that covers the entire battlefield, how can a minifigure know even remotely where an enemy is. It no longer really satisfies the rules of blind-fire.

The rules account for this:

• "Units firing at a target they can't see are Firing Blind, and receive a -5 Skill penalty in addition to any other Attack Modifiers at play. The target may be hidden or invisible, or the attacker may have been blinded or blindfolded, or he may be extra cocky and firing backwards over his shoulder with his eyes closed. While he is unable to see the target, the attacker must still somehow have a very close idea of where the target is (within one inch) to attempt the attack - the target may have chosen a very small and obvious hiding place (like inside a barrel) or he may have made enough noise to give away his location (his cell phone went off)."

It would be interesting to fight a giant smoke cloud. Without Scouts, the units outside the cloud would have the advantage - as the smoke cloud shrank (by 1" per turn), units in the cloud would be exposed one by one to the full force of attackers outside the cloud, letting them get easily picked off piecemeal. With Scouts relaying targeting info, units inside the cloud could fire at targets outside the cloud by instruments, while remaining completely protected. It'd be up to the units outside the cloud to figure out how to either kill off the scouts in a hurry, or get rid of the cloud somehow (probably involving Heroic Feats and powerful farts).

It's possible I could balance this out by making smoke clouds shrink faster, or reduce in opacity rather than size as they dissipate.

If a scout can see through smoke fields, then smoke is now worthless if the enemy brings a contingent of scouts.

A lot of things are useless if the enemy brings a contingent of scouts: Stealth, traps, field hazards. But the enemy scouts are worthless if you bring a contingent of anti-scout missile launchers. It's really a rock-paper-scissors kind of deal.