Fire for Effect
Moderators: Pwnerade, IVhorseman
-
- Champion
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am
Fire for Effect
For those of you that are unfamiliar with military lingo.... fire for effect is similar to repeat (never say repeat over a radio... it means repeat fire mission). It signals the artillery battery that they have made a sucessful hit and can unleash multiple rounds to do an area of effect sweep to kill surviving hostiles and nearby targets. In my mind... this is in essence automatic fire for indirect fire systems. Id like to purpose that provided a direct hit on target by an artillery battery (6 squads or 6 artillery pieces ) that multiple firings be permitted so long as a scout/forward observer watches the round impact the target. After those requirements are met treat the barrage as automatic fire until dice roll failure ammunition runs dry or target is destroyed. It can also be noted that friendly fire could be the crit fail
- AnnoyedZebra
- Somebody make this Zebra's rank.
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:46 am
Re: Fire for Effect
This could work. Its just a bit specialised for standard rules. Write this in bonus material and I'm sure people could get some use out of it.
Re: Fire for Effect
Just saying any launcher can fire its size worth of explosives so to do what you are saying simple buy a large laucnher (Size 6 or so) and load it to the brim with size 1 explosives and continue to fire 6 size 1 explosives.
My Factions/My Battles/My Painting and Modelling Adventures
A mind without purpose will wander in dark places
A mind without purpose will wander in dark places
Re: Fire for Effect
One of the bonus supplements I've always wanted is a whole set of rules just for artillery and field artillery teams and off-map bombardment. There's no possible way to justify the extra complexity, so I'll never do it, but it's still stupidly appealing to me for no reason I can explain.AnnoyedZebra wrote:This could work. Its just a bit specialised for standard rules. Write this in bonus material and I'm sure people could get some use out of it.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
- Dienekes22
- Cannon Fodder
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:40 pm
- Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Fire for Effect
I was under the impression that with Gunners and such that all this was in the rules already.
stubby wrote:Oh man, look at these guys. Beautiful units, photos in focus, appropriately cropped, white background... what if I remove all the current photos from the rulebook and just replace everything with these
Contest Badges
Show
Sci-Fi Factions -
-
- Champion
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am
Re: Fire for Effect
This does sort of work..... unless you are doing man portable items such as mortars to keep the artillery in play. Means a size 2 or 3 tube while highly mobile cannot compete with fire compared to a large near immobile piece. Thats why i suggested an alternate ''rapid fire'' for artillery. Another option i thought of is perhaps a forward operating base where you evacuate casualties to. Launch air missions from. Artillery strikes from.... where the main battle cannot reach it and maybe an airstrike etc can derail support structures. But that only works large scalebann154 wrote:Just saying any launcher can fire its size worth of explosives so to do what you are saying simple buy a large laucnher (Size 6 or so) and load it to the brim with size 1 explosives and continue to fire 6 size 1 explosives.
Re: Fire for Effect
I've always felt that indirect fire was overpowered. Not to mention cowardly.
You should look a fig in the eye when you put him down.
You should look a fig in the eye when you put him down.
BrikThulhu eats 1d6 minifigs each turn.
-
- Champion
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am
Re: Fire for Effect
Next youll tell me sniping is a cowardly act.... i don't want to hear it michael bay lol. Artillery is viable for historic anti vehicle rolls. And was the dominating force during the great war. Tell them soldiers from ww1 that they were cowards and did not fight like gentlemen.Gungnir wrote:I've always felt that indirect fire was overpowered. Not to mention cowardly.
You should look a fig in the eye when you put him down.
Artillery could be overpowered.... but the larger more powerful guns are naturally more of a bitch to use. Needing to be mounted on tanks and such. Even small yet viable artillery will need to be trailered to move or mounted to a c130 or something
- Dienekes22
- Cannon Fodder
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:40 pm
- Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Fire for Effect
I think he meant in the game.Next youll tell me sniping is a cowardly act.... i don't want to hear it michael bay lol. Artillery is viable for historic anti vehicle rolls. And was the dominating force during the great war. Tell them soldiers from ww1 that they were cowards and did not fight like gentlemen.
Artillery could be overpowered.... but the larger more powerful guns are naturally more of a bitch to use. Needing to be mounted on tanks and such. Even small yet viable artillery will need to be trailered to move or mounted to a c130 or something
stubby wrote:Oh man, look at these guys. Beautiful units, photos in focus, appropriately cropped, white background... what if I remove all the current photos from the rulebook and just replace everything with these
Contest Badges
Show
Sci-Fi Factions -
- AnnoyedZebra
- Somebody make this Zebra's rank.
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:46 am
Re: Fire for Effect
This is a game about slaughtering as many people as possible. If you're going to kill huge amounts of people why not let them kill huge amounts of people?
Re: Fire for Effect
This isn't The Great War.Jabberwocky wrote:Next youll tell me sniping is a cowardly act.... i don't want to hear it michael bay lol. Artillery is viable for historic anti vehicle rolls. And was the dominating force during the great war. Tell them soldiers from ww1 that they were cowards and did not fight like gentlemen.Gungnir wrote:I've always felt that indirect fire was overpowered. Not to mention cowardly.
You should look a fig in the eye when you put him down.
Artillery could be overpowered.... but the larger more powerful guns are naturally more of a bitch to use. Needing to be mounted on tanks and such. Even small yet viable artillery will need to be trailered to move or mounted to a c130 or something
Imitating Michael Bay is 100% in the spirit of the game.
BrikThulhu eats 1d6 minifigs each turn.
-
- Champion
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:10 am
Re: Fire for Effect
Copying Michael bays movies are in the spirit of brikwars... His backwards thoughts on war and personal freedoms n firearms on the otherhand... #derailedtopic.... So far figuring out artillery seems to be generally thought of as a good idea
Re: Fire for Effect
Artillery and airstrikes? Sniping? Please
My Factions/My Battles/My Painting and Modelling Adventures
A mind without purpose will wander in dark places
A mind without purpose will wander in dark places
Re: Fire for Effect
The trick to indirect fire in brikwars is making sure there's always that fig you can look in the eye. That's why I put the Scouts in there. You can't take out an off-map airbase or artillery battery, but you can take out their eyes on the field, and then they start missing their shots so badly that they're more of an asset to their enemy than to themselves.Gungnir wrote:I've always felt that indirect fire was overpowered. Not to mention cowardly.
You should look a fig in the eye when you put him down.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?