Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2009, 05:05 AM   #1
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Titans have the same classes as Giants, and cost the same to raise and maintain, but they have much better TS. Is this deliberate? I can't see the logic.

Secondly, why is there no infantry that is equivalent to Horse Archers? Okay, I realize that the equivalent shouldn't get the Cavalry class, but why are there no infantry units (at low TL anyway) that combines Fire and Recon, the same way Horse Archers do? I want to make cool ninja units, much cooler than the one in the book, but I don't want to have to make them mounted (even though the Cavalry role is nice on top of everything else).
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 10:09 AM   #2
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen
Secondly, why is there no infantry that is equivalent to Horse Archers? Okay, I realize that the equivalent shouldn't get the Cavalry class, but why are there no infantry units (at low TL anyway) that combines Fire and Recon, the same way Horse Archers do?
I would suspect because real low-tech foot skirmishers ten, IIRC, to have been armed with javelins and the like, which don't justify F. Still, I think there is a niche here that, even if historical examples are rare, would be nice to have filled. Easy to see how to do it, though, from the examples given (even though there is no rule explicitly given that lets you plug the gap.)

Quote:
I want to make cool ninja units, much cooler than the one in the book, but I don't want to have to make them mounted (even though the Cavalry role is nice on top of everything else).
I don't see F really fitting into the legends of Ninja all that well, but if you want a low-tech foot skirmisher unit with bows, then you could just say they have basically the same relationship to light infantry that horse archers have to light cavalry, so add F and add 20% to cost to raise and maintain, TL is 2 (like bowmen):

Archer Skirmishers
TS: 2
Class: Rec, F
WT: 1
Mob: Foot
Raise: 48K
Maintain: 10K
TL: 2

Another option is to use stone age warriors, instead of light infantry, as the base.

Stone Age Archers
TS: 1
Class: Rec, F
WT: 1
Mob: Foot
Raise: 30K
Maintain: 6K
TL: 0

Last edited by cmdicely; 01-19-2009 at 02:01 PM. Reason: Cleaning up grammar
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 12:37 PM   #3
Plasmabunny
 
Plasmabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Classic D&D rangers sort of fit the F and Recon mould. Scouts with the ability to snipe.
Plasmabunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 11:29 PM   #4
The Benj
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Platform Zero, Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen
Titans have the same classes as Giants, and cost the same to raise and maintain, but they have much better TS. Is this deliberate? I can't see the logic.
The only advantage I can see is that Giants are potentially transportable (WT 8, as compared to a Titan's -) and are more useful as Engineers (as that's partially based off WT), but that doesn't seem to much make up for being only 5% the TS, does it? Hmm...
The Benj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 11:45 PM   #5
cmdicely
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Benj
The only advantage I can see is that Giants are potentially transportable (WT 8, as compared to a Titan's -) and are more useful as Engineers (as that's partially based off WT), but that doesn't seem to much make up for being only 5% the TS, does it? Hmm...
Yeah, I can't help but think that the Titan element should have the same cost to raise/maintain as the Leviathan, rather than the Giants (and that the Flying Leviathan should too, instead of being the same to raise/maintain as the Sea Monster.)
cmdicely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 07:18 AM   #6
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdicely
Yeah, I can't help but think that the Titan element should have the same cost to raise/maintain as the Leviathan, rather than the Giants (and that the Flying Leviathan should too, instead of being the same to raise/maintain as the Sea Monster.)
This is a bump.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 08:27 AM   #7
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdicely
I would suspect because real low-tech foot skirmishers ten, IIRC, to have been armed with javelins and the like, which don't justify F. Still, I think there is a niche here that, even if historical examples are rare, would be nice to have filled. Easy to see how to do it, though, from the examples given (even though there is no rule explicitly given that lets you plug the gap.)
Slingers would be an obvious suggestion - IIRC quite a lot of ancient armies used shepherd slingers as skirmishers and recce units.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 09:12 AM   #8
Peter Knutsen
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel
Slingers would be an obvious suggestion - IIRC quite a lot of ancient armies used shepherd slingers as skirmishers and recce units.
But then we're down to TS 1, and Light Infantry are already fairly week in the TS department. Going lower isn't fun.

Think fantasy rangers. They don't have to be higher than TS 2, but they need both Fire and Recon.
Peter Knutsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 01:48 PM   #9
David L Pulver
AlienAbductee
 
David L Pulver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the UFO
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen
Titans have the same classes as Giants, and cost the same to raise and maintain, but they have much better TS. Is this deliberate? I can't see the logic.

Secondly, why is there no infantry that is equivalent to Horse Archers? Okay, I realize that the equivalent shouldn't get the Cavalry class, but why are there no infantry units (at low TL anyway) that combines Fire and Recon, the same way Horse Archers do? I want to make cool ninja units, much cooler than the one in the book, but I don't want to have to make them mounted (even though the Cavalry role is nice on top of everything else).
Two errors here

Flying Leviathan 150 Air, T10 Slow Air 10M 400K 0
Titan 400 Arm, En, Art Foot 16M 640K 0

"Why are there no infantry equivalent to horse archers."

Because no infantry perform like that until people invent rapid-fire bolt-action rifles, carbines, etc.
__________________
Is love like the bittersweet taste of marmalade on burnt toast?
David L Pulver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 04:08 PM   #10
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

Quote:
Why are there no infantry equivalent to horse archers.
Do centaurs qualify? [/useless $0.02]
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mass combat

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.