Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/04/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point

    Themed Battlegroups

    Probably a couple of hardpoints will look different, and certain nations' commodores will enable special options and/or abilities (eg Danish AP might be Aggressive, while Austrians could be Stoic. The Prussians might get a bonus for their Tesla weapons. The STO use powered exo-armour, so could get some sort of "save") We won't know for sure until the open beta.
  2. 1 point

    Bessemer's Painting Log

    Anarchist! Would have also posted pics of my Hantari's along with my Shautrai and Hokita's, but my phone camera was having none of it. Will to post later...
  3. 1 point

    Starship wishlist

    I'll go with the obvious and say that the Aquan Medusa would likely be a huge hit if re-released.
  4. 1 point

    New Mechanics You Would Add?

    Faction based objectives aren't a bad idea! Let's also be fair here Stoo, Malifaux is a steampunk skirmish game, it was going to be a licence to print money right out the gate. The fact that it's a solid game (I've two armies myself!) is only part of the reeason it's done as well as it has. I mean, just random spitballing of a couple faction objectives could be: Directorate: Successfully board enemy admiral's ship (Capturing intelligence/tech) Terrans: Deploy a FTL Beacon token in your deployment zone. gain additional victory point for having no enemy models within 4" (Terrans have historically had the best FTL navigation system/communications through the SAtellite netowrk, so they need to maintain that) Only two I came up with in a few minutes, but is this kind of thing you were talking about Stoo?
  5. 1 point
    Honestly, yes that would be preferable as a wargame without a war in the backstory (a big war between all combatants you can play with) makes zero sense. I mean that is like Flames of War being based on WW2, but never actually goes as far as or past the German Ultimatium of 1939 and focus solely on the build up to it. How can it be called a wargame if the backstory behind it doesn't have the war? Warcradle seem to be putting the Horse before the cart and starting their new universe at that point (landing players at the tension filled period before a global conflict breaks out), instead of doing what a wargame should be doing and putting the Cart before the horse (landing players in the middle of a global conflict and then add the reasons for it in after when they are hooked). Everything Stuart is saying sounds more like filler designed to bulk out a games universe, or be used as a premise for a tabletop board game where the politicking makes the most sense. It doesn't make for a very compelling reason for players to tabletop wargame though. If there is no real conflict (large scale global conflict specifically) why are the various factions fighting? This is the only thing Spartan have done that Warcradle, at the moment, seems to have gotten correct in terms of their fluff. You need a global conflict for a wargame like Dystopian Wars (or any other wargame) to have meaning and purpose. For example: Any wargame based on WW2 has that as a backdrop. The game has an in built conflict for players to rally behind. 40k is a never ending galaxy spanning series of wars, giving players plenty of conflict for players to rally behind, and because all of the factions are all fighting each other and there are rebel elements in all of them to some degree, there's never and conflicting notions that one faction can never fight another. Napoleonic War games (few as they may be) have the backdrop of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars for players to rally behind. All these games have a reason for the wargame to exist (so factions can fight amongst each other). Warcradle seem determined to make sure that none of the factions have any real reason to be fighting, other than the limited small scale, and frankly insignificant, conflicts Stuart is suggesting. But Also, no. I do not want them to suddenly turn the world into a post apocalyptic wasteland in 5 years. But it doesn't have to be like that anyway. Warcradle can keep the conflict going for years if they wanted without to nuking the whole setting.
  6. 1 point
    In the Q and A you said that the fighting in dystopian age is only at sea and in Africa. The reason being is that they dont want to use the weapons they have. Is that still the case or did it change? This idea that everyone is fighting everyone without having larger alliances working together torwards an agreeable outcome doesn't make sense. No nation would have the resources to fight that many battles on that many fronts. That is why you have alliances. As for them not wanting to destroy cities of course they don't. They want to control resources, strategic points and people not destroy them. War Cradle you are going to have a hard time selling this story to long time players since you are basically rebooting the story. The biggest problem I have is I don't understand what it is you are trying to accomplish with the story. Might make more sense when more of it comes out.
  7. 1 point
    I agree that all factions should be at war with each other. This will also prevent mix fleet rules. in my initial proposal: book 1: Western Europe Faction forces & fluff for France, UK and Prussia Conflicts detailed: ~ The Low Countries: direct battles among the three factions (as the cost to directly invade one of the three major powers would be prohibitive. ~ Spain civil war: a proxy war with three factions, each armed and supported by one of the three western powers. ~ naval battles in the North Sea Book 3: East Asia Faction forces and fluff for Japan , China, and Korea (or Russia) Conflicts detailed: ~ Manchuria: primarily between China and Japan, with occasional intervention by Korea (to maintain a balance of power between China and Japan, and thus preserve their independence ) ~ Southeast Asia: primary China vs Japan to control the pass around Singapore ( and thus UK as well). CoA can have a base via a lesser vault in Angkor Wat ( though most of their vaults are located in meso-America; all vaults are like linked to the Antarctica main vault ) ~ The China seas for naval battle. East Asia is an area ripe for conflict rather than regional hegemony
  8. 1 point
    Then players will do that in any case? Just because, for example, you decided that a war kicks off between the Prussians and Latin Alliance (Latin League would be much better an alliance name btw, just for alliteration purposes) wouldn't mean local gamers who do not have those factions would get annoyed. They will still play the game regardless, some of them making up their own narrative because some gamers like to do that (I personally don't get the appeal of writing up a story to go with my games as its not that important to me, but I understand that some players do). Declaring that all of the factions in the game are already at war with everyone at the beginning gets around this problem. Look at 40k. A huge campaign might be taking place at one end of the Galaxy involving only the Orks, Eldar and Imperium (because it always involves the Imperium) but this doesn't mean that nothing is happening at the other end of the Galaxy. As is the games tagline "There is only WAR" If DA had the same mentality, what would it matter if there was a flashpoint incident in Europe and not Asia? It wouldn't, as everyone would be at war anyway. Only one side of the world would be more at war than the other for a time. Whats the point in having all of these weird and wonderful weapons that only want to hug our enemies if the countries controlling them are afraid to use them overtly...especially in a tabletop wargame? Defeats the purpose of them.
  9. 1 point
    If you all will allow a self-confessed military history fanatic jump in... I'd like to address the use of Proxy Wars here. It has been said in the thread that 19th Century Powers preferred direct conflicts. That is not actually accurate. There were a large numbers of Proxy Wars in the 19th century (as well as the inter-war period between WWs 1 & 2). Proxy Wars in the 19th century were conducted far different than "Modern Era". Whereas modern proxy wars were fought with advisors, equipment and special forces- 19th Century Proxies were far more open. The Sudan Campaign, the Egypt-Ottoman War, the Somalialand Campaign, even the Crimean War could be considered a "proxy" war. It was a way to check rival Empires without setting a whole country on a war footing, which is a massive draining undertaking for any nation and cannot be sustained long. (This is actually one of the roots of the "Mobilization Means War!" mentality that helped ignite WW1) The other thing we need to adjust for, or suspend our belief for, is the fact that the science of the Dystopian Age is FAR more aggressive and unchecked than our history. Conflict and War always jump-starts creativity and invention. In the Dystopian Age it seems like the reverse has happened- The discoveries in The Vault have caused a inferno of invention without restraint of regular science, that in turn has ignited conflict which spurs more frantic creation. Why hasn't this blown up into a full war yet? Because to some degree.. ANY major jump in technology will bring some awareness, at least in the abstract, of the terrible possibilities. The great nations are aware how devastating full war can be... but more to the point.. they know their enemies are just about even with them in tech terms... no one has found that.. Edge yet that will devestate their enemies without the ability to block retaliatory destruction. So now it becomes a race and a chess match. Can I cut my enemy off from valuable resources in Africa or Asia etc, enough to weaken them so I CAN launch all out war? That is the conflict going on now...
  10. 1 point
    The Dystopian Age takes place within a generation of the American Civil War. In the Dystopian Age there aren't every nation fighting every nation. In fact, there are no official declarations of war between the various nations at all. Diplomacy is a fine art with a network of ambassadors, diplomats, bannermen, marshals and emissaries crisscrossing the globe smoothing over the various 'misunderstandings', sabre rattling, land grabs and declarations of independence that are a daily occurrence. The various nations have slowly become affiliated with one of eight power blocks (our factions). While there are times of uneasy alliance or peace between them, at other times there are clashes and conflicts over resources, territory and the actions of individual commanders in the field making the right (or wrong decision). Our own history shows that actual declarations of war are few and far between and yet clashes, conflicts and other violent acts between countries and groups is commonplace. The narrative should encourage games, not discourage them. If you take the 40k example, narratively the Ultramarines fighting the Cadians is difficult to explain if it repeatedly happens. About half of the armies in 40k are all part of the same faction. Even in a 'narrative' campaign weekend you would likely either artificially restrict the number of Imperial tickets or create some bizarre 'everyone else' alliance where the Orks, Chaos, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids assemble against them. What we want to do with the narrative in the Dystopian Age is build it so that while you may occasionally still get 'blue on blue' games where you both have Prussians etc, it is more likely that Prussians vs Union or Crown vs Alliance (or Union vs Alliance, Crown vs Prussians, Prussians vs Alliance, Crown vs Union) can play out. We love alternate history, but that does not mean that because it is different to second edition the third edition is less concerned about narrative. If anything, it is far more concerned with narrative. Narrative gameplay with scenarios should be the default setting of the game. No temporal rifts (on a large scale anyway!) but no narrative handcuffs that mean players joining in a couple of years’ time feel that they missed out on 'Season One' of the game and now must play catch up. So, while there are plenty of narrative campaigns planned that will feature a timeline within them, and the history of the world bringing us up to the 1880s is broadly mapped out, there are no plans to do 1881 X happens, now we are in 1882 and X happens, so this faction no longer can take Y units or be allied with Z faction. Players should be free to make their own regional conflicts using the rich narrative created to bring us to the present of the game. If you want to have it that in your campaign, there is a restriction or alliance between two of the factions (albeit briefly) then go for it. On the other hand, if you prefer a tournament that still retains some semblance of a narrative, that can be done too.

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.