Jump to content

Frans

Member
  • Content Count

    2,311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Frans got a reaction from GreenOakSteve in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    As far as I know the 2nd gen UCS stuff are computer designs, so depending on the fabrication method either the masters or the moulds are 3D printed.
    Also the Dragon Lords pictured in the last rulebook look more detailed than the earlier models, so I think they actually got reworked, just not to the level of Spartan’s later work.
    Anyway, it has been over two years now, I have six fleets gathering dust while waiting to be completed, and I’m not happy about that.
    Like I said before, if they don’t have the intention of actually doing something productive with the stuff, then why not sell it on to someone who will do something productive with it.
    At the moment the vast majority of the UCS models are still competitive quality wise, and there’s no competition whatsoever, but those circumstances aren’t going to last forever.
    They are just burning daylight.
  2. Like
    Frans got a reaction from GreenOakSteve in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    As far as I know, except for the Halo stuff, they bought the whole caboodle, including UCS.
    I suspect issue two has more to do with it, or they simply aren’t interested, in which case, in the interest of the UCS players community, they should pass the stuff on to someone who is.
  3. Like
    Frans got a reaction from GreenOakSteve in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    Uncharted Seas is the original, Firestorm Armada and  Dystopian Wars are based on it, not the other way around.
    The rules system suits fantasy naval combat better than it does space combat as a result.
    Wind direction is already incorporated in the game, as are various magical creatures & sea monsters, as are coastal fortifications & sea forts, so I wonder what you're about here (?)
     
  4. Like
    Frans got a reaction from RuleBritannia in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    As far as I know the 2nd gen UCS stuff are computer designs, so depending on the fabrication method either the masters or the moulds are 3D printed.
    Also the Dragon Lords pictured in the last rulebook look more detailed than the earlier models, so I think they actually got reworked, just not to the level of Spartan’s later work.
    Anyway, it has been over two years now, I have six fleets gathering dust while waiting to be completed, and I’m not happy about that.
    Like I said before, if they don’t have the intention of actually doing something productive with the stuff, then why not sell it on to someone who will do something productive with it.
    At the moment the vast majority of the UCS models are still competitive quality wise, and there’s no competition whatsoever, but those circumstances aren’t going to last forever.
    They are just burning daylight.
  5. Like
    Frans got a reaction from RuleBritannia in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    As far as I know, except for the Halo stuff, they bought the whole caboodle, including UCS.
    I suspect issue two has more to do with it, or they simply aren’t interested, in which case, in the interest of the UCS players community, they should pass the stuff on to someone who is.
  6. Like
    Frans got a reaction from RuleBritannia in What do you wish/hope/want from the high seas?   
    As far as I know the entire UCS range got resculpted, and the only range still missing models was the Sky Pirates fleet.
    Quality wise these miniatures are as good as the most recent FA/DW stuff.
    I honestly haven't a clue why Warcradle don't simply start casting the UCS miniatures again.
    F.
     
     
     
  7. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Wolfgang Jannesen in Future FA rules   
    Movements of units, and most other things, are by definition much more complex and time consuming in a table top miniatures war-game than they are in a board-game, simply because of the immense increase in possible actions that comes with leaving the constraints inherent to a gaming board behind.
    That’s why table top miniatures war-games, unless sized down and dumbed down to the bare minimum, aren’t really suitable for tournament play.
    That’s why the currently most popular space combat game for tournaments is essentially a card game pretending to be a board-game disguised as a miniatures game.
    And it primarily floats on the fattest IP in history by the way.
    I honestly don’t understand this desire to dumb and size down all table top miniatures war-games just because otherwise you can’t play Saturday afternoon tournaments with them.
    I have nothing against tournaments, but they aren’t, and have never been, the be all and end all of table top miniatures war-gaming.
     
    In Firestorm Armada movement eats up a lot of the available time, which is actually just fine because movement is the most important factor in a tactical space combat game anyway.
    And because movement is so important it should offer both freedom of choice and precision, which unfortunately doesn’t combine well with quick and easy.
    This doesn’t mean I have nothing critical to say about how Firestorm Armada’s movement mechanics work, to the contrary; the rules invite congestion, the hardware sucks, and the end result feels more like sailing boats than flying space ships.
    And much the same goes for the way in which the game handles space combat.
    Spartan came up with some mechanics to balance units of varying size and firepower, and those mechanics are fundamentally flawed.
    What I’m talking about here is this whole cumbersome exploding dice and linked fire mechanism that only stays afloat thanks to an artificial cap on squadron sizes, which severely hampers freedom of choice where it comes to buying miniatures and fielding fleets.
     
    There exist many more things in Firestorm Armada that would benefit greatly from some improving, changing the way SRS functions into something that actually feels like small manned spacecraft instead of some short range missile weapons system for instance, but the two mentioned above, movement and combat resolution, are at the core of any war-game, and as such determine success or failure.
    So I’m very interested in an all new and improved Firestorm Armada, but in my opinion “improved” doesn’t equal “tournament friendly”.
    I happen to like Firestorm Armada’s current complexity level, and I also like a game that doesn’t feel like it ended before it really started, as most of those 90-minute marvels do.
    Firestorm Armada has always been a fleet level space combat game for war-gamers who like big battles taking all day, and most players I’m familiar with that play it played BFG before, another fleet level space combat game for war-gamers who like big battles taking all day.
    So why now turn it into yet another contender for the competitor rich, and thus risky, tournament scene?
    Spartan Games didn’t sink because they lacked Firestorm Armada customers, they sank because they lacked continuity, never finished what they started, and seldom delivered on promises made.
  8. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Ryjak in Future FA rules   
    We can’t have realistic 3D Newtonian movement, so lets go for the moving through water model instead.
    I don’t get why scratching realistic and 3D must automatically end with something simulating the effects of screws and rudders on a fluid.
    And then, before you know it, we are fitting rams to our bows and swinging towards the enemy on the end of a rope again too.
    Now that’s the sort of space combat I have no interest whatsoever in.
     
    And I don’t think the design of the current FA ships contradicts with a 2D Newtonian style movement system.
    They all have something resembling main thrusters, and manoeuvring thrusters may be visible, but don’t need to be.
    So I don’t see why the current miniatures would be incompatible with 2D Newtonian style movement.
     
    Charistoph brings up a good point by the way; the importance of staying true to a settings rules.
    I think it is important for a scifi setting to have a clearly defined scientific background, because having one helps suspending disbelief, and it also enables players to reason their way out of situations the rules didn’t foresee.
     
    Anyway, a Star Wars style FA game is about the last thing I would like to see, and a game including ramming IS the last thing I would like to see.
    That’s why I started this topic, if FA is going that way I have no interest in it any more, so I wanted to know what it was going to be.
     
  9. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Pok in Thoughts on ship Classes   
    Big models work well in warhammer style fantasy games because those games use a 1 to 1 miniatures versus table scale (or something close).
    In FA, and other scifi space combat games, however, there exists a huge difference between miniatures and table scale.
    That’s why the rules mention that the ships are actually the size of pinpricks, represented by the stem the miniature is supported on, the miniature itself just being eye candy.
    And that’s just fine, as long as this eye candy doesn’t interfere to much with the games mechanics.
    In the case of leviathans, and their multi stemmed book sized bases, however, massive interference in the games mechanics is unavoidable.
    What leviathans would mainly add is realism issues and manoeuvring problems.
    But I don’t know if this topic is the right place for a leviathan specific discussion.
  10. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Pok in What if you didn't halve dice when linking?   
    I used to play BFG before I got into FA, and while FA is a better game in general, BFG’s principle balancing system, using blast markers versus shields, beats FA’s linked fire versus DR/CR system hands down.
    The reason why is because it achieves the same goal with less complexity, gets rid of the need to field maximized squadrons, and looks cool on the tabletop to boot.
    Oh, and not needing a maths degree in order to be able to play is always a plus in wargaming.
    So in my opinion it would be better to get rid of this whole linked fire concept altogether and go for something better.
     
  11. Like
    Frans got a reaction from fracas in What if you didn't halve dice when linking?   
    I used to play BFG before I got into FA, and while FA is a better game in general, BFG’s principle balancing system, using blast markers versus shields, beats FA’s linked fire versus DR/CR system hands down.
    The reason why is because it achieves the same goal with less complexity, gets rid of the need to field maximized squadrons, and looks cool on the tabletop to boot.
    Oh, and not needing a maths degree in order to be able to play is always a plus in wargaming.
    So in my opinion it would be better to get rid of this whole linked fire concept altogether and go for something better.
     
  12. Like
    Frans reacted to Pok in Is the 3.0 in the pipeline scrapped   
    Larger games mean less maneuvering. With the size of the ships, you're quickly running into the same problem 40k Apocalypse had- you physically cant move the models due to table being occupied.
  13. Like
    Frans got a reaction from steve_990 in 'Fleet' boxes or Blisters?   
    The only real problem with the old boxed sets was with the model types that were only available  through mixed boxes.
    The types I'm talking about are battleships, escorts, frigates, corvettes, and  SRS tokens.
    Nobody like's having to buy a  lot of ships he/she doesn't need in order to get a couple of ships he/she does need.
  14. Like
    Frans reacted to Paladin21 in Medical ships and fluff   
    While the convention of hospital ships and other non-combatant targets has gone fairly well in modern world history, you have to wonder to what extent aliens would grasp or embrace the concept.  Perhaps the armed ships were a necessary precaution against outsiders who either don't understand "not a target" or who can't be made to care.
    In either case, I still think that medical ships as a concept don't make much sense.  With casualties on the scale of what must take place on these gigantic spaceships, there's no way a few teams of additional medics could make a meaningful contribution to manpower within the time constraints of a single battle.  Make people more comfortable? Sure.  Save lives?  Absolutely.  Turn hundreds of unfit-for-duty casualties into fighting-ready troops?  Eh?  Almost certainly not.  While mechanically useful, the fluff should be reconsidered.
  15. Like
    Frans reacted to blut_und_glas in Medical ships and fluff   
    Regardless of how the medical ships announced for several factions will look stats- and ruleswise in the end, there is something that is bothering me about their impending introduction: What they say about the fluff and the war that is being fought in the Firestorm galaxy.
    Now this might obviously be just me, but one of the things that drew me into Firestorm is that the central conflict that forms the backdrop to our games is neither a straight up good versus evil space opera nor is it a dystopian (ahem) vision of neverending war and everchanging allegiances. It is instead portrayed as something springing from galactic history and politics, with all factions (bar the Pathogen) having some sort of understandable motivation and aims and with stable alliances or at least co-belligerents.
    For me, that also implied that this war of ours was in some fashion governed by some set of rules of war. With all the nukes and biohazard munitions flying about obviously not exactly the ones we are familiar with, but still a step removed from a genocidal massslaughter without limits, rhyme or reason.
    Or to describe it differently: The Burning of Dramos to me always read as a singular war crime,  not as something cited in Terran Alliance training manuals as standard operating procedure for successfully dealing with enemy population centres.
    With medical ships on the table, I foresee this take on the background losing a lot of its current feasibility.
    Purposefully attacking and destroying hospital ships, targeting enemy wounded and singling out medical staff for killing will sudenly become part and parcel of every battle. That alone paints a very different picture of the conflict and of the people involved in it.
    If I am honest, I am not sure what to make of that yet, but more than any of the retcons or new mechanics this changes the game on a very fundamental level.
  16. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Flamebeast in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Precise movement is the foundation beneath FA, and you can't have precise movement without an accurate turn measuring devise.
    Which doesn't mean the current turn template isn't a piece of ****...
  17. Like
    Frans reacted to alextroy in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    As I said, Capturing Ships is a niche rule. Outside of Directorate Grand Theft Starship builds, it's not really a rule used by most factions. Do we really need all these rules for this one niche use?
    And all these things can be accomplished by changing the Targeted Strike rules. Boarding is the mechanism, not the result. They could eliminate boarding and give a different mechanism for the result, allowing them to eliminate stats and pages of rules
    Note: I don't really care if Boarding stays or goes. I'm just trying to figure out why it should stay if it is becoming more and more like a weapon system.
  18. Like
    Frans got a reaction from CorroPredo in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I gave you plenty of good “legitimate” reasons, but the fact you think the use of lasers in future space combat is as plausible as the use of boarding turns this discussion into a rather pointless affair.
  19. Like
    Frans reacted to CoreHunter in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    It invites close in engagements which is the main problem with the current movement templates secondly it adds little in the way of tactics as targeted strikes and cyber do very similar jobs without your people commiting suicide to may be accomplish what you can do with guns at 2 to 4 times the range.
    Also at what point would you send soldiers to board a ship you are pouring rows of heavy weaponry into while also trying to get past enemy pd and return fire with friendly pd also going off.
  20. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Presidente in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    It’s unrealistic, it invites close up fights the movement system doesn’t handle well, and it could easily be replaced by another weapons / combat tactics concept that doesn’t come with these problems.
  21. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Presidente in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Yeah, the usual argument; it's science fiction, so it’s bollocks anyway, so why bother with anything that could be confused for realism.
    I think you're confusing SciFi with Fantasy
     
  22. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Presidente in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I think “boarding” should only be possible for the side controlling the battlefield after the battle, and even entering any drifting hulks the enemy left behind would still be dangerous as hell.
  23. Like
    Frans got a reaction from CorroPredo in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Yeah, the usual argument; it's science fiction, so it’s bollocks anyway, so why bother with anything that could be confused for realism.
    I think you're confusing SciFi with Fantasy
     
  24. Like
    Frans got a reaction from CorroPredo in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    Boarding, as a combat tactic, in space combat is simply ridiculous.
    It already starts with a “shuttle” finding and intercepting a fully combat manoeuvrable space warship a zillion miles away.
    Next we have a shuttle “landing” on this no doubt evading space warship, something as good as impossible to do without ending up as a smear on the target’s hull.
    Then we have the target’s PD, capable of shooting down torpedoes coming in at ridiculous speed, that will just have a field day shooting down some sitting ducks stupid enough to try for a zero-zero intercept.
    And even if you do manage to land on the target’s hull without ending up as bug-splash or being blown to smithereens by PD, you still have to get to your target inside the ship.
    Will you be able to get through armour intended to stop warship sized weaponry, will you know where to go inside an alien ship, will you be able to recognize the system you came to destroy, will you even physically fit inside the ship’s corridors.
    And all this while the target ship’s crew is no doubt trying to kill you or get rid off you, and preferably both.
    Hidden remotely controlled defence weaponry and booby-traps in every corridor, and an enemy totally controlling the environment, “Well, let’s vent a bit of reactor plasma through corridor 73B and see how they like that.”
     
    The invention of steam power and the machine-gun rendered boarding obsolete as a combat tactic over a century ago, but now we must have it again, in space combat no less, because some movie makers with a film academy degree, and zero knowledge of exact sciences, thought it would look “cool” on the big screen.
    And for what?
    It adds nothing something greatly more plausible couldn’t add too.
    The only things it does manage is to kill of suspension of disbelief for anyone with an exact science knowledge beyond the film academy level, and cause enough congestion on the gaming table to derail the movement system.
    So let’s just bury the whole smelly affair six feet under and pretend it never happened...
     
  25. Like
    Frans got a reaction from Xerkics in Firestorm Armada 3.0 Designer Feedback Thread   
    I have been playing Directorate, amongst others, and the problem with Directorate is that most of their upgrades are boarding orientated.
    So when you don’t want to use boarding you don’t have much options to fill up the points to the agreed maximum, and often end up with reduced size squadrons as a result.
    And compared to full sized squadrons reduced sized squadrons simply aren’t worth their points cost in FA.
    So removing boarding would at least need some changes in available upgrades for boarding oriented factions.
     
     
×
×
  • 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.