Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NES

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

488 profile views
  1. NES

    More Islands!

    Beautiful work, really nice, love it
  2. I think TFT's are mostly fine as they are. The TFT activation phase is too problematic. you'll either end up with all TFT's destroyed by your opponent, before you can use your bombers or get chain attacked on a ship by 4 or 5 wings of bombers without being able to stop it (nothing fun here). The only change I would like to see and which would probably sort many issues and fellings that TFT torps or dive bombers are OP, is CAPed wings being able to use 1 fuel to do an intercept move (8") once per turn when an opponents TFT try to bomb or torp the parent model. This alone would make CAP a lot more relevant and viable defence while making other TFT's a bit less potent. As for making them hit on 4+, be hit on 4+, the exploding 6's ect... that will just render TFT pretty much useless. Using Firestom TFT's rules for DW. I don't really want to see that. DW should stay DW and if I want to play with firestorm rules I'll just play firestorm
  3. I've read and played my first game of FA. and I must say, I've absolutly hate the boarding rules in FA. It may be fit for Space Battle Games but is completely counter-intuitive for a boat game, and really do not want to see those rules make their way to dystopian wars. I think in relation to boarding in DW a re-balancing towards the defending player is needed but keeping the current rule base (anti-boarding AA, then AP vs AP). In relation to cards, personally I think they should remain optional and not be integrated in the base rule. as many people like me do not want to play with them. On the carrier & TFT subject, I think an improvement of the CAP rule should be able to re-balance TFT's. Like allowing CAP wings to use a fuel to do an intercept move. But I do not think forcing all TFT's to stay within command range of a carrier is a good thing and such a change would seriously handicap some nations. The one thing which I would like to see cross over from FA is the way Linking work, which is a lot more straight forward.
  4. I use to alternate between them and the Ecuyer. My big problem with the Marseille has always been the lack of fire power for their point. Of all the games I've played with them. I rarely came out of a game telling my self I need to play with them again and always turning back to the more useful Ecuyer. For the past few month I toke the Toulon MK2 which for 35 more point can achieve a lot more and In my view and despite been a large hunter can deal with mediums more effectively than the Marseille. Maybe a couple more AD in each range band for the main gun and elusive target would be a nice fix for the same cost. Elusive target could mitigate their relative weakness against medium and small and can be justfied by skimmers been a lot more manoeuvrable than normal boats. just a thought
  5. This is my naval ROF white & blue airbrush camo
  6. Hello Delboy, As per above post from Gaz I would indeed relish the opportunity. Below is a few lines about me & what I could bring to the Beta Team: 1 – I started playing back when ROF was release and I have ROF, RC, FSA, Chinese, Australian, COA, KOB, Ottomans, PL, EIMC, and play on average 2 games a week more when possible. I've played wargammes for the past 15 years 2 – I have all the DW books so far, and I'm fairly good with the rules, and just picked up Firestorm armada 3 & 4 – As Drachenfutter mentioned I'll be applying for Vanguard In January, February at the latest. I'm also a Treasury Controller for an Hotel company and handle sensitive & confidential data & documents.I created a playtest spreadsheet to help me on some post I put on this forum.http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/gallery/image/4507-toulon-v12-playtest/ 5 - I can do that, 6 –Gaz, What is that Tea thing Again? 7 – As mentioned above, I'm a Treasury controller for 24 hotels and use the excel (base & Macro), word,publisher, power point, ect.., on a daily basis. I can put presentation or reports together in a concise & speedy manner 8 – I've lived in the UK for the past 12 years and Fluent in English despite been French (please don't throw stones at me for it, it hurts!) I was writting up a new threat on ROF for this forum, reviewing all the models & stats, Identifying the up's & down's of each and where improvement's are needed with solution proposal, which I gladly put on hold if given the opportunity to work within the Beta testing team. Should you need anymore info do not hesitate to send me a message. Thank you Eric
  7. Not really convince by any of the above. We have the heat lance for the focus AD. If you focus the Main turret in that way you end up with a short range main weapon which offer no alternative to the heat lance. Why not go 11/9/7/5 you end up with a good amount of AD short range, a descent but not overwhelming amount of AD mid range & long range & the gun will suffer a bit less from the HP lose. Another solution would be to apply sustaine fire 2 to all double barrel guns.
  8. Yep, I want to be here to see Solar's face when he learn what you have in mind for the battle of Guernsey 3!!! Will do commodore Panda
  9. If you don't want to go with Lots of TFT I think you should try autralian mercenaries. A squadron of bounty pocket battleship will give the long range you need and allow you to remove the ablative on a few ships early on, you may Also benefit from a Guardian gen Try the Sirus submarine tender as well It will give you some long range. The crocs subs combine with The Larochelle commodore ability "Vive la revolution" should allow you to prize one of his big ship without to much trouble, then maybe add both requins and Toulon MK2 in the mix. Those option give you some descent long range to remove the ablative early or take care of those repair ship, and some extra boarding capabilities. I would still at least play one couronne for an extra wing of TFT torps. I played that once against RC and It worked quiet well
  10. Commodore Panda, I think I'll mention this godzilla idea to some people in my play group for large fun games.
  11. To Hamster: The Other Carrier should indeed be upgraded I agree with that (KOB Carrier is a prime example). If the Couronne get a fair amount of extra's in proportion to the point rise that is fine by me but raising it's points with no extra's while improving all the other Carriers for free would be unfair and giving in to a very vocal OP crying mob (sorry for the strong sentiment). I prefer to see the other carriers being improved rather than see the Couronne nerfed in order to close the gap. I Agree with you on the Voltaire & Vauban. ROF is indeed competitive with the latest additions (Toulon MK2, Requin, and the La Rochelle in most aspect) But I just don't want to see two ROF Keystones like the Voltaire & Couronne become overpriced and beeing sacrificed on the Altar of nerffing. As for your last paragraphe I obviously couldn't agree more. To Bunnahabhain; In regards to the Voltaire i'll take a few example to compare: FSA A-17 Bomber : +1 DR, swift ascent, +1 AP, squadron 2 to 4 KOB Donaster: +1 AP, Swift ascent, +2" MV CF Liuxing +1 DR, +2 AP, +1" MV COA Capek +2" MV, Low level Flyer, Hit & Run, Electrical defenses EOBS DFA-170 +1 CR, +1 AP, +2" MV, Swift Ascent PE Geier + 2AP + 2" MV, Swift ascent All the above are 5 or 10 points more expensive. now the Voltaire have Fuel reserve, Rapid fire and 6AA, 8"MV. So slower, less AP than most, can be stopped from going obsured by fuel reserve, don't have a chance to go back obscure after shooting. So all those factor shows that the Voltaire is more fragile than the above, which explain it's cheaper cost. In my playing experience Voltaire are excellent small hunter, descent threat against medium when in full squadron but only if your opponent's don't pay attention to them, Most experience player I know will shoot at them early in the game as they know the Voltaire to be dangerous but fragile and fairly easy kill points. I would propose a compromise (It's just an idea) here beetwen points going up and Status quo. Why not make it a little bit more resilient: remove Fuel reserve, give it retardant armour and increase it's point to 60. Also been able to switch the torpedoe for rockets (same number of AD) for free would be a nice addition and allow to be a viable choice for ground battles. Thank you for your reassurance. I may have over reacted a bit (I apologies if offended you in any way) but you did scare me for a moment. On similar subject I've been toying with idea of an ROF thread to put some playtest report on my ideas. I shall try to have it up and running fairly soon, maybe you will have a look at it and find some of those ideas worthwhile and exploitable. EDIT: I just saw your post on the Magenta, and It a very interesting proposition.
  12. So ROF is going to be hit with a massive nerf wrecking ball in DW 2.0 and will have to play with either expensive point models or models which fonction poorly. I should ready myself to have an over expensive carrier for ROF while all other nations will get boost to theirs by getting combat launch or similar rule. The far to cheap BUT FAR TO FRAGILE Voltaire will cost you to much to worth playing and may get poorer stats. The Vauban!!! Well!!! probably upgraded to irrelevance. Good bye Couronne, Voltaire, Vauban You'll be crash landing on the shelf from next year on But please don't blame me Blame those players who are crying OP.
  13. I agree with you on the MK2 it need the combo retardant armour & Cloud Generator and so is the Cherbourg
  14. yes you can get it 3xDR on the cherbourg for 130 points, I’ve realise after playing it a couple of times that this ship is target practice for your opponents and giving away 130 points fairly easily without getting a shot from the Cherbourg main weapons . The La Rochelle is certainly not that impossible to sink. out of 11 games with it, my opponents sink it 3 times (against COA , was prized twice (against prussian and COA) and 6 times it finished the game at 50% or below. The fact that you have to roll a dice on the experimental heat lance to know how much AD you will have is adding another level of randomness . This is the only weapon in the game that have a random generation of AD which when considering that you will get use of it twice in game make the weapon totally unreliable. Going back to the concept MARS for Heat lance, You interpreting Superstructure as hull (HP) when I interpret Superstructure as (DR or CR) . So let me rephrase my proposal so we are talking about the same thing. Successfull AD reduce HP (Hull points) not DR & CR (internal superstructure). If the Internal superstructure (DR & CR) of a ship is heated up to the point where it weakens (represented by structural damage marker) the Superstructure will offer less protection from subsequent attacks (-1 to CR for every 2 markers on the ship).
  • 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.