Jump to content

Bunnahabhain

Member
  • Content Count

    3,472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Bunnahabhain last won the day on October 13 2018

Bunnahabhain had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Bunnahabhain

  • Rank
    Sircan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,620 profile views
  1. I'm impressed with the creativity of many of the ideas coming out in the beta, and I'm also impressed and relieved that the design team are clearly listening to our feedback. It is still clearly a work in progress, but the v.04 represents a big step forward- getting rid of the multiple boarding loophole, and fixing how subs and aircraft move/get moved through are two obvious examples. Yes, there are still issues- the proposed version of ace pilots effectively upgrades the 20" range on SRS to 'anywhere on the board' which is going to be very hard to balance, and is just asking for a 'hide the spammed carriers' gameplan, but i'm confident we'll get most of them sorted!
  2. Dave... Under version 2.X rules, very few big ships could make a 180 turn in an activation- excluding flying saucer type things with 360 degree movement, - the only' ship shape' ones I can think of were EotBS battles cruisers, between faction rules and the fact as mediums they used the medium turn template. Under the version 3 rules, fairly much all the large ships have the turn limit or lumbering rules and take 2-3 activations to turn 180. I have given feedback about how un-maneuverable they seem. I agree a good range of scenarios will help, but the idea that a damaged ship becomes faster or more maneuverable makes no sense- why wouldn't those abilities be used all the time? Here, firestorm, with the foldspace drive has a huge advantage! The only desperate measure to save a ship that makes sense to me is throwing other ships into the fight. A 'make smoke and run' option- sacrifice all but defensive firepower in return for being harder to hit could work, along with retreating off the board edge without penalty. It all comes down to the 'compression factor' needed to represent a naval action in acceptable number of game turns. I am writing scenarios, and would be interested to see your ideas. I can't see a solution to the 'compression factor' problem, but if you've found one, please share it!
  3. The problem with ' too easy to sink ships' boils down to scale, and the number of turns it is practical to play. In real life, a salvo from a battleship against another battleship had little chance of causing damage, simply as even if the range was right when fired, maneuvering by the target in the up to 90 seconds the shells could be in flight, and the dispersion pattern of 12/14/16" guns meant the chance of a shell actually hitting the target ship was not great. Of course, with improvements in range finding technology- radar, and radar spotting of shell splashes- it became easier. On top of that, if a ship became crippled- particularly the propulsion and steering systems, it would be come much easier to hit. As such, it would often take many salvos before one big ship would cripple another. In game terms, this would be moving 1", exchanging fire with a perhaps 5-10% chance of causing damage, and repeat. Or playing on a tennis court- a RN 15" gun had an effective range of about 30km. At a strict 1:2000 scale, that is 15 meters.... It could manage about 2 rounds a minute, but a typical WW2 battleship could do about 50 kilometers an hour- i.e would take over half an hour to travel the range it could fire. And in that time could fire perhaps 60 salvos... even halving the rate of fire to allow for maneuvering, range correction etc, that would be 30 salvos. It would give you a chance to disengage, but wouldn't make for a very practical game. To make it practical, you have to compress movement rates vs fire rates vs actual distances. At the same time, you have to dial up the chance per game turn to cause damage to keep the number of turns practical. Together, they make disengagement impossible. The only solution is to shrink the scale further- say 1:25,000, and simplify the rules to allow lots of turns to happen fast, to fit many turns on a table.
  4. Absolutely. If there is any way at all to have printer friendly, standard sleeve size stat cards, it should be done. Design elements like this that aren't rules still matter- they have a significant impact on ease of play, speed of play, making the game accessible to new players, etc!
  5. How much terrain are people using? I felt getting LOS was too easy, so just tried putting perhaps twice as much terrain as I would have previously- 9 islands averaging about 6x4" on a 4 x 4ish table. This worked to restrict LOS, as with coupled with the much wider turns, you couldn't adopt the firing position you want nearly so easily On Submarines and fliers- is it just me, or does it feel odd that 1) They can go under/over surface stuff, but surface stuff can't go over/under them? 2) Subs can't can't go over/under each other 3) Subs only gain any protection against aerial attacks, all other function normally. Flyers only gain protection against bomb and torp attacks, all others function normally? Wouldn't obscured here make sense? 4) Subs feel stuck between a submerged torpedo hunter in their outfitting ( fine) and a decks awash surface combatant in the way they're targeted ?
  6. Make sure you do feedback through the form- it is too easy to miss here, and using the form makes you structure it a bit. On a gameplay level, my thoughts on the beta are mixed- there are some bits I like, and some I don't and some I have yet to form an opinion of.. However, the point of testing is to fix stuff, so if we want stuff fixed, we have to point out issues in a constructive fashion wherever possible It is clearly at an early stage, and there are all sorts of game breaking bugs to be fixed- the best one I have found so far is in the assault section. There is no restriction on a model both launching and supporting an assault, and a model doesn't need to be in the active unit to support, and it can be within 5" of the target or initial model launching the assault. Put that lot together, and you can take a squadron of 6 frigates, close them all to within 5" of a target, launch 6 separate assaults and have the other 5 frigates each support each other, so for a unit with fray value 3, you get 6 x 8 dice assaults... You want to make it worse, do the same on the other side with another unit...your first unit is within range of target, so can support, and you can now do a further 6 assaults with 14 dice each now! at least the fix is easy- "a unit can both not launch and support an assault in the same activation, and can only support one assault in the same activation." The victory point mechanic will work well for scenarios- the 'Strategy point' bodge I used for my scenarios in version 2 can go away! Does anyone else have problems reading the cards when printed out, due to the darkness of the background. It will be ok on a pro quality colour print, but on a standard black and white laser print it is almost impossible to read! James
  7. I will not be reposting these scenarios on this forum. James
  8. With properly clean models and sensible temperature and humidity levels, I've not had any problems airbrush priming metal or resin. I've used assorted air-brush specific primers, including Vallejo. A while back I only cleaned one side of a Dreadnaught. The Airbrush primer flaked off the uncleaned side only, taking the paint job with it.The properly clean side was very, very hard to strip back so I could get the whole thing consistent. I don't think I'll ever forget this.... James
  9. Removing the Metzger and other robots from the Prussian list is terrible idea, and one I cannot see happing under any conditions ever. Trying to convince Merlin that they are not correct on something is like trying to triple crit a dreadbot- far more effort than it is worth. james
  10. Exactly this. For a given object, keeping the same shape, if you times the height, length and width by 2, you increase the surface area by a factor of 4, and the volume by a factor of 8. Those 'thin sheet' models are all plastic ones- Injection moulded plastic is very good for this kind of shape. Resin, as Spartan use, is really bad for this kind of shape- it simply won't come out of the mould in one piece. Bigger, more complex moulds tend to have a higher failure rate than simple ones. If you think about something like a frigate, it is easy to get resin all the way into the mould, without flaws, bubbles etc. For a big, complex 3D shape with only small pour points, it is much easier to get a flawed cast, which means you have wasted both time and resin.The sales of the good casts have to cover the costs for the failed ones as well. James
  11. There is a good set of photos of the KoB one ( unboxing thread, in the KoB section) which shows it against a FSA Battleship. To scale the guns. On topic- Spartan do sales quite often. They'll probably be cheaper then. James
  12. Many of the comments here say the Tiski and Khatanga overshadow just about every other choice. To me that suggests those two are too good, not that the basic cruiser needs improvements. James
  13. The MAR Attachment (Nation, Type/Name, Value) During Force Organisation this Model may be ADDED to a Parent Squadron of the Nation listed in the bracket with the Type/Name of Model’s making up the Parent Squadron is listed in the bracket. Any number of Models up to the listed maximum Value in brackets can be ADDED to a Parent Squadron in this way. No Parent Squadron may ever contain more than ONE Attachment Group. Although the MAR does not explicitly say 'there is no need to buy a squadron of the attachment models to break up and attach as you wish'. This is the first time I have seen the Attachment rules intercepted like this. The rule book can only be a certain length, for reasons of cost, portability and ease of reading. If you explain everything in much more detail, the rule book doubles in length, and it becomes much, much harder to find what you actually want. During the editing process, we re-wrote various sections to make them clear without such explicit denials, or in some cases, such as Commodores on Robots, we asked ourselves 'do we need this rule at all? No, scrap it.' To take a ridiculous example, the rules also don't say 'you do not need to be eating a banana whilst playing', because we didn't think anyone would assume the opposite! james
  14. Yes, you have been playing that wrong. If you want one Dominion to attach, you buy one Dominion. There is no need to buy any more than the one unless you want more than one. For reference, if you had to buy attachments in a squadron before you attached them, however did you group use any of the escort types, that are attachment only and have no squad size listed? James
  15. An escort is an escort, regardless of how the squadron is made up. From the rules, escort designation. An Escort, as designated in the Model Classification section of its Profile, can be attached to a Parent Squadron via the Attachment Model Assigned Rule. Escort Groups function as a standard Attachment Group in most ways, except that the Mixed Squadron does not take a Disorder Test if an Escort is Lost. They still have the escort rule, they have a designated parent squadron, therefore the squadron does not take disorder checks for losing Escorts. AA: As you suspect, AA vs normal fliers uses exploding dice. It is more effective as...background reasons SAWs are a group of several physical models on one base If the AA fire hits one, it can only cripple one plane, one lucky burst simply can't hit all three on the base. A normal small flier, on the other hand is one model (a small bomber in scale has the same wingspan as a B17 or similar WW2 heavy bomber). A lucky burst of AA could hit a vital system and bring it down, as represented by exploding 6's finding that lucky shot. Rapid fire would have been a somewhat better name for the MAR, represent the ability to engage SAWs well with a huge volume of fire, but that name was used in 1.1 for something else, and it would have been confusing! James
×
×
  • 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.