Jump to content

Jaeger

Member
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jaeger last won the day on November 8 2012

Jaeger had the most liked content!

About Jaeger

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

616 profile views
  1. Well, thank you all for your ideas. Unfortunately the writing appears on the wall, given the last blog post. I was looking at doing an alternative ruleset for Dystopian Wars models, pulling ideas from a variety of sources past and present.Not sure if it is worth it at this point.
  2. Well that's why I was thinking the players could drive things forward. We can at best give SG our opinions, which we have in the survey, but we can't control where their focus is at the moment. As players, there is nothing, AFAIK, that could stop us creating something for DW, especially in this glorious age of the internet. It can be done, if the passion and the will is there - and is SG truly going to get upset if players are making rules and background that encourage people to buy and use their models? I've read what you came up with for the Covenant - if we could have similar for the other factions, that would be a big step in the right direction I think. --- On a side note, I'm really glad I'm not the only one that thinks the background is begging for further refinement and exploration. I think it's why I'm still here causing trouble - the potential of the DW setting is huge, IMHO. I don't want to see that potential wither on the vine.
  3. The Writing on the Wall One of the feelings that I sensed coming out of the DW 2016 thread was that there might perhaps be increasing scope for a 3rd Edition of Dystopian Wars, or possibly some sort of intermediate 2.5 version. The thought intrigued me, and I guess I wanted to get the ball rolling on some positive, constructive discussion. For myself personally, I would love to see a ground-up rework of the game that would incorporate good ideas from Fleet Action and elsewhere, with a desire to see every current model usable and balanced, but also to see a retcon and/or expansion of background and alternate history that would give Dystopian Wars the depth its awesome setting deserves. Tight rules, tight models, tight setting - the triad that makes a tabletop wargame sink or swim. That's the perfect vision, at least in my humble opinion. Realistically, we're very unlikely to see anything like that anytime soon. That being said, I'd very much love to see a player-led revision and rebalance of the game. I think that is certainly doable, especially with the success of fan-led projects in other tabletop gaming systems (particularly the 9th Age). So, first question to the ladies and gentlemen of the forum: Do people think there is enough scope (good changes that could be affected) for a new edition of Dystopian Wars? Or is the game fine as it is? Could it be something that the playtesters and players on these forums have a significant involvement in? An Ideas Clearinghouse A good thing that can be done, I think, is at least start talking about ways that DW can be improved upon. Crazy new outlandish ideas would be welcome, as well as many games' worth of tabletop experience. The playtesters have stated that they are casting about for interesting ideas, at the very least this could be a thread in which to assemble them in a semi-coherent fashion, and go from there. Short of a new edition (or to be included in one) what do you think could be done to improve: A faction (models and rules)? General gameplay and rules? Background? I freely admit I may have no idea what I'm talking about, but hopefully this should at least stimulate some positive discussion and ideas for the playtesters. Ideas Thus Far I thought I'd start collating things. Please let me know if I misrepresent or misunderstand anything! Factions Gameplay / Rules More individual fleet commodores that can significantly impact the way a force is played through unique, commodore specific rules over having a generic national fleet commodore (Richomack88). The rules could do with greater streamlining and a better-to-understand layout (Zond). Background More information on individual classes of vessel; a paragraph or two of descriptive background and a selection of famous vessels a la BFG , along with incidental one-off background pieces like propaganda, short stories and art (Nicholas). A deeper look into the societal background and history of Dystopia, with a clearer picture of the impacts of highly advanced technology, and the points of historical divergence from our own timeline. A better vision of the human aspects of the setting would be good, along with strong characters that players can appreciate and grow attached to (Zond).
  4. Personally I wonder if a balance between richomack88's and BigB's views, if it can be found, would be the best way to go. I agree with BigB that every nation wouldn't have exactly the same type of combat vessels, but at the same time, I'd argue that in reality, if a concept works, it tends to get readily adopted by all sides. There would be certain roles, or capabilities, that every nation would and should have in the air, on the land or at sea. They may not approach these roles in the same way. For instance, at present, the US Navy primarily relies on its strike aircraft from its carriers to perform the anti-surface (anti-ship) role. They have ship-based anti-ship missiles, specifically the Harpoon, but they are not as highly favoured as aircraft delivering Harpoon (AFAIK). They haven't ignored anti-ship missile tech, but focus on its use by strike aircraft over its use by ships. In contrast, to perform the same anti-surface role, the Russian Navy has utilised long-range anti-ship missiles, to the point of equipping nearly every ship (and submarine!) with them. Carrier-based aircraft do not have the same significance, and indeed, most of Russia's naval strike aircraft are long-range, land-based bombers. Same role, different answer. Applying this to DW, I'm not so sure if torpedo and rocket tech would be ignored by the nations of Dystopia that didn't initially employ them. They'd at least be countered (and we have CC and AA for that), but also, if they work so well, surely nations would adopt them? It would be silly not to - even if they are looked down upon or mistrusted by a particular nation's officers and war leaders. They may not adopt them to the same extent as others, as per the US/Russia example above...but they'd have them. Similarly, if the Russians can work out how to repair their ships in the midst of combat without any unique proprietary technology that no-one else has, then other nations would look on and say, 'hey, that's a jolly good idea, let's copy it.' They might not do it in the same way (i.e.with a dedicated repair ship), but taking richomack88's idea, they could possibly have repair teams that can be added to ships for a points cost, have a national MAR, some sort of semi-boarding mechanic, or something. If repairing vessels is a powerful and useful tool, it is not going to be ignored. If it were also down to me, I'd like to be a bit tighter on model designations, and more closely follow real-world concepts. As DW is grounded at least partially in the real world, I think this would help and not hinder the game, and bring immersion. Even in a world of Victorian super-science, weird weapons and wonderful technologies would still be employed in conventional ways and roles that have traditionally worked.
  5. Just throwing this out there, as someone who's moved on to other games and companies himself, but who pops in to see where DW is going: Why not create an unnofficial, player-developed 2.5 or 3.0 (or whatever) Edition of DW. I'd love to do such a project myself, but I'm just one guy with health issues, and very unlikely to be able to playtest (or get balance right). Here though? There are obviously people here with the passion and the experience necessary to do it; and at the very least it would give the forums something to talk about. I think the 9th Age has demonstrated what can be done when gamers put their minds to things. Maybe such an effort would give DW a shot in the arm? It would help SG, who seem otherwise distracted or, more charitably, under-manned and under pressure at this time. Food for thought. In the meantime, I'm going all-in with another space-based naval game that is due to drop in the next month or so, and have said so in the Spartan survey. Would love to come back to DW though, if the overall quality and support was there for it.The quantity-over-quality scattergun approach to SG games design and support is unfortunately beginning to show with more competition on the horizon. God help us all if GW ever decide to re-release BFG...
  6. To humbly offer my constructive criticism: Weapon Mechanics I have come to dislike the current weapon mechanics a bit, especially after playing some other games. Range Bands seem to add a layer of abstraction over measuring weapon ranges that could perhaps be more intuitively presented as, well, distinct distances in inches. For example, a weapons profile could be thus: Main Turret - Short Range: 12", Medium Range: 24", Long Range: 36", Attack Dice: 7 Accuracy: 4+ You roll the given Attack Dice, and each roll equal to the Accuracy (of 4+) scores a hit. 6s can explode as per now. Then, replace the current system of diminishing AD with an accuracy modifier. Target is within Short Range: -1 To Hit (making the Accuracy 5+) Target is within Long Range: -2 To Hit (making the Accuracy 6+) You can add situational modifiers due to Generators and the like. To me, it seems a more elegant and intuitive system, but I may just be mathematically disinclined and dislike the 8" bands. AD Reduction with HP Loss I kind of feel that Battlefleet Gothic's version of this - where a ship's firepower was effectively halved when the ship was reduced to half of its Hits (and became Crippled) was a nice middle ground between not representing damage to weapons and having to calculate for every HP lost (which can get a little tedious across a squadron that is Link Firing). Link Firing Why not allow for full AD (but possibly with an Accuracy modifier, using the profile above) and balance weapon AD accordingly? Halving AD is adding extra calculations (however small) to the firing sequence, and effectively punishing a vessel for using its weapons effectively. Boarding As per Scarab and Sebenko above. MARs I agree with Scarab's views, to me, even though 2.0 is miles better than the original in this regard, I kind of feel that there's still a lot of complexity that could be trimmed or organised better. Background This is what I think is Dystopian Wars' Achilles Heel at the moment. Dystopia - the steampunk setting - is brilliant, but, I think it hasn't been developed as well as it could - and feel free to cut me down on this. I still feel that we don't know enough about the Dystopian world. Yes, we can extrapolate and fill in blanks with our own history, but I feel as though I know more about various science-fiction, make believe nations and empires as compared with an alt-history British Empire. Where was the point of divergence with women's suffrage and slave emancipation (they've obviously happened sooner, huzzah! But how? Why?) What happened back in the 17th Century to spark an early Industrial Revolution? How do all the underlying technologies related to Sturginium work? How do Generators work? Just how far advanced -are- the nations, anyway? What's happened to various historical figures? We hear little blurbs about certain personalities and war leaders, and hints of socio-political background, but not enough to really admire or hate them, or connect with the wider story. EDIT: Junkers. Zeppelin. Armstrong. Gatling. Krupp. Panhard. Bath Iron Works. Ishikawajima. Izhmash. Big period names in engineering, aeronautics and big guns. I realise there may be some copyright issues with still-existing companies, but name-dropping a few just makes it more, ahem, 'real.' Just a thought. All of these admittedly minor details build the world, make it more believable, and encourages immersion. At the moment, and this may be a matter of taste, but I don't feel immersed, because I don't feel a connection to my little fleets beyond superficial make-believe patriotism. The Great Powers of the Dystopian Wars are fighting a conflict that seems as cataclysmic as both World Wars put together, with mad science thrown in, and yet, where's the human side? What of the German expatriate engineer working in London? Is he loyal to the British government that took him in after he was laughed out of the Prussian scientific community, or to the homeland of his forefathers? What effect do all these landships and monstrous robots have on the civilian population? Is the Covenant the scientific, humanitarian utopia that it's made out to be, or is the melting pot of multiple human cultures going to start boiling over in the far south? Perhaps my issue, if you could call it that, is in the manner of presentation - the campaign books helped with the narrative, but I think got bogged down in providing orders of battle for various encounters, and relatively dry descriptions of those fights (with one or two personalities whom we don't get to know very well). Someone once said, I think, that humanity doesn't fight wars rationally - for calculated cost:benefit formulae, but for deeper, more primal reasons. Pride. Honour. Vengeance. Greed. Moral righteousness. Insecurity. Power. I'd kinda like to see more of what makes Dystopia really tick, behind Element 270. More immersive plot hooks - I think that's what my long ramble is getting at . It's possible that my view has been coloured with the lack of the faction books coming out, which probably will provide more depth and detail. And it's great to have had so many miniatures to play with - but background and overarching narrative matters too.
  7. Hey everyone, I would just like to thank Ozysturn for his enormous help and willingness to take over the work. I apologise again to the community for my tardiness in working on the latest updates - I am sure that Ozy will do a fine job of it. Cheers all, Jaeger
  8. Hi guys, Just a quick update to apologise for the delay - my university workload has continued to be a burden. I am hoping to release an update in the next 1-2 weeks (at the latest). Again, sorry for this, I haven't forgotten! Cheers, Jaeger
  9. Hey guys, I have been somewhat snowed under this year with university, and haven't had much chance to catch up with D-Wars, but I promise to get things out as soon as I can. A slight complication which I will need to sort out is that the site used previously for hosting updates will no longer be available, so I'll be using Dropbox instead from now on. Please bear with me, I will try to get an update out in the coming days. Cheers, Jaeger.
  10. Hey guys, Version 5.0 of the Dystopian Wars files is up, including the new Polish-Lithuanian models. Merry Christmas!
  11. Thanks for that cbgad, have just released an update to fix that!
  12. Thank you Krax, I'm glad to be of service! I have just uploaded version 4.8 which includes the new Chinese Federation models. Please enjoy! Now, ironically enough, I must return to wrestling with Mandarin Chinese for my exam next week...
  13. Just a quick update to let people know that I have started work on the new Chinese models update, and hope to have it out over the next couple of days. Cheers!
  14. Thank you for catching that Matti, I have fixed that in a small update today.
  15. Incredible India I have just uploaded v4.5 with the Indian Raj now available It may be found here as per usual, I hope it pleases!
×
×
  • 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.