Jump to content

shad0wb0w

Member
  • Posts

    2,381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from FSAHoops in Wolf pack   
    It would be cool to see them put the Boston and friends into a box set, perhaps with an anti submarine escort or something else exciting.
  2. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from minischieber in good allies for RC?   
    FSA allies provide mimicable Kinetic Generators if speed is the issue.
     
    The Brits can protect your smalls.
     
    Ausies provide tesla generators which are multi use.
     
     
    Really you shouldn't be short on firepower as Russians though, Russians have the biggest guns in the game.
  3. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from faithwarrior in Dystopian Wars Playtester Thread   
    They have 'skilled' crews but the crews are short on numbers, hard pounding and fire markers will leave them boarding vulnerable. They have fewer ships than Russia, fewer independent guns for removing multiple targets, and kinetic generators are straight line movement reducing their maneuverability when used. They have the 'lower' ablative CRs, and must reveal their ships to take advantage of their more powerful weapons.
     
    They are elite, but the sword of the Atlantic does not fear them. Brittainia has handled pirates before in their golden age they feared us in this age of steam and steel they shall once again quake.
  4. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from GreenOakSteve in Firing Arc Question   
    If both edges of the fixed channel pass through the showing portion of the ship I believe you actually do not count it as partly blocked. If only one edge does pass through it is partly blocked, this is one of the major differences with channels. 
  5. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from LoganVI in Our new Heavy Bomber   
    You don't need to come up with a whole new weapon rule to have HEAT bombs. You just have a weapon of HEAT Bombs (T) sortof like the prussians have Tesla Bombs(T).
  6. Like
    shad0wb0w reacted to BDub in artillery   
    So here is my 2cents on Artillery.  Its seems designed to be potentially devastating...when it hits.  However, its power is variable, and its point of impact tactically unusable.
     
    One can argue that the designators make it more accurate, which is true, but only for the fixed point being used (you can't call it in where you need it.).  This has the unintended consequence of making highly "designated" (more accurate fire) actually easier to avoid owing to the smaller threat radius.
     
    So artillery fire ranges from highly accurate but easy to avoid, to wildly innacurate, even dangerous to use, due to its potentially huge threat area. The current designation method is great from skydropping, but less useful or thematic for simulating the feel of artillery.
     
    For a game whose play style is said to be high attrition and tactical decisions using combined arms, I can't help but feel an opportunity was missed here.  My preference, and i feel a better representation, for how artillery works would be as follows.
     
    Since Skydrop markers represent pre-established reference points,  I would like to see artillery called in (aimed) at some fixed range from any of your skydrop markers, using the deviation value of the chosen skydrop marker.  This lets people place artillery fire (tactically useful), while remaining only as accurate and the known reference point (marker) that it is being designated from (maintains importance of designation gameplay).  It also better represents how artillery works - that is, it is aimed by using offset coordinates from some predetermined coordinates. And, the better or more dialed-in the reference point the more accurate any fire based that reference point, regardless of where the final aim happens to be.
     
    Also, I understand that resolving deviation from the skydrop marker is more accurate in gameplay terms - to this end I would propose using another skydrop marker (artillery marker) that is placed at the point of aim, within its range of a skydrop marker, in order to resolve the artillery diviation, and then placing the template over the final location of the artillery marker.
     
    That takes care of the inaccuracy and thematic issues, now about that reliability.
     
    IMO having a random range for establishing your Artillery AD Pool and then rolling this pool to generate another number (of hits), is an extra level of randomess that is uneccessary and too highly variable, requiring two sets of dice rolls for no benefit.  To increase game speed and ease, as well as insure a tactically useful range of variability, I would propose that each race/faction have a fixed AD pool of artillery dice rather than a range (like any other weapon).  The racial variability in quality of Artillery is thus reflected in the number(&color?) of AD and the final number of hits is thus held to a tactically more predictable and useful range.
     
    Thanks for reading.
  7. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from McKinstry in MKII Turret speculation/Additional unit speculation   
    Oh, I suppose that makes sense.
     
    I was just in some way hoping that by clever movement and marker stacking I could some how turn a leviathan into paper.
     
    I like to make large clumsy things die terrible clumsy deaths...
  8. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from darkjedi203 in Firestorm Planetfall "First Look" at 2015 releases   
    Maybe it's a melee tank and that's where the tentacle comes out. XD
  9. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from steve_990 in Firestorm Planetfall "First Look" at 2015 releases   
    Maybe it's a melee tank and that's where the tentacle comes out. XD
  10. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from BDub in Look of PF boxes   
    I think maybe they should have made the box with a picture and then a Bright border around it to show the 'TYPE' and a logo in the corner.
  11. Like
    shad0wb0w reacted to Awesomeshotdude in Ramming and Collisions!   
    Ramming is one of the Movement Options listed on page 68 (3rd option down) and is further described on the bottom of page 69 under the sub heading "Ramming And Collisions".
     
    I have some questions;
     
    1) With Hover models moving over other models, can a hover squadron ram a non-hover squadron...can a non-hover squadron ram a hover squadron...can flyers ram non-flyers...can flyers ram flyers?
     
    2) Can a ramming model come into contact, and ram multiple models.
     
    3) Does the ramming model have to stop once it contacts the rammed model, or can it complete it's Flat Out move, either before or after the rammed models Avoidance Move.
     
    4) If some models in the rammed squadron are not rammed (lets say not all models in the ramming Squadron can make the distance or some models are too small to ram, or there are less models in the ramming squadron than there are in the rammed squadron)...do the un-rammed models still participate in the Avoidance Move.
     
    5) The title of this sub section is "Ramming And Collisions"...however there is no mention at all about colliding. What is a collision in this game? Is it an accidental touching of models during the movement phase? What happens if the model that collides during its movement is a smaller model than the model/s it collides with and thereby doesn't fulfill the conditions of a ram, what happens...is the inclusion of the word Collisions in this sub heading really nothing and we should just ignore any accidental collisions?
     
    6) If a "Lumbering" Leviathon is using its turning template to move and an infantry stand is in the way, but the Leviathon did not declare it was Ramming, what happens...surely the Leviathon can walk over the top of Infantry...is this a Collision?
     
    7) If there is such a thing as a collision, when a Leviathon "Charges" another Leviathon to get into base to base to use its Leviathon CQB stat, is this treated as a collision?
     
    8) If a Squadron is rammed, then moves back its 4" Avoidance Move, can it then be immediately attacked in CQB by the squadron that just rammed it?
     
    9) With Squadrons able to be positioned in any pattern and also be quite stretched or spread out from closest to furthest, is the Avoidance Move limited to 4", or do all models have to move until they are 4" away from the Squadron that just rammed them, potentially moving several more inches than 4"?
     
    10) Does a rammed Squadron make an Avoidance Move, or just the models that were rammed?
     
    11) What if the Avoidance Move of 4" takes a model CLOSER to an enemy model from the Squadron that just rammed its Squadron (say the enemy models are position such that they surround it)?
     
    12) Do model making an Avoidance Move have to remain in Squadron Coherency?
     
    13) What if a model or Squadron cannot complete a full 4" Avoidance Move due to blocking terrain, board edge and/or enemy models?
     
    14) Is an Avoidance Move a forced move...so will models be forced off the board edge, or forced into a collision with other models?
     
    15) If collisions exist in the game, can you collide with terrain pieces, if so, how does this work?
  12. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from darkjedi203 in Firestorm Planetfall "First Look" at 2015 releases   
    The scaffolding in the center clearly looks like it carries 'something' but I feel like it's going to be a land unit most likely and not another air unit...or possibly a small fortification?
     
    Whatever it carries it looks like it only carries one of them.
     
    Heavy or medium tank of some sort are my guess but it could also possibly carry a cargo container like object loaded full of smaller units (troop transport maybe?)
     
    EDIT:
     
    Another idea...what if the leviathan is a drone...and there is a large crawler that acts as a control vehicle that hides in cover and provides indirect fire support.
     
     
    That would be very very very dirty directorate...
     
    'Oh my...we seem to have lost our leviathan drone...time to pull a tactical retreat.'
  13. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Frans in Hard Sci-Fi   
    As both a science fiction and fantasy fan and writer I will point out there are few quotes that I like less in terms of 'excuse like' quotes.
     
    In some cases this may be true but in most it is only partly so and any moderately intellectual creature is likely to quickly grasp the difference between inexplicable power and related technologies.
     
    Anyways...I just thought it should be pointed out that not all scifi writers or scifi fans like that excuse and throwing it around like that is really, often annoying. 'It's technology but none of us would understand.'
  14. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Grey Mage in Official Thread: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth   
    It says in the description that it's a bombard.
  15. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from darkjedi203 in Official Thread: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth   
    It says in the description that it's a bombard.
  16. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Sanguinary Dan in Ideas for new RoF units   
    4AA really seems like too much, particularly being redoubtable.
     
    I think 3 AA is more fair.

    Then you could have two Marks.

    MK1 has reckless crew and terror tactics 1.
    MK2 has defensive crew and attachment(RoF Air, Large/Massive, 3)
  17. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Naptain Cemo in Time Orb   
    Seems like a clever enough idea.
  18. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Fuzzi99 in Heavy Bombers?   
    We know...some of them are just so mouth wateringly cool looking...it's often very torturous how long between 'showing' and 'telling' what's going on with SG.
  19. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Lostaris in Heavy Bombers?   
    We know...some of them are just so mouth wateringly cool looking...it's often very torturous how long between 'showing' and 'telling' what's going on with SG.
  20. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Sanguinary Dan in Heavy Bombers?   
    We know...some of them are just so mouth wateringly cool looking...it's often very torturous how long between 'showing' and 'telling' what's going on with SG.
  21. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Naptain Cemo in Heavy Bombers?   
    We know...some of them are just so mouth wateringly cool looking...it's often very torturous how long between 'showing' and 'telling' what's going on with SG.
  22. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Ungard in Official Thread: Dominion Of Canada   
    Just because I don't state how many points I have of each game in my sig Emmachine doesn't mean I don't support the companies I like, just as much if not more than you, truth is I don't bother counting.
     
    1) so in a previous edition of the game when crits were more dangerous you saw a fluke chain of events that would have destroyed any fleet. I've seen that happen with SIX dice critting a dreadnought for snakeyes in V1.1
    2)  It would not be hard to mix up some things between two editions, everyone does it.
    3) No, try considering that I have been on this forum discussing rules and part of the back and forth of this game for five years. And two fairly heavily experience people just said that it doesn't work the way you said it does and you didn't double check anything when it was brought up.
     
    Some of us don't feel a need to point out how many models they have sitting in their house, on pre-order, or otherwise. And really, do you think that spartan would be having trouble keeping up on production for new items if you were the only hand that feeds? Get over it.
  23. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Fuzzi99 in A few V2 questions   
    There are three types of defensive AA/CC, you may use each one once per activation per defensive weapons system.
    Counter Attack, Defensive, and anti boarding.
     
    Shooting at the voltairs is Counter Attack AA.
    Shooting at the rockets is Defensive.
  24. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from Naptain Cemo in Arronax: Not Diving?   
    Depends on the version of the worm sign? A mound of sand would not be so hard.
  25. Like
    shad0wb0w got a reaction from steve_990 in Planetfall Impressions Q&A   
    If they are short ranged weapons?
     
    You could easily be talking about grenadlauncher based HEAT rounds, thrown explosives (how far can a cyborg huck a chunk of high explosives?),  one use rocket launchers, or any manner of other weapons that might not be well suited to taking out a tank but might be just dangerous enough to warrant enough concern that they could do damage. If infantry have a very short range compared to something like the cannon from a tank destroyer.
×
×
  • 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.