Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About schnuersi

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

522 profile views
  1. IMHO there is no point in comparing the stats of DW units of the older editions with the current one. With the 2nd ed the game has been significantly rebalanced. Not only one nation or some class of units. In the earlier editions it was all about the extremes. The smallest and largest units were the decicive ones with the others barely playing a role and being concidered wasted points that had to be spend because of the rules by most players. This was more extreme for some nations. This has been fixed. As a result smalls became more expensive across the board while their capabilities have been limited at the same time. Currently for the PE the smalls are still very potent. More potent than the ones of most other nations. The Arminius and Saxony carry tesla turrets for example. This means they synergise with Speerschleuders. This advantage might not seem great but its somthing other nations don't have. In addition to that the Arminius as AP2 with aggresive crew. That fits the PE very well. Just using the Arminius and Saxony as boarder means limiting them and wasting potential. This has nothing to do with them being underpowered or to expensive. Its just not using them right. The Stolz, while its sad that it lost RB3 firepower is still extremly potent. You might have overlooked that is has piercing munitions and pack tactis 2. The firepower a units of Stolz can pump out at RB2 and 1 is brutal. With piercing even if you spred the AD of a unit on multipe targets they really hurt. They should not be under estimated. It is true though that 160 pts is quite a lot for a ~1000 pts battle. Stolz are easiert to integrate in a fleet in larger battles. The Zerstörer is a very effective unit. Either it will soak up firepower when the other player attempts to neutalise it befor it delvers its payload or it will put lightning rods on things and stip AP. The Zerstörer works very well with the Saxony and Arminius. The Speerwurf is a very good all round choice. It has RB3 AD and again will put lighting rods on things. The fact that is a good submarine hunter is just the cherry on top of the cream. The Jaeger is a solid unit. Not special but not bad. It performs somewhat better against flying targets but its also effective against surface targets. 360° AD is special for small fliers and it can come in really handy at times. Compared to other nations the PE has a well rounded selection of smalls and all fit with the PE basic modus operandi. Its easy to capitalise on synergies. As a result the PE smalls are user friendly and all can be taken without too much optimising or reliance on special tactics.
  2. ... but they did change their way. Because they are not doing "the thing for reason X" allready. This is exactly the reason why we are having this conversation. They did stop supporting non profitable product lines and do not add (or delayed) new lines to the games they still support. More factions for DW would be exactly what they used to do spread out and fritter away. Its simply not sensibel to criticise SG because you think that they spread our too much and then call for doing it by demanding more factions for a game that allready has a two digit number of these. As a side note: I did like the minis for DL and would have really liked them to release more and support the system in general. Never the less the market for 28 mm is really tight because its overcrowded. Even though I don't like it I understand why they are pulling back. Chances are if they kept pumping recources into DL it would hurt DL and DW and the company as a whole in the medium or long run.
  3. You know pretty well, that seme of the games you posted are not being supported anymore. For exactly the reason i wrote. The games that are supported to not canibalise each other since they have different target groups and player bases. Of course there is some overlapping but Plantfall will not interfere with DW. The games are just too different. The Halo thing I have mixed feelings about. SG got the license for an established brand. That is a chance for them. If it works out we will see in the future. I don't see Halo interfereing with DW since again they are to different. With Firestorm this is differen though.
  4. Just because they are in the rulebook doesn't mean they will be in the game with official models. Its not uncommon for game manufacturers to do so as a just in case option. Everybody would have prefered to get things cheaper. i would prefer to get the battle group boxes for 10 €... better yet: 5 €... best: for free. This is no sensible argument though. IMHO just saying the model count is "1" so its to expensive is allmost rediculous. If the number of minis would be an important criteria nobody would use DNs everybody would just buy blisters of smalls. It is true that the DN robots are not cheap but I think the price is reasonable for what you get. Complaining about the fact that its a single mini IMHO is more like grasping for straws to argue against it. Not liking the design is one thing but complaining about the value is a different one. I think you are wrong with this. Designing new units or one in the case of the DN robots for an allready existing faction is a complety different ballpark than designing a completly new faction. With the new faction and even more so since its an alliance faction a lot more syneries and mutual effects have to be taken into account. Also you would not want to be the new faction to be like an allready existing one with new minis. Conciderable more work is needed. The physical production of the minis is not the real issue. The design work is. This is orders of magintude more time consuming and complicated with a new faction than and addition mini. This is plain and simple an assumption. Wich might ot might not be true. I tend to it not being true. IMHO you can't even say that alliance nations are popular. Most haven't been released yet. So we have no idea what they will look like and how they will play. Of the allready existing alliance and minor factions only a few are popular. One maybe to might be close to a major nation in popularity but some are more or less disliked or ignored by the majority. The people that say they want alliance nations simply assume they will like the design and the playstyle. Wich IMHO is plain and simple wishfull thinking. Until the nation in question has been released there is no way of telling how popular it will be. Releasing an additional mini for an existing line is the far safer bet. ...and this is different to the alliance nations in wich regard? The alliance nations are NOT intended to be stand alone. Hence the name alliance. They are also aimed at veteran players. Thinking that the release of one or two alliance nations will generate a significant influx of new player is delusional. The simple fact that people in this forum who played DW for years want alliance nations shows that new players are not the issue. Of course it is about selling new stuff to the existing playerbase.
  5. Wich addition to DW was really necessary in the last years? SG wanted DN class robots and released them. IMHO that is a viable decision. I also don't agree that "a lot of the community" is against them. Some are. Like allways the haters are the louder and more "visible" group. I know several players including me who like the robots. I don't feel we needed them but the are a nice addition. Most players I know don't care about alliance nations too much. IMHO if there is anything the game doesn't need its more factions. It allready is difficult to balance adding more would not make it easier. We have seven core nations with a massive selection of models for each and several minor/alliance nations wich have boxes and are playable on their own. Even though the name alliance suggest they are not supposed to be played like this. Releasing the DN robots was a viable business decision by SG. They most likely thought they would sell them well and earn money. For all that we know this could actually be the case. Most likely they intended to earn more than with releasing new minor factions. The core nations have a established player base. Every player is a potential customer. The minor nations don't. Compared to additions to the core nations they are a niche product. Its also more time consuming and expensive to design and produce the core boxes than a single model blister. The profit out of selling the boxes also is lower than with the large model blisters. As far as my experience and understanding of the situation goes the decision SG made was a good one. If they just keep relaeasing new factiones they will spread the player base out over too many sub lines. The point were players of minor factions start demanding more releases even to the point of making their faction of choice a major one will be reached quickly. By spreading the product range out like this it will be difficult if not impossible to generate a profit. A lot of smaller companies fall into this trap. Not only in gaming. Compared to other games from companies about the size of SG DW has an enormous range of factions and minis. This should be appreceated and not allways just complain and demand more. Why did companies like GW stop supporting most of their product lines and reduced the number or factions for the ones they continued to support?... and I am not talking about recently but back in the '90. They overstreched it. The design, production, handling and storage cost stay the same. The number of boxes sold per range goes down since the players are spread out over more product ranges but they only have a limited amount of money to spend. Its simply not a smart move. Its not a give that there would be new factions even if SG wouldn't have released the robots.
  6. There might be the chance you did something wrong then... All people I played against, including the competative games, were scared shitless by the Reiver. Its used to be a conciderable better boarder than the Arminius. It also brought more firpower. The Reiver was a bit flimsy but that is true for all mediums so it was not special in this regard. My Reivers several times won games for me. Once they were in knife fighting range there is little that could be done to prevent them from seizing anything at will. Really the only thing problematic was getting them there. With a litte practice and the right tactics that was possible however.
  7. I think you mix something up. The Reiver was hated by the opponents of the PE... it was an insane medium. AP 6 and MV10 was brutal. AP 18 multi vessel boarding could capture anything. The fact it had any guns at all were just the icing on the cake. The fact that it was such a scary unit combined with the general vulnurability of all mediums made it a fire magnet. As a result the Reiver was a bit difficult to use but if you managed to keep them alive into turn three they would win the game. Also the Reiver did benefit greatly from large numbers. One squadron was a fire magnet and could be neutralised quickly. Two or three squadrons following two or three squadrons of Arminius are a different story. Now the Riever is a solid and pretty cheapish light cruiser. Its really good vs other meds and smalls.
  8. Lack of "tankiness"... seriously? The Elbe is very tough. Different to the Karl but comparable. The Adler (second list) is tougher than any other PE medium with CR5 and roughed construction 2. In addition it can go obsured. It also needs to be shot down to be fully neutralised since the bomb bays don't degrade with damage. The first list is more fragile than the second generally speaking. For the simple reason it contains more conventional medium surface units wich are glass cannons (true for every nation). The two submarines are very vulnurable to air attacks. Since the Adlers are also vulnurable to SAS the second list is more vulnurable to a SAS/drone focussed list while at the same time its less vulnurable to conventional gunnery attacks. In additon the second list contains several units wich are imune to torpedo ordonance. Wich one is "better" mostly depends on personal preference and local meta.
  9. The main problem with drone focussed lists or drone spam is that its easy to pull off but makes for boring games. Its not unbeatable though. It just needs different tactics. For example SAS fighters slugging it out with fighter drones is a pointless waste of time and recources. This will loose the game. The trick is not to slug it out with the drones. Fighter drones can safely be ignored by SAS. If there are no other targets fire some AA at them. Fighters should be used to reduce the number of tokens of bomber drone wings. Just reducing the number of tokens in a wing. Not killing the entire wing. The AD of bomber drones (regardless of torp or dive) will quickly go down to the point where they are no real threat anymore. Fighters should stay defensive and stick close to their CV so they can be replenished should this be required. Do not sepetate your fighters from your main force. It might be a good idea to keep you force closer together than usual. So the fighters can cover all of your units and AA is massed. AA on the other needs to be used aggressive. The surface units should move into AA range and use intercepting fire to bring the numbers of drones down. Again no wiping. An under strength drone wing will have difficulties penetrating the defensive AA and CAS of a strong unit to deliver enough AD to cause damage. This is more or less opposit of how the game is played against conventional SAS were fighters are used aggresive and AA defensive. Some nations are more suceptible to drone attacks than others. A good airforce and high AA help a lot. Some nations even have access to optimised AA units. Drones are also pretty bad at dealing with lots of small targets. A couple of squadrons of corvettes or frigattes dashing out of the AA umbrella of the main force once they can reach knife fighting range can work wonders against drone carriers.Fast units in general work great for this. By being controlled agressive like this its possible to seize the initiative. The drone user has to decide if he sends his drones after the agressive part of the main force. With good timing and only wing clipping it can be difficult for him to muster enough available drones to relaunch an effective counter in time. In the same turn repurpose fighter wings as bombers so they can also reach the other fleet in the next turn. If the CoA players relaunches bombers to deal with the aggresive surface units he can't deal with the bombers and the other way round. One turn of knife fighting against CoA often is all that is needed.
  10. I agree wich Nicius. Personally I am not a big user of the D'Faust anymore. Attaching it to a unit of cruiser quickly puts it into the "death star" unit category. While they can strike hard they are mediums and as such fragile. IMHO this is only really usefull in bigger games. There need to be several threatening and juicy targets like this on the table. As for the original post. PE smalls are about as survivable as the ones of any other nation. The DD even has rugged construction. The cruisers also have rugged construction but none has shields or defensive generators. So they are more fragile compared to some others. The firepower of the PE units in general is good. Not great but good. One PE thing especially for the old units (old starter set) is that the firepower is spread through several weapon systems. So they can lauch multile attacks that are individualy weaker. This is not true for the new untis though wich usually carry linkable weapon systems. PE firpower in general gets better up close. In RB2 and 1 they can outshoot most other nations. Only a few units are effective in RB3 and 4 though and these are usually less effective in these range bands than comparable units from other more long range focussed nations. LoIS and PE are very different fleets and need different playstyles. You can't simply compare them. While the LoIS light cruiser seems to be better than the PE light cruiser at first glance the PE one is much cheaper and has a completly differen purpose. The shooty PE cruisers are a bit more expensive compared to the Gladius but can outshoot it at least in RB2 and 1. The Hussar will outshot it in all RBs. The PE ones also have DR5, HP5 and rugged constuction. The Uhlan ist cheaper but faster, has HP5 and rugged construction. It will outshoot the Gladius in RB1. Its really hard to compare them one on one. In addition there are the sysnergies with other units of the fleet. Since the LoIS has a much lower number of units to pick from its only logical that it is lacking specialised units.
  11. What Sky Captain said. The K'Berg is a glass cannon. It can dish out out off propotion to its size and pts cost but it can't take. Whent it comes about inflicting damage the K'Berg out performs the Emperor in most situations. Since it has no defensive generators or fancy MARs its survival relies on not being shot at. Wich is the tricky part. Basically the K'Berg relies on distraction. If there are other targets that seem more threatening the K'Berg will often not be shot at. If it attracts attention its gone. Therefor its not a good idea to pick a K'berg as single medium choice in a small or mid sized game. The K'Berg performs better if the pts size of a game goes up. The K'berg is not really a border. Its AP6 are ok-ish but not great. A squadron of Rievers (or even two Rievers for the same points as one K'Berg) are better borders. Since the K'Berg is best in RB2 its usually a good idea to stay there and keep the AP for defense or a possible coup de grace boarding. If you want to get the maximum knife fighting potantial from a K'Berg take one as KoD allie. These cost the same points but come with close quarters gunnery for free. It can deal brutal damage at RB1 if it gets there. Combined with another squadron the K'Berg makes a excellent flanking or advance unit. It should keep a low profile until in RB 2. Once there try to get one activation wich uses the full potential of its firepower. Don't expect it to survive the retaliation though. Once a K'berg starts blasting away in RB2 it will attract attention. The K'Berg works well together with a squadron of Hussars or Stolz. These share the good close range performance and can capitalise on the swath of desdruction the K'Berg can create. They are also good borders. A flanking force of a K'Berg and a squadron of Stolz can't be ignored once they close in. It also takes some effort to fully neutralise them. So either way you win. If the AD to neutralise them is allocated these won't hurt your main force or if not you flaking force will strike hard.
  12. The games you play seem to be pretty big if you concider a 85 pts Hussar a sacrificial unit. If you would run a full squadon of Hussars in the situation you describe they can simply wipe the attackers out and survive. A full squadron of them is insane at RB1. Two Geiers or Pflichts can do what you describe but a full squadron can do it even better. Of course you can use under strength units in the way you describe but they are pretty much limited to this role. I would rather build my fleet about full strength units. If so desired its still possible to split up a full squadron in two smaller ones. This gives more flexibility. The roles can also be full filled by units wich have lost members and thus their offensive potential. Under strength squadrons are much easier to neutralise. A single medium or two smalls need to be looked at funny and they are useless if not destroyed. Their offensive potential is limited. From my point of view you are putting points into units wich have limited use and capability. So far I never had 60 (two Arminius) or more spare points when building a fleet. Maybe around 20. These IMHO are better invested in aces than a single Saxony. The Donnerfaust is a special case. IMHO it is not particulary usefull in a pure squadron. Its better used as attachment. Sacrifing a Havel in the way you describe is a desperate measure IMHO. Nothing I would plan this way. Sure its better to sacrifice it than loose you flagship but I am not taking a single Havel into my fleet with the intention of using it as throw away unit should my flagship run into trouble. Should the situation arise and a Havel or Hussar, half squadron of Arminius or Saxonys for that matter, is close by I would for sure use them in this way. I would not limit my squadrons to this role though.
  13. Personally I disagree with allmost everything Bob posted. Exeption: of the advise to use full squadrons. This advise should be written in capital letters, bold and underlined. Under strength squadrons are a waste of points. Never use them. Not even for training games because it will ruin you "feeling" for the unit. IMHO it is outright wrong to name any single unit "the best". There currently is no unit in the PE ORBAT that is bad or unusable. It all depends on making the right use of them. The units don't exist in thin air. Fleet composition is extremly important. Elbe, K'Berg and Adler are good but only if used right and if they fit into the fleet and plan. While the current meta is SAS heavy this doesn't mean you have to play like this yourself. Having more activations is nice but won'T win the game all by itself. PE can do without a flattop. Not as good as the RoF or against a CoA drone fleet but otherwise this is a viable option. Adler and K'Berg are both mediums. Wich means they are great damage dealers but weak damage takers. Every player with a little experience knows this. Mediums will be destroyed quickly if they attract attention. To use these to properly it takes practice. They are the epitome of PE doctrine. Hard hitting and mobile glass cannons. Potentially they can be devastating but make a mistake and they are lost without doing anything. This is where fleet compositions comes in. For mediums to work properly you need a distraction. You need bait and sacrifice units so the mediums get time to close in and do their job. Just sailing across the table straight towards the other fleet won't work. The Stolz is about the same as the K'Berg only as a small. From RB 2 and closer it is very dangerous and with AP3 they are very potent boarders but they are rather easy to neutralise. The tricky part ist getting them close without them getting mauled. Stolz are also rather expensives points wise so most players don't see them as expendable anymore. I would not split my SAS into groups of three unless I want to use them as CAP. While the PE fighters are tougher than their russian counterpart in squadrons of 3 they only have AA6. Since against conventional SAS (not drones) its about wiping squadrons this usualy is not enough to get the job done. Let alone getting it done quickly. PE vs RC is an intresting set up since both fleets basically have the same general mode of operation. Both have very good close range firepower and are boarding happy. To get most of your units into their sweet spot you have to enter the russians'. This is tricky. Positioning and timing are important. Flying units help since they can't be shot at with P if within RB1. Getting there and staying there is the difficult part. For starters i would follow the usual PE modus operandi: Your smalls and meds shoot up their smalls. Your larges shoot up their mediums. All while manoeuvering to get close. After the softer units are neutralised board the hell out of the tough ones. Neutralised doesn't allways mean destroyed or sunk. Manoeuvering doesn't mean head on charge. The PE is a lot about manoeuvre. You need to use available cover (terrain, your ships and his ships). Find spaces that are un- or only weakly covered by the opponents fire arcs etc. Tesla and devastating ordonace is nice but not required. IMHO its often wastly overrated. Its mostly a psychological thing. Devastatig ordonance might do something really nasty but usually it just adds one or two hits to the 10 or more you allready scored. Most players react out of proportion to the lightning rods. This is a tool and can be used but it won't win games all by itself. The most important part about tesla and Speerschleudern is the fact that they are redoubtable and the AP hit. To build a usefull fleet in wich the units synergise and (very important) wich you like takes practice.
  14. Personally I would argue that faithwarriors description is outdated or rather narrowed down. The PE used to be boarding centric. This has changed for quite some time though. The released units are all far more balanced and in some cases completly useless as boarder. With 2.0 PE gunnery and tesla became much more potent. To the point where PE gunnery vessels can outshoot allmost anyone in RB2 and 1. Tesla also isn't just a AP draining gimick anymore. Its a highly effective weapon system in its own right. While the "old" or "classic" PE units only carry Tesla as tertiary weapon system with lowish AD and range this is not true for the new ones anymore. Currently it is possible to build highly effective sas, gunnery, tesla or boarding centric PE fleets and all are capable of winning. The first three by only using coup de grace boarding like other nations do. The chance of a certain type of fleet to win is different depening on opponent nation though. I would rank them sas, tesla, boarding and gunnery for easiest to use to most difficult. This also depends a lot on the lokal meta though. Against experienced players boarding centric play is much more difficult than against new players. Winning with a gunnery centric PE fleet is challenging... and highly rewarding. Its bascially about getting into RB1 without taking to much damage. In RB1 units like the Hussar or Stolz can throw AD that makes most other nations weep. Take a K'Berg as KoB ally and it gets Close Quater gunnery too. The fact that PE lacks defense or survivability is true though. At least for most units. Most PE units rely on manoeuvre and positioning as primary defense. Allthough there are some units the are very though. To the point that they seem to be floating or flying blocks of steel. Its about combing damage sponges, bait or sacrifice units and damage dealers. Use these properly and PE doesn't need shields, extra DR or CR or defensive generators.
  15. I am not sure about attaching a Donnerfaust or a Havel to a squadron of Uhlans. But the Uhlan is a very flexible and potent vessel. Especially in this case. It brings good AA, lots of AP and is fast. Close Quater Gunnery and Lethal Strike Mines are just the icing on the cake. Rievers are also good for their points but IMHO they have a different use. Rievers are small and medium hunters. They have lots of weapons systems and from RB2 on they can engage multipe targets all round. Once they mingle they can quickly neutralie small squadrons or pick off escorts. The Uhlan is better against mediums and larges than the Riever. On unit that is often overlooked nowadays is the Hussar. Its a very potent vessel. Its a very good brawler and it also has AP5 and comes in squadrons of 3. Simplyfied its a slower two turret Uhlan without mines. Squadrons of Hussars make very good advance or flanking units. Mediums in general are pretty effective in a drone heavy battle. They usually bring good AA for their points and come in squadrons of 3. Firing the AA at approaching drones befor they can start their attack run often causes enough damage so the actual attack run becomes less dangerous. Allways remember its not about wiping drone squadrons but bringing the number of its tokens down. Once its down to one or two tokesn it is better ignored. Switch targets and bring the next squadron down.
  • 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.