Jump to content

The Bastard

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Bastard last won the day on July 28 2014

The Bastard had the most liked content!

About The Bastard

  • Rank
  1. I like the paintscheme, its weird and technically very difficult to do.
  2. People love me! Woo! Anyway. For FSA I would say this instead: The FSA are a force that is all about keeping enemies at arms length in order to hobble them before they can bring their (often stronger) close ranged weapons to bear. The FSA have good and reliable guns, are very good at destroying enemy air forces and attaining air superiority, but suffer from being very easy to damage and rely on striking first and striking harder.
  3. I still disagree about the Liberty simply because having good RB4 firepower is better than having good RB1 firepower. Being able to smash cruisers reliably from Range band 3-4 with the FSA commodore ability is incredible. With so many people bringing mediums now, the Liberty is really good at controlling their involvement in the battle before they get involved. The Liberty's turrets at RB3 and 4 should generally not be linked and aimed at Mediums and Battlecruisers rather than the enemies larger ships. Use your aircraft and smaller ships to kill enemy heavies.
  4. Good post, Falconer, but I would say that FSA is not tougher in Britain, I actually think that once you take everything into account, the FSA are probably the most glass-cannonish of the primary factions simply because the other factions generally retain their power while taking damage and have access to good ways to avoid damage.
  5. If that's the way your gaming group plays, Spam TAC cards until they realise how much they are losing simply by spending the points to cancel.
  6. Which is all the more reason to do it rather than listen to those Tyrants who want to hog all the super-weapons to themselves.
  7. No, I don't have a picture yet. But talking to Spartan on Facebook, they said that the American plane will be the next one spoiled. Also this: I would look more towards a big aircraft...with rockets and big engines and.....well....big.. So...Big and it has Rockets. Much Interest.
  8. I personally love the Zeno. A trio of those suckers have a huge Particle Accelerator fusillade, a pair of up to 20 dice Broadsides and 5 Elite AP each. With a single Teleport, they can turn a game with a pair of 20 AD attacks (use the 3 Pip deployment like the '3' on a dice to open both broadsides) and then board something else if your opponent isn't able to board them well back. Edit: Also the French Battlecruiser is nasty, but you just have to blow them out at long range. Long Range shooting is very powerful in this game simply because Prussians, French and Russians exist. They are too strong to brawl with in close range, so you need to bring Long Range shooting to fight these on equal terms.
  9. Delboy and Playtesters! Anyone there? I would love to hear about Brittanian Raj and also the Heavy Bombers please! If you do that, I'll throw a shiny coin down the playtester well in the town.
  10. We can speculate about this model until the cows come home, but so far I'm not seeing anything but a bigger bomber. I mean thats cool and I like the concept, heavy and super-heavy bombers are important in modern history, but what would a heavy Bomber bring? I mean the Valley class Skyship brings a metric frak-tonne of bombs, but its too slow to really use them well, but if it were faster it would need to be easier to kill. Heavy bombers will need to be careful to be balanced in the game and I'm curious about where they will fall in general around speed, Bomb Load, defences, etc. EDIT: some thoughts: - Heavy Bombers may be like flying Monitors, with small weaponry based around a single, powerful weapon, with that weapon being Bombs rather than a large cannon. - Imagine if the Heavy Bombers came in squadrons of 1-2 with 3 Bomb Bays each with a Bombs rating of 6 and area bombardment. Massive Bomb Loads for heavies or devastating area bombardment. - The other weapons are things like small guns and short range defences. Its all about reaching the target. - DR4-5/ CR 6-7 with 6 health each.
  11. Its around the same of many other dreads at RB4...
  12. Rather than point at Magic the Gathering which has altogether too much money to throw at game design I would look at something like Privateer Press, who manage to make a very well balanced game with a small team of internal designers. It seems that we aren't going to resolve this. I'm taking a slightly Utopian view that game imbalances can be resolved to the extent where every (or at least most) ship has a purpose and is worth taking on its own grounds. You are taking less optimistic view, as far as I can understand, and believing that the construction structure allows for spamming imbalances to be avoided.
  13. Hmm I won't Quote you because I hate it when Quotes start getting massive in a thread. Alright, well there are 3 parts to your post: 1. Optional Rules: Well the thing I find with optional rules is that they are inherently considered to be 'imbalanced' by players. I have seen this again and again in games. Optional rules rarely become permanent hacks into games because they seem to change the game into something weird and non normative. With these games, there are 2 broad ways of playing the game (which link into existing notions of hobby) which are linked to player size. There is playing for mastery. You play to get better at the game, try something new, try facing something new or try a new approach to the game. This is where you play a pick up game with a friend or an unknown person and you play as close to the rules as possible simply because you can't really increase your mastery by adding deviations to the standard template. This is a lot better when you have a smaller group of players. Then there is playing for Diversion. You play over a few hours to have fun with a group of friends. You are taking what you want (rather than what is best), wanting to tell a story or whatever you want. This is where you can organise optional rules and hacks to your games, but it takes more planning and generally a closer friend to play. This is more likely to happen when you have more players with an organised play base. (I say Diversion, rather than Fun, because that implies that Mastery games aren't fun, which isn't the case). Optional is also used by many game companies to create rules or hacks that 'aren't balanced or as well balanced as the rest of the game, which keeps mastery players away because whats the point in learning something when your opponent can simply claim OP (rightly in many cases) and not allow you to use it? I prefer to not have optional rules, but to allow people to use everything and make sure that all rules are important and well balanced. 2. Percentage Systems: OK, maybe I have been misstating my position but its not so much that Percentage systems are bad, its that I feel that they are unneeded. What is bad is the random flipped missions. If someone wants to take an army of only larges, I feel that that should be allowed and as a skew list it should have its own set of huge strengths and weaknesses. If someone wants only smalls, then they should also have its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Percentage systems, to me, seem to indicate that there are larger issues in the rules which make certain things better than others and that they are just slapping a band aid solution to this imbalance through a percentage system restricting the use. Honestly I didn't mind the limited Use rule and would prefer for that to still exist for deviations of strength rather than percentages. There are issues in the system which is why the Percentage systems exist, and at a simple level I would think that the basic ones are: 1. Boarding (this is why allowing 100% of points in smalls is disallowed generally to prevent Corvette hordes) 2. The relative power of Larges and Massives with greater DR/CR (Why Larges aren't allowed since it makes certain weapons and squadrons obsolete through only taking larges with large DR/CR, Shields and high AA and CC). I would prefer that rather than simply saying "You can't take these things, because its broken" I would prefer that they fix the systemic issues which cause spamming these things to be broken, rather than just strong with a weakness. 3 Scenarios: With a game with such strict movement rules, Dystopian Wars doesn't really do much with positioning, all it is used to get close to board, get closer to shoot or stay away to not get shot. Scenarios requiring positioning could easily make these movement rules matter. I might work on some and see what happens.
  14. The problem is that since this is a game, closer to a board game, and not a roleplaying game, optional rules just cause issues much of the time. You can try and remove issues in the system by saying 'they are optional' but by that theory so is anything else in the rulesset. Look at Warhammer 40k, for instance. In 3rd edition using Special Characters is up to the opponents consent, which meant that they barely ever got used because requiring consent implies that they aren't balanced, or that they shouldn't be used. When in Warhammer 40k they removed this restriction, then players were able to actually use the Characters in the books that the designers made simply because they could turn up with them and not be knocked back by another player. You really shouldn't leave aspects of your game in the hands of another player, it just doesn't help innovation. So yes, I could play the game and create scenarios, I could ask to remove the Percentage based System and the Mission System and design it into something better balanced and more able to represent the variation within fleets, or I could say that I feel that these systems could be better designed in the base game because thats what I truly feel and thats what I would prefer. The reason I have mentioned scenarios because they force the players to build their forces and engage with the enemy in a more tactical way. Rather than deciding how best to kill your opponent in the shortest amount of time (because that leads to the ability to have maths based 'solutions' to fleets) you get players to engage in a meta game of scenario and control. I mean currently I have little reason to not deploy close to the board edge, and facing my Broadsides to the enemy with my FSA. My opponents always groan and roll my eyes and sometimes complain simply because I am trying to maximise the abilities of my fleet. Russian opponents get annoyed with the amount of Firepower I can put downfield where all they do is advance and get shot for a bunch of turns. If position based scenarios existed, then my opponents would simply do them and I would lose, meaning that I need to block them off, spending points and strategy to actually engage in the table rather than just picking targets and rolling dice.
  • 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.