Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by draco84oz

  1. After seeing the preview pics of the Italian ships , and looking at my (unpainted) Italian fleet, it got me thinking... what is the political status of Italy at this point? Are they still city states, or has Garabaldi been successful? I suppose my ultimate question is - do the Papal States still exist? Or is it just Vatican City?
  2. Also, it depends on the scale of the game itself - not the model scale or the size of the battle, but the scale of the battlefield. Even in Battlefleet Gothic, it was acknowledged that the ships only made up a couple of fractions of a mm on the stand's stem, rather than the ships being to scale to each other and the battlefield - and BFG was a game where you could fly between a planet and its orbiting moon (for example, Luna is 250,000 miles from Terra). So, if you're doing a "close" action of several dozens of thouands of miles range, with what would be very low amounts of terrain (if any at all), vector movement might be a viable option, as the ships would be vectoring about trying to get shots at that range. But at larger scales, where full planets and asteroid fields come into it, vector movement wouldn't be a viable choice. Instead, the physical and temporal scale of the game would allow ships to accelerate, decelerate etc. over the space of a turn, making standard movement a more representative option.
  3. I've added a quote to my OP, which I believe is actually quite a good one - whilst I agree that non-newtonian movement mechanics do allow a more accessible game, I am not against having optional rules available that allow all players to have a chance to play. After all, more players out there means more chance for you to play. I'm also not against trying these rules at least once. If I don't like them, well, nothing lost. And if I do get the hang of them, then there's something new I can try.
  4. Hey guys - just thought I'd put this up here for your reference. I got it out of a ruleset I have floating around the place called Starmada. The base game is actually fairly straight forward, and has a conventional movement system (and simultaneous movement, requiring recording of a maneuver each turn), but the rulebook also includes optional vector movement rules for those who want to use them. To quote the previous page of the rulebook: "It seems that those who play space combat games are irreconcilably divided into two camps: those who believe there is no reason to fiddle with any sort of "realistic" movement system, as the intent of the game is to have fun; and those who believe the absence of realism prevents the game from being fun. Obviously, Starmada's basic rules fall distinctly into the former category - however, there's no reason why devotees of the latter philosophy should be left out in the cold. Thus, we present these optional rules for vector movement." Please note that Starmada uses hex bases, and techncially uses a hex playmat (although I believe it can be adapted to use a standard play area), and uses the hexes to determine fire arcs etc. But even so, I believe that this is a good (and somewhat easier to understand) example of what a vector movement system looks like. Use as you will
  5. Warcradle people: Whilst I am eager to learn WWX, budgetary constraints mean that I don’t really have the funds to buy new models. That said, what I do have is a collection of Dystopian Legion models. It has been stated in the past that eventually, the other factions of the Dystopian World will be integrated into WWX, but that’s a fair ways off. However, thought - would it be possible for Warcradle to provide “get you by” lists that would enable the old Legions players to get started in WWX with their existing models? The lists don’t have to be extensive or include all the characters, or include any more than once posse list, but somthing like that would be a great gesture to the community. It could also encourage them to buy some of the WWX range to expand further. And, yes, I am aware of the fluff arguments against using the Legions models in the Wild West, but who says all the battles are in the old west, and not on the Canadian Frontier? Or the Australian Outback (ooooh - steampunk Ned Kelly - yes please!) And why can’t Antarctican Comandoes be pursing some obscure objective on the Frontier?
  6. Whilst considering that Warcradle is completely within their rights to change things, my I point you in the direction of the Firestorm Invasion rulebook? The intro fluff gives you an idea of some of the numbers involved in the war, and the preparations for one of the early major battles. To answer alextroy’s question in short - the available numbers are massive (you’ve got multiple planets of multi-billion populations to draw from). But, that said, the FSA rulebook mentions that even a corvette is a significant investment for a stellar nation, which is why FSD escape is a possibility. Make of that what you will.
  7. To take a sci-fi example - in the Honorverse, it is noted that not all ships that end up hors de combat end up as wrecks or rapid expanding clouds of gas. Mostly, especially for Ships of the Wall, once they've taken enough damage, they'll roll to impsose their wedges (effectively an impenetrable shield), and then try to disengage. This is aided by fairly sophisticated stealth systems and running silent - but the ship is still out of the battle. Other ships will simply become gutted wrecks from overwhelming fires, the crew incapacitated by casualties and thus unable to function, or, in extreme cases, the containment on one of their fusion reactors fails, with predictable results. In game terms, each of these really is the same effect - the ship is no longer able to function or provide firepower, and so is removed to prevent confusion and clutter. In campaign terms, I would agree that most "dead" ships do manage to escape (either doing an emergency shunt out, going silent or just boosting for all they're worth), and will eventually make it back to base - although they'll require massive refits afterwards. The only exception would probably be Catastropic damage rolls like reactor explosions or FSD implosions, where there isn't much of the ship left afterwards. And also add a roll where a ship that dies from 0 HP has a chance to die pernamently - either the crew is unable to stabilize the damage and the ship is either abandoned or blows up off-board, or the repair crews decide it's just cheaper to build a new ship rather than repair the damaged one.
  8. Id say theyre more likely to be the Watchers.
  9. So, this particular Spartan Refugee has been considering picking up maybe a few models from WWX and maybe even getting into the game if its decent enough (hell, the Wayward 8 models alone are enough to get me interested...). I also understand that the Gunfight at Red Oak box is considered the "official" starter set. Problem is, though, with the exception of the Wayward 8 for the Outlaws, and the Deadly 7 for the Lawmen, neither the Outlaw or Lawmen factions really interest me. If anything, I'd be more interested in the Union, Confederates, Order and the Crown, if the latter ever gets any releases. Can you guys suggest an alternate investment other than the Red Oak box that I can buy as a starter for the game? Allow me to play a few matches to see if I want to seriously into it? And any other purchases that would go along with them (cards etc.)?
  10. Nope, it is the Fold Space Drive, and for two of the factions, Fold Space Nodes are vital to making the transit - without one, you can't make the jump, unless you do it blind. But in space, blind jumps are definitely not the way to go.
  11. Another thing that could also bear consideration - how strictly are we sticking to Newtonian physics for space battles? Battletech, the Expanse, and the Honorverse, for example, stick to a very strict interpretation, with vectors, acceleration/deceleration etc. being important considerations when engaging an enemy, and ranges being in the millions of kilometers. As a side of that, if Newtonian physics are used, can the ships reach higher accelerations via the use of Inertial Compensators, are are the physical limitations of the crew a factor in combat? Star Trek and Dropfleet Commander, on the other hand, have a much looser interpretation - Dropfleet through the use of Gravity Nullifiers that allow ships to make combat maneuvers without having to worry about proper orbital speeds, and Star Trek never really explains why their ships seem to be able to maneuver at will without gravity making much of an effect (except when required for dramatic purposes). In game terms, I think we're pretty much given that we're either working with Newtonian physics, but doing so on a much much larger scale than first thought (the game board is a significant part of a star system, full acceleration/deceleration considerations are made as part of the movement phase, game turns are actually longer periods of time), or the the fleets have maneuvered already into a stationary aspect relative to each other before engaging (even though the velocity of the engagement relative to the star system could be a lot higher) ------------------------------- In terms of FTL travel, I think there are, classically, four ways to approach it. The first is that the speed of light is a definite barrier - even after another dozen centuries, we still haven't been able to prove Al Einstein wrong. In this scenario, interstellar travel either happens at relativistic speeds (eg. The Forever War), or travel between systems requires the use of Gates/Wormholes (eg. Freelancer, Gates of Antares, and also The Forever War). The latter does allow for some interesting things with regards to defensive actions. It also asks the question, if ships can only move at relativistic speeds between stars, do the crew stay awake during the transit, or do they use some form of Suspended Animation so that they don't die of old age whilst getting to the battlefield. It also asks the question, if ships require gates to move around, how are those gates built in the first place? Did colonisation happen in spurts as each wave of gates was built via long-term travelling probes before the colonists moved in, or was there a network of gates to begin with - and if the latter, who built them (see the Mass Relays from the Mass Effect series)? The second is the use a different dimension - for example, the Warp in Warhammer 40k, Witchspace from the Elite series, and the respective versions of Hyperspace in the Honorverse, Babylon 5 and Star Wars (and in Azimov's The Robots universe as well, to some extent). In this version, a ship will transfer itself into a separate dimension where either distances are compressed, or the laws of Physics don't apply, allowing it to reach previously unavailable speeds. This is probably one of the more interesting ones, as it allows ships to make daring drops and jumps to hyperspace in dramatic fashion, as well as allowing for navigational errors. The third option is the "Jump Drive", similar to that of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, the Shock Drive from Deadspace, the Kearny-Fuchida Drive from Battletech, and (as far as I can tell) the Fold Space Drive from Dropfleet Commander. With this drive, the ships utilise a large amount of energy to instantaneously y teleport itself from one point in the universe to another - the range of the drive is limited by the amount of energy it takes, and navigational aids at the other end. To some extent, I've always considered the Shunt Drive in the Firestorm Universe to be this version. The final option for FTL travel is the "Warp Drive", where the ship generates a field of some kind which allows it to "bend" the laws of physics whilst still in normal space. Examples of this are the Warp Drive from Star Trek, Frame Shift Drive from the Elite Series, the Element Zero Mass Effect from the Mass Effect Series, and even the most promising interstellar drive theory from the real world, the Alcubierre Drive. With this option, ships still take time to move from point to point, but they do so at high c values - one of the limits and potential for drama is how high those c values can go for an individual ship, and at what point in proximity to a gravity well that the drive can safely activate.
  12. Spartan - you just launched your Firestorm Universe expansion kickstarter, but there are reports that backers from the Dystopian Wars Kickstarter haven't received anything yet. Are you using the funds from one KS to pay for the production of the previous one? Because that is a slippery slope, and starting another KS before the first one ships is a massive slap in the face to your other backers. Seriously???
  13. Expanding on @Hive's idea... Two types of cloaks - Black Cloak and Blue Cloak, each referring to the type of dice it changes incoming/outgoing fire into. Black cloaks on Large ships and probably battlecruisers/gunships/heavy cruisers, as well as the RSN Spook (to tie into its fluff). Blue cloaks on other Relthoza ships and other races that use cloaks. New MAR (Standard on Relthoza Battleships, Carriers and Dreads, hardpoint option on Relthoza Battlecruisers, Heavy Cruisers and Gunships) - Stealth Field - if a ship with a Blue Cloak is within x" of a friendly vessel with this MAR, it counts as having a Black Cloak. If a ship with no cloak is within X" of a friendly ship with this MAR, it may count as having a Blue Cloak, but whilst doing so, it's shield value is 0. Neither of these effects may not be used if the ship with the MAR has a shields offline persistent effect This makes putting heavy cruisers in Cruiser squadrons and battle cruiser/frigate squadrons a little more viable (since it'll upgrade the blue cloaks, straight away), it'll make the Relthoza an interesting ally for some, and it will allow the creation of "drone" ships for the Relthoza (Basically an engine, a gun array at the front, no cloak and no crew, but can be taken as an accompaniment for a Large/Massive ship, as well as squads on their own).
  14. IIRC, that's always been the idea of cloaks - whatever effect impacts on incoming fire also effects outgoing fire. What about a variable cloak hardpoint? The ability to switch between a basic and heavy dice cloak at will? Probably limit it to large ships and heavy cruisers. Plus you can then have varied cloak strengths for different ships.
  15. The discussion so far seems to be based around the defensive capabilities of the cloak, but what about the offensive part of it? A lot of the discussion I've seen previously (ie 2.0) about Relthoza cloaks is that it turned into a game of chicken in some respects - it wants guessing game as to when to drop the cloak, as too early and you just get swatted, and too late and you didn't have enough time to do significant damage to the enemy. this new cloak, however, seems to be a bit of a boost to Relthoza offensive capabilities. Instead of having to hold fire until close (since shooting out was basically pointless) you can now do a more constant stream of fire as you close. Would that be a decent offset of the lack of defenses? Although Spartan will probably have to rewrite the fluff a bit, since the cloak was a major part of how the Relthoza saw the hunt in a cultural sense - the ambush was all...
  16. Two things about that: 1: the only blast they have is on the battleship, which is arguable the most expensive battleship in the game, and its average AD is 10-11. The CoA looks at that and laughs, as they can get that reliably on their battleship or even cheaper on their gunship. And the heavy cruisers get a cruiser-weight energy beam. Again, ice penguin laughs when compared to the Cleomedes or even the Plato. 2: that theorem relies on that one weapon smashing the enemy Fleet from range - but it's not the fleet's only weapon, and it's certainly not their primary weapon. In my view, the Eye of Ra (and the rockets to some extent as well) is designed to provide the RoE a measure of long ranged firepower so they don't just have to weather the barrage as they try to get into range of their broadsides - and, in my view, it's the broadsides that are the main power of the Fleet. if you were to try to exchange long range firepower in an artillery duel, the FSA would bombard you to scrap, the CoA energy turrets would cut you to pieces, and the EotBS would burn you to the waterline with their incendiary rockets.
  17. So they've basically evolved into the Reapers...
  18. Could you possibly update the OP to include a comparison of the two sets of cloak rules? It'll save time for people in the long run. (and to answer the question, I'm currently sitting on a bus and I don't know where my orange book is at my place...)
  19. According to the fluff, most of their larger "drone" equipment is Tele-operated, and most of the smaller stuff has limited decision trees that can be overridden by operators. But enough about the covenant - this thread is about the sand penguins, not their ice-loving cousins.... ---------------- The Egyptians certainly do have an interesting list - close ranged with swarms of drones for support, but there does appear to be a bit of a lack of mid-weight options - their cruiser is a heavy, their only other medium choice is a carrier, so not really a line unit...I can see Egyptian forces either being very top heavy or relying heavily on their frigates and corvettes instead. i can see the corvettes racing forwards under the cover of drones, frigates and blasts to tie up the enemy whilst the heavier units manever into position to bring their broadsides to bear. A bit like the russians in that respect, but they don't really have anything in the way of any sort of long-range firepower options that can be included.
  20. I think it was more a case of in an attack run, the drone was the weapon - a drone is probably little more than a sturginium reactor, with an energy projector on one end, a nozzle on the other, and wings in between. Don't bother arming them with bombs, just let them impact and let the core breach do the rest. Its also a good way to stop technology falling into potentially unfriendly hands.
  21. Similar to the DW variant of Ablative armour? +X to your DR/CR until you're below half HP? That would eliminate the hardpoint option of removing the MAR. Would that in turn require the number of hardpoint slots on Dinz ships to be reduced?
  22. Ah well, guess my Peregrine Sky Fortress is going to get converted... Cheers for that.
  23. *Omnium Somniae Surakar Domino...* sorry to necro this thread, but I thought I'd do so rather than start a new one. with the 2.5 rules, would this opinion about allied carriers still be valid? Reason I ask is that I'm looking to include a Forbes Blimp in my Australian mercs list, and I wanted to know if I should differentiate the SAW that come from the Forbes - especially if they're the only flyers that can be rebuilt. if not, I've got some rotor parts that were originally slated for an Eagle conversion...
  24. Specifically with the Italians? Not an option at this point - they only have access to naval and aerial forces. And their Landing field doesn't have an option for infantry support. The only option you have is to get some allies - specifically bunkers which allow you to include infantry support.
  25. Edit: Much better answer above
  • 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.