Jump to content

evilsockmonkeyzed

Member
  • Content Count

    450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

evilsockmonkeyzed last won the day on March 28 2013

evilsockmonkeyzed had the most liked content!

About evilsockmonkeyzed

  • Rank
    Altcap

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  • Interests
    Array
  1. Just to really complicate things, I would like to see the next system head in the other direction- rather than mass battles, scale it all down to single ship or squadron duels. Something like the old SFB by Amarillo games. Semi-simultaneous movement and combat. System power allocation and system specific damage allocation. Semi homing torpedoes moving on the board with the ships. CP represented on board. Adding detail would further differentiate between the factions. Prussians, French and CoA would have to manage power differently due to reliance on energy weapons. Generators might not be a guaranteed usable item if power systems are damaged. Depending on dice luck, the mant turrets of KoB ships might prove to be an advantage rather than a drawback. Big positive, another system to use with the same models. Downside, would be a completely different system to develop and would take forever to develop the stats for all if the existing units ( not to mention those to come). Would require a whole new bevy of play testers, Discuss.
  2. Bizarre contradictions are the inevitable price that we pay when mapping the 3 dimensional space in the air game onto the (mostly) two dimensional land or sea game. A possible alternative to the two (or three) altitude system would be to mount all air models on telescoping stands and measure distances and trace line of sight directly. While there are a number of systems out there that do exactly that, I think that the average DW player would rather invest his/her capital in more units rather than baroque flight stands. In my games, I'm pretty sure what the result of having my intricately painted sky fortress perched atop a narrow 24 inch rod would be... Contrary to the early views expressed in this thread, I believe that there are numerous cases where LOS from an air to surface unit or vice versa would be blocked. A Metzger or a Seydlitz would shield a nearby ironclads or infantry from all but the closest flying units. The same would apply to significant terrain features. A "medium" landship should be able to shelter directly behind a "large" forest. Conversely, a flying unit adjacent to the "large" wood should be able to have LOS to a medium unit 18 inches away. The rule as written seems a decent compromise between a true LOS/distance system and the "no blocking" house rules mentioned in the thread. Allowing terrain to shield flyers from ground fire helps their survivability.
  3. 2x for keeping the DW and DL/AC game mechanics separate. They not only provide for different scales, but allow for different player preferences. Better to adapt AC to add naval units than to combine the games. The consensus seems to be that DW better adapted for the air/naval game. It makes perfect sense to add another system to promote land units. I find it interesting that both DL and AC have been released as PDF "living documents" while DW retains the traditional format. It would seem likely to me that the Arch Fiend and his minions are testing the relative business benefits of both approaches. I would like to see DW as a "living document" where errors in the print edition are immediately corrected, errata and addendum are incorporated into the document and rules adjusted on an on-going basis. Unfortunately, the cost of having staff perform that kind of work on an on going basis might be judged too high compared to doing large overhauls all at once. While the benefit of adding an employee to cast more models is immediately apparent, the benefit of having a creative overhaul old product rather than produce new is much harder to quantify. When all is said and done, if SG doesn't make money, my ability to buy new, cool swag is reduced. That cannot be tolerated!!!!!
  4. Evil surly service is our goal here at ESMZ Co.
  5. Just as with our irrational insistence in using imperial measures, the American method of dating shorthand leads to confusion when dealing with the rest of the world. in this context 5/8/12 should be read as 5 August 2013.
  6. Who would breathe the dust? Everybody knows that you smoke it.
  7. Jarts!!!!! My parents refused to hand their set down to me when they heard "children" and "natural selection".
  8. I believe that we are talking about two "casting" sides. In other words, there is no detail, the sides in question are where they separate to convert from land to sea mode. The variation could be caused not by warping. it is almost impossible for the casting to be made truly level and square on the pouring sides. A better option to bending might be to sand the two pieces. Find a piece of flat stock- mdf, wood, glass etc. whose dimensions are larger than the two surfaces to be sanded. Using rubber cement or spray glue, affix a very fine grit sand paper to the block. You can then lighty sand the faces of both parts by gently rubbing them with a slow circular motion against the sand paper. Stop frequently to clean the dust from the sand paper and to regularly test the fit.
  9. Has anyone else noticed the "hatches" modeled into the space for the superstructure drop-ins on the Australian pocket battleships and sub tenders? On every other preceding model with such drop-ons, the designer didn't bother to put any detail in that area as it would either be permanently covered by the associated drop-in or ruined by the placement of surface magnets. So, any guesses? Does Spartan plan to release different superstructures to differentiate Dom from Free forces? Will there eventually be variations on the same base units? Perhaps the detail is an artifact of an earlier plan to ship variant superstructures to differentiate Dom and Free that was subsequently abandoned due to cost or complexity.... Actually painting the Aussies is a bit down the road for me, so there is time if there alternates to appear before I commit to how to handle them. At this point, I'm considering drilling up from the base and installing barrel rare earth magnets to accommodate any future variants. Thoughts?
  10. The existence of energy portals and energy vortexes really does open the door to alternate world/reality in the DW universe. I am sure that are plenty of players who choose to ignore those terrain features, but as soon as an Callimachus Orb is triggered for relocation, there is the question. FSA and DW share the lion's share of mechanics. It wouldn't take much to adapt to either a completely new system or a new theatre within the DW universe. What the heck happens to units that are sucked into a vortex, are lost transitioning from one portal to another or are a victim of a translocation gone wrong? Perfect excuse to use existing figures as well a an opportunity to introduce Aetheric ships, Void monsters and multiple alien races. Whether it is a new system a la Armoured Clash, a Studio Production or an official expansion of DW, much goodness could be had.
  11. Dystopian Wars does indeed allow for non-sea combat- all land and air units. The DW rules set is based on the model developed for Uncharted Seas and Firestorm Armada. The feel of the system is most definitely naval. The rules set for AC is similar to that used for Dystopian Legions. It is less tactical and fidgety. Where the basic unit in DW is (mostly) homogenous squadrons, AC uses varied regiments. Some land units were designed specifically for AC and then back adapted for use in DW. I believe that stats for both systems have been released for all currently available models. Why release two sets of rules for a similar genre? Why not? Two sets of rules gives the land player flexibility to play either or both based upon preference using the same minis. Anything that promotes mini sales will benefit Spartan and finally benefit us in more models to use. For my part, I'd like to see the develop an air only system as well.
  12. Dystopian Wars covers land sea and air. Armoured Clash uses land and seas forces. Both games use the same miniatures, but the game systems are quite different in terms of mechanics and scale. They are not compatible systems.
  13. I have less problem with the idea of a swarm of Ironclads boarding a land ship than I do boarders from ships assaulting airships. Seriously, what airship designer in the DW world would not equip the airship to drop everything including the kitchen sink onto the nimrods jetting or climbing up to attack your ship? Ack ack my sweet simian petootie. Save your rubbish to drop during combat. Problem solved. The real issue is simplicity. Much better the rule be that just about anything can board just about anything than 4 pages of interactions and exceptions.
  14. The shading on the canopy/shielding of the Daos is fantastic- pulling out just one of many great features. Great job, sir.
×
×
  • 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.