Jump to content

Captaincandle

Member
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Captaincandle last won the day on October 2 2021

Captaincandle had the most liked content!

About Captaincandle

  • Rank
    Spica

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  1. Hey mate, I hope you guys enjoy the weekend, it sounds like it will be a lot of fun. 1) There are at least one flying unit I am aware of in the game (X52 Patriot Automata for the Union), and my understanding is that the intention is for the developers to release more and more. There has been a sequence of releases over time to get the naval stuff going first. Likely we will see more stuff over the next year, but I cannot confirm anything. 2) The release communication for Warcradle is quite poor, I agree. Another user here mentioned the same thing, and that they actually felt way more engaged with a game as they got that communication. Not to say that's for everyone, but I totally get you. The main activity I'm aware of is a facebook group, but as with all things facebook that has a considerable amount of cons with it. I'm not on it, and have only interacted in passing so I can't comment on how much the business communicates with people there. However, Warcradle has been actively changing the ORBATs fairly regularly, as well as consistent model releases so I would say they are still reasonably engaged with the game. 3) Lol, yeah, this forum is super inactive. It's like 6-10 people occasionally posting. I'm not aware of any other area sadly so can't help you on this one. I'm usually around to reply but only having one person is bad because there would be SO MANY things I don't think of or don't know. Hopefully it picks up with some interest. You're right to worry, I've listed some concerns myself regarding the game. Models are all well and good, and some people just collect... but most buy to play the game, so that is where the focus needs to be. If you have old models, use those at the least and play a few games. That way you have a data point to decide if you like it enough to invest or not. I'm a proponent of try something first at the least (generally speaking). I have my suspicions about the intentions of the business... but I think we can really only make decisions based on what we can observe, and so far they have been mostly active at this stage.
  2. G'day Geekoo, I won' repeat what c2k has mentioned, they are great answers and not much more to be said. I'll tackle your other questions. 1) Sadly no. This will answer question 2 as well. The game is different enough to describe them as different formats, it's not really something you could meaningfully convert across and get the same impact. I won't say you can't interpret intent, but that is a far cry from hard conversion of numbers I'm afraid. In every ORBAT (refer to C2K's answer to question 7 here) there is a table at the bottom of the document detailing which new class the old vessels relate to for an easy reference. Note some scales are different in the new game, but that shouldn't impact play at a technical level. 3) This is a long one, and I won't wall-of-text you (I already do too much of that here). It's a re-work of the game from the ground up, however, it maintains to varying degrees the aesthetics and the mechanical feel of the older game. Primarily, simplification overall, complete rework of SRS and as I mentioned above, the stats used to play the game. If you want a longer answer, Happy to do so, just let me know. 4) When you say personalise do you mean change the weapons on the vessels of different classes? I don't remember custom ship rules so I will assume that's what you mean (correct me if I am wrong). That is very much still an aspect of the game to greater or lesser extents depending on the vessel. 6) Given that the models are a proprietary thing I highly doubt Warcradle sell 3d model details given that would undermine their only source of revenue for this game. However, i can't say for sure so you would need to approach them directly about that. I alluded to the scale/model thing in my answer 1, but fundamentally the intent seems to be to supersede the older models. It's better not to ACTUALLY think of this as V3, because that implies iterative improvement: it's a new game. 8) To my knowledge Warcradle doesn't host anything of the old games at all. I suspect you will need to go to other sources to find those.
  3. Oh OK. Usually they update that in a red colour. looks like gunnery attacks are the same. Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it.
  4. I've had a look and I'm not sure what you mean by support getting weaker. I've obviously missed something, could you explain where you found this?
  5. I also think there is a serious echo-chamber on the FB group that kinda obfuscates what non die-hard players are thinking which is a shame.
  6. I can understand that perspective. I think there is superficial tactics but they are limited. Terrain makes a big difference. I think the game has great potential, but there are some serious limitations right now to be honest. I have a detailed take on it (from my perspective) in the thread in General: Why Dystpopian Wars is heading for sales failure I still think it is heading that way. There isn't enough substance to the game to justify selling models. There are some die-hards that see good, but I can't agree, I think the game is poor in execution, and moderate in enjoyment. There is very little decision making. Take ships of the class that roll the most dice and go from there.
  7. I can only answer two of your questions sorry mate. You don't need bases for the models (but you raise an excellent point about orientation and angles, missed opportunity by the model designers there). They are very sturdy and unless you do something that would damage any model, they won't get damaged through usage. The fleet points value (and the rules) are all free on the "Pick a Faction" link on the dystopian wars web page. you can jump on, download the ORBATYS for free and go from there.
  8. Best bet is to jump onto the website and look at the ORBATS (they are free after all). I've had about 30 games now, maybe more, and it's enjoyable in some ways for sure. Release is still ongoing.
  9. Yeah, I think the forums are pretty much gone. Some people like myself hoping to get some better focus for the game still hanging around. Had some good conversations but I sense my expectations for the game are quite different to others. But you can read that in my big thread in the general forum. I don't think the game is up to standard right now, it's just not good enough to compete with other tabletop wargames on the market. Still has enormous potential to do so though.
  10. So, nothing about this ship is any better than a Borodino minus the prow ram (which isn't particularly important). There are very minor differences (borodino has 14 citadel, Brittania has 15; but Borodino is faster by 1), but the Borodino is is over 40 points cheaper AND has an actually useful generator (because the guardian is straight up useless unless you buy a shield generator or have one in bumping-up-against-it range (which seriously sacrifices tactical options) and 4 dice is pathetic compared to shroud generators giving obscured. The logic behind it makes no sense. Nothing about it is "heavy" outside of it being slower than most battleships... I just can't follow the logic.
  11. Yeah that would be nice. I've mentioned before it could be that there are whole bunch of reasons that make sense for this stuff, but they are invisible to me so I need to try and look at it best I can with what we have.
  12. Yeah, I mentioned a few times that those opinions were based only on observation, not play experience. I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. I don't see subs with minor differences in torpedos (likely the ones already being used in ORBATs as seen in Antartica and Crown) making meaningful changes to the game. Existing subs certainly don't. In fact, when those units appear, I think that will further expose the problems with gunnery having exactly two different options between all factions. But that point is covered in my OP. I won't repeat it here. The thing with the armour is the difference in armour didn't change. Because BB's really only have 2 guns (although this works with 3 guns as well), while cruisers will kill them slower, so too, will BB's kill cruisers slower (now having the armour carriers used to have). Cruisers are not significantly different in cost; ~30-40 points if you buy a full squadron (so not even a destroyer in most cases). It revolves around cost benefit analysis. The cruisers hit harder, are harder to kill and don't meaningfully cost more points, and don't cede VP's unless you kill the whole squadron. BB's are tougher, for sure, but crippling them makes them basically output no damage, and you got a VP for that (well, you opponent lost one, but mathematically same thing). The cap to make a BB useless is way lower than cruisers, or even mass 1 ships. I don't see BB's getting better ever, you need a considerable overhaul of the game I don't see them doing. I will continue to buy the cheapest BB I can, give it a shroud generator and try to manage damage as best I can. I will never explore them, because the fundamental reasons that make them bad are a core game mechanic, with only 2 I have identified that are actually good (The Hypatia and the Tobolsk) because those two ships don't use that base mechanically idea (i.e. three guns, must sacrifice one for a generator and must traverse the game board). I don't play those factions so never gonna buy them. This is the problem I forsee for the game. As people play, I think players will come round on this point. There will be experimentation of course, but once the population realises that there are objective winners in each ORBAT (because of the inflexibility of the game design style currently used) players won't buy the other stuff, and that will likely kill the game. We can keep saying "it's just beta" but the problems I see are pretty structural, it's not something an ORBAT tweak is going to fix, hence my unconvinced perspective on the recent update. I mean, you can't even get AA support/anti-torpedo vessel screens anymore because of the design of the game, and that's a key reason rockets and torps are so good. Big pools, crappy defensive stats in a huge amount of cases. It also takes away flavour from the game in my opinion. As I have said a few times though, I really hope I'm wrong... I just don't think I am in this case .
  13. OK, actually spent some time covering the rules update (unfortunately we STILL can't play yet ), so none of this following is grounded in experience. Firstly, kinda confused. the slightly up-armouring and slowing (generally) of capital ships is unusual. This might make them comparably more resilient if cruisers didn't experience the same attention, so I'm not seeing why. Games were finishing too quickly? I guess most of our games were easily decided by turn 3, but it's hard to see how the game will meaningfully change in this regard? The primary issue is deeper. I won't know what kind of effect it has on gameplay until I can role dice, but capital ships got overall worse IMO, not better. They don't put out any more firepower than a cruiser still (assuming shroud generator for survivability) but their main threat got harder to kill? Like, going to armour 8 doesn't much change the fact that the deciding ship class is still well and truly cruisers, and a squad of them will still laugh and obliterate a capital ship (with a few exceptions). Gun batteries just seem to get less interesting and viable with each release, which actually surprises me. I'd have thought cool weapons were a choice, not an auto-include... Like, a single capital ship spits 15 dice tops (in RB2 only) with a generator (again, with a few exceptions) when configured with guns. That was.... already pathetic, now it's pretty eyebrow raising. I'm virtually always going to configure my capital ship away from guns because I kinda have to. Just about anything is else is better in a wide variety of scenarios. Rockets cover you better in RB1 and 3, railguns reduce armour and citadel for crits, etc. I mean, if the intention is to make weapon choices as similar as possible to each other as far as raw damage potential, why bother having different guns? I'm really confused. Surely the goal would be have a variety so role, scenario, local meta, local faction choices, etc. actually impact list building? Currently that really isn't the case. Unless we are blind-playing factions, I just pick biggest dice pool, with really only other considerations going to effects in rare cases (like Gustavs with hazardous for example). Perhaps this might be looked at later? It's hard to tell what to make of these changes. Perhaps a lot of people were complaining about small ships being too good (definitely the case with the old pack-hunter rule) but that's been pretty well rectified. Again, if you standardise guns, the Devs corner themselves to have to make ALL squadrons viable through dice potential, so all destroyers will feel samey, all cruisers and all capitals ships... which is a current complaint, and a very valid one. I don't see how the current changes improved any of the core problems the game currently faces (in my view of course).
  14. Cheers for the heads up, I didn't know they had been updated again.
  15. I'm going to caveat this post by saying I'm annoyed that I saw VERY similar stats across nations on this topic, and found it easy to generalise. This swings back round to my OP about lack of substance differences between nations, and it seems it also extends to something like boarding. Very disappointing. There were two actual standouts: Prussia was solid at boarding, Antarticans weak as all merry hell (please avoid boarding if you can... acknowledging they are mainly a mid-short range nation). But yeah, very little differences otherwise. In assaults it might be good to avoid too much difference, I don't know. It would likely be something I accept if the rest of the game didn't have the same issue. OK, I've sat down to look at Assaults across the different factions and in ~70% of cases assaults are a bad idea. There are a whole bunch of caveats in this topic, because what opponent you assault and when has a pretty drastic impact on how likely you will be to cause damage. Generally, a rule of thumb is unless you are Prussian, specifically a mass 1 unit that is still full with voltaic weapons, don't assault capital ships. It's got to be the one thing capital ships are actually good at doing (sadly because boarding is one of those rarely used tools because it is tactically opportunistic in nature, outside of a Prussian lightning assault unit using speed to close) but ultimately, the math speaks for itself, they are insanely hard to overcome when boarding, even when crippled. Cruisers are more achievable for a dedicated boarding group with full vessels, but when looking at averages for roles, a capital ship will struggle to overwhelm a cruiser meaningfully without repeated boarding attempts and being slower there is basically no way to keep that 4" range easily for more than one turn. Other cruisers are extremely high priority for gunnery fire when closing, so are unlikely to be at full strength when finally manoeuvring every ship into 4" of another cruiser (which feels pretty weak given you can be sure you're giving up good firing arcs just do do a few points of damage.... however if the unit has a decent combined broadside this might be viable as a way to kill a cruiser). Destroyers probably overall have the best chances of both boarding other destroyers or other sized vessels. Even here, they are barely scrapping in a point of two on average (except against another destroyer they will average kill it comfortably if all 6 are in 4 " of it but good luck manoeuvring into that mess of a formation). Again, Prussians with voltaic weapons on average have a much better time of this and I could legit recommend as an action you are intending to take in your planning. Whether you have +1's or +2's from rules can skew your unit into decent territory for boarding (pack hunter or lightning assault are two examples). Overall, Assault is quite weak, but opportunistically potentially OK. The issue is partly the on-paper numbers of dice... Citadels are just so high that the base pool plus support plus your highest defence dice pool is just way too high to meaningfully overcome unless you got the whole squadron in range. Even a destroyer is rocking an average of 11 dice in defence plus support ships... This hits the tactical problem of it's actually really hard to do this in the field. You SHOULD be prioritising maximal range firepower. That's not to say that opportunities don't present themselves to squeeze out a bit more efficiency through a boarding, and I encourage that kind of adaptable tactical thinking, but the units best suited for boarding get pretty clustered around a target and unless you are VERY careful in your planning (and even then, the chaos of a human making unusual decisions will regularly throw you) you'll be blocking shots through your own models a lot of the time. However, this all assumes the most optimal opportunity for attacker and defender. There will be cases where your full cruiser squadron is passing a lone cruiser and not firing in those arcs (as an example). Here, assuming you didn't interfere with your gunnery, it MIGHT be a good idea to board it with all three cruisers (one main, two support). You're dice are still VERY close to the line, and it's a risk. in raw numbers in the cruiser category (ignoring the Prussians for a moment) the Commonwealth and the Empire had some of the highest average numbers in cruiser assault dice, and that average was 12... in defence, across the board, you can expect cruisers to be somewhere in the 13 dice category in the are alone and un-crippled. That's doable but risky, especially when factoring in card options. You know what you have, but not your opponent so if you don't have a re-roll card in hand, it's pretty risky and honestly, it feels dumb to blow a re-roll card on a boarding action like that unless you are desperate (I've done it in desperation, still feels bad, usually means I'm losing badly too so it's unlikely to ****** me the game). Now there are occasionally times when you can make a unit look great at boarding on paper (the cryo cruiser for the Russians comes to mind). Beware angling towards that given how rare boarding is. I would always recommend look at the output of the unit over a game, not in a single instance (unless that instance is insanely decisive in nature). It's very very very easy to craft a scenario where a unit may be good, but think if that scenario is likely, easy to engineer on the table and regular in games. If the answer was no to most or all of those, that means it's probably not a good tactic or unit (depending on what you are assessing). There were some genuine standouts in the Prussian navy, and they can consistently board safely and reliably (that second one being the most important). I think boarding needs some tweaking, but the mechanic itself is actually really good, and gives a sense of fire and steel when you roll up next to a unit and give them cold steel. If it was a more reliable tool I might try and reach for it outside of opportunistic scenarios. I'm lucky, I've played a lot of my games as Prussians, so I knew the feel of assault well from their angle, and they are legitimately good at it... but sometimes manoeuvring into position can be a mess and result in problems with gunnery.
×
×
  • 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.