Jump to content

Captaincandle

Member
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Captaincandle last won the day on September 20

Captaincandle had the most liked content!

About Captaincandle

  • Rank
    Spica

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array
  1. Ah, yes, I agree with your reading of that. I have obviously conflated the attacker reading with the counter one.
  2. Every point of difference after 4 successes causes an additional hull point of damage. It can be way worse than 1 damage.
  3. Ah, excellent point, I completely forgot you can only turn off a generator when firing at a squadron! Those are some interesting ideas. they don't feel very good, for example, on a cruiser because the Huoquiang really needs to be fired independently against units, and cause damage to get it's benefits, which has only worked for me against destroyers. Point blank for guns is bad, but broadsides are OK in that range. I virtually never get to ram because anything that close is so damaged or dead I'd just lose the unit if I roll a "6". Interesting tactical ideas though, I'll be sure to give them a chance in some games (when I get the chance of course). I wouldn't ever assault with a cruiser to be honest, unless I had killed the defences earlier. If a full dao squadron assaulted itself (mirror matching), the offensive party gets 11 dice, and the defender gets 15... Not exactly great odds. maybe I use assaulting wrong? Use it to finish off basically dead ships? But considering how few guns are actually good in close range, it would be a pretty unlikely scenario... On the Khatanga, my first thought is why aren't you taking a Tobolsk instead! :p But on a serious note, the Ice bergs are kinda eh, to stop someone shooting at you, you need to roll a 6, otherwise they can just shoot over it. You can't put it within 5" of a model so going around it isn't difficult either, so you lose virtually no speed going round them. I mean, the ram is solid, 18 dice is good, but ram is affected by obscured (for some odd reason) and 18 is a little low to hope for good damage with no explosions. Still, it would be a solid hit. I assume if a unit is expected to take fire, it needs a shroud generator, it will do wonders for survivability. It's pretty darn hard to line up a ram without turning, so you won't get the hammer sweep and if you do, you almost certainly won't be getting broadsides on the target. I feel like sitting back and shooting at the target is a much better option. I mean, I think the Khatanga is an enormous waste of points, but trying to think how it could be useful. The cryo-generator is a bloody weak generator, I just don't think the icebergs are good enough. For every 2 of them I get 3 khutsovs, and I'd rather the khutsovs hands down. I noticed with the Khtanga again the only way the devs can makle units viable is more guns, so it got a rocket battery... There really is a repeating pattern here... Back on topic, at RB2, you can get 15 dice from guns, 6 from the rocket, 4 from the broadside. The ram nets you 18 dice, guns are likely 8, and rockets 6. In this instance the ram is the better option agreed. However, you need to traverse a LOT of ground to ram something, unless your opponent is just YOLO'ing at you? chances of your opponent going "I sure hope he doesn't ram me with that dedicated ramming ship" are pretty darn low. even with skimming, keeping the range is the ideal scenario, but you could be on to something using it as a dead-zones unit to control your enemies movements... that has real potential. Board control and making your opponent activate stuff is pretty critical. Where did you get the points for in-built generators from? Is there a resource we can look at that kind of thing? It strikes me as super strange something in-built is cheaper than replacing a gun...
  4. They aren't free upgrades, they are considered in the points cost of the unit, it's just not an option for additional points. Your ship would be cheaper without it built-in. The repulsor is just awful. Sacrificing minimum 1/3 of your firepower to skim? Sure, you might 1 game in 10 surprise someone, but you just wait for it to be over terrain, play the card to shut down generator and it goes boom. It's something you can keep an eye out for in your hand when your opponent lets you know what they have. If they avoid that then why bring the repulse generator? It's not just the points, you also lose the firepower. Fury is actually OK, I will definitely pay that. Assaults are reeeeeeally risky. If you fluff your role they can blow up your ship, and citadels aren't exactly low numbers of dice... You want only overwhelming force in my opinion, the risk of taking damage if you fluff your role is way too high. Hell, every success after the 4th over your opponent does a point of damage, so if you guess wrong you can have your ship crippled quickly. The irony being lightly crewed ships like destroyers and such usually end up being better borders than ships with much larger crews...
  5. Really glad you got a game in! That's ultimately what this is all about right? Playing games with our war dollies . Yeah the weapon slot is a big call. I think it ends up being worth it on capitals because of the VP thing, and if you manage to weaken each other evenly over the fight, a BB with a shroud is very hard to put down when most units are crippled or missing ships vs one that doesn't have one. It's worth experimenting with on cruisers, but I agree that offense is just so damn important losing half of your firepower or so feels pretty weak as a choice. Lol, the Crown internal one is so bad that even being internal doesn't save it. You have to buy so many useless shield generators that it's just awful. Only a few can have the Guardian AND a shield generator and 3 dice just isn't good enough for the huge cost they pay for shield generators. Yeah, SRS feel gimmicky now to be honest, which is a shame because the rules themselves look like a fair bit of thought went into them to make them work differently. Just not sure they hit the mark on them. Part of the creative process though. find something that doesn't work, file it away as a lesson learnt, think of something else, or tweak it.
  6. Yeah they are mass1 units, so you can whittle them down easily enough. About half of the current nations have twin-gun mass 1 units available. We play on 4x4, 3x3 is friggin tiny. We always play with terrain. 3 land, 3 varying mass obstacles and 2-3 dangerous waters. But with no guide from the devs, hard to know if that is too much or too little terrain. Terrain massively changes which units are more or less effective. In my mind, as per my OP, it should be really clear so everyone has the same standard. You can always play with less or more, but with a baseline you should be able to see what kind of effect that will have on the playability of units. Right now, I have no idea if units are balanced towards open sees, or thick island fighting...
  7. I also dunno about blundered. you can be in closing range by turn 2 easily enough with just about anything. If you have the better of activations you can force your opponent to move his navy all first then respond with your heavy cruisers. If you have a good initiative card that basically means ~20" of movement before your opponent can react to them. That's plenty of movement to get into closing range. I've kinda seen two major tactics so far: 1) is border edge hugging with extreme range weapons or very powerful long range weapons to maximise time outside of the enemies strike zone, and standard move up the board. Because the RB's are slightly longer, I have found it to have a huge effect on getting people into optimum range bands and time those strikes. Even a battleship moves 8" a turn, nearly a whole RB by itself.
  8. They might have been over-stating for sarcastic effect (that's actually how I normally talk, being super conscious of it on the forum to be as accurate as possible :p), I can't think of anything that gets 50 dice currently. Some of the twin-gun destroyers with old pack hunter could get very close though. Sigimer destroyers could get to 49 in a group of 6. That's all gone now thankfully. Having said that, they get to 39 now which is still a huge dice pool for very small ships.
  9. Yeah, I'm aware about the 5vp thing, but I appreciate you writing it down, because I hadn't yet. You get 7 minimum for a table (5 for wiping your opponent, 2 for his capital (he loses one, you gain one... difference of two)). Plus you got 1 vp for every squadron you killed with multiple units in it. It's kinda hard to swing that many VP's with cards and in-game victory points. I mean, I wouldn't even compare to heavy cruisers, the "basic" 88 point cruiser (88 points right now anyways). In the Commonwealth case that is the Kutsovs. They just hit way harder, and nuking one is no-where near as big a deal as your crippled Capital ship which has just ceded a VP... I appreciate everyone who has commented, whether they agree or not. My goal was to get people talking, and see if I had the right of it, or if there were good reasons to dissent. I'm not here to simply argue for the sake of arguing, which is why I am encouraging people to talk. My discussion with C2K was really valuable to me because it gave me insight into other ways of thinking. I disagree with it, but Just because I disagree doesn't mean it isn't helpful or doesn't contribute meaningfully. Lol, hot sesame oil. If I was any good with food, I'd totally comment . I think SRS needed changing from the old game, it was over-complicated and massively slowed down gameplay. The Aesthetics of the game is WW1 steampunk tech, and SRS are really not in that aesthetic too much. SRS are a good idea, but their current iteration to me seems pretty useless given the cost. One of the things I have noticed is that there isn't really a lot of thought to go into orbats. Because the game really only has the dimension of attack, I just pick whatever hits the hardest, and go from there. With Shroud Generators being the only defensive tool being worth it (except probably the Empire Generator, that thing is nuts), you just don't need to think much about ORBAT choices. I think the lack of differentiation in guns is a massive contributor to this effect in the game, and I think it makes for a bad game to be honest. Generators like the cryo generator had to get an attack effect to make them good, because the game focusses so strongly on attack, and units move so far. There are so many manifestations of this problem, which is why I made my OP, to try and talk about it and hopefully get some attention from the devs about it. I think people generally want this game to succeed and work, but I know nothing of the devs or how they may take this kind of observation so hopefully it is received well and thoughtfully.
  10. That's cool, glad someone is making that work. I find the cards too niche to actually get heaps off during a game, instead, the 7 VP minimum from tabling your opponent (plus any full squads killed) is just the easiest to go for. I like the oil rigs one though, that tends to be more tactical.
  11. I should also ask people, has anyone actually won a game based of scenario VP's yet? We have had one or two, but tabling your opponent turn 3/4 is basically the standard way to win as far as we can tell, because of how deadly units are to each other. Would love to hear experiences here. Even very sub-optimal units tend to wipe each other out before turn 5.
  12. Yeah, it's why I used the math above, because it's more reliable than examples. I could go the rest of my Dystopian wars life experiencing bad rolls despite the average expectation. The math says average of 3 damage 1 crit, slightly more gets crippled. I think it is the best thing to go off because it's the most stable set to work with, arguably the only way to balance units in any meaningful way and also a common factor people can easily follow. You make a good point though that enough simulations could have the same result, but I suspect that would still fall under a standardised probability curve very similar to above, but more accurate. So, I was hoping someone would ask the devastating question! The wording of Devastating is "Attacks made with this quality treat a roll of an Exploding Hit on an action dice as three Hits rather than the usual Two." (page 36). Being obscured reads "Exploding Hits rolled against an Obscured model instead count as a Heavy Hit and do not provide additional dice" (page 10). Now, Heavy hits do 2 damage, not 3 damage. Why does Devastating still count as Three Hits in your mind? To me, it counts as a Heavy Hit, and Devastating does not modify the amount of Hits of a Heavy Hit, only an Exploding Hit. I will concede playstyle may definitely influence perspective of SRS, but I'm still yet to see any proof in hard numbers. We've got 5 players and now over 35 games between us, with quite a few tests of SRS from all but one player so while this is still a small and definitely bias tests, we have seen no example of SRS actually being better than another choice in our ORBATS, which to me is the ultimate test. Why take SRS when something else does it's job better? This is the case with ALL factions as far as we can tell, because the issue lies with the associated cost of SRS and the poor damage output. It is the same position I have taken with Battleships and again, have yet to have any evidence thrown against it (despite how much I want to not have crappy compulsory units). That entire basis was the crux for the OP. I was hoping to generate discussion where someone could show that I was downright wrong, but I've yet to see anything. I definitely agree, for example, that SRS could be good as spotters only, but why on earth are you paying ~250 points for that luxury with a few weapons? Just go without and buy three of your standard cruisers which, at the same RB as the maximum range of those SRS minus the first turn (or every second turn for long range only; which is three sorties over the life of the game), are putting out significantly more combined dice, are harder to kill, can shoot at longer RB and provide greater board threat. If you needed more activations you can split that 3-ship squadron into 1 and 2 for slightly lesser damage output (technically slightly more dice but one dice of 15 needs to get through armour then the second volley of 25 also needs to get through armour which degrades the damage output). Or, just as effectively, go for quite a few squadrons of mass 1 ships. They output less damage but help you dictate first-turn (or second turn if you messed up badly, which happens) engagement choices which are so critical to the game. Opening volley of weapons like combined torps or combined rockets are so important to dictating later stages of the game, so activations are where it is at, so forgo the SRS and get greater tactical options and force your opponent to engage what you decide in the first turn, because something is getting nuked. All of these choices are hands-down better choices than a carrier because of the raw numbers of damage and/or the greater flexibility of choice on the table. The only dangerous SRS unit we could see was the Ice Maiden (which outputs a pretty insane one-target strike)... but with a 500 point price tag it actually ends up being "how long can this unit hold out against the horde coming for me" rather than "wow I can actually blow stuff up easy with this thing". in 500 points you will die extremely quickly because you can't kill things quickly enough before crippled which hurts it too much to prevent a comeback. At 1000 points your opponent has so many activations they will run rings around you. Remember SRS activate after all units have finished activations for the turn, so you have full-health squadrons slamming into you first turn before you even do think about crippling a ship to start reducing incoming fire. and the two or possibly three smaller squadrons you have as escort aren't going to be evening out that problem for you. At 1500 we haven't tried it, and we suspect it may start levelling out at this level but the question always circles back to, is those points in cruisers more effective than those points in Carrier? I haven't run the numbers in this example specifically, but I strongly suspect the cruisers will come out on top as they almost always do. One thing this game kiiiiinda gets the feel of is squadron occupation, or, targeting priority. What you end up having to do, minus the occasionally but reasonably frequent moments you end up split-firing at targets of opportunity (or broadsides), is X friendly squadron ends up being occupied focussing its efforts against Y enemy squadron. Now, because combined fire is so dang powerful, the math supports strongly wiping out, say, a cruiser than putting one or two damage across the whole squadron. Perhaps if Combining was less powerful it might encourage even greater tactical choice on the player? Hmmmm, that's something worth thinking about actually... It also means you can have an entire faction where focussed fire is a theme, with the slight loss of tactical choice making... but that would circle back round to the problem of standardised guns... There is some potential there though as an idea. Plus you can have effects such as "If every model in this squadron fires at a different target to other models in this squadron, all enemy models receiving fire from non-broadside weaponry gets a token of disorder if damage was done to that model". Represents how scary and disorderly controlled and effective gunnery is on recipients.
  13. The seeker torpedos is simple maths, and it easily is getting that many successes. They have 24 dice in rb 2 (with 9 inch movement that should be achievable pretty easily). You get exactly 4 of each roll of the dice. so 4 explosions, 4 heavy hits, 4 singles, etc. You ignore obscured because of homing and re-roll blanks. So before re-rolls, you have 20 successes. you get 8 more dice (4 from explosions, 4 re-rolls of blanks) which is another 6ish successes (one heavy, one explosion, one single plus probably another heavy hit or explosion so closer to 27 successes). It's not very hard to achieve that many successes, and Diogenese have a small attack pool... It's more worrying seeing ~24 dice or so with sustained, because if you aren't rolling heavies or explosions, you just re-roll and aim for extra dice. you can really ramp up the damage quickly. 20 successes nearly sinks a cruiser so small pools like that are great for that kind of thing. Taking a Brandenburg as an example, 28 successes cripples it (4 through the armour, 2 extra from double citadel, has 6 hull points before cripple). Not very hard to hit that cripple level. It's why I think Capital ships are so rubbish. Enormous point sink for ~ 1.5 cruiser damage output (assuming no generator) and very easy VP's to your opponent. Their just... not meaningful. As above though, one or two exceptions to that rule. You average ~3 counters on a Brandenburg (which has a decent SDV of 7) so it's not hard to break through and get those 28 successes needed (not counting escorts because they are so trivially easy to remove if it's important to cripple it. 1/4 of its hitpoints and a crit is also a good result). You will have even more chance if you save your command re-roll or re-roll card for it, depending on the situation. Lots of ways to stack up those explosions. As far as spotter goes, it's a nice skill, but you paid ~250 or more points for it, which feels like a waste. Sustained is nuts strong as an ability, but it doesn't seem 250 or more points strong to me for the one, maybe two squads that have it (usually with smaller pools of dice in a lot of cases like gustavs and the like... but I think gustavs where great until shroud took over). Remember, only models firing extreme range weapons get that rule, and only for that weapon. Now if it gave sustained for any model shooting at that target with gunnery weapons... then I'd agree to using SRS. If you use them as air defence, again, it's a ****-tonne of points to do so... and you can just not shoot that target and instead shoot the carrier. If the carrier is protection itself, sweet, you shoot rockets elsewhere and hit it with guns, it's not hard to subvert that problem. On crits, given the amount of cards and rolls you get to repair them, I've had 4 games of 30 where they were annoying. Lots of cards to insta-repair crits or disorder so not a huge issue if you get them. an attack run of 8 SRS is 16 dice minus counters. For the same points, I can get 35 gunnery dice at the same range and no counters... I don't see the attraction, the maths just isn't there. Now, If people want to use X ships, friggin go for it. My concern isn't enjoyment, that is subjective and doesn't necessarily revolve around balance (although I find people who use bad units tend to complain that their favourite unit sucks). Circling back to my initial post, there are clear winners and losers. SRS are definitely losers as far as I can tell. They don't output good damage, their flexibility is so weak it's actually not helpful, which is rare in a tabletop game... usually flexibility is king, and their protection only works effectively against an opponent who wants all missiles (or other air weapon). The Templehoff is one of the cheapest fleet carriers and you could instead buy pretty much 3 bluchers which will be way more effective, and won't lose effectiveness as quickly as damage mounts.
  14. I don't disagree this is a living rulebook, my concern is the almost pattern of changes that are ongoing. On SRS, CAP is pretty bad, given your enemy doubles their defensive dice, and SRS are very weak as it is, I don't see this as a meaningful option. You get 2.2 attacks per game at long range instead of just 2. it's pretty poor. Flagships got a little bit of hitpoints, but that wasn't super exciting. Being crippled functionally stops the capital ship, putting out around the damage of an expensive mass 1 destroyer. It's not good. Mass 1 is definitely in a better spot, but it's hard to gauge actually. Because they have so many models, they legit have options to multi-combine volleys at different targets, so I'm not as down at understanding them as I want to be. So far, my main opponent runs a diogenese pack of 6, and that 7 times out of 8 will cripple my battleship of any kind in the first volley. They are dangerous, primarily because defensive options against them are basically shroud... anti-torpedo defence in most ships is extremely weak, and capitals need to buy escorts to get more which you can just disappear trivially if you need to, or flat out ignore. I don't think you can fix the BB problem without either splitting guns up more, customising the guns on each ship, or giving BB's more turrets. Given there are models out already, I doubt the last one is a feasible option.
  15. I also want to highlight that waiting for the rules doesn't bother me. I'm not going to get into the specifics of whether it was the best business move to beta, because I truly donb't know, I have nothing to base that on, so I trust Warcradle did the right thing by them. I also don't expect this to be perfect straight out of the gates. I can see the team making this game are dedicated and genuinely honest about their intent to make a great game. I have no concerns here at all. But I can understand the pressure constant social media apply's to teams today; the sky-high expectations of quality, timeframe and cost, resulting in unrealistically achievable goals for the designers. I just want to say I'm happy to wait, and more than happy to discuss. Perhaps my words above are too harsh, or perhaps they are right on the money, I can only highlight what I perceive to be as systemic problems that concern me... But I don't want them to sound like I'm just bashing the designers who are "idiots" or "people who can't see the simple truth". This stuff is bloody hard work, and I acknowledge that. I'm happy to wait for good content, as a fan to the devs, I've seen good attitude and intention, and that counts for WAY more than it may seem.
×
×
  • 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.