Jump to content

Tincancaptain

Member
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tincancaptain

  1. Actually the shield three idea is not that bad we used to have it back in 1.1 on the Daedalus beta and Euclid giving it back to the beta and adding to the Aristotle is not a bad idea.
  2. Missed that strange they didn't get inventive with it though.
  3. Highlights: Dread goes down in price but has it's PA neutered while target painter seems to have become ubiquitous without an indicator of wither it is for primary, secondary or energy. Diophantus becomes a beast with the option to have drone launcher 9 for an additional 15 pts. Pericles gets a price hike for a reason I cannot find. Fresnel is the 2.0 whipping boy again both losing firepower and increasing in cost. Hippasus gets much more attractive with a lower price and evasive maneuvers +1. Kepler has damn decent energy broadsides Experienced Engineers and SD2. Plutarch gets a price hike but a boosted DR Euclid's PA also takes a hit. The new flyer makes drones even more scary giving them big fuel tanks and has a new type of weapon the Energy cannon which somehow has a range of only 2 and stratospheric killing rockets with air hunter +2. Icarus gets an all but insignificant increase to her fore guns. Capek's fore guns are now energy and her rockets are hunter +2 but she is now 65 instead of 60 Ptolemy is now purely a mine-layer with no bomb value whatsoever. Herodotus is more expensive. Callimachus AlphaΒ are now more 10pts expensive but gain nothing. Janus got a price hike. The Bunker Complex got a price drop. The Forward Landing Field got a price hike.
  4. The rules for the tourney were 1000pt, naval core, no tac cards, no Dreadnaughts. Otherwise basic roll for terrain, fleet orders ect.
  5. I got second place in a resent 1000pt tournament using an aggregate score round robin system. My fleet was as follows. Diophantus x 2 Pericles x 1 Hippasus x 1 Thales x 14 Using the Hippasus' teleportation generator I was able to swamp each of my opponents command ship or at least one of his high value ships with borders/point blank gunnery from the corvettes and with the exception of the last eventually prize them. I only got second because in the final round I couldn't prize my opponents Raj Carrier because I got "lucky" and teleported it of the board with a sabotage roll. There for it gives you a decent medium squad with a teleporter so you can hourglass load with lots of corvettes for boarding and larges the great CoA larges like the Diophantus for laying down the pain with PAs and drones.
  6. The only way I can see this working in any believable way involves the CoA accidentally teleportating a ship into the path of it's own torpedo. P.S. What ships are faster then aircraft? Yes some of the large and medium flyers are slower then small ships but just because a speed boat was faster then a Zeppelin does not mean that it was faster then a torpedo.
  7. That makes no since. The torpedoes are much faster then the ships so it would be impossible to run over them. That's like a jet hitting it's own missiles or bullets the laws of physics mean that if you fire a projectile from a moving object in the direction of the objects movement the projectile will have a velocity of the projectile + the velocity of the object that fired it thus the firing object cannot collide with the fired object.
  8. The strength of the torpedo was that it bypassed the armor or more precisely the shape of the explosion rendered the armor of a ship useless causing massive flooding. Even a large battleship in WWII could be crippled by a single torpedo hit, despite torpedo protections, while it would take many hits by heavy gunfire to do the same. Further while Mckintry may be correct about the 3% hit rate of WWII torpedoes it was still better then the ~1.5% hit rate of naval artillery of the same period.
  9. The down side to the Eculid is that it just doesn't have enough firepower for it's price. 2 6 dice rocket batteries, one 9 dice E-cannon and the PA is really underwhelming for 275 pints even if you include carrier 9.
  10. The Euclid was hit really hard with the nerf hammer in the 2.0 development it is nowhere near the terror it was in 1.1, value wise I'd even go so far as to say that I'd take two Epicurus over a Euclid and and the up to 85 extra points.
  11. Lower weapons can shoot in 2.0 just at half AD due to being partially blocked further being wavelurked causes a -1 penalty to attacks.
  12. Honestly given the unusual limit to larges I'd suggest taking a different faction if you can, or at least come up with a strategy that does not require carriers as you'll get a max of 2 with the 40% large massive limit.
  13. True enough I guess, but I am limited to the models that I have available as even proxies can only do so much though perhaps once I get the new box I can vary my build better or perhaps I should focus on playing my Chinese who knows. I think in the immediate future I will be taking a break from DW to do Pathfinder. If nothing else it will allow me to cool my head on some of this stuff with DW.
  14. I don't really see how TAC is any different then the STAR card of 1.1. Hell we have a 2.0 tournament coming up run by a Vanguard and even it won't include TAC, so I question them ever becoming 'standard'.
  15. Given the state our commodore is currently in I'd say not bringing one is the best option as his abilities, or really the lack there of, make him more of a liability then an asset.
  16. It's even worse then that as our other doctrine is TAC card based and those are optional rules. The COA commodore is effectively a generic commodore with fix it, safe passage, Pass the Tools, and nothing else. Edit: And people said that I was imagining things when I said the CoA got the shaft in the 2.0 development. I'm just about done with this game.
  17. That's how it was in 1.1 but it becomes problematic keeping track of what squads came from what carriers or from local air support ect.. even more so with the way SAS changed in 2.0 vs the TFTs of 1.1, the solution they came up with was the drone relay network making drone launchers more like regular carriers in that they can relaunch any 'destroyed' drones.
  18. I'm not very familiar with the changes to torpedo rules, as far as I was aware so long as line of sight is there torpedo attacks can be made against any targets without intervening terrain shooting 'under' intervening models was still allowed. If that;s not the case then I agree the Brits got shafted. I also had a discussion with a fellow player who plays Russians and we seemed to agree that they would not be broken with redoubtable primaries so that they can keep some of that awesome firepower until they can actually get into range to use it I even told him to bring that forward in his own thread but that is his cause and this is mine.
  19. Well first unless there is something in the new fluff of 2.0 there is only one vault and it's in Antarctica, but if for the sake of your RPG you want to say there are other smaller vaults around the world here goes. Given the prevalence of military technology I picture the vault as being some kind of subterranean fortification simmular to NORAD though perhaps in the case of the Antarctica Vault more of a subterranean ark, the last refuge for a civilization that still failed to survive. So for the smaller Vaults you can look at them like large bomb shelters, to the people who built them most of the technology inside was probably fairly common while still being amazing to "modern" people. The inside would probably look fairly drab perhaps with some ancient Greek like architectural flourishes here and there but more with much more emphasis on functional than aesthetics. There would likely be several distinct areas connected by some kind of common area like a mess or command/communications center. The peripheral areas would likely be a barracks, an armory, a rec center, and a power facility. Other possible areas could include storage, information archives, some kind of food production facility, or a motor pool/hanger/dock/machine shop.
  20. As I said further discussion simply becomes circular. Perhaps you're right, but if you're really honest with yourself where would you lay the odds?
  21. Your absolutely right that this is my suggested solution to what I perceive as a problem. If you intend to make the case that there is no problem then you've long since done so and any further discussion would only be circular. If however, your willing to accept that there may be a problem but my suggested solution is somehow in error then I welcome your input. Going off the assumption that you are doing the latter I will admit that High angle is not the only option for correction. Piercing, incendiary, and even lethal strike are other options that I considered that fit the fluff of energy weapons but seemed to me to have a greater potential of being overpowered, keep in mind I meant to limit HA to just energy turrets not apply it to all energy weapons. Hey look, assumptions. I'm not making assumptions here. When I first noticed that pinpoint was removed from the energy weapon description I messaged delboy to find out why and he said that it was because of plans to and I'll quote here "The plan is to introduce the Pinpoint MAR back to the CoA through a number of synergy models over the next few releases." They'd have to be massively better say on the order of 10 dice each for the dread but if that was an option I wouldn't have a problem with it. And assuming you mean that taking the turrets causes the loss of CR/DR
  22. The only problem with this assessment is that every other faction had their faction's flavor weapon either generally improved or left alone the two exceptions being the CoA energy turrets and the French heat lances. In the case of the French what was done was necessary for balance and in exchange they were given pinpoint, piercing, as well as greater range capabilities, as well as having their cloud generator made to an always on function. Taking pinpoint away from energy weapons (though I would understand if it had been limited to the PA only) while not giving anything in the exchange is just wrong. The Fresnel M1 from 1.1 made the energy turrets terrifying but with that out of the picture they were just fine given the new linking rules they weren't great they weren't over powered they were just something different and fairly unique to the CoA.
  23. Though I loath repeating myself, here go's. The problem is that the energy turrets as they are currently are simply not worth taking, or even considering on all but a very few of CoA units. What you lose from going to energy like indirect capability shield penetration seems far outweighed by the increased attack dice in range band four and redoubtable. Energy turrets have become to weapons what Zenos were in 1.1 to units a waist of material. The solution is that if Spartan is dead set on tying pinpoint to some future support unit, which will have to be payed for, then adding high angle is the best solution I can think of for the reasons I put in my original post for keeping energy turrets from being totally irrelevant.
  24. I stated most of the reasons for it in my initial post the only additional one I can add is that if you look at the turret models they're balls, why exactly can't they point up? P.S. This assumes that spartan is insistent on not giving E weapons pinpoint without having to pay even more (points and money) for some future support unit(s). If they just put pinpoint back then this whole exercise becomes moot.
  25. Did you participate in the beta test? I myself was not a beta tester but I worked/gamed with people who were and even had to sign a non-disclosure agreement for the purpose of play-testing with them. What they have shared with me paints a very different picture of the process then what you seem to think it was. They have said that while the general rules changes were as good as can be expected in any game system two even said they were perfectly done the changes to the various nations were not nearly as smooth with some rather clear preferential imbalances. While this is just a theory it is my conclusion that some faction may have been under or over represented with the CoA likely falling into the former category so it's likely that the possibility of high angle energy turrets was never even brought up. Further some decisions were made in the 11th hour with no input from the beta testers at all the removal of pinpoint from the energy weapons being one such decision. Now that the rules have been released they can, and should, be vetted, debated, and even challenged by the general community. If some change doesn't seem to be working because it altered the balance in one way a little too much then there is wrong with suggesting methods of correcting them.
×
×
  • 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.