Jump to content

Overread

Moderator
  • Content count

    1,466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Overread last won the day on February 11

Overread had the most liked content!

About Overread

  • Rank
    Sircan
  • Birthday 07/28/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://warminiatures.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

639 profile views
  1. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    Aye, but battlescribe requires a 3rd party machine to operate and power to function during the game, and as said are not always as obvious to the other player. Notepads have always existed, but visually will never look as good as either cards or a tablet app
  2. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    I think cards can work if combined with clear and bright tokens. If the card itself is purely the base stats of the ship, or is nothing more than a name and icon (stats being on a single race sheet to allow easier updating of a single document rather than reprinting and mixing up ships with different card versions); then bright tokens on the card can easily show if a ship has status effects active upon it. One thing that would be worth considering with regard to tokens early on is the colour choices based upon colour blindness. It would be a very neat feature to make the tokens colour blind compatible (as much as is humanly possible and dealing with the most common forms of colour blindness). Another angle is, as always, to use creative shapes so that each token effect has a clear physical shape, giving both colour and shape as reference points. On-ship info is great, but the space is always limited even on custom bases; if they can at least show shields and health that would be a big step forward in at least showing the ships most basic stat.
  3. Automatic hits - another crazy idea

    The only concern is that with auto hitting it makes the game a little easier to guess/estimate what will happen. Considering that FA is alternate unit activations (rather than alternate turn activation) this isn't so bad since it at least means a player can respond to changing situations. The only risk is that, typically, space games have less places to hide on the table. Indeed with the way movement is a terrain heavy board can be a challenge to work with in such a game so it favours having fewer high detail terrain features to hide behind or at least gain cover saves and the like. Also whilst you remove dice rolling from one end of the attack profile isn't it just going to end up shifting it one step along. So instead of Hit - wound - defence It might end up Wound - defence layer 1 - defence layer 2 (ergo shields then armour) So you end up not really changing anything in reality as the system is still weighted in the same way with dice. The key difference being that now every shot will wound It also starts to put a lot of power into any weapon that has multiple shots. Because now you know every single shot will hit it makes those weapons very powerful since they can now be used without any fear of a bad turn of rolling. It would likely mean that we'd see a lot of weapons lower their total number of attacks; otherwise such weapons, even with very low damage rolls, would tear through anything smaller. The other aspect is we could see loads of wound rolls and then very little damage actually getting through. Indeed it could make the maths harder and slow the game up if you've got way more damage prevention layers and taking points of damage etc... Of course the bonus is that it makes ships feel tough as nails to take all this increased damage. It's an interesting idea that has merit, though I do wonder if its actually saving any time during the game and if its not just an alternate way to play and balance the game.
  4. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    Forums are indeed only a tiny population of any games actual interested market. Right now though I think we won't see surveys and research just yet; focus is on Dystopian Wars and its ground game and Wild Wild West. That's three major projects in themselves for Warcradle to focus upon and get to the table. Firestorm is going to have to live in limbo for a while longer; although one way they could out-reach is to release alpha and beta rules for the new game early - that way it would act as a little bit of marketing and connection and also market research into the original fanbase; even if there won't be new models on sale - probably until 2019. If we consider that Dystopian is 3rd half of 2018 then I'd wager we are at least looking at mid way through 2019 before Warcradle might be in a position to produce and sell/market Firestorm. Of course they might have bigger backstage production and focus so it could be a lot sooner.
  5. Thing is that's either going to mean every faction has access to tiny robotics or players are going to have to start scrubbing aircraft off the flight decks of their airstrips to replace them with new decorative models. It's a neat idea, but I wonder at the logistics and viability of an upgrade kit - I also worry that it is invalidating original models and meaning that gamers have to cannibalise the models in order to make them work in the new game. I'm certainly not opposed to rocket troopers and all those fancy themes, those are great ideas. It's just that I can see this plan backfiring with the existing fanbase. It's one thing to merge factions and change some visual designs of the models; one is purely practical and the other is something we'd seen happening even with Spartan Games (models evolving and designs changing along the same asthetic designs is something most gamers consider normal). But the scale change is seeming to not just change the scale ,but the design and indeed you could even say the appeal of the game. I'm not saying that the concept is bad, just that the joint effort to try and deliver this idea whilst keeping old models valid is going to result in very strange design appearances on the table. The more I think of it the more I'd say it might be better to actually totally abandon the original models and to let the new scale change be design free to make itself its own game. That allows it to shed the shackles of former models that, really, won't fit well into the game design. It also leaves the gates sort of open for, if in the future, returning to the original scale as an add-on to the sea game if/when Dystopian proves super popular; or just leaving that area as a dead game. I'd rather think that a dead game might be better than one which takes very odd design choices (and thus risks the chance of not cornering a proper identity and appeal of its own); and which might have not just a cool, but a very cold reception by existing fans of the franchise.
  6. Aye I can see why they want to make the land and sea separate as balancing land to deal with battleships is always an odd thing; and it likely works well for adding in more of the WildWest units without having them fully outclassed or having to add titanic units of their own to compete; but it does leave a lot of the larger war units feeling in a very odd position In a way I don't want to see the loss of mobile land airfields and giant walking mechs and the like; yet I can't see how they can viably be kept in the land game. I also worry that the aim to resculpt whilst keeping them within the game with a few detail changes is going to result in some very odd looking units. Granted thus far we've seen only one or two tank units which looked good in the resize; but overall I think of all the things Warcradle is proposing to doing its the one that is the most, if not questionable, then debatable.
  7. So with the scale change in Armoured Clash its clear that some of the bigger models start to somewhat fall apart when they try to fit into the new game. The mobile airfields go from being big enough to launch whole squadrons to perhaps having room for two or three aircraft. Other large units like the walking fortress type units might survive in some form, but I've still a feeling that many that easily crossed from land to sea are going to get stuck in rather odd ground between the two games. Personally I'd welcome if things like giant walkers and mobile airfields remained part of Dystopian Sea Wars. Acting as units which can support sea activities near land, yet retaining their huge size and mobility over land. Of course retaining any element of land (outside of buildings/sea defence cannon) is going to seem odd when the land game is then fully split in terms of scale from Dystopian Wars at Sea. But it at least lets those huge units retain their original impressive and powerful status without being downscaled to odd sizes to fit a newly scaled land game. I feel that trying to rescale them into the new ground game is just going to look strange as they'll be big units, but rather oddly placed. Air hasn't got an issue as its clear that the air units will shift over to Dystopian Wars Sea pretty much fully with the ground game getting their own slew of air units to fit. But things like crawling airfields; walking castles and even things like dreadnought land-ships (eg the huge russian beast). These are, honestly, where I see the biggest point of confusion, contention and issue with the scale change in the land game.
  8. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    I think a lot depends on what a critical hit actually is in terms of damage and impact. We could call a critical hit hitting the magazine - blowing the ship up with a single lucky shot We could call it doing +1 to the damage roll - ergo a bit more damage We could call it knocking out specific sub-systems - eg a critical knocks out the engines/guns/shields/anit fighter etc... Ergo its not actually done more damage, but in addition to damage its shut down something. All the variations of what it is influences how often it should be possible to happen and in turn how fun it is to have as a feature. A magazine-hit type critical clearly wants to be very rare whilst knocking out sub-systems (esp if there's repair options) might be more common because its a mechanic by which you might hobble or cripple a capital class ship that, otherwise, might have too much health to reliably destroy in a single battle. etc... Right now a lot of the discussions go in circles somewhat because we've no real base upon which to expand upon. Even things like the cards VS detailed bases discussion still hinges on how simple damage is going to be.
  9. Is the 3.0 in the pipeline scrapped

    Thing is that means once you get ships close you end up with just flight sticks on the table - mechanically that might work, but visually that's rather boring. Indeed it makes you question why use models when it would easier to just use 2D card print-outs. Models getting in the way happens, but its part and parcel of the physical gameplay world. As long a the model itself represents the physical ship itself its fine; the only time it really comes into issue are when you've got things like 40K targeting based on seeing the model through terrain or cases like where some models in Privateer Press overhang their base by a significant amount (looking at you Skorn Elephant tusks). I don't think anything in FA really overhangs to that extent, sure most are bigger than their flight stand, but they don't overhang it to get in the way. The risks of close battling should be part of the space game.
  10. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    I think if cards are part of the game design or game stat tracking then they must be officiallyprinted. Home printers are not all that good and that's before you consider that most will only print onto paper, not card; and that the vast majority of people don't have laminators. So that would be a really low grade product on display alongside well made models, bases, maps, tokens etc... It would send all the wrong messages to the customers. Sure it could work if Warcradle design the game to work with an app only, but honestly I think that would be the wrong direction to take the game as it slaves what is essentially a real-world physical game to a digital game component. By all means an app instead of but not an app as a must have.
  11. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    Just a further thought on cards to track game stats. If a ships unique card had nothing on it save for the ships name and a picture of the ship type (ergo artwork or photo). Then the card could be used only to track status changes through markers. The actual ship stats could be printed upon a check-sheet and within the rule book. This would mean that if there were major updates to the factions it would only require a single sheet of paper (stat sheet) to be printed off or to be sold or to be bundled with a new edition rule book. Granted this means that the player has ship base - ship card and ship stat sheet; but it would allow for easy updating without having to fiddle with updating loads of game cards. Considering that the number of ships within the game shouldn't be vast; and that a simple A4 sheet should be able to contain basic stats, abilities, racial special abilities, possibly even damage tables etc.. Then that could be a simple easy game guide aid that most would make use of anyway.
  12. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    Apps are an easy approach with the one issue that not everyone will want to or be able to use them. Plus nothing worse than turning up and having the app die or have problems or the computer running out of power etc... I think with tabletop wargames apps are a nice extra that are well worth developing; but should never be a core required item to the game. Personally the best, if most involved would be something like this 1) A base that has the fire arcs marked upon it (could be on the edges of the base with a raised lip marking - much like the arcs are shown on the gargantuan models for Privateer Press). These could be picked out by the owner with a simple stripe of paint on the raised edge 2) A means to track damage on the base. This could be a simple one or two slots for mini dice or could be a rotating base section like the one used on Dropfleet bases 3) A means to uniquely identify each ship to its specific base. This could be in the form of stickers included in started boxes with a series of unique ship names. These names could both be themed to the faction and also include basic numbers as well (esp for smaller ships that might not be named). 4) Provide stat cards with a slot on the card open for a second sticker to be affixed. The player thus able to put the same name on the card as is on the ship base. That card is now bound to that specific ship forever. Even if the player buys more of the very same ship type they can use different names from the sticker set for the other ships. 5) The ship base can now hold basic key information whilst tokens and other info can be noted on the ships individual card. The unique names (and numbers) allowing the player to remember exactly which ship belongs to which card. If the player also uses an app, the app can thus be loaded with the unique name as well and, yet again, the specific ship can be kept track of. The concept of named ships could be taken further with campaign play; allowing players to essentially build their own narratives around ships that survive multiple battles in a series. Without introducing any named characters, the player is thus able to have their own "hero" ships based upon the ship simply performing well in game for them. This, of course, won't replace named hero ships being released as part of formal releases from Warcradle. Downside is this makes for more things to produce; stickers with a curved shape suited to being stuck on a base; bases with notches and markers; and cards (with the mentioned issues about balance changes to the games rules and how Warcradle can expect to sell cards and get them to players after they update the games core rules). This is a key matter if using stat cards, especially with a new edition of rules; because chances at at least one major revision will be needed to provide a solid game system (Privateer Press did this then hit huge issues with their third edition - donig well and having a bigger market made getting cards out to players more of a headache esp when they then wanted to be able to review and rebalance on an annual basis)
  13. Less Dice Rolls, More Game

    Like I said if critical events are kept they should be rare events not commonplace; that said nothing means that a critical has to be the end of the game for the ship in question. The power of a critical hit could be managed so that its important but not game breaking; where I agree a game that ends on turn one or two is a nasty experience in any wargame (esp as the setup of each game can often take quite a long time in itself before you even start "playing"). I think if the idea of increased levels of crippled and damaged status could be introduced then one could even lose critical hits as a feature because there's another form of extended and continued heavy damage present beyond just the health points of the ships in question. As for shields I see the use of shields or armour saves etc... rather like a question/answer. The attacker asks a question of the ship being hit; whilst the attacked ship gets a chance to make a reply to that attack in the form of the shield save roll. I still think its important to keep; it tries to mess with a players attack and introduces two levels of random which are not based only upon the random chance of the players own fleet. This adds variety for the attacking player when making attack choices since this way some ships might have better or worse defensive chances to survive and strike back.
  14. Is the 3.0 in the pipeline scrapped

    Honestly I suspect we'll see the game start off modest. Whilst FA had a fanbase and still has one the events leading up to the end of Spartan Games had started to dwindle the active population somewhat. So that plus the year or more before we get FA back on sale again means that its pretty much starting from scratch release wise. So I'd expect a modest st arting position so that new players can buy into it fairly easily with a single "getting started" boxed set approach. It might take a few years before we are back in a position where major factions could have four or so battleship variations and one or two dreadnought type (access to might be through mercenary factions not just core fleet units). And where players ahve build up collections big enough that there's serious demand for larger scale rules sets.
  15. Is the 3.0 in the pipeline scrapped

    The only difference is the nature of moving; the rules could simplify movement to allow for larger fleets to be more viably controlled by players. It's not as if we are expecting a strict space-science game (heck the ships themselves are clearly fantasy space ships as they only have visible engines on the rear). It could also be that movement is split; cruisers and frigates could have much more latitude to free turn whilst larger (and fewer used) battle and dreadnoughts could have less capacity to turn on the spot or change direction; showing how much bigger, heavier and overall ponderous they are (even though in the realities of space it wouldn't be so). Such a system would allow for more ships to be controlled as now the cruisers and frigates could at least move out of collision with each other. Meanwhile larger capital ships would have to be more carefully moved; but could also have special rules like afterburners and such - so that they might not be able to stop but could speed past another ship (ergo move directly over/under rather than into it)
×

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.