Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BuckDharma last won the day on December 1 2016

BuckDharma had the most liked content!

About BuckDharma

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,282 profile views
  1. Feilong Sky Fortress also is now carrier (6),1x5 wing.
  2. I agree mostly also, I think the Zhan is "close", to a good and balanced place. I mentioned bringing her forward only in the sense that was suggested elsewhere...ergo the flame throwers have limited situational/emergency use. It is the gunnery+rockets that make this thing scary. (And potential for carrier actions.) I also agree that in this form, ignoring one is suicide....in two ways. You want to take down that Zhan, especially the maxed out carrier version to rob you opponent of the capability....but also it is now literally easy to crit...so you would be crazy not to. And even at a mere 870 points to my opponent, prizing this is still a really good way to seal the win for them. (I have been doubling strategic value all this time....and apparently wrongly? Son of a.....) I stand by my thought that the one tweak that is absolutely necessary here is at least rugged-2.
  3. Jupjupy I hear your pitch. I think that is a good counter argument for the most part! But the reality is the Zhan will be taken down more easily than almost any dread in the game now. But give your opponent 485 VP in the "uber" heavy carrier version you noted. Oh yeah....if prized, that uber version is worth almost 1000 points to your opponent. 970 to be exact.....which is why it has security posts three. So I am going to charge out there with it? And pretty much guarantee losing the game when/if it gets prized? Security three is simply a game balance measure so that this moment of near instant loss on VP isn't simply too easy for the other side to achieve. That is a good design thought. Remember, China has no escorts either. So this weakness to rockets and torps is magnified further. The whole concept of the Zhan was it was this epic near invulnerable thing....and now it is literally fragile. I grant you the offense is fantastic, but the defense is paper thin at best. If Denmark got a dread I would expect it to be harder to score a hit or crit on that the Zhan in this form. That is 100% counter to the concept is it not? There is a lingering psychology to the Zhan that it was ridiculously overpowered. And it was since upon a time for sure...the cost was too low. I am not here to try to give China an unfair advantage! But it has been hit over and over since then....yet the psychology remains, even if no longer so warranted. The Zhan has two things I see going for it currently. 1. Due to redoubtable and tertiary, the Zhan maintains effectiveness while heavily damaged. This is countered by an opponent who either ignores it, or focuses fire on it until it is destroyed or captured. 2. The specialist squadron....which may be broken. But the limitations are extreme! Rugged 2 is the minimum requirement to even make this okay from a design standpoint.
  4. With the shift to base 3+ to hit, the Zhan must gain Rugged 2...or even 3. Otherwise the points value is too high, especially when you factor the 3+ in together with being hit by torps and rockets. That is a nerf of truly epic proportions.
  5. The potential to have a PE force with an old school calcification+node capability is itself reason to make a change....for the sake of game balance. I have to wait and and see how things play out with the new gen. I am not yet looking at Italy and thinking the are gimped. We shall see.....there is also the fact real dialed in orbats have yet to be seen....I don't think huge buffing up is needed, but maybe some minor adjustments on points or capability.
  6. Family stuff to deal with...but some chance I may free up and swing into PDX. Maybe just for a visit and not a full on game, but hoping that may at least work out.
  7. I find small units to often be quite powerful. The Prussian corvettes are a great example, as are many boarding related units. But, what about shooting? Yeah...still often powerful in my experience. "Shooty" small models are best used with a bit of planning I find. Screening them early on turn one is usually helpful...and moving them late to get off a shot at an enemy small, or quick advancing medium is good, followed by a priority for first activation on turn two to get in a hard strike before the smalls get thinned too much. Essentially my effort is to get in two useful activations....then if my enemy focuses on wiping out my small squadron, they are almost wasting effort to some degree.... I also like that in DW, a small squadron can hit a massive model hard....they pose a very real threat. Fear any full group of gunnery destroyers getting into RB-2 at the end of turn one, thinning out a corvette group or hammering a cruiser....and that player winning initiative and hitting your BB with them again first activation on turn two. Definitely one of my favorite tactics.
  8. I think you are incorrect....or will be....and you know why.
  9. So, I went all-in on the Royal Canadian fleet. I already have land models, and really love that large airship.....I know I am not alone here. I went for both the two player box and the Canada box...so a pair of bonus BB's, and the airship....should make for a pretty huge Canadian task force eh?
  10. This is an especially important point. Simplifying the game to make play run faster is good....to a point. However, how much time is this overhaul of target painters gaining...and what is lost? Frankly, I am not even sure having more painters at long range, but making them only useful to the squadron carrying them during their activation is even resulting in a higher degree of simplicity or faster to play. I suspect this is a case of many players ranting about generators such as the TP being useless, (due to their lack of longer ranges and activation sequence before moving....as a completely bad rule), being reacted to in a manner that intended to satisfy the folks making said rants. Then also adding in a bit of a general, "removing counters is always good, makes the game faster" philosophy. So now we have longer ranges, and activation after movement.....but lots more rolling for each individual squadrons generators during their activation. Maybe there is a better solution? If we assume the counters are not especially evil, simply extending range of old school generators could be sufficient. Or, minimal range improvements...or even none at all....with TP gen activation after moving might also be just as smooth. Either solution would allow for maintaining the idea of multi level thinking....which makes the game or certain factions more interesting to play for some of us. On the flip side...all change is not bad. I see some folks condemning Spartan here a bit too harshly. Are the recent ORBAT updates semi useful at best? Yeah I agree. Does Spartan still need to improve vastly in terms of managing expectations? Uhhh yeah...big time. But with everyone clamoring for ORBAT updates faster...really the only thing I cannot call Spartan out on at this moment is that they should have declared these proto updates...and offered a date for players to expect refined updates....and offered to take all input and criticisms based on these updates with a grain of salt and a smile. Lack of paid full time product teams is a tough challenge to overcome. We know leadership can become distracted....and frankly that does not help. But dedication to their effort does not seem to be lacking. Spartan Mike surely is investing time and effort. Frankly listening to player feedback is also a tough thing...you have to sift through a lot of sand to find the bits of gold. Feedback is valuable, but frankly most players are focused on their favorite factions and want them to be strong....not overall balance. That renders most feedback biased at best, and bias built on a foundation of flawed analysis common. I think the effort here to give players what they want is laudable...."make generators better"....and 'make the game play faster too'......but the method might not fit the goal for the TP.
  11. Further leaks indicate some sort of "wing" shaped skeletal framework was towed into the R&D hanger earlier today. No further details were available.
  12. Anonymous but confirmed sources are reporting that a prototype vessel of significant size is apparently being constructed, in an underground R&D facility nearby The Vault. What form it may take remains shrouded in mystery.
  13. EIMC expansion is a personal goal of mine as well. If Portugal must submit to the Companies financial might to make it so....so be it!
  14. The Bombardment group box also merits strong consideration.
  15. Whoa.....a Starfire reference. That was when games came in ziplock bags!
  • 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.