Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DanSG-19 last won the day on April 14 2016

DanSG-19 had the most liked content!

About DanSG-19

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,722 profile views
  1. Pok hits the nail on the head here. We have currently two different systems that do pretty much the same thing (Targeted Strikes and Boarding), with the caveat that Targeted Strikes can also cause Critical Hit results to appear and Boarding may occasionally result in a capture (currently). Simple solution to reduce the page count while keeping the base mechanic? Roll Targeted Strike and Boarding together, or just eliminate Boarding. Removing the ability to capture ships also makes a lot of sense to me. As for SRS and PD Mountain, the more I see and hear about it, the more I think it would be best to just get rid of Interceptors altogether. Keep Fighters as the Jack of all Trades, remove the PD from Bombers, ditch Assault Shuttles and keep Support Shuttles as is. Simples.
  2. That's some good news. The Patrol Fleet boxes are fairly good for newbies and even for players with fleets already, keeping those boxes is a very good idea.
  3. Wait a minute... The Patrol Fleet boxes are going?!? Like, discontinued?
  4. After reading that blog post, I'm going to shift my view from "meh" to "I'll keep an eye on it". Other than that, not much else to say.
  5. Okay, I'll bite: - Keep Reactor Breach. It isn't game breaking at all. No more so than deleting ships with double and triple critical hits (and I think I'm the only one who's brought up double and triple crits as a potential problem, because it is far more common statistically and in reality than Reactor Breach is). If Reactor Breach is removed, then I would like to see Double and Triple Critical Hits removed too. Because balance. - Do something to resolve the Interceptor PD Mountain Crisis. SRS can only assist a squadron they are assigned to (as per ideas like Combat Air Patrol) or attack as normal. That sort of thing. - Remove (or vastly improve) Targeted Strikes, they serve no purpose whatsoever right now. Might as well just go for a critical hit or spam Cyberwarfare as things stand. - Under no circumstances should Spartan turn FSA into FS-Taskforce or HFB. The Helix fleet building idea is interesting, but that's the only idea from that game I'd use, and only then as an optional fleet building rule. Relaxing weapon arcs and movement rules would be a big no-no. Movement and positioning is pretty much the most important and most tactical part of the game, messing around with that would be messing around with sixty percent or so of the entire game. That's pretty much it. And I'll end with some "wisdom" from The Dude by saying that's just like, my opinion man...
  6. Dreadnoughts are by no means mandatory, and in some situations, they are a liability to a fleet. Using the Hulaka as a Battle-Carrier/Dreadnought Hybrid has helped out my Terran fleet a couple of times (mainly from insane interceptor coverage to help block ART and Raptor Torpedo Spam), but I wouldn't use that dreadnought to face down another dreadnought. If I face a dreadnought, my usual solution is battle cruisers and even light cruisers. The dreadnought is one ship. One powerful ship, but still one ship, and it can be overwhelmed in a battle against numerous opponents. Then there is points cost to consider. Dreadnoughts are expensive to run in a fleet, the Hulaka easily reaches 400pts for the Battle-Carrier/Dreadnought Hybrid build, others are a bit cheaper, but in the main they are costly. That many points in one ship can really hinder a fleet that is already outnumbered in ships and activations. In general, I favour more ships/activations over bigger, tougher but more expensive ships. The only dreadnought that I have really considered using or have used is the Hulaka, mainly because it does its job well despite the prohibitive points cost. Sometimes I need to run a big tanky ship that can also run interceptor and possibly support shuttle cover for the rest of the fleet, while also giving out decent gunnery to deter enemy squadrons. Other dreadnoughts such as the Titan, the Medusa/Kraken and even the Retribution I see as superfluous in most fleets.
  7. I would say that you lose Cyclic Shielding if your shields go offline. That makes the most sense given that Cyclic Shielding requires an active shield system to play.
  8. My objection to changing Fore Fixed to Fore Arc comes from playing Halo Fleet Battles for a short time. That game has the 45o pivot system and Fore Arc railguns (that's what a UNSC MAC is apparently) already, and I can safely say that it feels wrong. Movement and manoeuvre in HFB in general seems to be just about getting as much firepower into range as possible and letting rip. The only planning that is required is how long it'll take to get into range. In FSA, I'm often thinking about where my squadrons have to be up to three turns ahead, especially for factions with Fore Fixed and strangely enough, Turrets. That is missing from HFB, which I have to say (though it'll inevitably sound harsh, glad I still have that B Rating warning in my sig...) feels like it has been dumbed down. Now to answer the question of "is it a knee-jerk reaction or not?", I tested out what happens when a Xelocian Hulaka Dreadnought goes from Fore Fixed and Broadsides to Fore Arc and Broadsides with no AD drop or price hike. Being able to land a Crit on a cruiser at about 30o to port, and then Crit another cruiser in the same squadron with the port broadside... Yeah, lets not...
  9. Split Fire Turrets makes much more sense than Split Fire Broadsides. I do wonder how giving the broadsides Split Fire came about, as I can't really think of a situation where an Apollo broadside battery would be better off splitting fire at two targets. Also, that Razorthorn upgrade looks fairly reasonable, I'll have to test it out some time. It would fit in as a no thrills Terran or alternate Hawker battleship, a good all round gun boat.
  10. If Fore Fixed changes to the essentially Fore Arc like the UNSC MACs get in HFB, you can bet that either the Dindrenzi, Tarakians and Xelocians will have to be nerfed into the ground, or those factions will become auto-wins over night. Firestorm is NOT Halo Fleet Battles. If Firestorm becomes anything like Halo Fleet Battles, then I'll be ditching my fleets. Simple as that.
  11. So these days the Razorthorn would be a little outclassed by the Apollo and the Tyrant, unless it got a beam weapon upgrade or hard point option somewhere, simply because the Apollo and the Tyrant can get or have beam weapons. That extra range on beams can sometimes make all the difference.
  12. Light Battleships/Heavy Battle Cruisers would be Tier 1, regardless of stats and fleet size I think. Battle Cruisers are already a Tier 1 in a patrol fleet, with a cap of one BC (with up to two frigates or something like that) in the squadron, so the "Light Battleship" will be a Tier 1 in all likelihood. I would be surprised if it was a Tier 1 in patrol fleet games, and a Tier 2 in battle fleets or larger, as is done for Hauberks. As for the Razorthorn's old stats, was that with beams, or just primaries that had the same range bands as every other gun back in V1?
  13. If Indomitable is indeed a Battle Carrier of some description, then it'll likely be in the 250 to 280pts range before escorts. Battle Carriers also can't be taken in Patrol Fleets for most factions (some factions have a work around because their only Tier 1s are Battle Carriers and Dreadnoughts, others have to rely on Carriers). It stands to reason that Tyrant and Apollo class Battleships will still have a place, at least at the patrol fleet level, and probably into battle and grand fleet levels as cheaper options than running Battle Carriers. That said, Tyrant with Wayfarers is an exception, being 280pts or so for a Tyrant (with upgrades and hard points) and a pair of Wayfarers.
  14. There are options in the Xelocian fleet itself for SRS support. The Kindartu can get +3 wings, which is enough for a small bomber strike, or interceptors and support shuttles. The Hulaka Dreadnought should probably be reclassified as a Dreadnought Carrier, it can get +4 wings, which is enough for a full strike SRS token or a wall of interceptors, or a mix of interceptors and support shuttles. The Hulaka is very expensive though, same cost as a tooled up Shautrai +2 Hokita Battle Carrier squadron at 405pts. I've found that a Hulaka running +1SH, +1MV, +4 Wings, Corrosive/Split Fire Beams, 6 Fighters and 2 Interceptors is a decent line breaker and all round tank of a ship. Certainly helps my Terrans out in the occasional Grand Fleet sized game.
  15. Durable, to a point. The Titan is a tough ship, but it is not invulnerable. If the enemy focuses their firepower on your Dreadnought Flagship, then it will likely die. It may well die quickly depending on what is shooting at it (Dindrenzi cruisers, battle cruisers, battleships and the dreadnought are surefire bets at cracking through a Titan, as are quite a few heavy cruiser and large capital squadrons in other fleets). Titan also has a fairly low Damage Rating of 6. It can be plinked down by multiple, smaller attacks. Of course, if the Titan is drawing the majority of fire from the enemy, then it may well be the case that the rest of the fleet is left alone to do their own thing. It depends on how target fixated the enemy player is.
  • 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.