Jump to content

Libran Commodore

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Libran Commodore

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

680 profile views
  1. I'm going to be travelling up north to Wisconsin for a few weeks (in the Madison and Oshkosh areas), and I was curious if there are any players or groups still active in the area that I could maybe catch a game with.
  2. I've been lurking on this thread for the last couple of days while I've mulled over the ideas being presented here. I should mention that from a game design standpoint, that I'm considering the ideas being presented in the context of Task Force serving as the faster-paced and simpler version of Firestorm Armada. In other words, I think that any simplification changes being made to this game should vastly improve the player experience if they are going to detract from the game's complexity and depth, which is what originally drew me to this game after I saw the changes from v1.0. I think that 2.0 really only needs a little bit of tweaking in some areas, rather than what appears to be a much more extensive redesign being proposed. 1) I'd prefer to see TAC cards being altered instead, but I'd possibly be more open to this with more specifics. There are certainly some individual TACs that don't get used or are of questionable value, but I think that the concept behind them is solid and cinematic which adds to the player experience while not being overly complex. On the other hand, C&C sounds like more numbers to keep track of, especially depending on how they interact with FTB. 2) I don't see any issue with this. 3) There is not enough information here for me to make a solid opinion. However, I'm currently leaning against it because this mostly seems to be an extension of the power concept, which I dislike. 4) I don't see any issue with this. I also really doubt that anyone would be opposed to getting more ship choices. 5) I think that this could potentially be okay, but I also think that this falls into "if it's not broke don't fix it". Aside from the "shields overload" critical effect specifically mentioned here, I do not see any other effects which wouldn't effect certain ships (unless we're talking about the odd ship which doesn't have any AP). I think the easiest thing to do would be to simply alter the current effects which may not effect something in that general area which will definitely affect something. For example, instead of shields/cloaking being disabled, perhaps the ship's CR or DR is reduced instead. 6) I'm not in favor of the power core mechanic for reasons already elaborated on here by other players. That being said, I'm open to some of the other ideas being proposed here as alternatives. 7) This is the area I am most open to in terms of change, as I would to see more diversity in the types and numbers of SRSs being fielded. That being said, I don't like the idea of ship's SRS loadouts being predetermined by the model. Like Commodore Jones has already mentioned, I think this detracts from the player experience because it limits option. I'd like to maybe see our current SRS stats and abilities being adjusted instead (perhaps making interceptors long-ranged but with less attack dice and in conjunction limiting the standard fighter's range being reduced). I could potentially get behind the idea of ships having set standard, SRS loadouts with the option to upgrade to different SRS types with points. 8) This is another area which I think falls into the "if it's not broke, don't fix it". It might be an anachronistic idea, but I really do like the idea of taking another ship as a prize. That being said, I could see something like the proposed boarding concept as an another option for players to use in the game. Instead of launching one main, all-out assault, perhaps they can launch a number of small, targeted assaults.
  3. What races/factions do you typically play against? What do you try to accomplish with Cyberwarfare? Because it's 20 points and I typically play small games (patrol fleet), I wouldn't always take cyber, but I will take it depending on what faction I come up across. Against certian fleets with a high fleet tactics bonus, I don't always find it to be the most useful. One of my favorite tactics is to target defensive systems and try to knock down shields or point defense systems. Ideally, I'd want to try and knock out PDS for a follow-up torpedo or SRS attack from a different squadron. That's the best synergy I see with running a pure Hawker fleet. I can see that varying a lot depending on who else you're running in your fleet, and who you're facing. If there's a Veydreth contigent in your fleet, cyberwarfare might be nice to try and aim for the "Security in Disarray Critical Effect". If you're facing a Dindrenzi fleet, Main Drive Failure on a large can easily help win games. But to me, I see cyberwarfare in Hawker's arsenal is an opportunistic tool, but not one to base a fleet strategy around.
  4. The one known Hawker ship that I know of is the HAS Ark Imperial, a Regent-class Carrier mentioned in the Kurak Alliance Fleet Guide. I am unsure what the "A" stands for, but I'd guess that "H" is for "Hawker" and "S" is for ship. I wouldn't call the Endeavors "auto-takes", but they really are pretty good if you have the right amount points to spare, especially for the general multi-role "not-bad" frigate category. It can actually throw out more dice in a single broadside attack than the Missionary can at any of its range bands. And while the Endeavor's torpedoes aren't any direction like the Armsmen, they are actually more powerful than the Armsmen's at RB 1 & 3. But there is the cost factor to consider, so aside from just having the right amount of points to spend on a T3 squadron, I generally consider the following questions: 1) I am a facing a SRS or Torpedo heavy fleets:? Endeavors have 2 PDS, which make them somewhat more effective than the Terran frigates when it comes to dealing with SRSs and Torpedoes. If your opponent likes to board frigates (which generally seems unlikely to me), the extra PDS can be handy here too. This won't likely be a game-changing substitution, but it's a small advantage that I will generally take advantage of. 2) Is there something I potentially want to redeploy? The Endeavor's Scout MAR isn't the most common or used MAR, but occasionally it can be pretty useful. It can be nice to suddenly redeploy the nuke-armed Terran destroyers right before the scenario begins, especially if it looks like the opposition is poised to take an alternate route. I would also consider using this MAR if I was going to employ a battle station (though I haven't had the opportunity to try this yet).
  5. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike running with understrength squadrons. Have you considered maybe filling this one up to a full 4 ships? A hundred points would still allow you to field something like 4 upgraded Outlaw-class frigates. If you're deadset on an allied T1, I'd suggest considering the WR Oppressor-class Battlecruiser. While it's not as good as the Attrition-class, it's lower cost leaves some room for upgrades and accompaniments that could allow it to fit in your fleet.
  6. I was going to ask the same questions. It certainly sounds like an interesting combination to try out.
  7. My guess is that it's the new "Anti-SRS (Weapon), Coherence Effect" listed in page 3.
  8. It's no worries, it's hard to get everything, especially when you're first starting out. It's funny you should bring that up, because PDS allocation is something I completely messed up when I first started playing. If each cruiser is separately firing on the same target, then yes, it is my understanding they have to spread out their PD fire. I could be wrong though, as I have been before.
  9. Page 66, right under "Indirect Weapon Systems".
  10. Aside from what the others have said (which I agree with), this is one of those times where I think the Ares Carrier combined with a pair of Cruiser accompaniments would make a lot of sense. The carrier with the pair of cruisers provide the same number of nuclear torpedoes as a regular cruiser squadron (with the torpedoes being unaffected by cloak), and the nuclear coherence effect being effective against SRSs. The Ares carrier's own SRS is pretty variable, but I'd suggest a mix of interceptors and bombers. Another option to potentially consider is the Hawker Regent-class Carrier. While it carries fewer SRSs and lacks nuclear torpedoes, it also has direct fire nuclear weapons and Cyber warfare weapons. It's possible to hack down and disable the cloak with the cyber warfare weapon, which eliminates the main Relthoza defenes against direct fire weapons. If the cyberwarfare weapon doesn't hit the cloaking device, there's a good chance it'll disable the ship's point defense systems, making it more vulnerable to torpedo fire or SRS attacks. The Regent's direct fire nuclear weapons aren't affected by either point defense or SRS, but they're a little weaker than the combined nuclear torpedo attack of a full cruiser squadron (or carrier with cruiser accompaniment), and they are shorter in range. But then again, the carrier also doesn't cost as much as either option...
  11. They seem like pretty solid lists to me. For the second list, if you play with TACs, I'd consider bringing in "Drives to Max" for the space stations. That way, if their position needs a slight adjustment (like an enemy squadron at full stop just aside of a range band, or if the stations need to find some new cover from an enemy flanking attack), they can change position.
  12. Have you tried going T2 or T3 heavy before? I think it helps to have a lot of target saturation with the Dindrenzi, since their ships really excel at stacking up a large amount of dice against a single target. They're not terribly good at dealing with a bunch of threats coming from multiple angles, like MistahSly said. When you say "march forward", do your ships take the shortest possible route to the Dindrenzi? Or do they take a more circuitous route towards them in a general forward direction?
  13. In terms of general advice, make sure the table has ~25% terrain. Use that terrain in the first few turns to act as a cover while your fleet advances. Also consider shunting in some of your forces so that they cover less of distance (and thus are less damaged) so that they can quickly enter optimal range. It usually helps to strip away Dindrenzi hull points with plinking rather than going for crits with linked fire. I think that I and the community could probably be more helpful if we had specifics however. Before going any further, could you tell us more of the specifics? What is the composition of your opponent's forces and your own (or any particular commonalities/trends if you can't remember specifics)?
  14. I find that the options are what make the game so addicting and somewhat unpredictable. I have the Kurak Alliance Fleet book, and while it's great for universe reference and for the beautiful graphics, I don't think it's necessary to purchase before you commit to a fleet. The downloads section on the main site has PDFs of all of the ships in a fleet, so it's pretty easy to reference ship stats and get a feel for how each race plays. If you look in the forums here, there are a lot of posts/articles/tacticas that describe the fleets and how their ships work together. RageofAeons especially has some good posts for the support factions. If you want a see a good, semi-detailed overview of the fleets, I'd check out Kurgan's posts here: http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/topic/13934-directorate-general-tactica/. While they're pointedly wrote for directoratge players, he does a good job presenting the strengths and weaknesses of the main fleets and several minor races. Aside from what Ryjak has listed for fleet choices, I'd also consider Hawker Industries. One person described them as elite Terrans, and its kind of true. They tend to be more durable and deal out more damage than the terrans, but they're less flexible in loadout options and generally cost a little bit more too.
  15. That's a good catch. I haven't ever had the opportunity to see the Kedorians in action.
  • 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.