Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Fluffhunter

  1. Perhaps a breakdown of the Star-Geneva conventions as the fighting grows more bitter could be remarked upon in the fluff. I imagine a new Dindrenzi doctrine would encourage targeting medical staff of the most noble and fair evil and oppressive warcriminals of the Terran Alliance. Provoking the Alliance into developing armed medical ships and formulating a counter doctrine. This would eventually lead to the development of medical transportship in all factions. This new Dindrenzi doctrine would of course be sponsored by the Directorate and the Church of Dramos Angels. This new development would fit pretty well into the narrative of the increased fanaticism of the Dindrenzi Federation and provide a counter point to the burning of Dramos showing the ongoing change in Dindrenzi society. It would also allow for the general fact that wars become more brutal the longer and more indecisive they are. The only problem is that Terrans don't actually have a medical ship coming up. But im just thinking out loud here...
  2. Is it also used for the initial attacker/defender roll?
  3. The issue is that larges have an inherent benefit because you need to invest more firepower before you get returns. It is also easier to get the squadron to safety and by either hiding them or fold space escaping, yet again making it harder to get points for attacking them. A squadron of smalls on the other hand will give up TV quite often because its TV is split into many small "bites" by virtue of the larger squadron sizes, investing in shooting these will thus be less risky. Now this is not such a big problem in itself but combined with the new fleet building it should give a large advantage to larger ships in terms of defensive point effectiveness pushing the meta towards fewer tier 3 options (unless these will just be used for activation spamming, but that another matter).
  4. How prolific will the Strategic Value mar be? Will this mar be used to emulate the old BL system more closely? One of the best things about the old Battle Log system was that tier 1 ships generally was worth more BL per point but it was often harder to get these point because you had to kill the tier 1 squadron to get most of these. There was a great risk vs reward interaction here because you had to invest a lot of firepower before you got any points. At the same time it made tier 1s the center of match because of the high value something that was rather thematic - after all everybody knows about the sinking of the Bismarck but nobody remembers the death of U-121.
  5. I'm surprised to see so many of you wanting to add another rock-paper-scissors interaction between fleets. Its something i really dislike as it creates a underdog vs topdog situation before the game even begins. Often making players less willing to play certain combinations of races because they either will feel unfairly handicapped or that their win was "dirty" because they had a pregame advantage. This is especially damaging in small player groups (who wants an archenemy you always struggle against against simply because of your respective fleet choice) and for players with only one fleet (avoiding "unfair" match ups quickly sours your relationship to the rest of the playerbase). If one faction is given an advantage against their chosen foe, their foe should receive a similarly powerful advantage. After all both sides have had time to specialize...
  6. I have no issue whit larger ships being more easily detected(though the explanation for installations is a bid odd, should waves deflect in more noticeable ways from less uniform objects?), but still find it unlikely that you would simply warp in your best ships blindly in most engagements, surely sending in the light ships and making sure you wont hit an asteroid or a minefield once you "land" would be a smart idea. I just hope this change wasn't made to be more "fluffy" because i could whip up a number of good reasons to keep the old system while still keeping within the current fluff. My issue was more that the value of "good" smalls is increasing while the value for "bad" ones are decreasing. The added strategic value was the same for every squadron thus some of the difference between good and bad tier 3 choices. I am especially worried for those factions that have slow and short ranged tier 1 options. In 2nd not deploying these in ineffective areas could be ensured by taking enough tier 3s to keep the squadron count up, now this wont be an option and they must now deploy in the middle to ensure their relevance. These squadrons simply don't have the option of not carefully planning their deployment. But perhaps i'm just making mountains out of molehills, i haven't played 3rd yet after all. I'm just confused by this change as it doesn't seem to add much to replace the options it removed. I guess its a case of if it ain't broken.. Its good to hear you guys a open to feedback and good to experience how quick you respond to our endless questions.
  7. Games are won or lost during deployment... ...is perhaps not entirely true. Deployment can however decide whether the rest of the game is going to be an uphill battle or not. This makes deployment options an important aspect of list building, which is where tier 3's really shine. Tier 3's add extra deployments and activation's giving even the more noncompetitive tier 3 options value on the strategic level. This new system unfortunately removes this balance and instead turns it on its head. When tier 3s are deployed last the value of hard hitting and competitive tier 3 squadrons rise while the noncompetitive tier 3's now become one step closer to being a tier 3 tax. And as the other posters have already commented on, tactics like refused flanks will be a thing of the past or rather a self inflicted malaise. Let me explain: in new system if you lose the deployment roll of you must deploy one of you heavier squadrons before anything else is placed on the table. You now have 2 options: 1) place it in the center 2) place it off center. This option would in most games result in the opponent refusing that flank making it a non option. This makes the deployment for most battles in 3rd mostly "line up and shoot" as most unorthodox deployment options are removed and heavier ships get concentrated further in the center. If afraid this change will remove some of the importance of maneuver warfare that really made this game shine. Now the only positive i can see in this new system is that deployment might become slightly faster and perhaps fluffier (even though i find the notion that any commander would commit his best troops first unrealistic). Im no expert is there some other advantage that i missed. I mean no disrespect, im not trying to fling mud at the new system just trying to understand. disclaimer: terrain and objective will of course have a major impact on deployment possibly rendering above analysis untrue.
  8. My group and i have been unable to figure out the correct way to determine fleet tactics for a mixed faction support fleet ie RSN+Ba'kash. The problem arises from this section of the rules: Does the above mean that you utilize the fleet tactics of the core faction on test like initiative or does it work like allied factions in core race fleets, and thus drops to the lowest FTB in the fleet?
  9. Being a Dane im always curious how my alternative timeline brethren are doing. Thus i have a few questions for you Dystopian Danes. I was reading up on danish fluff and came upon a discrepancy. In the newest fluff PDF i can find Christian IX is implied to be the current king in Denmark, but in the player driven wiki a guy called Erik Mecklenburg was mentioned as the current king. Do you guys know which is more "cannon"? On the gameplay side of things: How are the danish fleet holding up? What does it play like? I usually play FA so any comparisons to FA is most welcome. I also find it funny that Denmark actually "won" our ancient struggle with the Swedes simply by not getting annexed by Prussia.
  10. I thought the issue was defensive/tight deployment, not PD mountain, which does make defensive/tight deployment really hard to crack. In such a case id use the gunship kinetics against the carrier and the torps against any unshielded clustered units until i could crack the carrier. It certainly isnt the most efficient solution but that is why allies were invented i guess. My argument is essentially just that id rather see Sorylians gain better nukes or some other anti crowd system, because mines would make them to similar to Veydreth which would be especially problematic since they're natural allies. Now as for the warlog. It really isn't such an accurate tool, it suffers from lack of data and unique players, especially when it comes the smaller factions. The stats show on the frontpage are also only from battles fought against the opposite faction.
  11. Sorylians already have some access to a mechanism that does that - nukes -. Albeit only on the gunships and destroyers. Perhaps they should form a strategic partnership with the terrans and up their nuke factor? Mines however are available in bucketloads from your natural ally Veydreth. I dont see a reason to add them to Sorylians as well.
  12. If such a system made single BC's and squadron that aren't max sized more viable it would add a lot of depth to list building.
  13. From a game design POW it saves an extra statline for essentially the same weaponsystem. Mechanically it is almost the same as +1ad. You do however not lose the energy transfer AD to degradation, not that that is likely to be a factor on a corvette. Oh, and technically you have to declare that you are energy transferring - every turn.
  14. I also like number 3 the best. The increased granularity allows more interesting setups that can be used to tell a part of the story by changing different part of it (ship, sublocation etc). One example: DATE: 02-06-3726 REF: Q2522343423 FROM: Admiral Sneaky Snake TO: High Command SUBJECT: Mission Status LOCATION: [Redacted] / [Redacted] / DNS Dutiful The infiltration mission is proceeding according to plan...
  15. List building is half the game for me. Its a skill i developed back when i was playing 40k and i had to make my fluffy list somewhat competitive. It sorta carried over to FSA and now i constantly build, optimize and reject new list. Trying to build around certain themes and missions. The only difference is this time there is no fluff handicap . That leads to my next point. I cant imagine any "nasty OP take all comers list" off the top off my head that wouldn't be beaten by a list designed for the specific mission that was played. There simply is no easy "i win" button to spam like in 40k (riptides, knigths etc..). I believe this is one of the reasons that this forum isnt just endless netlisting. Balancing around known opponents and missions was the right choice.
  16. I generally like the list you have presented but feel that you might be better served with a more durable ship as your flagship especially if you are a beginner at FSA. I would recommend taking at look at the battleships, especially the Tyrant which i think would fit right in to your list.
  17. From my experience terrans require a greater deal of customization for specific enemies and missions. Their ships are generally more specialized and slower than other factions which have better access to all round workhorse ships. This means that terran ships that end up in an unfavorable engagement cant escape or avoid unequal damage. On the other hand the terran ships really shine in the late game where they perform better than their opponents thanks to plentiful weaponshielding and high torpedo strength. The higher dicepool from weaponshielding, and the high amount of dice required to punch through shields means that Terrans will eventually reach a point in the game where they will win most equal encounters. The high range of the torpedoes amplify this strength, use it to focus fire on specific weak links in the enemy line and your late game ships will clean up. The overall strategy of the terrans thus becomes one of outlasting the opponent, but to be successful in this endeavor you must ensure at least equal damage in the early game. That is where the planning comes in. First of all know your enemy - is he going to be coming at you or is he going to hang back? What are his strengths and his weaknesses? Then look at the mission - what kind of fleet does the mission favor? Is there easy ways to deny or gain scenario specific BL? Lastly look at your collection - what kind of tools to you have that can solve this equation of strength? Is it shuntbombing to remove high treat enemies? Is it nukes to clear out tier 3 swarms? Lets look at a specific example. You are playing against Sorylians and the scenario is waypoints. Now sorylians are fast, have high broadside dice pools and CR but low DR and long range dice pools. This means they are going to be wanting to get close and brawl. The correct response is then not to play to the sorylians strength but instead to try and keep you distance. Furthermore the sorylians have low DR and like to use looks of tier 3 ships - nukes might be very effective. However the sorylian scatter guns means your tier 3's are going to be murdered inside of 16 inches best not rely on close range tier 3. The look at the scenario. Waypoints is mission the lets you balance attack and defence. We decided to hang back earlier which means we will focus on defense. Now some players then choose to ignore either the defense or attack in this scenario, but that is a mistake, there's is simply to many BL's at stake. Which means we need to decide how we are going to attack.Terran ships are too slow to reach the enemy waypoint in time so all attacks must be made from reserves. There are two styles used when attacking. We can choose either to just deny the enemy BL by contesting or we can try to capture the waypoint. Denying means we are going to send something cheap but hard to kill. The offensive power of the unit is not important you simply need to hang around and deny BL for as long as possible perhaps even forcing a split of the main enemy line. Attacking is the complete opposite. You need to capture the waypoint fast to gain any benefit and your unit(s) must then favor a strong attack, knowledge of the units you will likely face defending the waypoint is also important(but this is becoming too long). Now its time to look at your own force. Its going to be light on shortrange tier 3 so armsmen are the best choice. You want to damage the opponent before he reaches you line, Artemis and Teutons are good nuclear candidates for this. As you are defending a fixed position you might even want to use a battlestation or defenceplatforms. For attacking you might consider shunting in some cheap and durable Horizons to deny or perhaps a pair of Marshalls to capture. Ships that wont survive close contact whit the enemy (artemis) should be deployed away from you waypoint to force the enemy to split forces. Now this thing got way too long so i will just leave it without explaining my choices more in depth than this. The important thing is this: Terrans are adeptable - play to your opponents weaknesses not your own strengths. That means planning ahead even before the game has started.
  18. My Terran ships are named after common expressions and idioms in the English language. They are however only allowed two words as part of their name which did exclude many expressions. I made a long list of possible names and are now in the process of matching them to ships. Because the names are very descriptive i often end up writing a few paragraphs of background when i name a new ship. examples include NTSC Black Swan and NTSC Red Letter my battle cruisers know for their dynamic and unforeseen entry into the battlefield or my Teuton cruiser NTSC Old Faithful widely rumored to be the oldest ship in service in the stormzone (she actually isn't but the records have been doctored to show that she is for the sake of morale). Now i just need to find a good naming theme for my Relthoza. Something that shows martial pride, sneakiness and the arrogance that comes from being superior warriors. I have one name so far The Tragedy of Perfection my dreadnought.
  19. Considering the new relthoza ships share the same ascetic as the plantetfall models its a relatively safe bet new ships will continue in the same vein. he new models do share some design elements with the old ones. Part of the detailing, the ripping is guess its called, is found in the same style on almost all newer relthoza models in one way or another. The ships generally just look like smoother sleeker relthoza ships to me. Perhaps a sign of improvements to the cloaking tech or the peculiar relthozan structural engineering. In any case, once these bad boys finally get painted they will fit right in my fleet. Now if you want to talk about major differences lets talk terrans and directorate. The new terran ships(especially) look like they are based on stolen directorate tech and the new directorate look like somebody hit their new prototypes with a heat ray and just rolled with it. Both sets are still cool looking however.
  20. As a primarily terran player i find mine drive-by's to be the worst aspect of mines. Normal mines can be "countered" by flying around em, but the drive by mines cant be avoided at all. A perfect weapon for aquans to kill off any enemy tier 3 that might be trying to counter their snappers or difficult target spam. Unopposed drive-by-mining-attacks are also is kinda hard to justify from an in universe point of view. I imagine a conversation likes this might have found place in CIC: "Sir, the enemy are launching high explosive low velocity munitions!" "Ah, trying a torpedo attack are we? - warm up the PD-grid!" "we cant sir, the enemy are launching mines. Such weapons have superior stealth capabilities. We cant hit them at all" "So this is were spook torpedoes originated.. Alright brace for impact!"
  21. I feel it should be changed. It resolves in a way that feels very weird. I've had Aquan cruisers use their superior movement to circle to remain in place while at the same time dropping an unavoidable mines in the path of enemy ships trying to get closer to them from the front. That's not area denial, that's just short range nukes.
  22. Thanks. Firefly is a really cool show, too bad it got cancelled Dark Matter is a decent substitute if you haven't already watched it .
  23. The perseus with turrets has got decent speed and firepower in rb 3 which makes it a nice flanker and longrange skirmisher. While its easy to kill up close. It wont set you back much because its only worth tier 3 battlelog and 120 points. Now when talking defence platforms then i find them useful enough when defending waypoints and stations. A full flight of bombers is a nasty deterrent, deck crews keep offensive power up and the low points cost and decent defense stats makes them barely worth shooting(the tier 2 battlelog swing does negate this somewhat).
  24. I must admit that Dramos is a masterstroke of Dindrenzi propaganda. Sure it was a tragedy, but only a smaller one, used to hide the true tragedy of the secession wars. The fall of the grand dream of a united and prosperous mankind among the stars. Cruelly torn down by the resurrection of large scale war between man, brother against brother, and for what reason? Because some uneducated frontiersmen lacked both patience and vision? They could not wait for this simple administrative issue to be settled peacefully. Instead they had lash out like spoiled children. Twice did we try to correct their lack of vision but it became too ugly, too costly and too meaningless for us to continue. So we cut the loose and let them have their own dream while we tried to resurrect the old one. Naive as we were we did not foresee that the Dindrenzi lack of vision would haunt us again. They could not create their own dream and so grew jealous of ours. They aligned themselves with the worst kind of marauders, war profiteers and even plain monsters and planned a new war. Now that war is upon us and Dindrenzi are crying for the blood of terra itself as if trying to bury history itself so that no man can discover their shame. Even now they hide behind the ghost of Dramos. Deflecting any accusations of the wile deeds performed by the directorate and RSN by reciting this tragedy. Yet again hiding the greater of two evils behind a smaller one. The Dindrenzi selfishness truly is the greatest atrocity of this millennium - A terran politician when asked about Dramos In response to the OP. I find that the background is important to most players but to different degrees. One guy in my group just likes to know the sorylian are the "cool commie space lizards" while others like myself are a bit more engrossed in the background.
  • 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.