Jump to content

RecklessPrudence

Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RecklessPrudence

  • Rank
    Spica

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

660 profile views
  1. Ah damn. Understandable, if disappointing. Guess we're gonna have to wait for someone with some real 3D art chops to step up and make something based on the old box art, or something, if we want Tabletop Simulator mods of the quality of some other mods. Here's hoping!
  2. So while we've all been isolated, some friends and I have picked up Tabletop Simulator. There's a few mods out there for games we play, of wildly varying quality. Some of the best seem to have had the creator 3d-scan all their models to import, which is obviously substantially easier in games with a small range of models. Others seem - and I'm guessing here - to have had the mod creator approach the company that makes the relevant game and ask for the 3D models they use to create the physical ones. I was wondering if there was any chance that Warcradle would share what would be required to create the visuals for a Firestorm Armada mod while we're all in lockdown? Spartan-era, obviously, since the Warcradle-era one has been unavoidably delayed. Assuming you guys have them, of course, I know some stuff was lost in the transfer from Spartan. My 3D modelling skills are... basic would be a generous term, so if I end up making the mod my efforts wrt the models would likely be limited to some basic colouring of panels, but if someone else around here has the skills and the inclination, I wouldn't say no to fan-created models based off the box art while I do the rest, although I imagine it would be a lot of effort for whoever signed up, hence the request for the official stuff. If this is not an acceptable thing to request, I apologise - I was just hopeful.
  3. I'm fine with helices - it's similar to how some other systems I've gamed in work/ed - but less fine with the lore and aesthetic direction my Terrans have taken. The Terran Alliance was one of my favourite fleets both aesthetically and lorewise. The Directorate (old version) one of my most loathed lorewise. I admit I'm weird, but when I play a faction I need some reason to get behind them, some reason I want them to win. And the Directorate we know? Apart from imagining the enslaved crew had seized the ships and it was operating as a free fleet, like the WWII ones but kinda in reverse? I could not find one iota of my being that wanted the Directorate to win. And aesthetically they were alright, but I much preferred the almost Hiigaran stylings of the Terran Alliance. The Terran Directorate aesthetic appeals to me much more than the base directorate, but what little we know of the lore so far seems to be a dealbreaker. So unless the lore for the Terran Directorate is very different from what I imagine it to be from what we have, looks like I'm up for a new fleet. Wonder how Sorylians play nowadays...
  4. Wasn't trying to call you an idiot, was just trying to get some common terms and understanding here. Didn't know you had prior knowledge. As for you calling for less detail, yes, you did that. While also using realism arguments against things that were done for mechanics reasons. I was attempting to show not a call for less detail, but rather to show that realism will have to be lost, for mechanics reasons, and that skewing too closely to realism only adds superfluous detail. Obviously I did not get that across - I apologise for that, I'm not the best at communicating what I mean to say. I think I may have gotten lost while typing, and lost sight of my point. To address the topics you've actually brought up, rather than just type randomly: Multi-roles were ditched because, when there is so little granularity in the stats wrt SRS, from a game mechanics point of view it is exceedingly difficult to come up with something that is not either so lackluster in every department that it is barely used (Fighters currently), or so powerful that, while it doesn't equal the specialists in their roles, it comes so close to doing so that there is no reason to not take the generalists. And additional granularity would be difficult to add, when SRS are down at the bottom end of the same scale that battleships operate on, without just multiplying everything and fitting SRS values in the holes, which would mean that a battleship would be throwing many more dice than currently, allowing the exploding dice to be even more swingy. And while in real life all but the most specialised combat aircraft can do some air-to-air or air-to-ground (depending on what their particular weakness is), that has not always been true and may not always remain true. If the only way you can get the performance you need to be relevant in your chosen role is to specialise to the point you are virtually irrelevant in others, that is often the choice that is made, and other platforms used to make up the deficiency. An A-10, as first entered service in '77, was virtually toothless against air threats. An F-117 or B-2 were likewise. And many air superiority fighters were incapable of meaningfully harming a large, armoured target, like a battleship - that's what a plane more suited to the role was for. That is less the case currently, but it's not unknown. As for shuttles being broken up into standard and heavy, it allows for the same dynamics that heavy and standard combat SRS do, for the same reasons. I'm... not seeing the problem? If Heavy Interceptors are fine (which I must have misunderstood, I thought that was one of the things you were protesting against from a realism angle), then why aren't shuttles, when all the same arguments hold true, both from a flavour and a mechanics perspective? Differentiating between species and roles, allowing smaller Wing Capacity carriers to be effective beyond the number of SRS they hold, while still leaving them some weaknesses that a larger capacity carrier that can only field the standard model would not have? I mean yeah, it doubles the number of SRS profiles, but it allows for so much more control of carrier capabilities on the part of the devs...
  5. The Terrans might actually have some R&D that reduces the Kinetic impact. It could easily be a MAR that was natively on some of the newer ships, and a possible Upgrade for some of the older. Yes, it would mean in a tournament you'd have to weigh up the impact that Kinetic would have against your fleet against the points spent on upgrades that may prove useless if you don't go up against enough Kinetics, but upgrades that are effective in only certain situations are a staple of almost all miniature games that have an upgrade system - what if your enemy doesn't bring enough armoured vehicles, and all the points for those anti-tank guns you bought could have been better spent on mortars and machine guns for the infantry horde you're facing? What if the enemy brings enough counter-spellcasters to make those powerful mages you spent so many points on little more than substandard staff fighters? And while going from Exploding to Heavy is a downgrade, I don't think it's as much of one as some of you think - at least, not if Shield values are at a level that you're not relying on dice explosions for them to actually do anything in the first place. 0.8 to 0.7 is only a 12.5% reduction, which will have an effect, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it will be as utterly ruinous as you think - and I say this as a Terran player whose main opponent is a staunch patriot of Rense! EDIT: I'm stealing this from another game system entirely, as it is all too apropos at the moment: DOOM! Cycle (Apologies, would have inserted it directly, but the button refused to cooperate)
  6. @LionofPerth, I'm actually doing a degree right now where Game Design is my minor - it's a video game-targeted degree, but we learn by building and using tabletop games as well as designing something that will run on a computer. And one thing I've had drilled into my head over and over again is "abstract, abstract, abstract." If there is not a reason for the detail, if it doesn't serve the functions of the game, then nine times out of ten the added immersion of detail is actually countered by the detail you hoped to use to immerse forcing the player to devote headspace to understanding it all, and it actually acts as a barrier to immersion. Detail is necessary, yes, it allows for fascinating and complex interactions between systems, but if it's not actually adding anything to the experience - and you're not building a faithful simulator, intended to be a 1:1 recreation of real objects/practices/concepts - then no matter how much you as the designer may love it, it needs to be ripped out. The trick is, leaving just enough in to prompt the player's imagination, which will always be a higher-fidelity device than anything possible on the tabletop or on the screen, while still incorporating sufficient functional detail to generate a complex experience. Usually, this means disguising functional detail that is in there for the experience you want to make, as 'cool' detail that the player enjoys. For example, the kinds of WARs listed in the weapon topic. Calling them 'Beams' and 'Corrosive' and everything gives the player an image in their head. But the functionality of each is relatively simple, it's how they interact that generates the complexity. And by combining the image the player gets from reading about their massive array of beam weapons, with the functional detail of rerolling 1s at short range (and always ensuring the image is at least related enough to the functionality that bears its name that the player can convince themselves it fits, by whatever rationale they prefer), it generates more immersion for the player than any amount of 'true to life' detail that was incorporated into the rules based on focal lengths and lens degradation and heat buildup and everything would - the place for that sort of well-researched detail is in the image you give to the player, not the mechanics underlying the game system - in other words, the fluff, the lore, the flavour text. For an SRS example, the Heavy Interceptors you're having a problem with could easily be, in lore, large SRS with overpowered engines, making up for their poor turning radius with an enviable boom-and-zoom capability and multiple independently-tracking weapons arrays - whether those be small railguns for Dindrenzi ones, so the Heavy Interceptor stays at a reasonable range and pounds the enemy into scrap, or beam arrays for the Aquans that use the one beam gun buried in the heart of the interceptor with spllitters for multiple beams and external quick-tracking focusing arrays to burn multiple enemy SRS and torps from the void at once, or ripple-fired missiles that track the enemy with guidance from the HI. Just because these sorts of craft don't work in atmo, doesn't mean they won't work in the void, where almost everything about building a craft capable of moving under its own power changes - and then there's the fact that the Firestorm Universe is Space Opera, and that genre is wide enough for everything from near 1:1 replication of WWII dogfights, like Star Wars, to the kinds of thing you see in anime that coined the term Macross Missile Massacre, to settings where fighters as we know them are simply useless for any serious military conflict. If it helps, you could imagine the Heavy Interceptors as a fast-in-a-straight-line platform for mounting multiple of whatever their respective race uses for PD. Not as maneuverable as the more standard Interceptors, nor as fun for the pilots most likely, but effective for all that. And this would also explain why such a heavy craft would have no anti-ship capability - it's completely optimised for taking out targets approximately the same size as it or smaller - when escorting a bomber flight, they likely use their pinpoint targeting to fire at enemy PD (which has to be lightly-armoured and exposed, in order to get the fast-tracking necessary to fire at small, fast, maneuvering targets, and thus is sufficiently lightly protected for guns rated for the same sorts of targets), while spamming countermeasures and filling the capital ship's PD targeting arrays with garbage, which allows them to perform Wild Weasel duties by lighting themselves up brighter than the bombers that are the real threats while at the same time damaging the very PD arrays that will be used against them. And the Heavy SRS fill an important mechanics role, by allowing carriers to be further specialised - in another topic, it was said that Sorylians will have smaller Wing Capacities, but more access to Heavy SRS - this allows for more meaningful differentiation, both between the factions, and between individual carrier classes within the factions. Thus allowing for more immersion, by means of showing the faction differences in design ethos and mentality goes all the way down to the smallest combatants, and all the way up to the roles a major combatant like a fleet carrier is meant to fill, by means of a relatively simple rules addition that costs almost no mental headspace for the player. EDIT: Also, I have to say, I'm talking a big game here, for someone whose first piece of feedback on his last three assignments has literally been "more abstraction"
  7. And the **REDACTED** faction is finally getting the **REDACTED** they've been clamoring for for some time now. It will enhance the **REDACTED**'s capability to **REDACTED**, and bodes good things for the **REDACTED**'s **REDACTED**.
  8. Okay, thanks for the info. When I finally get a Regent, I'll compare it to the photos upthread of it with the Resolute pods, and see if I want to vandalise a Resolute.
  9. I'm mainly a Terran player, but I have the Hawker patrol box, and am planning on picking up a Regent (seriously considering just ordering the Regent from Spartan though, rather than paying for the nigh-useless Stalwarts (then again, they might be granted new life with 3.0...)) to go with. However, I've been considering branching out into a Support Fleet. What other Kurak non-major race forces complement a Hawker core best? Alternatively, what ones benefit from a heavy Hawker presence the most? If possible I'd like to avoid Veydreth and Terquai, just because I can feel the first stirrings of Faction ADD and I'm currently regarding Natural Allies to forces I don't own as a dangerous tempation, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm imagining Tarakian Grav-shenanigans would benefit from Hawker Nuke proliferation, but Ryushi smallcraft spam seems like it could take advantage of them weakening their mutual PD coverage by spreading out to avoid Nuke detonations, and the long-range beams of the Xelocians could be a nice complement to Hawker Brawlers... Also, do Hawker combine well with either of the STL fleets? Those Syndicate ships look very pretty, while Traders would bring similar grav-shenanigans to the Tarakians, albeit without the ability to use them in offensive mode. Side benefit, both of them are also Natural Allies with my Terrans. And one last thing, has anyone fitted Excelsior sidepods to a Regent model yet, like in that photoshop up there? I'd like to see how it compares to the Resolute sidepod conversion in the photos a bit later. Thanks!
  10. Hi, I'm trying to think up a new paint scheme for my Terrans and Hawker. I was going to use the Hiigaran colour scheme from Homeworld 2, but that seems to have become the official Xelocian colour scheme. So while I still might use it, I'm trying to come up with an alternative that I like as much. At the same time, many of my paints have dried out, as the last time I painted anything more than a test model, Bush was in office! (I'm Australian, we can't count like that, our last few top idiots have gone out in anything from three years to six months due to intra-party politicking, and the moron before that was in for eleven years). Anyway. I was looking for renders of Terran and Hawker ships, so I could futz about in Paint.Net and do some test images as a low-effort way of trying out paint schemes - I'd still need to do a test model, to see how it works in real life, but test images are something I can do on my laptop, when I've got a minute during the day between attending lectures or something. I had grabbed a fair amount of the Terran Alliance range, though by no means all, when it occurred to me this might be something others were interested in as well. So rather than just saving ones I find to my hard drive from wherever Google finds them for me, I thought I'd try and use official Spartan sources, mostly from the online store. But that ended up being harder than I thought. I have Spartan links for renders of all the Taskforce stuff, the recent Xelocians, Syndicate, and Omnidyne, as well as all the Invasion fleets, and some RSN and Oroshan. I've gone hunting for others, but they're scattered across the net, as Spartan has taken down the render images for a lot of the stuff in their store (and those that remain are surprising hard to link to), going for the painted images - which, fair enough, generally gives a better idea of what they'll look like painted, but makes what I'm doing significantly harder. So I thought I'd ask the community. Any renders you find, either links to Spartan-hosted images that will likely stick around for awhile, or ones you nabbed off somewhere else and rehosted on imgur or something. Any ships from any force, so long as they're digital renders rather than photos of models. And then we can all unleash bad photoshops upon the forums, constant threads asking "Does this look good enough to paint?" with eye-searing colour combinations, or so intricate no human could reliably paint them, or low-effort images done with a flood-fill and ten seconds of time! ...wait. This may be a bad idea. Too late, typed it all out, not letting a post of this size go to waste! ...anyway, I hope this can be a resource to anyone else who has trouble properly visualising a paint scheme without something to look at. Hopefully people will post other renders, and we can get the full collection of Firestorm Armada ships - if we're lucky, someone from Spartan might drop a bunch of their files here, even! Terran Alliance Charter Enforcement Fleet Taskforce Ships Aquan Prime Guardian Shoal Taskforce Ships Sorylian Collective Bastion Fleet Taskforce Ships Dindrenzi Federation Planetfall Naval Division Fleet Taskforce Ships The Directorate Pacification Fleet Taskforce Ships The Relthoza Reformer Fleet Taskforce Ships Hawker Industries Carrier Group Xelocian Cruiser Battleship Group shot - 3/4 Group shot - Top-down Dreadnought Rense System Navy Dreadnought Group Carrier Group Patrol Fleet Works Raptor Battlecruiser Group Destroyer Group Oroshan Imperium Patrol Fleet Dreadnought Group STL Syndicate Group Shot - Side Group Shot - 3/4 Omnidyne Patrol Fleet Dreadnought Group Reinforcement Group Support Group
  11. Ah, okay - that makes sense. However, coincidentally enough, it turns out there is a Kurak document update! When you look at the Downloads page it says Nov 2015, but when you mouseover the link it says May 2016. I haven't gone through it yet to see what's changed, but Spartan might need to change the date on the Downloads page.
  12. Wait, what? The Regent only has 8 wings, and no ability to upgrade them. What does it have +5 wings over? Or am I looking at the wrong document - I've got the Nov 2015 update to Kurak, which the site says is the most recent?
  13. As for Apollo vs Titan, there is one clear advantage that the Titan has: It's just about the safest admiral bunker in the entire fleet, bar maaaybe a properly-upgraded Tyrant, and a large part of the Tyrant's survivability edge would be that it doesn't need to close to RB1 for best effect (and that it will have less of a giant flashing neon sign saying SHOOT ME! on it).
  14. Question: Has anyone had any success with Decimator-Spook Harpoons, and combining them with Nuke Tuetons? Scramble the PD with the Harpoons, then slam into them with Nukes from the Tuetons. Means you need to take both and they need to be attacking the same target, though.
  15. Hm... so just run AnyDice with the appropriate formulae and an easy-to-convert number, note it all down, and reverse-engineer it? Okay. It'll take some time, as I'll want to double-check my numbers. Plus, I won't start now, as it is ridiculously late local time and I should have been asleep hours ago. But when I get around to it, I'll post my numbers here, for all to enjoy/laugh at. And statistically it doesn't matter, but AnyDice only tells you the result to the nearest success, so 10 was my 'bare-minimum' run, to check the thinking was valid. Thanks! I look forward to seeing them.
×
×
  • 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.