Jump to content

Jorgen_CAB

Member
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Jorgen_CAB last won the day on December 2 2018

Jorgen_CAB had the most liked content!

About Jorgen_CAB

  • Rank
    Spica

Recent Profile Visitors

235 profile views
  1. I don't think every faction will be able to use ALL different turrets on their ships. I just think that in particular "Guns" and "Torpedoes" are going to be a general weapon across ALL fleets. The other weapons will be restricted in factions to some ships and I don't believe all factions will get access to all types of weapons. That was my point... Guns, Torpedoes and SRS counters are basic standard weapons available to everyone. This means that everyone can have a fleet with basic weapons if they so choose and be a jack of all trades fleet. I believe that you will then be able to specialise in different way with each faction, but how much specialisation you do is then up to you. Too much specialisation in one direction will of course leave you rather vulnerable to specific defences or enemy weapons. So it is up to you how much of a rock/paper/scissor fleet you want to build. Specialisation in absurdum only work when you play against random opponents and/or random fleets, in a campaign play you need a modest amount of specialisation since the opponent otherwise can easily tailor their defences accordingly as would be the result in "reality". If I know I play against someone that have very effective rockets I will of course stack up on AA to counter it as an example. In such an environment you want the possibility of have a bit more variation and not be so predictive. I also find it a bit boring if every game would force me to resort to the same general tactic because my fleet are so one dimensional. That in general would bore me out quite fast.
  2. I don't see how this will change if there is an option to use standard weapons on your ships if you want to. Every faction will still have weapons and characteristics which are unique to them... Options is a good thing in my opinion. I just think it is premature to think this will be a problem, personally i don't think it will make any problems what so ever.
  3. To be honest this is probably rather premature since there will obviously be enough flavour in weapon choices and special abilities to each side that every faction will feel and play differently. In my opinion Warcradle obviously use torpedoes and and guns as the baseline weapons all ships carry now, this does not mean there will not be enough differences between factions or some ships , especially unique ones, that deviate from that formula. In my opinion too much specialisation actually can cut down on options and how you like to play and the variation on how you can play with a specific faction. This can also lead to you becoming bored playing with them as it mostly feel like a repeat from game to game. Or it just becomes a rock/paper/scissor game where some factions are just clearly stronger against some factions than others etc as a result. Some blandness as an option is in my opinion good because you can build a truly more or less jack of all trades fleet with most factions if that is what you want. Sometimes you just like the models of a specific faction but you don't like how they play because you are locked into one specific way to play them, that leaves you with a rather difficult dilemma. The important thing is that each faction has some character that make them feel different than other factions. How much you like to specialise in that direction is then up to you. But I do agree that factions need to feel different from one another but not so much that it create imbalances that crate mostly rock/paper/scissor fleets.
  4. Played two games of 0.6 today and I must say that mortars and large squadrons of torpedo carrying destroyers or submarines is boring. Mortars are just OP... or at least very difficult to deal with and just don't promote much maneuvering at all. We played on a 4 by 5 feet area with roughly 13-1600 points. The crown had basically three battleships and two squadrons of two support carriers. All battleships had three Mortar turrets and the carriers battle-group training. The one giant 6 squadron destroyer was in reserve. The battleships and cruisers simply deployed in a line as far back as possible with the cruisers tucked behind them to support with air cover. Having Ace Pilots did not make this any more difficult either. The opposing fleet we made a bit more conventional with a slant of being good at something... be it close range fighting or something else. Basically no matter what the enemy composition they would get stuck with destroyers in the back and a broken fleet from mortar fire from the battleships. It is VERY difficult to close with a line moving perpendicular at the outer reach of the battlefield and not become clumped up for mortar fire to completely wreck the fleet and then the destroyers show up at a nice flank and make the process short of what is left. The problem is not just the effectiveness of these weapons but also the lack of any semblance of maneuvering or use of actual tactics... it is just a measure of throwing dice at the opponent with little to no real thought. Those mortar hit with 16 dice blast templates AND can fire indirect as well if needed. The fact they have bad stats at point blank is a moot point and not very important. Some small luck with the cards and you will do insane amount of damage. It simply is too easy to pick and chose the most threatening targets and wear them down, line of sight is too easy and there are way too little room to maneuver effectively at these ranges and the size of battlefields. The only counter seem to be your own mortars and then it certainly become a dice fest with no one really wanting to close the distance at all. Weapons and systems that remove maneuvering as a means to achieve your goal MUST be very limited, this include certain long range heavy damage weapons and large squadrons of small ships. These elements remove allot of the tactical maneuvering with just throwing dice at the opponent and hope for the best. I also don't understand why mortars is a long range weapon... it should be a short range weapon. Mortars shells are low speed, they have to be in order to have a steep curve and drop on top of the opponent.
  5. I have played one battle of 0.6 and a few of 0.5 and I have similar experiences as you with one big difference and that is when the game ends. They only end in turn 3 if one of the sides are too aggressive and so far with a loss to the one that speed their ships into range of the opponent too fast. It is impossible to approach in a non staggered manner and will result in giving the opponent the ability to combine its firepower piece meal on the enemy. In the last battles fleets have usually deployed more carefully and almost never pointing directly forward or deployed too far forward. The reason is so we have the option to turn away and have the enemy give chase or maneuver to a better firing position. In one game a few frigates on a flank diverted two cruisers to turn on them and they in turn did not close and essentially pulled them of the fight for the entire game as a result, had the cruiser not don this they would have had the frigates firing torpedoes at them the entire game form their back while facing a battleship in front of them. We might be playing in slightly bigger playing areas though so maneuvering is a bit more interesting. I otherwise agree that buckets of dice make certain modifiers pointless... but only if both players speed into close range in turn two/three. I also think that small ships are too vulnerable against heavy guns at long range, these weapons should essentially be worthless at long range and weak at medium range. Secondary weapons should be the weapon of choice against them. Even torpedoes are too effective against small ships at long range. I certainly agree that re-rolling defense die is pointless above 3 turning limit, even 2 is perfectly OK most of the time. I think that you should get one re-roll for half the turning limit (rounded down). 1-2 give on dice, 3-4 give two dice... this is not really hard to calculate. I know they don't want to count stuff but the current model is not very good. I must say that I'm not to keen on the rules anyway but then again i never liked the old rules either, trading ships seem to be the common theme quite often and rubs me the wrong way.
  6. But... first of all I did not suggest that battleships should be invulnerable in any way... just very hard to damage with small guns. Frigates would carry torpedoes, or at least most of them. There also should never be the case that everything should be good in all scenarios. The point is that Frigates have speed and maneuverability and a battleship would never be able to destroy a Frigate if that Frigate stay out of range and make torpedo attacks. So the whole point is that we should favor maneuver rather than dice to play the game. Therefore limiting the maximum dice pool is a good thing so you need to use actual tactics rather than just pressing your luck by throwing in a six strong Frigate swarm even though that is more or less a suicide mission in real life in such situations. This should only happen if you are desperate and should be scenario driven rather than a rule mechanic. My problem with rules and balance such as this is that you MUST find a balance used for every asset or it will never be taken. Well real life don't work like that since some assets perform extremely important missions outside pure combat. A destroyer is not really meant to go up against cruisers and battleships in gun battles, that is not their role. Having torpedoes is just one means for them to contribute at least something against a big ship if necessary, in most cases they would just avoid combat altogether. I would rather see that battle groups get special rules for have a certain mixture of ships where the pre-battle scouting of Frigates in a battle group have some effect on the battle other than just providing fire power. This would be a much more interesting way to portray these ships and make them useful. They can also be good against submarines for instance where a battleship and cruisers would suck, more or less. A Frigates should not just be a battleship only in a smaller package. Give them more dedicated roles and purposes and have combined warfare with some additional rules to abstract what happens before and after battles. I also think games like this should move away from the trading model principle and make scenario based combat more involved. It should be possible for both sides to loose if they don't manage to obtain their mission. Missions should include both a win and loose condition and not revealed until the last turn of the game. This means that both could potentially loose. Most mission should include statements such as no more than 30% losses and one large ship must survive or the mission is a failure or some such. The exact condition should vary enough that it will be hard to know what they are. Win conditions could be revealed perhaps nut not the loose conditions. You would pick a mission card based on what battle groups you chosen for the battle... so missions will be based roughly around what forces you use.
  7. I Why would it not be more fun?!? It would open up for more type of choices in how you maneuver your ships aside from rushing in to close range with everything in order to be the first to throw buckets of dice against the opponent. It would give different ships more clear roles on the battle waves. Anything that give power to the player for making clever moves more important than relying on lucky dice is a good thing. Popularity have more to do about accessibility, models quality, theme and easily comprehensible rules. Most "realistic" games are to complicated and often not very "realistic" because of that as well, but that is another story... ...simplicity can be in a "realistic" setting as well. Realism has very little to do with complexity, but complexity usually kills games as far as the average person playing games go.
  8. If you go by WWI and WWII weapons versus armour then a battleship armour was more or less invulnerable to a destroyers (or even light cruiser) main gun systems. At most the destroyer could damage its sensors and some superficial deck systems. In my opinion there should be main and secondary gun systems meant for different things. Large main guns should be represented by slow firing shells not meant to target small highly nimble ships. Even if you could theoretically use such shells and weapons a captain would not really waste ammunition on a small ship with those weapons systems. You did not use large caliber guns at destroyers at long distance or often not even at medium distance either because it was too wasteful, you would rely on your secondary armament for that, this is also why you had cruisers to protect the big boys from smaller ships that could threaten them with torpedoes which was the real threat. Frigates in Dystopian Wars should at most try to stay at long range and use torpedoes against medium and large ships. Using hordes of them to get into close range to combat a larger ships seems a bit gamy to me with no real semblance of logic. Don't see why you would not model something a bit more logic when its not hard to do that. This mechanic basically prove that the people of Dystopian Wars don't have any semblance of self preservation. I say that big guns should simply not explode against small ships. These ships are so fragile that a lucky shot will kill them anyway at medium to close range and damage them at long range. It should feel really wasteful to use those weapons on a small ship and only done if there is nothing else to fire at. -1 to hit is not really a very noticeable reduction in fire-power with the exploding "6" mechanic. Having a cap on max dice per attack I think would be great for game balance and the game overall. You could either just say twice the power of the primary weapon or each system could have a max printed on the weapons just like support dice.
  9. One thing that I think would balance the game a bit from huge dice pools which can become a bit silly is that no attack can have more dice than twice the main weapon dice pool. It is a bit silly when 5 frigates can combine their fire power and heavily damage a battle ship with their main guns. The reason is that dice don't scale linear in effectiveness due to how the mechanic works. I also think that main heavy guns are way to efficient when fired against small ships. The main guns of battleships in WWI & II was not terribly good against small ships but their secondary armament was pretty devastating against anything that managed to get close and was small. A small ship that manage to stay at long to medium range should be pretty safe from those big guns but not the secondary guns at medium to close range.
  10. If there was some mechanic and scenario reason to save your ships from being sunk as beneficial that would be nice. I also think that the point that you can't turn ships 180 in a turn is also something the then need to consider... don't move your ships straight at the opponent and risk loosing big then, move them as such so they have an escape route if things goes sideways. In my opinion it add a new layer to the tactical positioning of ships and not the drive towards the enemy and shoot until you sink mentality which frankly is a bit stupid in most cases. Anyway... scenarios should be more important that just line up the ships and fight because that is almost never the case in reality. I understand it is a game, but I usually immerse myself in the story and for me the story fail when ships act like kamikaze pilots without any reason all the time.
  11. Most people that play games do like the role-play and story it tells rather than winning... that is my experience. Of course trying to win is what you do but not the reason why you play. A game is a game... the fact is that majority of people play games based on the look of the models and setting not the rules. Most people want simple and understandable rules and care less about the mechanics as having fun playing. My experience from event games where you can tailor the rules from a specific scenario and set of models is that people really enjoy games that feel realistic and where their intuition of moving the models is more important than understanding the game mechanics and exploiting them to gain victory. When you introduce simulation that is usually what you get. The game mechanic take a backseat to what decision you make based on the position of the models on the board and what happens. It also is BS that realistic simulation turn into turtle tactics, that is because you only line up models and shoot at each other until one wins. Scenarios is what matters in more realistic settings... real battles happen for a reason. Not being able to create a fun and engaging game based on real life tactical choices is just a lack of imagination from most game developers. Scenarios also mean that you don't need to perfect balance of forces to play which is one of the downside of most games. Generals and Admirals are rarely restricted to a set of points or can freely select what resources they like to have. This usually end up games becoming repetitive and predictable eventually.
  12. This might be true using Spartan old gaming rules... those rules are not really geared towards something a bit more "realistic". In real life ship captains will not risk their ship sinking unless they can avoid it, there also are the overall Strategic goals to think about. In the space combat game that I designed for friends and some events was designed with more "realistic" use of the military assets in general. Loosing ships was far more hurting to your goals than saving them. When they are damaged you also need to make sure their efficiency are reduced enough that you don't want them in the fight anymore. Also... captains are going to make decisions the admiral perhaps would not agree with, such as disengaging or even engaging when you don't want to... so some forced behaviour out of player control can be needed to reflect the chaos of a battlefield and represent the FOW... the admiral will never know and understand the details of every situation as the people being there making the hard decisions. A game can still be fun when you add some simulation.... perhaps not good for competitive environment but certainly much better for representing more realistic conditions. Some player enjoy the role-play experience more than the competitive side of things. In my opinion... the ultra competitive players are usually over-represented in forums such as this while the more role-play oriented are the majority of players in real life. So saying such game us boring I don't think are true at all. The most engaging games I see people enjoying at events are those driven by allot of role playing and having lots of random element but enough strategic depth to feel you have agency over your destiny to effect the outcome of the game.
  13. This is my thought exactly... actual losses of ships are often around 10% for a singe large engagement. Smaller engagements obviously can be more one sided and random but large battles rarely is. In reality ranges a which ships engage are usually big enough for damaged ships to slip away in the confusion, such scenarios you rarely see in games of this type. There are really no defensive manoeuvres you can do in the game such as deploying smoke and hiding seem to be even harder than it was before. The examples from history that we have of decisive battles are usually the rare ones not the norm. As always it comes down to myself to do rules of my own liking... ...the ships and the setting is great so for me it is worth the effort and it works as long as you only play friendly games.
  14. Yes... this was mainly how I have experienced the Spartan rules for both Firestorm Armada and Dystopian Wars... after you digested some of the finer point of the movement and when to activate what it mainly felt that games was defined by whoever managed to roll those important "6" first a couple of times. I don't think these rules will fix any of that and from what I read in the rules will just make it worse. The things that I might like from the new rules are the focus on scenarios rather than just lining ships up and fire on each other until one lost 50% of their force. What I generally don't like in most games of this character is the high attritional losses in them... from history we know that actual total losses in navy ships was rather low and those cases where they were more than 5-10% (in a particular battle) of a force are exceptions not the rule.
  15. Well the rules seem pretty similar to the old ones just more streamlined. Since I never liked the old rules I don't like these either... will use my own ones if I ever play with the models. Really like the models though. A bit strange though that ships no longer get reduced firepower from being crippled/damaged... where are the incentive to disengage ships from combat... the game just became more about dice rolling than the old rules... but ah.. well... it is what it 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.