Jump to content
Benchpresser

DW for rest of 2016

Recommended Posts

Personally I wonder if a balance between richomack88's and BigB's views, if it can be found, would be the best way to go. I agree with BigB that every nation wouldn't have exactly the same type of combat vessels, but at the same time, I'd argue that in reality, if a concept works, it tends to get readily adopted by all sides. There would be certain roles, or capabilities, that every nation would and should have in the air, on the land or at sea.

They may not approach these roles in the same way. For instance, at present, the US Navy primarily relies on its strike aircraft from its carriers to perform the anti-surface (anti-ship) role. They have ship-based anti-ship missiles, specifically the Harpoon, but they are not as highly favoured as aircraft delivering Harpoon (AFAIK). They haven't ignored anti-ship missile tech, but focus on its use by strike aircraft over its use by ships.

In contrast, to perform the same anti-surface role, the Russian Navy has utilised long-range anti-ship missiles, to the point of equipping nearly every ship (and submarine!) with them. Carrier-based aircraft do not have the same significance, and indeed, most of Russia's naval strike aircraft are long-range, land-based bombers. Same role, different answer.

Applying this to DW, I'm not so sure if torpedo and rocket tech would be ignored by the nations of Dystopia that didn't initially employ them. They'd at least be countered (and we have CC and AA for that), but also, if they work so well, surely nations would adopt them? It would be silly not to - even if they are looked down upon or mistrusted by a particular nation's officers and war leaders. They may not adopt them to the same extent as others, as per the US/Russia example above...but they'd have them.

Similarly, if the Russians can work out how to repair their ships in the midst of combat without any unique proprietary technology that no-one else has, then other nations would look on and say, 'hey, that's a jolly good idea, let's copy it.' They might not do it in the same way (i.e.with a dedicated repair ship), but taking richomack88's idea, they could possibly have repair teams that can be added to ships for a points cost, have a national MAR, some sort of semi-boarding mechanic, or something. If repairing vessels is a powerful and useful tool, it is not going to be ignored.

If it were also down to me, I'd like to be a bit tighter on model designations, and more closely follow real-world concepts. As DW is grounded at least partially in the real world, I think this would help and not hinder the game, and bring immersion. Even in a world of Victorian super-science, weird weapons and wonderful technologies would still be employed in conventional ways and roles that have traditionally worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than identical ships and stats I meant each nation should have access to a fleet carrier (carrier 9) and some form of mine laying vessel.

When you face the FSA, as an example, and he brings two carriers at a total value of 18 carrier points with roughly 300 points spent in his listing and I squared off against him with the EOTBS - to match his carrier value of 18 (and not be at a disadvantage) I would need 3 x Tenkei at a total cost of 450 points thus being at a 150 point higher cost just to field the same amount of SAW.

That's kind of what I'm getting at - having mor3 in depth commodore abilities and unique weapon systems is the best way to distinguish between fleets, but you have to make sure each nation has competitive models first - starting with fleet carriers etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, richomack88 said:

Rather than identical ships and stats I meant each nation should have access to a fleet carrier (carrier 9) and some form of mine laying vessel.

I know what you meant.  I just took it to the next level on purpose.  We tend to do this on the forum so I left things no where to go.

Jaeger, those are some great comments.  The one thing you are forgetting is that not all countries have the capability to produce the type of ship and weaponry that is successful elsewhere.  They want it.  They try...but it takes a long time to do on your own.

Also, it's not that the Russians are so good at repairs in combat.  It's that they are willing to sacrifice others to make sure they can do repairs.  Other navies rely more on the dry dock / ship yard repairs because they don't want to sacrifice the lives

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, richomack88 said:

Rather than identical ships and stats I meant each nation should have access to a fleet carrier (carrier 9) and some form of mine laying vessel.

When you face the FSA, as an example, and he brings two carriers at a total value of 18 carrier points with roughly 300 points spent in his listing and I squared off against him with the EOTBS - to match his carrier value of 18 (and not be at a disadvantage) I would need 3 x Tenkei at a total cost of 450 points thus being at a 150 point higher cost just to field the same amount of SAW.

That's kind of what I'm getting at - having mor3 in depth commodore abilities and unique weapon systems is the best way to distinguish between fleets, but you have to make sure each nation has competitive models first - starting with fleet carriers etc

 

Why?? Each nation has its strengths......Frankly, I see two fleet carriers for the FSA and I see easy points for my french, there frankly shite compared to a Tourbillon.

I dont agree that every nation should have every type of unit, but I can see a small point about some are able to abuse what they have to create things which harm the game, such as activation spam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 1:17 AM, richomack88 said:

Wouldn't it be clever if Spartan sent a survey round, focusing on one nation at a time, with all the units listed and you get to select what stats the units have - with the final stats decided by using the average score - obviously it's not perfect but it would give a large amount of feedback from experienced players as to where the ships should lay in the grand scheme of things.  Three things - 1.  This would take absolutely forever.  2.  Having seen the number of horrible absolutely broken homebrew models posted in these forums most players don't have a clue about creating a balanced ship much less an entire faction.  3.  We would end up with entire ORBAT's of ships that can do any job from subhunting to air hunting with boarding thrown in and zero drawbacks.

However, all nations need a standardisation in my view - with a wider range of commodore and singular abilities of give them their unique behaviour. Rather than more of the same models with wildly different stats.  You are contradicting yourself here. 

Why not have "fleet points" which you can spend on customising your ships (to a limited degree) - give the Honshu 2 inches more movement at a cost of "x" amount of points? Why not. Bolt a guardian gen on a Hachiman ? Why not.  Because this would be a bad idea.  Customization makes it significantly harder to balance and spot the trouble combinations.  It makes it harder for opponents when two squads of cruisers look identical but one squad is faster and the other squad has stronger turrets.

That way YOU decide if the ship is needed, can be improved and plays well with extra bolt ons

Also, for example - EOTBS (and others) they need a fleet carrier (still not sure why they don't have one) all nations should have a dedicated mine layer. 

All nations should have repair vessels (without forking out for ally repair ships)

Are you seeing where I'm going on that?  No I don't.  Not every nation should be a cookie cutter copy of the others.  The variety is because not every fleet operates the same. 

Also, Ottoman, Chinese, Denmark, Indian Raj should be boosted to major national status and fleshed out with newer ships etc  It's about time this debate came up again.  The game play difference between being a major and minor power is nothing beyond allies.  The distinction is a background fluff item.  That is it.  The major nations have expansionist ambitions for the war while the minors just want to survive and maybe come out a little better.  It won't effect the release schedule for them.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be a horrible idea to give all the nations all of the same ships.  It is really lazy design and it takes all of the reason out of having multiple nations.  (see different colored marines being almost the same but with minor changes.... boring as can be)

It also doesn't make sense because every nation has their specialties and different needs and available resources.

Take for instance aircraft carriers: they really only make sense if you have a strong airforce as well as the ships to support and protect that carrier.  They are also vast uses of resources, both in terms of building them, but also in designing them.  If a country is resource limited what would make more sense, 1 aircraft carrier or 10 cruisers?  And on the design side, would you rather spend the year(s) designing and testing a design for a ship you may only produce a couple of or spend it on something that you can make a lot of. 

A country with a lot of extra resources might spend some on specialty, but less used, ships.  Of course a nation with limited resources might choose to spend a huge amount on just a few specialty ships simply because they can't win a war of attrition and have to do things differently to even have a chance.

Same can be said for repair ships, that is a lot of resources to send into an active confrontation.  They might have them, but never choose to put them on the field because they can't risk them.  If you're limited on manpower you might need all of your sailors to be active in the fighting, you might not have the people the spare an entire ship's worth of crew on a non-combat ship.  Get one more combat ship out there fighting and let your highly trained and valuable maintenance crews stay safely at harbor. 

 

I don't think the game needs a new edition.  This edition could use a few more changes to help with some problems, but I'm a firm believer in the fact that you can change some things without changing everything.  Being a digital ruleset they could easily make changes to 2-3 parts of it, release it as 2.1 and be done.  It isn't like some other companies where something like that would come off as a money grab because the rulebooks can only be purchased as a hard-bound $50 book, where you have to have a lot of changes to justify changing it at all.

Having units that can be greatly customized makes balancing a system exponentially harder.  It also quickly becomes a "false" choice, in that you might have 10 options but it isn't going to take long before the vast majority of the playerbase has settled on the best choice for each option and nothing else is ever used.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all agreeing but not exactly coming up with anything concrete (which is my underlying point) one minute we have idea that homebrew models are terrible, but another posters homebrew ideas are endorsable.

One minute we want more fleshing out and more models and next minute we want things balanced.

You guys are 100% contradicting yourself and not really coming up with anything to suggest a tangible way forward - balancing an entire game is nigh on impossible, someone is going to lose out or have a gripe about models and the thing about forums is that it's always the gripes of the vocal minority as not all players are on these forums.

Dystopian wars isn't perfect, it could be improved but I don't think anyone here (myself included) knows how they would do it. Simply saying "let's look at the stats" or something equally as vague as "balance the models" is just a waste of time.

I find games tend to balance better with house rules - such as the way my lot utilise tac cards or omit carriers on occasion etc.

You can't please everyone sadly.

Vel - I'm not saying every nation should have the same ship with the same stats, I'm medley suggesting you should have the ability to field similar capable ships. In a way I guess you can already do this with the merchant fleets so that does semi defeat both our arguments I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erloas I can see what you are saying, but you arguing (in regards to Nation's infrastructure) individual nation's infrastructure as we know it in the past and today against an alternate timeline where somehow Victoriana nations can build walking castles, but in our timeline we still struggle to build a phone charger that doesn't break after a few months...

In regards to the customisation - if the pool of players pick the same options should that be used as feedback to develop that particular vessel? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will just say it this way (and it's not personal).  

The plan you have richomack88 for fleet development would kill this game faster than the lack of communication and development from Spartan Games.  The reason fleets appeal to everyone in different ways is because they are different.  Different look.  Different capabilities.  Different play-styles.  Different background.

KoB is the vanilla of DW.  Solid, capable, vanilla.  I recommend them to you as a fleet.  I chose them.  Vanilla is gooood...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly guys it's just throwing ideas out and debating - plus I was not suggesting every one has the exact same load out etc (that would be dull)

However we have access to the merchant units which give us equal footing in some aspects in a pseudo manner right?

The 3.0 thread is getting some good exposure and some good ideas, no idea is bad and you never know who is reading the replies in that thread.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I need say much here, since my opinion (or most of it, in disparate bits, has been said by others) but I will add a concern of mine that has been niggling me during the newer releases (can I call them newer when they are so long ago?)

Flavour bleed.

That is, what some nations used to have near exclusively has bled into other factions. The KoB and Guardian Generators is a good example of this. It was never exclusive to KoB (I think, maybe in 1,1 but not in 2.0) but it is becoming more and more common across more and more nations. The CoA even have one in the Coeus... This bleeding of exclusive rules, generators or weapons waters down the flavour of the nations, something I am very against. I think any move towards strengthening the internal balance of factions should also act to reinforce the difference between nations.

Finally, each model should have a role in its ORBAT, but the role of "budget version of unit X" is a viable one. To take the example of the EoTBS Honshu and Tanuki, it is perfectly ok to have the Tanuki be comprehensively better than the Honshu, so long as the points difference between the two makes it a real choice. Of course, the points costs would still need to be balanced against the rest of the EoTBS ORBAT and the other ORBATS. The Tribal and the Agincourt used to have a similar problem, in that the Agincourt was comprehensively better than the Tribal and the points difference was not enough to make the choice difficult. The Tribal got a slight adjustment and the points were looked at. Now both are valid choices. 

In fact, with the exception of the Monarch, I think the KoB naval ORBAT is a good example of internal balance with varied choices. None of the models are completely useless (though some have more specialised roles which make them more situational picks).

Here endeth the ramble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree - the KoB Naval, especially the mediums, are superb. However the reason for that is that you have the Dominion, Agincourt and Tribal which are all fairly similar and all share the same sturdy build quality and shield benefits.

Comparing that to the EOTBS and you have the Tanuki, which is one of the best mediums about, but then you have the Honshu and Nakatsu which are pretty sub par, meaning you have one very excellent medium and a poor set of mediums compared to KoB who have 3 very good to excellent mediums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is:  Is it an issue or a design characteristic for the Nation?  Some nations may be better with Naval than Air.  Some vice versa.  Others suck at both.  Points should match up accordingly (*may* be an issue there for some fleets).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good point, however I think it would be better to say that the navy and airforce of a nation serve differing roles in differing ways.

Case in point, the KoB  (sorry to keep bleating on about the KoB, but I know them almost as well as the CoA and they fit this idea better).

The Navy is the bare knuckle bruiser, taking hits but just keeps on slugging. The KoB airforce has been described (whether in published fluff or old designer notes I cannot remember) as the fast strike force (a bit like the SAS perhaps), able to strike anywhere and board more effectively than their naval or land based counterparts . This is almost the case, the airships are (aside from the planes) exceptionally maneuverable and with decent crew numbers. They also tend to be awful brawlers and fairly weak in flat out firepower. The planes support this by speed and short range hitting power.

This is a good design in theory, since it allows the airforce to be a useful supporting element to either land or naval without being strictly worse or strictly better. In practice of course, this balance has not been struck since the naval or land options are strictly better than their flying peers (with the exception of Halifax and Merlin, who both excel at their roles). I think by keeping this design in mind, the other KoB air options could be fixed to better carry this theme and improve internal/external balance (for example, the Eagle is quite rubbish currently, but give it a 10 inch movement speed (to fit the rapid strike fluff) and suddenly you have a decent mine and bomb platform on a reasonably resistant body with guardian support ability and a purpose in life! Of course, that would make it faster than a fair few medium vessels...

Now looking at the CoA (similar to the KoB in that the aerial section sucks) you see a complete absence of theme. The navy does one thing and the air force does... the same thing but worse. The only CoA air units worth taking are the ones that have unique roles or perform a function dramatically different to the navy analogues (ptolemy mine layer, Capek interceptor, Hyperbius support flyer). Without that guiding theme to interweave with the land and naval selections, the aerial ORBAT is a mess.

Anyway, my point is that whilst some nations may be better or worse than others in certain theatres, their ORBATS should provide a variety of useful tools that each serve a purpose within that nation. Whilst you might then compare two equivalent role models from two different nations and see that one is obviously superior in every respect, so long as they both fit their ORBATS internal balance and have a fair points cost there should not be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • 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.