Scope for a Dystopian Wars 3.0?

[Nicius 298]

Yeah I think you're right. Definitely something that would solve a lot of the issues with SaS spam I think.

[varnos 277]

@Thamoz, would you mean deploy activated, or deploy and immediately activate afterwards?

[Thamoz 1,086]

Deploy activated, like drones do when relaunching.

The other way could allow for much easier first turn SAW strikes from advance deployed carriers or airfields which I don't like the idea of... but that may just be my own preferences rather than a solid argument against it.

[level9red 28]

@Thamoz The one game of Fleet Action we had we thought the rules for SAW there would help matters in regular DW, or am I misremembering?

[Thamoz 1,086]

Indeed true, though I cannot remember the specifics.  I liked how fighters could be kept on station and sent out to defend targets from enemy saw. I can't remember most of the rules for it though at the moment but I know a lot of it would require changes to fit into DW. How bombers work for example (activating with carrier is not a good thing in my opinion).

[CDR_G 201]

Limiting SAS is an approach to addressing Activation spam. One way way would be to charge for Local air- 15 points per squadron.

I have used activation limits as a requirement in a scenario.

 

[Presidente 655]

In armada you have to pay 5points per wing, so carrier 6 would cost an extra 30 points, that would suitably sort carrier spamming out

[CDR_G 201]

Adding a SAS support squadron costs 15, (Tunguska, others).

But, whatever.

 

[Brother Glacius 56]

DW 3.0 needs less tokens, and a more simplified damage system. I really like planetfall. If DW can move in that direction, that would be a good thing.

[BigB 175]

DW 3.0 is not needed.  There's already a fast play DW version.  I would like to see fleets completed before we go about creating a new rules set that's not needed.  If there's a problem with specific ships, these can be updated with Orbat updates.  New rules are not required.

Activation spam is only a problem for some.  Our group of 10 plays regularly and this is not an issue.  The vocal 1% should not drive changes that would effect 99%.

The SAS can be adjusted with orbat updates and may lessen the spam some see.  But a new release of the rules is overkill

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,814]

We just have to be careful that the changes do not swing too far the other way. For example, when the CoA drones were first considered too powerful, the playtesters made some suggestions for reining them in a bit. Unfortunately, all of the ideas were combined together instead of just using one or two of them.

[Wolfchild 47]

Perhaps the biggest change we should look for is a new rulebook. Largely same rules but in a logical order and an index that works. Alphabetical index is how u find things, not the haphazard current layout. No checking in 3 different places for the rules on 1 thing. Utilise key words and nail it down.

The game rules work really well as is. A few minor Orbat tweaks can fix most issues.

Honestly activation spam is not that big an issue and only really appears as a problem when 2 fleets go for different extremes of approach. That sort of thing can and should always be a possibility. Carriers already pay massive costs in points AND in strategic value, why tax them even more. Esp drone launchers that already got shafted more than necessary.

Background would be really nice - Spartan have nodded a head toward this in recent leaks along w Brittanian ship concepts (if that comes to anything is another matter) but it gives a taste of the gud stuff. A few novels along with better setting and faction fluff would be great. Although that recent write up is nice, this Dystopian timeline is essentially a really bad sturginium Cold War, but with low level nukes just being used at will. It kinda suggests the end is near through pure attrition. Spartan - please don't kill ur own game/setting thru massive oversights like GW.

[S.Giles 617]

Ain't going to happen...

[varnos 277]

48 minutes ago, SpartanGiles said:

Ain't going to happen...

Please pick from the comments below:

• Revamp SAS
• A simplified token/damage system
• Activation Spam addressing
• ORBAT tweaks
• Background material
• Rulebook overhaul
• Killing your own game/setting due to massive oversights

[Nicholas 227]

@varnosReplace it with "Age of Sturgeon" perhaps?  

 

[Brother Glacius 56]

So I don't have the fleet action rules, but I have played the fast rules for Firestorm. Is the same random damage table in the DW version? Because that was the one thing I didn't like. A glancing hit could blow you up, while a major hit might only leave you with barely anything.

[Wolfchild 47]

Well done #SpartanGiles for ensuring we should have no faith in Spartan Games or their vague intent to actually improve a core system in their portfolio.

Cheap comments like that are what destroys a player base and thus your income and job.

Please be more descriptive and helpful in your comments.

[Lord Nobody 338]

" Replace it with "Age of Sturgeon" perhaps?  

Ok lets not go there, SG's does not deserve that.

 

[Erloas 382]

I don't know the Firestorm rules so I couldn't say if it is the same or not.

There is a random table but there are some modifiers to it.  It uses the the classic 2d6 bell curve as a base.

If you hit their DR you can do anything from 1 disorder to 6 damage, though both of those are about a 3% chance of happening.  About 45% of your rolls will end up in the 2-3 damage range.

If you double DR you add 1 to each roll so the min there is 3x disorder and max is a straight destroyed, again those two are 3% chances and everything else is at least 1 damage.  If you triple DR the min is 2 damage, and if you quadruple DR the min is 3 damage.  But your average is going to be around 3-4, 4-6, or 6-destroyed respectively.

I haven't actually got to play with the fast play rules yet, but the distribution looks very reasonable to me.

[Sebenko 978]

5 hours ago, Nicholas said:

@varnosReplace it with "Age of Sturgeon" perhaps?  

 

We already have that in the form of Fleet Action... but FA didn't make the mistake of nuking a beloved game and setting to make space for itself.

[S.Giles 617]

5 hours ago, Wolfchild said:

Well done #SpartanGiles for ensuring we should have no faith in Spartan Games or their vague intent to actually improve a core system in their portfolio.

Cheap comments like that are what destroys a player base and thus your income and job.

Please be more descriptive and helpful in your comments.

Apologies. I didn't have a huge amount of time.

 

I'm not going to comment on rules speculations at this stage, but hopefully the player base will enjoy the series of blogs we have started, these will address some of the questions people have in terms of setting development and what's upcoming for Dystopian Wars.

[tibour 77]

3.0 NOT needed new ruled book logically laid out wouldn't hurt.

As to Spam

On 9/2/2016 at 4:21 PM, Veldrain said:

I would like SAS spam toned down but I don't think actually changing the SAS rules is going to do it. 

• Activating them with the carrier - Parent first:  To powerful.  A fleet carrier would be able to slam a target with weapons and then after it degrades the AA it can launch two separate dive bombing attacks.  Playtest this once with the Zhanmadoa with 12 SAS upgrade and see if you think it is workable.
• Activating them with the carrier - SAS first:  Still to powerful.  Take the medium carriers as a squadron.  They can drop 2-3 dive bombings on a squadron and follow it up with main guns and boarding.  Prussia, or again the Chinese, would love this.
• Separate SAS phase:  Negates the use of bombers at all.  This removes the tactical use of bombers as deterrent or board control since they activate all at once.  I can move into their threat range but have the entire turn before they can retaliate.  In that time every nearby squad will be whittling them down with popshots.  Complete lose of tactics.

Spam is the problem and the easiest way may be to fix what makes it possible.  Every single carrier has Strategic Value and this mechanic is near useless.  Drop Strategic Value and add most of that value back into the model as straight point cost.  This would go a long way to leveling the playing field in competitive play *cough Ironclad *cough when you are fighting for Objectives and don't necessarily care about points killed.

I have to completely agree with Veldrain. The three most logical approach will involve changing rules that work just fine. The far simpler and in my opinion much more effective approach is to do away with the strategic values and add them to the point cost of the model. This increase in points will affect how the basic fleets are assemble from the beginning of fleet construction and throughout play. How often do strategic points really matter? Sure if you loose a ship they are added. If they were added from the beginning it would mean one less small ship or in some cases even a medium ship on the board  per carrier.. That would have a much greater direct impact on the game.

[Necroscourge 3]

All I know is as a french SAS spammer (I own what... 20 Arbaletes?) I absolutely hated how Fleet Action made the models I specifically invested in as part of my strategy so... fecal. Not only can Arbe's in FA only be attached to large squadrons but their plane is a weapon now?  I chose to play Armoured France because of the Arbalete and Mobile Airfield; so of course that's what gets nerfed to hell in the new rules huh? 

I would almost want to propose something similar to how minefields work in a change to DW SAS, so you activate a bunch of your planes, move them forward, and then they passively attack models that get too close. So say I activate my Mauselle, and since it's a carrier I can use it to send orders to the SAS wings I have on the table; and I would want to propose a MAR that would allow Arbaletes to also command aircraft. Sure it's probably not that graceful but in a way I think that's a better way to represent the command structure of planes. Maybe if you have no carriers, planes just always go last.

[tibour 77]

As to the Direction the new story seems to be taking, I would suggest that everyone watch the movie "Shout at the Devil" It is a 1976 film Featuring Lee Marvin, Roger Moore, Ian Holm, and Barbara Parkins. "Shout at the Devil is an epic tale of adventure and revenge. Set in German East Africa Just prior to World War I. Shout at the Devil is the story of Flynn O'Flynn(Marvin) and Sebastian Oldsmith(moore), two men who have teamed up on a series of illicit poaching raids. Their actions soon catch the eye of German Commissioner Herman Fleischer, who uses his authority to enact a terrible punishment. O'flynn and Oldsmith embark on a personal campaign against Fleisher, eventually being recruited by the allied forces to take on an even bigger target - an elusive German Battleship." Taken from the DVD case. This movie is one of those gems that if you haven't seen you truly need to and even though the time is a little of it ties into our Dystopian story quite well.

[ethicalengineer 29]

First of all we need completed range of TACs, reprinted Event Cards for 2.0 Rulebook. Mission system for competitive play (with Fleet Orders as secondary objective and like GW's Pitched Battle for main game) with similar to homemade Ironclad rulepack rules for TACs.