Jump to content

Recommended Posts

calicos are going to make a great addition to a lot of squadrons to boost their firepower whilst chucking out wings. it's a bit too tall at the moment though so I may end up cutting down the bridge and making it a side bridge ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have gone out today a bought a notebook to record games then to try and decipher my scrawls (even a doc would have trouble deciphering them at times) and post them and give constructive points :) positive and negative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/23/2017 at 11:04 PM, Bazlord said:

@Spartan Mike What're you doing up, trolling the forums at 5:30am on a Saturday, young man!! Get some sleep! (And dream fitfully of usable Target Painters, the Faster Rockets MAR, and 360° turning on the Savannah ;-)

If I'm not mistaken Spartan Mike is in CA, USA and only an hour behind me, which would put the time stamp on those posts at a very reasonable 10:30 pm.

 

Given what has been said, Spartan doesn't seem to have an official document control section which lead to a lot of half changes and errors in the ORBATs. So I wouldn't worry too much about some "illogical changes" until those are worked out.

As an aside, I was thinking about the height band to-hit numbers and while it makes sense with a surface centric approach, it just seems like the end cases need to be changed. The fact that if you are firing from stratospheric you can hit a surface model just as easily as a deep diving one. And that firing at another ship in Stratospheric is also just as hard to hit.  From a simplification of game play sense I can see why, but I think a few changes could make things more interesting from a meta/list building point of view.

Firing from deep diving to deep diving or from stratospheric to stratospheric maybe could be at 5s to hit, the distances to see and aim should be easier than from outside the range band. It would have a great deal of impact on what someone might field as counters to other models people will bring that can enter those bands. Flying sky battleships would then have a great role of hunting the large flying carriers that are trying to hide up there. They can also use the defense of stratospheric without making their armament useless. It gives them a very clear role and reason to take compared to surface vessels.

As for the range bands and firing out of the extremes, once you pass surface height.

BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUES from Stratospheric:
Stratospheric 5
Obscured RED (6)
Surface or Flying RED (6)
Submerged blue (6)
Deep Diving black (6)

Deep diving would be the same only reversed (though I'm not aware of any weapons that can be fired from diving at an flying model). Although it would go to reason obscured to deep diving should then be blue(6). And any related target painter, hunter, or similar MAR would move up a step or two based on value.

Is it worth the extra complications based on how little it is likely to come up? I'm not sure. It wouldn't change things with set to-hit numbers like area bombardment and I can't think of any airships (excluding SAS, which can't leave flying anyway) with torpedoes. So would really only come into play for medium+ airships with bombs but not area bombardment.

 

So at least that part might be too obscure to worry about. But the 5+ to hit if both are in deep diving or both in stratospheric is definitely worth looking at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Erloas said:

If I'm not mistaken Spartan Mike is in CA, USA and only an hour behind me, which would put the time stamp on those posts at a very reasonable 10:30 pm.

 

Given what has been said, Spartan doesn't seem to have an official document control section which lead to a lot of half changes and errors in the ORBATs. So I wouldn't worry too much about some "illogical changes" until those are worked out.

As an aside, I was thinking about the height band to-hit numbers and while it makes sense with a surface centric approach, it just seems like the end cases need to be changed. The fact that if you are firing from stratospheric you can hit a surface model just as easily as a deep diving one. And that firing at another ship in Stratospheric is also just as hard to hit.  From a simplification of game play sense I can see why, but I think a few changes could make things more interesting from a meta/list building point of view.

Firing from deep diving to deep diving or from stratospheric to stratospheric maybe could be at 5s to hit, the distances to see and aim should be easier than from outside the range band. It would have a great deal of impact on what someone might field as counters to other models people will bring that can enter those bands. Flying sky battleships would then have a great role of hunting the large flying carriers that are trying to hide up there. They can also use the defense of stratospheric without making their armament useless. It gives them a very clear role and reason to take compared to surface vessels.

As for the range bands and firing out of the extremes, once you pass surface height.

BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUES from Stratospheric:
Stratospheric 5
Obscured RED (6)
Surface or Flying RED (6)
Submerged blue (6)
Deep Diving black (6)

Deep diving would be the same only reversed (though I'm not aware of any weapons that can be fired from diving at an flying model). Although it would go to reason obscured to deep diving should then be blue(6). And any related target painter, hunter, or similar MAR would move up a step or two based on value.

Is it worth the extra complications based on how little it is likely to come up? I'm not sure. It wouldn't change things with set to-hit numbers like area bombardment and I can't think of any airships (excluding SAS, which can't leave flying anyway) with torpedoes. So would really only come into play for medium+ airships with bombs but not area bombardment.

 

So at least that part might be too obscure to worry about. But the 5+ to hit if both are in deep diving or both in stratospheric is definitely worth looking at.

There is a lot to like there - especially the 'same height' part - but the current system is easier to explain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the older threads explained why the hit numbers were like they were.

Eg- Stratospheric height, the engines would be struggling from the rarified atmosphere. The crew would also be affected by it, especially given they're using 19th century breathing apparatus, while simultaneously dealing with the cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the Savannah nerf.

1) it sucks. My punching bag of bomber spam has been nerfed something fierce. 

2) I only have one, which exists to make an air core list viable, so my three Saratogas can easily pick up the slack. 

3) Until Spartan recognizes that the Savannah has been nerfed and needs fixing to bring it in line with other powers, there are two things we have to do. That's 1) play with it as is and log how bad it sucks now. And 2) despite the nerf, acknowledge that it is not a Tourbillon, Illustrious, Imperium, etc., and find a way to make it work in our fleets. Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the zeppelin-filling air of dread, stemming from the Savannah's "nerf", will be rectified when it goes through the Mike-Wash when we set up the new testing of updates.

Shes a beast and needs to perform like one. Not just some damned raft. 

Many substantial changes to the above mentioned unit and innumerable others coming. 

Notes being taken. Watch for an official announcement in regards to signing up for our new test team, if you might want to be involved!

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Spartan Mike said:

I suspect the zeppelin-filling air of dread, stemming from the Savannah's "nerf", will be rectified when it goes through the Mike-Wash when we set up the new testing of updates.

Shes a beast and needs to perform like one. Not just some damned raft. 

Many substantial changes to the above mentioned unit and innumerable others coming. 

Notes being taken. Watch for an official announcement in regards to signing up for our new test team, if you might want to be involved!

-Mike

That's what I wanted to hear... where do I sign up??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been looking at the rules as well as the FSA orbat and can not quite figure out what amount of dice is used for Sharpshooter MAR.  In the orbat there is no brackets to indicate a dice amount but in the mars section of the rules it states that the attack dice rolled will be indicated in the parenthesis.  Any help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ozysturn said:

Been looking at the rules as well as the FSA orbat and can not quite figure out what amount of dice is used for Sharpshooter MAR.  In the orbat there is no brackets to indicate a dice amount but in the mars section of the rules it states that the attack dice rolled will be indicated in the parenthesis.  Any help?

That is something that needs to be fixed, for now I just use the 2.0 value of 1. Hopefully with the change to the MAR we get multiple sharpshooters on large and medium vessels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

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.