Jump to content
Grand-Stone

New company...

Recommended Posts

My initial reactions is documented on the FB group as.. UM... NO.  However I've stepped back after some more answers from Stuart and am cautiously optimistic.  Historically The Chinese and Japanese empires have always been at odds, each seeing the other as a threat to their "empire building" (More-so the Japanese but..).  Now if the Celestial Empire in DA is a reaction to "Western Imperialism" or Mongol threats or etc then I can see possible the Celestial Empire forming.  (Similar to the UK/USA-USSR alliancve in WW2, with both sides not trusting the other an inch but working against a common enemy)

Sadly I never snagged the Chinese sets before Spartan's demise (still looking for them if anyone has any hint hint) but they were some of the best thematic models they put out and I think WC can only improve them.

One thing I do NOT like is the idea that because the Empress of the Blazing Sun is the "head" of the Celestial combined navies, some ships have the Blazing Sun carved into the ship regardless of nationality.  That to me is a HUGE no.  Now hopefully WC makes that an.. optional plate to slot onto a model.  If not I'll likely just won't use those specific ships no matter how good they are.

For the Celestial Empire itself?  I'm most interested in the other nations.  I'm dying to see what a Dystopian Korean Turtle ship would look like!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Benchpresser said:

Again, please don't quote me on this but from everything they have said in videos, separate "solo" national list will remain, and conflict between members is possible.

I quoted you anyway and will hold you personally responsible for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can just add in, for right now I dislike this idea of what they are doing with the faction. A 1000 year alliance? The oldest alliance in the world is the Portugese-British Alliance, and there are a few times the Portugese have not really stood up with their allies. It is poor and lazy writing. Grouping in every other Asian nation so all the nations are all friends together is a borderline racist treatment, not that I am accusing anyone of actually being racist. Considering that from 1000 to 1900 China was remade several times it also unnecessarily complicates the history, for Russian as well which largely absorbs and colonizes the former Mongolian Empire, thus the size of Russia. Also that is why Mongolia tends to have more to do with Russian politics than. I like the Blazing Sun thing, it is reminiscent of the actual Imperial Japanese thing, where all military weapons would have an Imperial Chrysanthemum stamp and navy vessels would have it on the prow of the vessel. However I can see why if you were not playing the Japanese you would really not like it that much, I would not like it if I was playing a Chinese or Korean fleet, who had their own navies and pride. Imperial_Seal_of_Japan.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it might be the greatest alliance in world, the Immortal Celestial Empire is not the most distinctive difference compared to the real world. The Dystopian world is a twisted and alternate world to ours. While some events are similar, many are not. It is also a world where the is a city sized alien spacecraft under Antarctica and Atlantis really existed (though it is long gone). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, this is an alternate timeline.

For all we know, in this game's background, Oda Nobunaga didn't get betrayed, or Hideyoshi didn't become a f***ing c*** when he took power, or... (etc)...

All it would have taken was a diplomatic delegation (with the right people, at the right time) instead of a military raid, and centuries of animosity would have been reduced. It wouldn't be completely eliminated (xenophobia is ingrained into human nature) but it would mean that the citizens of China don't have to worry about  Samurai razing their villages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say that I know enough history to say whether one or the other is the tendency, historically. 

However, I would say that from my knowledge, it is oftentimes a lot of both that has happened. I think in European history, a lot of nations have been rivals with neighbors for a period, then close allies when someone else came up they both disliked, then another so many years or decades later, rivals again.
It certainly makes sense your neighbor is your rival, because they are the closest person for you to fight against over territory and resources and whatnot. But it would also make sense, if there were a third party trying to conquer your nation, and you needed to conserve your forces for that front, and also wanted to have more resources for it, that you might pursue an alliance with the first neighbor, especially in instances where their proximity to you makes them the next logical target for your enemy after your downfall. My understanding is that the first and second World Wars came about from this kind of situation, where someone declared war on someone else, and everyone sided up based on alliances that had been made, likely based at least in part on who they thought would conquer them vs. who they thought would help them.

I think there are lots of historical examples of neighbors being rivals, but also plenty of examples of neighbors being allies. And mostly some of both as the world and its politics are constantly in flux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the enemy of your rival becomes a mean to eliminate your rival.

your neighbors are the ones most likely to infringe upon your resources and compete for regional resources.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This much is true I do agree. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think that few nations want a war on all fronts, so at least in cases where a larger number of independent nations are in a much smaller space, you might not be besties with any of your neighbors, but at the very least it is likely there would be at least some tenuous alliances, so that you don't have to march in every direction at once. I confess I don't suppose that argument helps the Warcradle Empire of Asian Nations at all, but alas. 
And I think one of the Warcradle staff members said that a lot of the Alliances are tenuous ones, for just the sorts of reasons you are suggesting. Their Latin League or whatever the official name was, are allied out of perhaps their perceived necessity with other threats looming in proximity, but that wouldn't stop them from also competing with each other within their league when other threats are less immediate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regional rivals certainly can become tenuous allies if someone else threatens their rivalry for regional resources. 

For the Latin alliance who threatens France, Italy AND Latin America?

for the Celestial Empire who threatens both China and Japan? Russia may threaten China, but a weakened China benefits Japan. The Crown? America ?

it would have made more sense for WC to focus on historical regional rivalries than manufacturing alliances. Naturally adjust with Dystopian science. Technology tend to spur rivalries rather than partnerships as now there is a possible mean, through floating carriers and robotic monsters, to finally dominate your rival! It is a Dystopian Age rather than the Age of Aquarius.

France, Germany and Britain are great rivalries of modern times

China, Japan and Korea are great rivals in the Far East 

let the players build national lists and fight it out or ally based on local player mix, though allowing the addition of allies models tend to minimize a list weaknesrather than to make it more characterful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as for the Latin alliance, I assume Prussia is a threat to France and Italy, as proximity and power goes (maybe I am wrong, I confess again being a newer initiate to the history of the era and area). As for Latin America's inclusion, I suppose that is weaker, but figured it might be more like them as colonies of France and Spain and the like, you know, as a source of further resources for the perpetration of their war with Prussia.

As for the Celestial Empire, it is true currently that weakened China benefits Japan, but bear in mind that Japan is an island, and they have to import a lot of things in order to feed their populace/keep up with the world's industry. In our modern world, post-WWII led to a strong alliance between America and Japan, but in the Dystopian Era, perhaps China is Japan's greatest source of importing necessary materials/technology/foodstuffs. Just a possibility, and even in that case Japan might want China weaker so they can seize those goods before the import process, but who knows.

I do agree with sentiments you and others have expressed in that I am interested in seeing differentiated national sub-lists (DW turtle ship sounds like it might be awesome) and I definitely think the Blazing Sun logo shouldn't be plastered on the more clearly non-Japanese vessels. Then, as you have said, players can build their national lists and fight it out or ally as they see fit.
Since no one can tell me how to play at my actual table with my friend group, then I don't have a big problem with Warcradle's narrative choice being a Singular Asian Empire in their minute to midnight scenario, as I can always say that two minutes later the alliance evaporates for whatever realistically motivated reasons I want.

I think you ask good and thought provoking questions, Mr. Fracas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do miss the train ships, which stressed the EoBS' modernity compared to the more traditionalist vessels of the Chinese.  A lot of it comes from wanting a multipolar conflict that stresses the gaming benefit of having an excuse for most factions to fight, over the narrative advantage of the three big alliances that stresses bigger mixed fleets and a better to manage story that can include most factions in a conflict, if not always opposing everyone.  WC seem to be looking from a less alt history, to whats cool, which is their right, but yes I have the same concern as you Logan and David that they need to be very careful in their approach to history not to infantilise, orientialise or bring too much of the historical prejudice of the period, which is the danger of starting from scratch in this way and also being unwilling to develop the conflict and so therefore explore the commanders, conflicts and alliances which DWars classic was able to through their campaign books that stressed the multinational and quite progressive forces.  Of course I am sure with a sympathetic eye for history they may be able to provide that narrative, develop commanders that stress the connections between say France and North Africa, Japan and German settlers in the pacific etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind merging china and celestials. I did not care that much for TOO many minor nations... I wanted to play major nations.  So in one way this is good.

Having china as a subset of EoBS could be fun. But I also want to keep most of EoBS units as is. I  don't mind the Sokotsu being replaced with a updated varriant, however, I still want the new varriant to have the same size so that my old model may be used in the new game. I want to use the Sokotsu as the updated varriant.

 

But also, some part of the charm for some nations is their overall charachteristics. For example, EoBS have fixed channels. They also ALL had +1 in critical. It had sonic and shield generators. And with the addition of the repair ship, they added a lot of firepower towards the broadside. They all started lots and lots of fires.  If we just smash china and EoBS together, well part of the overall charachteristics may be lost. 

I love the Wani, and the terror ship.

I haven't studied chinas orbats that much, to see how well they integrate into ONE nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Grand-Stone the Chinese and Japanese fleets do play fairly similar. They both have fixed-channel "broadsides" their rockets are incendiary, and their flamethrowers are also corrosive. The only "real" differences are Chinese crews are mostly conscripted, Japanese ships have Sharp Turn, and the Primary weapons use different Ordnance  (concussive for China, incendiary for Japan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nazduruk_Bugzappa said:

@Grand-Stone the Chinese and Japanese fleets do play fairly similar. They both have fixed-channel "broadsides" their rockets are incendiary, and their flamethrowers are also corrosive. The only "real" differences are Chinese crews are mostly conscripted, Japanese ships have Sharp Turn, and the Primary weapons use different Ordnance  (concussive for China, incendiary for Japan)

The Chinese do not have fixed channel broadsides.  Just a minor correction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory Chinese ships all had at least rugged 1, were slower, relied on corrosive flamethrowers, generally lacked turrets and the turrets they had were concussive rather than flaming, and they had the skimming fortifications which the Japanese lacked.  Japanese fliers were rotor craft and more manoeuvrable and relied on rockets, the Chinese ones being increasingly large bombers relying on bombs and bombards.  Both pretty well rounded fleets with their own feels aesthetically and crunch wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

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.