Jump to content
Jsiegel1983

Carriers and TFTs in 3rd Edition

Recommended Posts

The only  problem with having to return to refuel is that in a tabletop game that essentially mean your plans might get only one or two attacks through the whole match.  You basically have to launch them on turn one if you can to get them to fly out - commit their damage and then return hoping that you can do that in 3 turns and then rinse and repeat - hoping that the game lasts at least 5 turns (since its unlikely to last 8 so the last refuelling isn't as essential as the game is over by then). 

It's a very neat mechanic in fluff terms and fits the setting well, but it very much limits what the tiny fliers can achieve in a single match.

Share this post


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

I feel that the whole discussion is pointless as we don't know what rules this NEW game has. I don't have any info but my idea is that it will be a totally different game with totally different rules. 

I'm just going to assume that @Warcradle Richard and @Warcradle Stuart at least read these discussions and take them into account when brainstorming about a new ruleset though... It's what I would do if I had to design a new version of the game system!

Regarding tiny flyers: I don't know about you folks, but my games rarely last past turn 3, turn 4 at the latest. I'd like to see tiny flyers be interesting at least from turn 2 onward, and preferably every turn from then on. I'd even consider dropping the amount of AD bombers use and then removing the limited ammunition rule. That way TF tokens don't become paperweights for the rest of a match if they bomb something outside of a carrier's range, and enemies have to actually shoot down the little bassids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they use it to get a measure of the communities feedback on the rules and what the community desires.

Of course they also have emails, real life contacts and possibly any data/emails that spartan collected as well. This along with their own desires and experiences in gaming. So its important to realise that there might be ideas that have even more popularity, but which are not mentioned or not popular with forum based members. 

But yes its never a waste to air ones views when the developers can hear them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ShafferDK said:

Agreed. But then, instead of a rules discussion, why not a discussion about features, styles or wishes for the new game? Thinking in 2,xx boxes is not that useful imho. 

Sure! I tend to look for small changes to the existing ruleset rather than entire new features, but there are a couple that would be cool to see:

An expansion of the card element in the game would be nice. I am a boardgamer more than a wargamer (really, Dystopian Wars is the only thing that has held my interest before a brief stint with the old Warhammer Fantasy). The way I see it, a battlefield might become more interesting if weather had a card deck that modifies each round, and a deck that is a bit more substantial than the current iteration of TAC cards might do wonders for general strategy. Once I've deployed my fleet, I feel like most of the game plays itself -- generally there are not that many moves I'd make and be sensible about it... But if I could, say, play a card that gives my smalls +1DR for a turn, or adds the terrifying property to a class of weaponry rather than a single attack, the game would have a lot more in terms of general strategy, provided there's options for customizing your decks. Mind you, I'm a great fan of deckbuilders, so I'm a bit biased towards card based solutions to add strategy to any given game :P

I was also very excited for the campaign system that 2.5 added, but I'd love to see it expanded more from the bare-bones framework to something more akin to a game mode, where I'd have to look for ways to strategically move resources and troops around a world map rather than just play the tactical skirmishes. I realize that this could be construed as being outside the scope of a wargame, but boy that would make for an interesting sort of game.

Finally, I'd like to see more done with fortifications in the new ruleset. I love my Honourable Eclipse Company also because it offers these interesting hardpoints in the deployment of your troops. Fortifications are cool, give me more of em!

 

Thoughts, wishes, anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to keep the tiny fliers near your carriers then launch the attack run and move your carrier closer and then move the tiny fliers back the following turn to rearm and rebuild the squadron.  Assuming the squadron was not wiped out. 

2 hours ago, ShafferDK said:

I feel that the whole discussion is pointless as we don't know what rules this NEW game has. I don't have any info but my idea is that it will be a totally different game with totally different rules. 

This means that squadron can attack every other turn.  Now if you are running more than one squadron of tiny fliers off of one carrier then things get tricky.  Positioning and timing of carriers and tiny fliers is important and not very forgiving.

The reason we are having this discussion is to give ideas to Warcraddle and also due to the fact that we don't know what the new rules will be.  If we did then we would talk about that.   As for the idea that the rules will be completely different I disagree.  There will obviously be plenty of differences but I highly doubt they will scrap the whole system and start over.    Also, if you feel the whole discussion is pointless then why take time to post in the discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing about the old ruleset is pointless, which doesn't mean that discussing the game is pointless. That's a pretty neat distinction. Many little pointers speak of drastic differences to the game, like the hint, appeared on FB that tokens will be present and that tiny fliers will not be modes. I'd say it's pretty sensible, as warcradle wants a warcradle game instead of the bastard son of spartan. 

Share this post


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

 as warcradle wants a warcradle game instead of the bastard son of spartan. 

But we're all making that bastard son's child support payments.

I'm looking at this topic less as a "hint-hint Warcradle" and more as a way the community can move the game forward and fix what we've seen as problems while we wait for Warcradle to publish.  My gamer group and I have already gone over the old 1.0 to 2.5 books and piecemeal our own rules and tweaked current units and factions in a way we see as sensible.  But it is just a stopgap attempt while we wait.

And before anyone says we made on faction too French, nope, my group is split half coalition, half bond, with mercs thrown in, and two players share a faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WC would be extremely brave to throw out all fan opinion and the stuff Spartan did that worked just for the sake of something new for newnesses sake.  The core exploding dice mechanic offers a robustness that interacts well, whilst offering lots of ways to granularly reduce it.  TFTs are a good way to model planes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the old rule set this is the current rule set.  Until Warcradle releases the next version of dystopian wars 2.5 is the current rule set.  I would gladly stop talking about 2.5 if 3.0 was out, but it is not.  If everything goes accordingly it will be out late this year.  I think they said 9 months from release.  I think all of these conversations will change when beta testing starts since it will be an open beta.  We shall see what they do with the rules when it comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the tiny fliers changing to some sort of token and not a model as ShafferDK has said I would expect them to resemble the aircraft.  To have the carriers modeled with the tiny fliers and then have us use a token  to depict the tiny fliers that does not even come close to resembling what is modeled on the carriers is just silly.  That being said I would not be surprised if the new rules did not use the current tiny flier tokens.  Changing the tokens to something new isn't inherently bad as long as they resemble what they are supposed to be.  Personally I don't want them to change since I have a bunch of painted tiny flier tokens and trays.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jsiegel1983 said:

When it comes to the tiny fliers changing to some sort of token and not a model as ShafferDK has said I would expect them to resemble the aircraft.  To have the carriers modeled with the tiny fliers and then have us use a token  to depict the tiny fliers that does not even come close to resembling what is modeled on the carriers is just silly. 

4

I completely agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If going by the fliers on the carrier, I have to ask about the Prussian Geier model that's on the Ice Maiden.  Was able to get the new Warcradle Ice Maiden model, and yes it's a well crafted piece (even though I wil admit I was skeptical about it in previews) but the model I knew as a Geier bomber is mounted on the carrier deck in at least half the size of the normal model.  Does this hint at something new @Warcradle Stuart, if you can say anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hyde1352 said:

If going by the fliers on the carrier, I have to ask about the Prussian Geier model that's on the Ice Maiden.  Was able to get the new Warcradle Ice Maiden model, and yes it's a well crafted piece (even though I wil admit I was skeptical about it in previews) but the model I knew as a Geier bomber is mounted on the carrier deck in at least half the size of the normal model.  Does this hint at something new @Warcradle Stuart, if you can say anything?

Excellent question.  My point was about resembling what it is supposed to be.  The bomber on the Ice Maiden does resemble a Geier.  As for the scale I have no idea.  I asked earlier and all they said was it is a bomber.   I would also like some clarification on the scale of the bomber on the Ice Maiden.  Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hyde1352 said:

@Jsiegel1983 Alright, let's see if this can get by the censors.  Starting at the bottom on the flight deck, TFT, Geier, TFT, TFT, TFT, TFT, TFT, with all TFT being Prussian tiny fliers.

iceMike.jpg

Nice.  I was agreeing with you on wondering why the bomber is smaller.  Perhaps I did not word it very well.  I have not ordered the new Ice Maiden.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bombers we had before were vast flying fortresses of bombers (some had ship cannon on them). It wouldn't be surprising if they are introducing tiny-bombers which might share a similar hull and wing shape to the larger versions, which are likely also being revised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jsiegel1983 said:

That is a possibility.   Maybe a new type of tiny flier or to replace one of the other ones.  I am curious to see where they go with this.  Could be interesting.

The bomber on the flight deck of the Ice Maiden is a Prussian bomber. There will be Prussian bombers and fighters in Armoured Clash that will look like these. There will be larger air units in Dystopian Wars too (not just Sky Fortresses!) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hyde1352 said:

If going by the fliers on the carrier, I have to ask about the Prussian Geier model that's on the Ice Maiden.  Was able to get the new Warcradle Ice Maiden model, and yes it's a well crafted piece (even though I wil admit I was skeptical about it in previews) but the model I knew as a Geier bomber is mounted on the carrier deck in at least half the size of the normal model.  Does this hint at something new @Warcradle Stuart, if you can say anything?

The bomber on the flight deck represents a carrier mounted bomber  (not that third edition will require a modelled distinction between fighters and bombers as tokens). Like all the aircraft on carrier decks, they are there for aesthetics rather than a specific indication of units. The bomber you see on the flight deck is too small to be used in a game as a unit in its own right. Perhaps we might create TFT's with them on for players who want to visually indicate which TFTs are bombers and which are fighters but Third Edition doesn't require it as a TFTs type is defined by what the player has them doing each turn rather than what they are modelled or painted as. 

 

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.