Jump to content
Toxic_Rat

The Beta Lives!

Recommended Posts

Make sure you do feedback through the form- it is too easy to miss here, and using the form makes you structure it a bit.

On a gameplay level,  my thoughts on the beta are mixed- there are some bits I like, and some I don't and some I have yet to form an opinion of.. However, the  point of testing is to fix stuff, so if we want stuff fixed, we have to point out issues in a constructive fashion wherever possible

It is clearly at an early stage, and there are all sorts of game breaking bugs to be fixed- the best one I have found so far is in the assault section. There is no restriction on a model both launching and supporting an assault, and a model doesn't need to be in the active unit to support, and it can be within 5" of the target or initial model launching the assault.

Put that lot together, and you can take a squadron of 6 frigates, close them all to within 5" of a target, launch 6 separate assaults and have the other 5 frigates each support each other, so for a unit with fray value 3, you get 6 x 8 dice assaults... You want to make it worse, do the same on the other side with another unit...your first unit is within range of target, so can support, and you can now do a further 6 assaults with 14 dice each now! at least the fix is easy- "a unit can both not launch and support an assault in the same activation, and can only support one assault in the same activation."

 

The victory point mechanic will  work well for scenarios- the 'Strategy point' bodge I used for my scenarios in version 2 can go away!

Does anyone else have problems reading the cards when printed out, due to the darkness of the background. It will be ok on a  pro quality colour print, but on a standard black and white laser print it is almost impossible to read!

 

James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also placed feedback on the boarding/assault section. My submission was to implement 2 of the following 3 things:

- limit the ships that can "assist" in a boarding action to just ships in the same squadron  (possibly include a V&V card to allow "outside help" from another squadron)

- allow the target model's squad mates to be able to "assist" them (even if it's only via a V&V card)

-both attacker and defender use "attack" dice (instead of attack vs counter) with hits cancelling each other out. As an added bonus, it would make vessels with Elite crew a bit more of a gamble to try and take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much terrain are people using?  I felt getting LOS was too easy, so just tried putting  perhaps twice as much terrain as I would have  previously- 9 islands averaging about 6x4" on a 4 x 4ish table. This worked to restrict LOS, as with coupled with the much wider turns, you couldn't adopt the firing position you want  nearly so easily

On Submarines and fliers- is it just me, or does it feel odd that

1) They can go under/over surface stuff, but surface stuff can't go over/under them?

2) Subs can't can't go over/under each other

3)  Subs only gain any protection against aerial attacks, all other function normally. Flyers only gain protection against bomb and torp attacks, all others function normally? Wouldn't obscured here make sense?

 4) Subs feel stuck between a submerged torpedo hunter in their outfitting ( fine) and a decks awash surface combatant in the way they're targeted ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bunnahabhain said:

How much terrain are people using?  I felt getting LOS was too easy, so just tried putting  perhaps twice as much terrain as I would have  previously- 9 islands averaging about 6x4" on a 4 x 4ish table. This worked to restrict LOS, as with coupled with the much wider turns, you couldn't adopt the firing position you want  nearly so easily

On Submarines and fliers- is it just me, or does it feel odd that

1) They can go under/over surface stuff, but surface stuff can't go over/under them?

2) Subs can't can't go over/under each other

3)  Subs only gain any protection against aerial attacks, all other function normally. Flyers only gain protection against bomb and torp attacks, all others function normally? Wouldn't obscured here make sense?

 4) Subs feel stuck between a submerged torpedo hunter in their outfitting ( fine) and a decks awash surface combatant in the way they're targeted ?

Good to see you back, James! Yeah, submarines seem a bit funky in the current version of the rules, and LoS seems too easy. Here's my feedback, submitted through the portal. Excuse the essay, I tried to keep the individual points short:

The Good

  • Crippled status: This seems like an excellent start to reduce calculations. I’d hope for more things to change in a crippled stat line than just the “wheel” stats, though. I saw some gained MARs such as deep running, which is interesting, but I’d love to see their weapon systems affected somehow, as that added a lot of strategic depth. Maybe add a 3rd weapon value so that when a unit is crippled, 8 lead 4 support shifts to 4 lead 2 support AD?
  • Less turning templates: okay, so we could do with less turning templates. Having to shift around templates could be a pain, especially for newer players.
  • AA/CC assist: it always felt a bit stupid to me that the giant flagship 1” away from a model under fire could not support that model. This is nice. It does encourage clumping though… More on that later.
  • Carriers & SRS: Boy, I thought it wasn’t possible, but this actually seems like a nice fix. I am slightly sad that the 100+ SAWs I painted might not all be used anymore, but this feels like a WAY less cluttered form of the rules, and I do still like the way it feels… Which is more than I can say of its predecessor, the fleet action rules.
  • The new defense AD: I am patently against special dice, but I am starting to turn around to the idea of favoring the attacker by limiting exploding dice. I am slightly sad at the potential removal of the “little die that could”, though.
  • End of turn critical cleanup: That was a really nice change. We used to have to move lots and lots of markers whenever a ship moved, and removing the critical effect tokens at the end of a turn really limits that. Nice stuff.
  • The new card/VV system: I like the cards. The STAR cards were an atrocious thing, and the newer cards of 2nd edition were… Okay? This feels like the concept has been integrated a lot more fully into the game. The whole “playing this thing is victory points for the other player” was very counterintuitive, and I’m glad they got rid of it. I would suggest that it be possible to flush cards though, which is not in the rules yet, to avoid being stuck with a dud hand.
  • Rerolling 1s: Really nice. Everyone likes rerolling, and this is a far better alternative to the +/- to hit.
  • Doing away with +/- to hit numbers: Like I said above, I’m glad those are gone. Adding up different modifiers from different parts of rules could get confusing quickly, especially since things like primary guns vs small models were very prevalent in games. I understand that obscured is still in the game, but as long as that is a single, specific effect, I’m fine with that. More on that below though…
  • Redistributing fire to other models in squadron after kill: I think I like it? Nothing as frustrating as throwing too much fire at a single target due to luck of the dice, then wasting your precious dice. Not without mixed feelings though, as it removes an element of gambling out of the targeting strategy: Do you REALLY WANT TO KILL IT DEAD? Or are you willing to play the odds and hope for above average rolls across the board?
  • Improved/expanded upgrade system: This system feels like it has the potential to be amazing for opening up possibilities for list building. I hate how changing weapon systems plays with the readability of stat cards though, more on that below.
  • Bombs: I liked the change of bombs as a 360 weapon system, but changing it to a frontal 10” attack actually makes sense. I approve.
  • Cleaning up the Ramming section: This is a really nice change, although I have some reservations about the interaction with disordered. It feels like one of those finicky details you need to remember. Still feels good all-in-all.
  • Allowing units to simply move backwards at half speed: I am… tentatively in favor? I can see the potential for cheese if artillery units arrive on the scene, but until then, it does away with the incredibly cumbersome full stop and 2” backwards movement. I would addd an option to forgo movement for turning though, to compensate for the slightly more rigid movement of naval units in this version.
  • Integrating initiative with VV cards: That’s just nice. Adds a bit of tactical thinking where there was simply chance, before.

The Bad

  • Repeating the boarding assault phase multiple times: I hate it. Simply hate it. This means we have to repeat the same thing 4-5 times for a corvette squadron. Please just allow one boarding action per squadron, it’ll speed up the game for the better, I promise. Why not add a support number for Fray like you folks did for weapon systems?
  • No degradation of carrier cap / weapon systems: The carrier cap should degrade according to the rules but the stat cards don’t allow for it yet. Combine that with the lack of degraded weaponry and you get something that feels like it isn’t crippled at all once it reaches half health. Play with a crippled gun line, or removing weapon systems, or anything that increases the feeling that you can pound specific ships to reduce their firepower.
  • How Deep Running works: To be honest, halving the effectiveness of enemy fire but completely negating your own seems like a very bad deal. Include with that the fact that most submarines, uh, can’t go deep running until they’re damaged? That feels wonky.
  • Line of Sight: Okay. I see how you want to simplify the line of sight rules, but the combination of any-to-any-point LoS, removing weapon hardpoint specific LoS makes line of sight trivial. This is nice if you want to simply throw dice, but it feels not at all nice if you want something were positioning matters. There are few things in this beta that I really disliked, but this is definitely one of them. Additionally (and this really should deserve its own point, but I’ll just put it here), having your own squadron mates not block line of sight might reduce some frustration in the maneuvering phase, but it absolutely encourages tiny clumps of ships. I crossed the T on someone’s ships by having all 4 of my frigates stacked side by side shooting through each other. PLEASE reconsider this particular design choice!
  • Too few turning templates: Okay, I admit I said that less turning templates is nice, but it felt really, really weird to have frigates move around with the same turning circle as a giant battleship/carrier. I’d rather, I think, just do away with the 45-degree template and have small, medium and large templates. You can convince me that medium + turning limit can substitute a large template, but I really, really hate turning limit so that’d be a hard sell.
  • VV victory conditions (e.g., destroy UNIT with SRS/boarding): These felt very hard to achieve. You can aim for destroying models, but if you require, for each of these cards, that an entire squadron be eliminated, its going to take quite some time before the victory conditions become relevant. I’d far rather scale the scenario rewards so that the VV cards can be used to gain points for a specific model rather than squadron.
  • Stat line changes through upgrades
  • Standardization of weapon gun lines: I… Just don’t like it. It feels like, with this design choice, the majority of all individuality of nations was swept away. I’d consider instead a set of gun lines per nation. This would allow for far more unique feeling fleets/armies. I get that this is a beta with limited options, but I do feel this should be pointed out regardless.
  • Boarding defense: I’d prefer to just use AA to repel boarders, and not give people the choice between the highest of the two. For surface/surface boarding. It reduces the lookup time and it doesn’t add much, anyway.
  • Revving up generators… All of them: I love passive defense gens. I hate active defense gens. Why? Because it feels like I am very, very constrained in when I activate a unit. I’d far rather that we just say that all offensive generators are activated, and all defensive gens are on by default. If you’re in a battle, you don’t power down the shield gen every few minutes now do you?

The Ugly

  • Obscured is… Not nice: A first obscured ignores light hits, a second obscured is ignores light hits and transforms exploding hits to heavy hits? I’d rather obscured is non stackable and exploding hits count as heavy hits. This prevents checking for multiple sources of the same thing: You find obscured somewhere? You apply it, period.
  • Minimum of 2 AA to assist: There’s this great change where you don’t have to figure out what the AA value of all units is in order to calculate totals… But now you’re forcing people to look up all those stat lines (across squadrons!) in order to figure out whether they can, in fact, support. Just make it so that every model within 5” can support AA, period.
  • Unlimited boarding power with multiple squadrons: I think this has already been mentioned multiple times, but the combination of clumping (See: The Bad, Line of Sight) and supporting boarding attempts across squadrons means you can move multiple corvette squadrons in close and pump out absolutely ludicrous amounts of dice during multiple boarding assaults. I don’t like. Change to only having squadron supporting (excepting VV cards maybe, see Nazduruk_Bugzappa’s point), and/or only a single boarding attempt per squadron (my preference).
  • Large templates + turn limit: So, on a 3’x3’ board with terrain, a large turning template plus turning limit means that a large unit has two tactical options: Stand still, or chug forward to the opposite side of the map. The maneuverability of large ships is too constrained to interesting movement.
  • Hazard, the not-quite-critical-effect: It smells like a crit effect, it sometimes acts like a crit effect, it tokens like a crit effect, but it is, in fact, not one. I also take some issue with the idea that conditions are usually removed during the end phase (see first sentence of hazard explanation), as there are currently 4 conditions and only two of them are removed at the end of a round. Suggestion: It feels like stunned should just be part of a critical condition, obscured neither a state nor an effect (since it is applied by MARs and properties first and foremost), and only hazard and disordered conditions. Then, cleaning conditions should be a special step in the end phase.
  • Terminology: Unit vs. Squadron: Why was squadron changed to unit? Unit feels like it could just as well refer to a single model, and it created a lot of confusion in our games (See also: The Bad, VV Victory conditions)
  • Need to use tables to look up gun lines: This is a pretty bad offender to quick gameplay. Either we have a gunnery reference table open at all times, or we memorize it, or we have to add the stat lines to the upgrade cards. The first two are not really acceptable alternatives, and the last one creates confusion as it replaces a stat line that is printed on the card. I don’t really have any solid ideas on how to deal with this issue, but either have all gunnery lines as separate cards (lots of paper!), be more constrained in the upgrade system (removes the fun flexibility in list building), completely rely on a digital tool for army building and stat card reference, or… Eh. I don’t know.
  • Rams don’t have any AD value assigned: Like it says on the tin.
  • Linking fire is still universally half AD… Except for bomb bays, which are 1 to support?: Feels either like an oversight, or a balance choice because it is a blast template (in which case: please reconsider, it pays to have consistency in your stat lines for balance reasons. Instead, consider making it 4/2 for an equivalent payload in a 3 plane squadron).
  • VV text orientation: Please just have the victory and valor parts the same way up. You want to reference them in the same phases, which means you’re constantly turning the cards around.
  • Gunnery seems superior to torpedoes in targeting submarines: Um.
  • Wavelurking is still iffy: Give it the submerged trait, sure. But say that it treats all enemy units as obscured (using that new condition) instead of saying the same thing without using the catch-all term that was invented for this. This also interacts nicely with torpedoes which can then attack wavelurkers without penalties due to its weapon specific qualities. I’d say remove aerial defense 0 since it’ll make it mighty unappealing to use wavelurking in most situations, you’re already penalizing them for relatively light gains by making it harder to hit enemies.
  • SRS attacks: they have both the aerial and submerged qualities, which is great. The 0.03 version of the rules seem to have snuck in an errata to make it able to target submerged units (good!), but right now the rules state that you can use both AA and CC against SRS attacks. against the target. Might need a rethink

The Missing

  • Scenarios Two were added in the 0.03 version of the rulebook. Still missing the other 4.
  • Battlegroups / Unit sizes: We need this to make many of the judgements we want to make about how stuff feels in the new edition. Maybe just give us 2-3 default ones?

 

  • I can’t stress this enough: Supply a change log if you update the rules so we can see what has changed and test accordingly!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Asuo said:

Stat cards can easily be inserted into a plastic card sleeve/container, so if you print them out its quite easy to keep them safe. 

Absolutely. If there is any way at all to have printer friendly, standard sleeve size stat cards,  it should be done.

Design elements like this that aren't rules still matter- they have a significant impact on ease of play, speed of play, making the game accessible to new players, etc!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed with the creativity of many of the ideas coming out in the beta, and I'm also impressed and relieved that the design team are clearly listening to our feedback.

It is still clearly a work in progress, but the v.04 represents a big step forward- getting rid of the multiple boarding loophole, and fixing how subs and aircraft move/get moved through  are two  obvious examples.

Yes, there are still issues- the proposed version of ace pilots effectively upgrades the 20" range on SRS to 'anywhere on the board' which is going to be very hard to balance, and is just asking for a  'hide the spammed carriers' gameplan, but i'm confident we'll get most of them sorted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely some good adjustments. I still think the Portal generator should "feel" more portaly, instead of just being an "ignore terrain/models"

I submitted the following idea a few days ago for it

On activation, select a friendly squadron within Point Blank range  (possibly include V&V cards that can increase this and/or select enemies). Remove the squadron from the table, and redeploy them anywhere within "shooting range" of the generator, rolling an action dice for each model in the squadron. If in Point Blank range, the model safely redeploys on any hit result. If in Closing range, the model safely redeploys on a heavy/explosive hit. If in Long range, the model safely redeploys on an explosive hit only. Any "unsafe" redeployment results in a point of damage. Place a Disruption counter regardless of whether the redeployment was safe or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the unit stat cards pdf version 5 it lists squadron(3) or squadron(5) for most units.  What does this mean?  Initially I thought it was the unit size, but it doesn't seem right since the Battleships and Carriers have squadron(3) and a lot of the mediums have squadron(5).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jsiegel1983 said:

In the unit stat cards pdf version 5 it lists squadron(3) or squadron(5) for most units.  What does this mean?  Initially I thought it was the unit size, but it doesn't seem right since the Battleships and Carriers have squadron(3) and a lot of the mediums have squadron(5).

This should have been resolved now please redownload the stat cards and check the update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I think would balance the game a bit from huge dice pools which can become a bit silly is that no attack can have more dice than twice the main weapon dice pool. 

It is a bit silly when 5 frigates can combine their fire power and heavily damage a battle ship  with their main guns. The reason is that dice don't scale linear in effectiveness due to how the mechanic works.

 

I also think that main heavy guns are way to efficient when fired against small ships. The main guns of battleships in WWI & II was not terribly good against small ships but their secondary armament was pretty devastating against anything that managed to get close and was small. A small ship that manage to stay at long to medium range should be pretty safe from those big guns but not the secondary guns at medium to close range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think new devastating needs looking at for that.  3 and 6 explode, while 4 and 5 hit, which can be reduced to 3 and 6 exploding and 5 hitting against obscured models.  Also main weapons do have -1 to hit against smalls, but might be easier to make that a small model rule than a large weapon rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1 to hit against smalls is better as a weapon property rather than a ship property because it means that its bound to specific weapons themselves. Thus the attacker is already thinking of that within their attack profile. It also means you can give it to any weapon regardless of its size or scale or the ship it is mounted upon. 

For example there might be gunships in the future which have battleships cannon mounted atop a frigate sized hull. Such ships would be classified as a small frigate, but the gun would be akin to a main battleship cannon. Thus the frigate would be a small firing on a small and thus the small -1 to hit when attacked by battleships rule wouldn't trigger. However if the -1 to hit frigate class is on a weapon profile then its always going to be there on the weapon no matter hte hull its mounted on. 

 

 

As for massing damage one angle is to reduce dice, but then you run the risk that small ships only work if they are taken in huge numbers. Instead what could be done is to base damage and impact on armour and weapon profiles. If a battleship has thicker and heavier armour then frigates might only be a viable threat to them in larger numbers, at least with their main guns. A -1 to damage or to hit or such might well represent thick armour of the battleship shrugging off lighter rounds from smaller calibre weapons. Frigates would thus be better served hunting destroys and other smaller ships, whilst not being a sensible threat to a battleship. Of course smaller ships can then make up for that with weapons like torpedoes, where you can't as easily mass them from a large group due to direct lines of fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its ship reliant then it means that a small ship is just better at dodging which seems accurate and encourages small duelling, makes smalls a vital part of your force both defensively and offensively.  The unlimited rerolls of current sustained fire also seems rather overpowered compared to the limited number of rerolls used by Spartan.  Either you are going to have a very expensive weapon or ship or a overpowered vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go by WWI and WWII weapons versus armour then a battleship armour was more or less invulnerable to a destroyers (or even light cruiser) main gun systems. At most the destroyer could damage its sensors and some superficial deck systems.

 

In my opinion there should be main and secondary gun systems meant for different things.

 

Large main guns should be represented by slow firing shells not meant to target small highly nimble ships. Even if you could theoretically use such shells and weapons a captain would not really waste ammunition on a small ship with those weapons systems. You did not use large caliber guns at destroyers at long distance or often not even at medium distance either because it was too wasteful, you would rely on your secondary armament for that, this is also why you had cruisers to protect the big boys from smaller ships that could threaten them with torpedoes which was the real threat.

 

Frigates in Dystopian Wars should at most try to stay at long range and use torpedoes against medium and large ships. Using hordes of them to get into close range to combat a larger ships seems a bit gamy to me with no real semblance of logic. Don't see why you would not model something a bit more logic when its not hard to do that. This mechanic basically prove that the people of Dystopian Wars don't have any semblance of self preservation.

 

I say that big guns should simply not explode against small ships. These ships are so fragile that a lucky shot will kill them anyway at medium to close range and damage them at long range. It should feel really wasteful to use those weapons on a small ship and only done if there is nothing else to fire at. -1 to hit is not really a very noticeable reduction in fire-power with the exploding "6" mechanic.

 

Having a cap on max dice per attack I think would be great for game balance and the game overall. You could  either just say twice the power of the primary weapon or each system could have a max printed on the weapons just like support dice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

10 hours ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

@Jorgen_CAB does that translate to more FUN gameplay or just more realistic? I agree with your assessment but I also don't think very many hard realism naval wargames are popular for a reason.

Why would it not be more fun?!?

It would open up for more type of choices in how you maneuver your ships aside from rushing in to close range with everything in order to be the first to throw buckets of dice against the opponent. 

It would give different ships more clear roles on the battle waves.

 

Anything that give power to the player for making clever moves more important than relying on lucky dice is a good thing.

 

Popularity have more to do about accessibility, models quality, theme and easily comprehensible rules.  Most "realistic" games are to complicated and often not very "realistic" because of that as well, but that is another story... ;) ...simplicity can be in a "realistic" setting as well. Realism has very little to do with complexity, but complexity usually kills games as far as the average person playing games go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jorgen_CAB however tabletop wargames have to be careful with invulnerable models. Warhammer 40K has experimented with this with things like Titans and Air units where their original versions were very hard to impossible to kill unless the opposing player took very specific counter units. 

Now in a warship game shifting it so that one class cannot threaten another class is fine, but it can backfire. Esp if you have factions with high diversity. For example there might be a faction that focuses on the use of smaller ships only and has no or only very few battleship class vessels; similarly another faction could be the total opposite. Furthermore players will build fleets to be the best they can and if battleships are near untouchable by anything that isn't a battleship then players are going to try to always take as many of them as they can, above and beyond other classes.

Now army structure enforcement (eg must take 1 battleship per 4 frigates) can counter that somewhat; and larger counts of models on the table counters it. But it can be a rule that might make much smaller games harder to play and balance. That's important because its small games that get new players in the door. Small games that get them tempted to play and get them started. 

 

Of course you can split rules so that you've large and small scale battle rules (much like 40K has with regular and killteam rules) however as Dystopian is getting a fresh start with a new company after a dwindling period and a period of total market absence, I figure that its better the rules are weighted toward the smaller end at launch. Much like Warmachine; its better to start for the skirmish and then as the community grows build toward larger army rules as your market builds up bigger collections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Overread said:

(...)

Now army structure enforcement (eg must take 1 battleship per 4 frigates) can counter that somewhat; and larger counts of models on the table counters it. But it can be a rule that might make much smaller games harder to play and balance. That's important because its small games that get new players in the door. Small games that get them tempted to play and get them started. 

(...)

Even then, I'd be very hesitant to make that a cornerstone of my game: In a game where a lucky crit can remove a critical model like a battleship off the table, you can end up in turn one or two without the ability to significantly threaten a large portion of the opposing player's army. That doesn't make for fun games!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tendency which I would prefer to stick with is smalls have limited defences, which is countered more by the fact they are fast and so hard to hit with all weapons, smaller pools but more models, speed and low range as a rule, which is then shifted by faction and ship design and weapon layout.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Overread said:

@Jorgen_CAB however tabletop wargames have to be careful with invulnerable models. Warhammer 40K has experimented with this with things like Titans and Air units where their original versions were very hard to impossible to kill unless the opposing player took very specific counter units. 

Now in a warship game shifting it so that one class cannot threaten another class is fine, but it can backfire. Esp if you have factions with high diversity. For example there might be a faction that focuses on the use of smaller ships only and has no or only very few battleship class vessels; similarly another faction could be the total opposite. Furthermore players will build fleets to be the best they can and if battleships are near untouchable by anything that isn't a battleship then players are going to try to always take as many of them as they can, above and beyond other classes.

Now army structure enforcement (eg must take 1 battleship per 4 frigates) can counter that somewhat; and larger counts of models on the table counters it. But it can be a rule that might make much smaller games harder to play and balance. That's important because its small games that get new players in the door. Small games that get them tempted to play and get them started. 

 

Of course you can split rules so that you've large and small scale battle rules (much like 40K has with regular and killteam rules) however as Dystopian is getting a fresh start with a new company after a dwindling period and a period of total market absence, I figure that its better the rules are weighted toward the smaller end at launch. Much like Warmachine; its better to start for the skirmish and then as the community grows build toward larger army rules as your market builds up bigger collections

But... first of all I did not suggest that battleships should be invulnerable in any way... just very hard to damage with small guns. Frigates would carry torpedoes, or at least most of them.

There also should never be the case that everything should be good in all scenarios. 

The point is that Frigates have speed and maneuverability and a battleship would never be able to destroy a Frigate if that Frigate stay out of range and make torpedo attacks. So the whole point is that we should favor maneuver rather than dice to play the game. Therefore limiting the maximum dice pool is a good thing so you need to use actual tactics rather than just pressing your luck by throwing in a six strong Frigate swarm even though that is more or less a suicide mission in real life in such situations. This should only happen if you are desperate and should be scenario driven rather than a rule mechanic.

 

My problem with rules and balance such as this is that you MUST find a balance used for every asset or it will never be taken. Well real life don't work like that since some assets perform extremely important missions outside pure combat. A destroyer is not really meant to go up against cruisers and battleships in gun battles, that is not their role. Having torpedoes is just one means for them to contribute at least something against a big ship if necessary, in most cases they would just avoid combat altogether.

 

I would rather see that battle groups get special rules for have a certain mixture of ships where the pre-battle scouting of Frigates in a battle group have some effect on the battle other than just providing fire power. This would be a much more interesting way to portray these ships and make them useful. They can also be good against submarines for instance where a battleship and cruisers would suck, more or less.  A Frigates should not just be a battleship only in a smaller package.

 

Give them more dedicated roles and purposes and have combined warfare with some additional rules to abstract what happens before and after battles.

 

I also think games like this should move away from the trading model principle and make scenario based combat more involved. It should be possible for both sides to loose if they don't manage to obtain their mission. Missions should include both a win and loose condition and not revealed until the last turn of the game. This means that both could potentially loose. Most mission should include statements such as no more than 30% losses and one large ship must survive or the mission is a failure or some such. The exact condition should vary enough that it will be hard to know what they are. Win conditions could be revealed perhaps nut not the loose conditions.

You would pick a mission card based on what battle groups you chosen for the battle... so missions will be based roughly around what forces you use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A WW2 naval wargame I am enjoying right now is Victory at Sea, in that weapons are divided into a few broad types - secondary weapons (6 inch guns, 5.4 inch, etc.), turreted guns (essentially anything 8 inches and up to the 18 inch guns on the Yamato), torpedoes and bombs. Plus a few specialised things like depth charges/double squid/etc.

Small ships like destroyers only have secondary guns and torpedoes (usually enough for one volley). Cruisers and up have at least one turret. Those small Secondary guns essentially can't hurt battleships and in some cases it's literally impossible (King George V, Yamato, etc. are entirely immune to those small guns).

Torpedoes however can do a huge amount of damage, even to a tough battleship and a torpedo belt can only do so much.

Instead it means the destroyers have to be evasive to close into torpedo range and then unload a full load of them, while using their smaller guns to duel with the enemy small ships.

The game does not suffer from having those small ships guns being unable to hurt the toughest battleships.

===

Another popular game is Flames of War and in that it's not uncommon to have tanks utterly immune to vast swathes of weaponry. What's the rifle section meant to do when the Panzer 4 rolls over the hill towards them? Bugger off and hope the PIAT can deal with it. What happens when the Sherman's 75mm gun can't get through the glacis of the Panther? It either calls in the M10 or Firefly or looks to get flanking shots.

===

Basically I don't agree that having some class of units/weapons being unable to harm another class is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a lot of changes lately.  The return to at least blue defensive dice (although I would prefer red) and keeping generators on (mostly) seems a much better move, although some of the gens seem a bit under powered.  The Armour/Citadel divide still seems a faff compared to the old critical system, and does an explosive hit turn off gens?  Boarding seems to have shifted to overpowered defenders.  But the return to linking within squadrons seems a really good move that stresses the strengths of squadrons.   

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.