Jump to content
Captaincandle

First impressions

Recommended Posts

So after 4 games with a few mates sharing around the starter box models and rules (all old players minus one) I wanted to get a feel if my conclusions  are similar to any others who have experienced the same. Commented on the gameplay rather than the models.

1) Cruisers are the damage dealers. Not sure why this decision was made, but a cruiser squadron outputs the most damage in dice pools period. They also have arguably the most flexibility in firepower options as they can mix and match combined fire (with all weapons that have the same traits of course) to achieve optimum dice outputs.  However, unless you are resisting long range firepower from Capital Ships or sub-optimal fire from Frigates/Destroyers (which with packhunter probably is still throwing lots of dice anyways) shield generators feel completely pointless. 

2) Battleships feel like you have to take them, not want to. I generally like that the game has shifted to simplification, but a greater focus on aggression means that battleships are a points dump I never want. They cannot resist fire from anything meaningfully, they output less damage than any squadron and really only serve as golden VP target opportunities for a cruiser squadron who wants to laugh while rolling 30+ dice at it, potentially as high as 35-40. It feels very 40k in structure problems where the designers tried to make a ship class sell because you have to put one on the table, rather than make it a meaningful choice. 

3) Weapon simplification has rolled the balance to the middle. Tied to the two points above, because you don't have the same "type" of weapon doing differing damage on different classes of ship, I'm always going to take the big weapon on the squadron because I can distribute damage and mitigate giant piles of dice. This feels like a limiting choice for the game, not an enabling one.

4) I think the designers successfully captured the moving of ships around the feel of the old game, and the simplification ended up working really well here. Sure, I miss my ponderous battleship turns, but this setup is a massive tick for the game as far as resolving things goes, and slightly tones down the amount of stuff you need on the table to move your units around. 

5) Finally, defensive things are useless. We have taken as wide a variety of things as we can so far, and the defensive options (minus the shroud generator on a capital ship) all feel pretty much redundant. Minus 2 dice with a shield generator from ~35 is still going to either completely obliterate that ship in one volley, or render it basically useless. Shroud on cruisers didn't feel helpful enough to encourage the enemy to stack more shots to overkill it (and the same with the shield generator) and so far haven't seen these on smaller classes of ship so no comment here. 

Overall, I like the game, it's very nice to play again, but I think there are some glaring issues that will not only hurt the game mechanics, but also hurt sales (and therefor threaten the games continuation) as a result of game mechanics encouraging certain things.

Gladly welcome any thoughts on this and happy to discuss other experiences because I'm very aware that I've not tested everything and could easily have missed something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Battleships do not feel  like battleships because they use the same weapons used by the cruisers. This does not need to be a bad thing it is just the game setting.

In each game setting and time period the ship size and its role varies. A frigate from the age of sail has a very different role from the first word war. A destroyer in one game could be just a bigger frigate while in a videogame like supreme commander, a destroyer, is the main ship of the line to deal with everything while the cruiser is a support ship that provides anti air and intel....

So, don´t worry if they don´t feel like a WWI battleship, maybe that is the role of dreadnoughts.... Think of them like a command big cruiser that you have to screen and safeguard, more closer to a pre-dreadnought than anything. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more about role to me than anything else. If we take Age of Sail for example, the BB equivalent would be a ship of the line, which is kinda the same word for battleship in that age, it was a ship in the line of battle. A pre-dreadnought has the same role as a battleship or a ship of the line. it's job is to handle the biggest ships of the enemy, and to attempt to resist fire or otherwise stand up to the task. Ignoring that point though, I think of it from a game mechanics reason. Why buy this unit if it is in every way not worth it, aside from the very artificial rule that makes you take one? It reminds me of 40k HQ choices. No-one likes taking the damn things because they are mechanically unimportant (minus a few outlier examples). The same thing occurs here. A Borodino, or a Hypatia are simply not at all worth their cost, and actively influence VP's during the game, so they are ultimate a detriment you have to protect for no other reason than they are VP's. This kind of thing could easily be covered by a scenario (For example, choose X squadron and this unit must stay alive by the end of the game. If it does, you get a VP, if it doesn't, your opponent gets a VP). 

It also affects the feel of the game. It's aesthetics suggests that your big ship is meaningful, and the are rules on top that then suggests it's important enough to affect whether you could potentially win the game or not. When I can Rocket it from 30" away with ~35 dice, and probably immediately sink it, it has no bearing on the game other than to hide to not cede VP's. I think this is poor game design which will discourage people from purchasing the bare minimum of ships to field as required, which will hurt the game financially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe in sinking a Hypatia in one go. Through some stupid ordering circumstances I do not have the final rules yet - So all I'm going to say depends on the latest BETA rules (so please correct me, when I'm wrong).

According to the dice pools, I assume you are playing a squad of 3 Kutsov cruisers with 2 Heavy Rocket Batteries each, which will generate an attack of 34 dice.

To sink a Hypatia you need to inflict 10 points of damage - 5 to make it crippled and a further 5 to destroy it. To sink it in one go will need to generate more than 24 successes, so the Catastrophic Explosion Double Crit will happen and you "only" need to inflict 8 points of damage. To inflict 1 point of damage, you'll need 7 successes - so this totals up to 56 successes. A Hypatia has a shield generator which reduces your dice pool to 32 and is allowed to use its ADV with 8 dice (possibly expanded by Escorts and SRS cover). I think in most cases you won't  roll 56 successes with 32 dice.

 

I have no experience in DW 3.0, but in DW 2.0 a well balanced force, containing nearly equal amounts of large, medium and small ships, worked best. Maxed out - lists often failed because they are too vulnerable. I would try to get as fast as possible an Emergency Disorder token on one of your cruisers to make the whole squad nearly useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Phant Mastik said:

I can't believe in sinking a Hypatia in one go. Through some stupid ordering circumstances I do not have the final rules yet - So all I'm going to say depends on the latest BETA rules (so please correct me, when I'm wrong).

According to the dice pools, I assume you are playing a squad of 3 Kutsov cruisers with 2 Heavy Rocket Batteries each, which will generate an attack of 34 dice.

To sink a Hypatia you need to inflict 10 points of damage - 5 to make it crippled and a further 5 to destroy it. To sink it in one go will need to generate more than 24 successes, so the Catastrophic Explosion Double Crit will happen and you "only" need to inflict 8 points of damage. To inflict 1 point of damage, you'll need 7 successes - so this totals up to 56 successes. A Hypatia has a shield generator which reduces your dice pool to 32 and is allowed to use its ADV with 8 dice (possibly expanded by Escorts and SRS cover). I think in most cases you won't  roll 56 successes with 32 dice.

 

I have no experience in DW 3.0, but in DW 2.0 a well balanced force, containing nearly equal amounts of large, medium and small ships, worked best. Maxed out - lists often failed because they are too vulnerable. I would try to get as fast as possible an Emergency Disorder token on one of your cruisers to make the whole squad nearly useless.

So rough averages hit around that 24 successes. of 32 dice, one sixth (around 5 dice) are explosions (2 successes each) around 5 dice are heavy hits (2 successes) and around 5 dice are single hits (1 success each). You get around one more of each from the explosion dice (another 5 successes) and then lets average the last out as another two successes. That's 22. A slightly better roll, because that is pretty much dead average) will easily hit that 21 threshold for crippled (after defence). Defence is pretty bad at ~ 3-4 successes. So you're right, I was overstating, so my apologies here. However That's two disorder tokens, it's crippled so basically has no firepower output so it can't really threaten anything (at the same range it is throwing a mighty 4 dice total with the particle beamers), and can be approached and hunted down by smaller ships pretty easily. 

As to putting disorder tokens on the cruisers it's surprisingly hard. You need 2 to prevent that ship from combining with the others (but can still with itself) in the squadron, and disorder tokens are per ship, so to shut the squad down that's 4 disorder tokens (because 14 dice is still good for putting a damage on another cruiser and 24 will probably put a crit down, so pretty close to crippled). This kind of alpha strike in the long range gives a significant advantage to that player, and you can't put up SRS if you didn't get a turn yet (the initiative step is super important in the first turn... do everything you can to control the game). 

I think the re-roll any number of dice in a pool cards are probably too easy to get which may be influencing my opinion here, just for full disclosure.

But this comes round to my point of feel. I have every reason to focus your capital ship and outside of a LoS blocking island, you pretty much can't stop me doing it. The shield generator is basically a waste (luckily you get it for free so that's a bonus), and it ends up being a battle centred around what your cruisers are doing, not the capital ship, which feels extremely odd to me, and definitely counter to the aesthetics of the game. Perhaps I have missed something about LoS? I'm genuinely curious because right now, pack-hunting destroyers and cruisers are by FAR the overwhelming firepower of the game. With virtually all capital ships at best sporting 3 guns (as of today even the heavy Brittanian BB only has 3 guns, which is annoying because it's the first ship I've seen where I can't use an old model. ) you just don't threaten anything with that kind of pathetic firepower until you are very close, and by then, you're definitely crippled and probably struggling to remove Chaos and Disarray. 

Edit: Curiously, the Guardian generators on the Brittanian ships could meaningfully impact defence dice, because removing 4 usually is enough to tip away from a crippled result when facing that many dice). Having said that, going down to 2 guns feels extremely weak to be honest. 15 dice is pretty damn pathetic, you're only really putting one damage on a cruiser from the ship with the largest calibre guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I see, I need some games under my belt.

This sort of alpha strike is annoying and it was my first thought reading the Union ORBAT.

Concerning Guardian Generators. They remove 1 die in conjunction with a shield generator. Sacrificing a turret will get you 3 dice. But it was easier sacrificing the fourth one instead of the third.;)

And as I understand, Guardians do not stack (more shields = more dice) - could have been fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't stress too much mate, I only have 4 under mine :p. As my title says, these are just my observations. I actually like the game a lot, I just think there are two things that can be improved upon. Differentiating the damage output of guns based on class size, and making battleships a little more meaningful, rather than floating VP's you are forced to take. 

Otherwise I have nothing but praise. it has been well simplified, and game rules aren't congested, which are two things a lot of wargames suffer from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your impressions. I am glad to hear your overall impressions as well as any bugs.  As I long time player of the old game I have been on the fence so far about the new one. Mainly as the box set doesn't have my fleets in it(FSA and EoTBS). Having read my ORBAT has gotten me a little more excited for more news. Have you tried the tiny fliers yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tibour said:

Thanks for sharing your impressions. I am glad to hear your overall impressions as well as any bugs.  As I long time player of the old game I have been on the fence so far about the new one. Mainly as the box set doesn't have my fleets in it(FSA and EoTBS). Having read my ORBAT has gotten me a little more excited for more news. Have you tried the tiny fliers yet?

No worries mate, glad it was at least a little useful! Honestly, not many bugs to be honest. The only thing I think is a bit off is shooting at squadrons and the trait Fusillade. Fusillade is fine unless you have models across ranges, which results in having to separate dice. minor problem but is unnecessarily finicky.  The rules on shooting squadrons however are poor. If you fire and destroy a model in an enemy squadron, the fire simply shifts to the next model (which is fine I guess). However, the rules specifically leave out the topic of range, talking only of line of sight. So if you switch fire to something now out of range, you continue to resolve attacks as if it was in range. I think the mechanic was introduced to simplify gameplay but it means manoeuvre is quite a lot less useful. If I have a frigate or destroyer squadron stretch across 12 inches, and you are only in range of the first model, it means you can go through the squadron without having to manoeuvre into position as normal. While not a devastating rule, I think it takes away from an aspect of the game that is very important. 

Empire will have something basic soon, although judging by Brittania and the FSA, I would expect very barebones and almost identical to start with. I hope all gunnery is not the same across nations (currently the heavy guns and guns are identical to the Russians) because that will feel kinda lame and samey. I'm hoping it was just a release to comply with their own released schedule. Honestly though, push the schedule back if you have to. it's their responsibility to sort it out and communicate after all. Don't released something half-baked.

The ORBATs are an excellent idea and honestly executed really well. The only thing might be to have a reference sheet at the bottom that outlines the rules enclosed, buuuuut, that would mean not many people buying the actual rules book, so I can't begrudge them that. They need to make money to be successful. 

Nothing on fliers or do you mean SRS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I remember, when ever a squadron fired at another squadron it was pretty much that way all along.  At some point in the distant past they had "as long as the next model was a legal target". That got dropped somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 if memory serves. We just house ruled it as it is reasonable. When ever you are rolling buckets of dice at units this is an inevitable compromise.  As to range bands My 2.0 book was handy and I remember that as much as I love DW I hated Spartan rule books LMAO. We basically played from cheat sheets. We had a large sheet made for each phase and avoided the main rule book as much as possible, Having several other rule sets by Warcradle I am looking forward to  a reasonable set of rules.

I have been looking at the ORBATS and they look pretty solid. I actually like the Naming conventions of the Union a little better. Although I will probably screw it up for a couple of months I am sure :).

As to SRS yes we just always referred to them as tiny fliers due to bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 3:06 PM, tibour said:

As far as I remember, when ever a squadron fired at another squadron it was pretty much that way all along.  At some point in the distant past they had "as long as the next model was a legal target". That got dropped somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 if memory serves. We just house ruled it as it is reasonable. When ever you are rolling buckets of dice at units this is an inevitable compromise.  As to range bands My 2.0 book was handy and I remember that as much as I love DW I hated Spartan rule books LMAO. We basically played from cheat sheets. We had a large sheet made for each phase and avoided the main rule book as much as possible, Having several other rule sets by Warcradle I am looking forward to  a reasonable set of rules.

I have been looking at the ORBATS and they look pretty solid. I actually like the Naming conventions of the Union a little better. Although I will probably screw it up for a couple of months I am sure :).

As to SRS yes we just always referred to them as tiny fliers due to bases.

I haven't successfully used SRS yet. they seem quite difficult to get into contact. The one time it was managed, they immediately died to a Sturginium Flare before resolving so unsure. They seem pretty eh to be honest given the points you are spending for the vessels. Again, cruiser carriers in a squadron are better than a large carrier for some reason. The thing I don't really understand is why the aircraft have a shorter range than most big guns... Even a WW1 aircraft (land based) could easily outfly the roughly average engagement ranges of, say Jutland. You can do a "long range" flight, but that means you do a total of 2 attacks the whole game which, given you will be paying 250 points plus for these things is pretty weak given the best single model SRS carrier I have seen is the Brittanian Super Carrier at 10 SRS so a total of 20 dice. Not great when you can use air defence to cancel hits. It actually ends up about as good with rockets... except at least they can shoot out to 30". For 350 points it's a bit much to swallow for its capabilities.

Yeah I remember hating the Spartan wording. it always ended up creating more questions than answers. I don't mind the naming conventions in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent some time thinking about it, what I fundamentally miss is the perceived flavour between not only classes of ships, but inter-class difference between nations. Right now, of the 5 released nations, 3 have identical gunnery weapons. So there is no difference between Russian, Brittanian and FRA ship gun batteries of all kinds. That's kinda disappointing.

Having said that, I also recognise that if you do it the way IO prefer, you have to invest greater effort into balance, and potentially Warcradle intends to do this, but prioritises getting ships and rules out to recoup expenditure on re-writing rules, buying the IP and recasting ships.  I think it is better overall for a game to have these differences, but I understand I might be alone on that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2021 at 11:01 AM, Captaincandle said:

Having spent some time thinking about it, what I fundamentally miss is the perceived flavour between not only classes of ships, but inter-class difference between nations. Right now, of the 5 released nations, 3 have identical gunnery weapons. So there is no difference between Russian, Brittanian and FRA ship gun batteries of all kinds. That's kinda disappointing.

Having said that, I also recognise that if you do it the way IO prefer, you have to invest greater effort into balance, and potentially Warcradle intends to do this, but prioritises getting ships and rules out to recoup expenditure on re-writing rules, buying the IP and recasting ships.  I think it is better overall for a game to have these differences, but I understand I might be alone on that one. 

As far as I can remember, the faction differences were addressed  by the players during the BETA. This should have been enough time to manage it. Getting the models out first, is just a cheap excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Phant Mastik said:

As far as I can remember, the faction differences were addressed  by the players during the BETA. This should have been enough time to manage it. Getting the models out first, is just a cheap excuse.

Yeah it can be. I genuinely have no idea what kind of effort goes into playtesting/rules balancing. I imagine it's somewhat labour intensive which means cash, but it's a line you have to walk because a bad game in feel also can sour players on it... and it's not there isn't other games in the mix for competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might also be that they hope a simpler game mechanically is easier to pick up and that depth will come with specialist units in the future along with overall tactics on the tabletop. Sometimes simpler game mechanics work better for allowing deeper strategy during the game; rather than highly complex and varied mechanics which can overcomplicate and mask the depth of strategy on offer. 

 

There's also the fact that simpler games are easier to pick up and get playing with and that we might see diverging profile and more rules depth evolve steadily over time as the game is added too and changed for new editions etc... 

 

Balance is also a factor, the more similar your varied factions are the easier it is to balance them against each other. 

 

There can be a lot of elements in play, though I think for DWars as it is right now the biggest issue is just that we don't have much out yet. We've not even got the sky theatre of war functioning as it will with larger airships 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 11:02 AM, Overread said:

It might also be that they hope a simpler game mechanically is easier to pick up and that depth will come with specialist units in the future along with overall tactics on the tabletop. Sometimes simpler game mechanics work better for allowing deeper strategy during the game; rather than highly complex and varied mechanics which can overcomplicate and mask the depth of strategy on offer. 

 

There's also the fact that simpler games are easier to pick up and get playing with and that we might see diverging profile and more rules depth evolve steadily over time as the game is added too and changed for new editions etc... 

 

Balance is also a factor, the more similar your varied factions are the easier it is to balance them against each other. 

 

There can be a lot of elements in play, though I think for DWars as it is right now the biggest issue is just that we don't have much out yet. We've not even got the sky theatre of war functioning as it will with larger airships 

I think I somewhat agree. So lack of complication is usually good, agreed. But different weapon traits isn't a significant difficulty, even for very very new players. It could be that what you say is true, but we have a distinct absence of evidence, so I can only go on the things we have now, rather than trying to extrapolate intent. Right now, I think BB's are functionally inferior in protection and firepower and manoeuvre compared to cruisers (except you have to take them) and I think that's a problem for aesthetics. 

If the intent is to diverge over time that could work. I don't really know though, that is super hard to measure. I guess I have to trust they understand their target market better than I do, which is likely. 

I agree balance is a concern, hence my post above, but if you make it too simple, you have no flavour and players become disinterested. But maybe I'm being too harsh. I could very well be. 

Hopefully sky will actually be relevant this time round. I found them awful in the old rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many good points. The danger of keeping it to simple is that some will look and give it a pass. Others are still playing 2.0 and will not upgrade until their is some depth. Both of these could cause an early death to what is looking to be a very promising game.

As to the SRS being under powered/under ranged. I agree but understand the reasoning. They are going for a early naval game not a carrier game. If they aren't careful the SRS will dominate. My club hated my FSA/Union tiny flier swarms as I had 10 carriers total in just that fleet.

I am also ok with gun batteries being gun batteries and the flavor being in the upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 10:27 PM, tibour said:

As to the SRS being under powered/under ranged. I agree but understand the reasoning. They are going for a early naval game not a carrier game. If they aren't careful the SRS will dominate. My club hated my FSA/Union tiny flier swarms as I had 10 carriers total in just that fleet.

I am also ok with gun batteries being gun batteries and the flavor being in the upgrades.

Wow. I can understand that. 10 carriers. Jeez. Fleet or support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 12:27 PM, tibour said:

Many good points. The danger of keeping it to simple is that some will look and give it a pass. Others are still playing 2.0 and will not upgrade until their is some depth. Both of these could cause an early death to what is looking to be a very promising game.

As to the SRS being under powered/under ranged. I agree but understand the reasoning. They are going for a early naval game not a carrier game. If they aren't careful the SRS will dominate. My club hated my FSA/Union tiny flier swarms as I had 10 carriers total in just that fleet.

I am also ok with gun batteries being gun batteries and the flavor being in the upgrades.

I wish there WAS flavour in the upgrades, but, except for the Chinese (that reactor is seriously busted... but I've only played against them once, need more time to properly assess it) really only the Prussians being encouraged to board feels flavourful (I take that back slightly, Covenant are decent in flavour).  A Borodino feels extremely similar to a Kaiser or the Crown Heavy battleship, there's virtually no differences besides some extremely minor shifts here and there. Thing is, still moving through games so it's entirely possible I have missed a whole angle of the game, but to me, it's kinda dumb that cruisers are rocking the same guns as BB's, and that means two cruisers, which are better in pretty much every way, will always be a more cost-efficient choice than a battleship.

Never seen the carrier spam before, but at 350 points I'll never be taking the crown carrier. Absolute garbage of a ship for that cost, having put it on the field now. Same with the floating fortress thingy the Russians have, also way too expensive. I don't mind a step away from aircraft, I agree the feel of the game is gunnery in a very WW1-meets-scifi way, and that Aesthetic is visually great. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 5:14 AM, Captaincandle said:

 Thing is, still moving through games so it's entirely possible I have missed a whole angle of the game, but to me, it's kinda dumb that cruisers are rocking the same guns as BB's, and that means two cruisers, which are better in pretty much every way, will always be a more cost-efficient choice than a battleship

 

While I agree that the Battleships are not as imposing as before it is still early.  Also don't forget the force composition rules.  You still need battlegroups. You can play without the cruisers but not with out the Flagships.   However the cruisers/gunboats  have always been the strength of the fleets value wise.

Judging from your comments your may be a Crown player.  If so the Torps are your real strength and not just fluff wise as in the past. With multiple torp turrets and the generator that gives them homing.  That will be a serious threat.  It is also very thematic and makes for very different play. IMHO Think of your carriers not just as strike ships but as fleet buffs.  Plus the rockets stay the same at all range bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 2:43 PM, Admiral_Fox said:

Wow. I can understand that. 10 carriers. Jeez. Fleet or support?

3 Saratoga's, 3 San Francisco's and 4 sky Fortress Savannahs I think. I also have 4 Apollo's painted to match.  My FSA fleet got a little out of hand. I kept finding minis at cons for good prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 4:54 PM, tibour said:

While I agree that the Battleships are not as imposing as before it is still early.  Also don't forget the force composition rules.  You still need battlegroups. You can play without the cruisers but not with out the Flagships.   However the cruisers/gunboats  have always been the strength of the fleets value wise.

Judging from your comments your may be a Crown player.  If so the Torps are your real strength and not just fluff wise as in the past. With multiple torp turrets and the generator that gives them homing.  That will be a serious threat.  It is also very thematic and makes for very different play. IMHO Think of your carriers not just as strike ships but as fleet buffs.  Plus the rockets stay the same at all range bands.

The force thing was a complaint I had at the beginning of the chain above. I'm forced to take a capital ship, despite how points inefficient they are. That would be fine if there were meaningful decisions to be made for the capital ship, but honestly, pick the cheapest and leave it at the back for late game where it might just be useful, and even then, it's gonna get smashed by rockets or torps for those VP's. I'm not going to compare backwards because I played over v1 to v2 (missed the later stuff) and the game changed a lot, so I find it pointless. I want to focus on what the game is right now. I think early days is not a good excuse. This isn't a computer game where you will get easy sale density then can mop up all the failed testing... people just won't buy the game. It doesn't matter if hardcore players think new players being disappointed their nation isn't released means they aren't going to buy the game because they have been waiting half a year, the point is they won't buy it and that hurts the hobby, so to me it's something both hardcore players and the company should be looking at.

I've played more games of Imperium and Commonwealth than Crown under the new rules, but I've played against or with all the currently released nations now a few times. The Trident generator needs to be in 5" man for the homing, and you can't get it on a destroyer so it's kinda worthless for that right now given it's only on the cruisers if memory serves... who are the torp output of the army which means the one using the generator can't shoot the ship it is affecting...

Eh, the carriers I'm writing off. The rockets don't hit hard enough when you can use something far more effective in any fleet to make them worth it, and the flyers are very poor. The one role the carrier might be useful in is against a Russian (or similar) rocket fleet where you activate first and protect your cruiser squadron from rockets with cap, but that seems like a huge waste of points. Just buy 3 more cruisers and be done with it. 

I'm not fishing for all-powerful battleships, I don't mind the design decision to make cruisers the weapons output, despite how incredulous that it is to me, I can accept it... But currently BB's are a point sink I NEVER want to use, and that's a problem. All 5 of my mates playing have come to the same conclusion. Now it could be a local meta thing, but I'm not seeing players excited for battleships anywhere else like on Facebook groups and the like, so I'm not seeing evidence to the contrary. I haven't seen someone post any math here that might show me otherwise, or even an argument in defence that makes sense to be honest other than you have to take one so that makes them useful. Again, to me, that's a terrible argument for effectiveness because it's based on the forced mechanic, not it's effect on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

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.