Jump to content
Captaincandle

Why Dystpopian Wars is heading for sales failure

Recommended Posts

On 10/18/2021 at 11:48 AM, DrinkDuffLight said:

It's causing a lot of disinterest in my gaming group.

Genuinely curious, is this due to a heavy skewing of interest to Sultanate/Alliance, a small playgroup, meta sympathy or another cause?  I was very much of this position when most of the non-Russian/Antarctica Orbats were similarly limited, I'm less concerned with it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just because we have people that had the alliance and are not really interested in starting another faction. So if they have no interest in playing DW right now we are not going to get into it. We are a small group of players not a store group its 4-6 of us, excluding one of our friends is not really something we are going to do. I get warcradle doesn't have their own miniatures right now but that doesn't mean they should have next to no ships for them. I assume they will get there eventually but it seems silly that a few factions have 2 or 3 drops now and (1/3rd) of the factions don't even have a basic battle fleet yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, actually spent some time covering the rules update (unfortunately we STILL can't play yet :( ), so none of this following is grounded in experience. Firstly, kinda confused. the slightly up-armouring and slowing (generally) of capital ships is unusual. This might make them comparably more resilient if cruisers didn't experience the same attention, so I'm not seeing why. Games were finishing too quickly? I guess most of our games were easily decided by turn 3, but it's hard to see how the game will meaningfully change in this regard? The primary issue is deeper. I won't know what kind of effect it has on gameplay until I can role dice, but capital ships got overall worse IMO, not better. They don't put out any more firepower than a cruiser still (assuming shroud generator for survivability) but their main threat got harder to kill? Like, going to armour 8 doesn't much change the fact that the deciding ship class is still well and truly cruisers, and a squad of them will still laugh and obliterate a capital ship (with a few exceptions).

Gun batteries just seem to get less interesting and viable with each release, which actually surprises me. I'd have thought cool weapons were a choice, not an auto-include... Like, a single capital ship spits 15 dice tops (in RB2 only) with a generator (again, with a few exceptions) when configured with guns. That was.... already pathetic, now it's pretty eyebrow raising. I'm virtually always going to configure my capital ship away from guns because I kinda have to. Just about anything is else is better in a wide variety of scenarios. Rockets cover you better in RB1 and 3, railguns reduce armour and citadel for crits, etc. I mean, if the intention is to make weapon choices as similar as possible to each other as far as raw damage potential, why bother having different guns? I'm really confused. Surely the goal would be have a variety so role, scenario, local meta, local faction choices, etc. actually impact list building? Currently that really isn't the case. Unless we are blind-playing factions, I just pick biggest dice pool, with really only other considerations going to effects in rare cases (like Gustavs with hazardous for example). Perhaps this might be looked at later?


It's hard to tell what to make of these changes. Perhaps a lot of people were complaining about small ships being too good (definitely the case with the old pack-hunter rule) but that's been pretty well rectified. Again, if you standardise guns, the Devs corner themselves to have to make ALL squadrons viable through dice potential, so all destroyers will feel samey, all cruisers and all capitals ships... which is a current complaint, and a very valid one. I don't see how the current changes improved any of the core problems the game currently faces (in my view of course). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say without playing its hard to really make an assumption on the current changes, I have also not gotten to play with the new rules yet and will hold judgment until then. 

I would also like to point out in the defense of the game the lack of variety in unit types is why the weapons all feel the same. There is currently little to no submerged units, and no areal units unless the dragon gets its rules soon. With that said rockets are currently super good because their huge draw back is not being fielded at all once subs start to actually be a thing in the game I think that will change the landscape of the weaponry. Areal VS submerged. The one thing the standard gun batteries have going for them is they don't suffer from that so they can always target an enemy.  

 

I would also say I think your assessment of cruisers VS battle ships may be a little pre mature. An armor 8 vs an armor 6 is a big deal I by no means am saying that the battle ship is better then a group of cruisers I still agree that the cruisers are probably better, however I think that the battle ships being less points then a squad of cruisers and having a significantly higher armor may find a good nitch. We shall see though I am personally excited to try out the new rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2021 at 12:03 PM, DrinkDuffLight said:

I would have to say without playing its hard to really make an assumption on the current changes, I have also not gotten to play with the new rules yet and will hold judgment until then. 

I would also like to point out in the defense of the game the lack of variety in unit types is why the weapons all feel the same. There is currently little to no submerged units, and no areal units unless the dragon gets its rules soon. With that said rockets are currently super good because their huge draw back is not being fielded at all once subs start to actually be a thing in the game I think that will change the landscape of the weaponry. Areal VS submerged. The one thing the standard gun batteries have going for them is they don't suffer from that so they can always target an enemy.  

 

I would also say I think your assessment of cruisers VS battle ships may be a little pre mature. An armor 8 vs an armor 6 is a big deal I by no means am saying that the battle ship is better then a group of cruisers I still agree that the cruisers are probably better, however I think that the battle ships being less points then a squad of cruisers and having a significantly higher armor may find a good nitch. We shall see though I am personally excited to try out the new rules. 

Yeah, I mentioned a few times that those opinions were based only on observation, not play experience.

I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. I don't see subs with minor differences in torpedos (likely the ones already being used in ORBATs as seen in Antartica and Crown) making meaningful changes to the game. Existing subs certainly don't. In fact, when those units appear, I think that will further expose the problems with gunnery having exactly two different options between all factions. But that point is covered in my OP. I won't repeat it here.

The thing with the armour is the difference in armour didn't change. Because BB's really only have 2 guns (although this works with 3 guns as well), while cruisers will kill them slower, so too, will BB's kill cruisers slower (now having the armour carriers used to have). Cruisers are not significantly different in cost; ~30-40 points if you buy a full squadron (so not even a destroyer in most cases). It revolves around cost benefit analysis. The cruisers hit harder, are harder to kill and don't meaningfully cost more points, and don't cede VP's unless you kill the whole squadron. BB's are tougher, for sure, but crippling them makes them basically output no damage, and you got a VP for that (well, you opponent lost one, but mathematically same thing). The cap to make a BB useless is way lower than cruisers, or even mass 1 ships. I don't see BB's getting better ever, you need a considerable overhaul of the game I don't see them doing. I will continue to buy the cheapest BB I can, give it a shroud generator and try to manage damage as best I can. I will never explore them, because the fundamental reasons that make them bad are a core game mechanic, with only 2 I have identified that are actually good (The Hypatia and the Tobolsk) because those two ships don't use that base mechanically idea (i.e. three guns, must sacrifice one for a generator and must traverse the game board). I don't play those factions so never gonna buy them. This is the problem I forsee for the game. As people play, I think players will come round on this point. There will be experimentation of course, but once the population realises that there are objective winners in each ORBAT (because of the inflexibility of the game design style currently used) players won't buy the other stuff, and that will likely kill the game. We can keep saying "it's just beta" but the problems I see are pretty structural, it's not something an ORBAT tweak is going to fix, hence my unconvinced perspective on the recent update. I mean, you can't even get AA support/anti-torpedo vessel screens anymore because of the design of the game, and that's a key reason rockets and torps are so good. Big pools, crappy defensive stats in a huge amount of cases. It also takes away flavour from the game in my opinion. As I have said a few times though, I really hope I'm wrong... I just don't think I am in this case :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2021 at 4:55 PM, Captaincandle said:

It's hard to tell what to make of these changes. Perhaps a lot of people were complaining about small ships being too good (definitely the case with the old pack-hunter rule) but that's been pretty well rectified. Again, if you standardise guns, the Devs corner themselves to have to make ALL squadrons viable through dice potential, so all destroyers will feel samey, all cruisers and all capitals ships... which is a current complaint, and a very valid one. I don't see how the current changes improved any of the core problems the game currently faces (in my view of course). 

I do wish that there was a more open dialogue rules wise with the devs. I've played a lot of games over time, the one that held my interest the most consistently tends to announce rules changes and the thought process involved, it's be super neat to see something along those line on the announcement blog here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 12:55 PM, IAmTheMainOpponent said:

I do wish that there was a more open dialogue rules wise with the devs. I've played a lot of games over time, the one that held my interest the most consistently tends to announce rules changes and the thought process involved, it's be super neat to see something along those line on the announcement blog here.

Yeah that would be nice. I've mentioned before it could be that there are whole bunch of reasons that make sense for this stuff, but they are invisible to me so I need to try and look at it best I can with what we have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2021 at 9:10 AM, IAmTheMainOpponent said:

Fascinating, what range are the VP's usually in (And points used)?

If I were to give an average, it would be -/+ 5 VPs.  It varies depending on what cards are drawn (as some cards might not be viable the turn you draw them) and who can score the coveted +2 VP cards when they are available.  It does offer another way to pull out a win if you are fell behind earlier in the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 4:13 AM, c2k said:

If I were to give an average, it would be -/+ 5 VPs.  It varies depending on what cards are drawn (as some cards might not be viable the turn you draw them) and who can score the coveted +2 VP cards when they are available.  It does offer another way to pull out a win if you are fell behind earlier in the game. 

Thanks for answering!

We've finally hit the state of the world where some small ships can pew pew at each other via the medium of dice once again, initial clashes aren't matching up with your experiences, still ending up with sufficiently decisive casualties on one side that VP's couldn't possibly swing it. Possibly there are some distinct meta differences?

Our meta at a glance:
*1000 points
*4'x4' board
*Randomised "Common Encounters" (I frequently default to calling this the "scenario"
*3.5 players
*Terrain is scattered randomly about the board with minor adjustments for sanity (i.e. off of other terrain, off the table, etc.)
*Singular terrain set of 3 pieces of land (3"x6") 4 obstruction (1"x3") and a pair of reefs (2" circles) going off my memory
*Most games effectively resolved in turn 2 by one of the RNG effects (Attack dice, the more pwoerful cards) with one side wiped by end of 4

Current gameplay meta:
*Shroud generators are king
*SRS do not achieve enough to justify taking them
*Union has done poorly
*Enlightened, Ottomans and Russians have specific fleets with proven ability
*Cards are only played as Valour, Victory effects not being enough to offset scenario/casualty points

Link to comment
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.