Jump to content
Guest Delboy

Dystopian Wars Playtester Thread

Recommended Posts

Yes, there is scope to increase the types of vessels in each class [Heavy Cruisers, Heavy Destroyers, Heavy Frigates, Heavy Battleships, etc.]

 

You're right, the CoA Destroyer is a prime candidate for the 'Heavy' tags give the fact its so big! :)

 

Does this mean that being nearly the size of a cruiser it'll be allowed to have more than one guy with a rifle on board? :P

 

Heavy designations sound great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Firestorm has them (though only for two Ryushi carriers so far) and not "escort" as per escort rules, just forming a squadron with the carrier.

 

Also, I really hope the PLC fleets means one of them is an AIR fleet. Cause giving angry pollacks wings and bombs is just what the game needs! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - fairly redundant question, given the 360 move and turret of the Nikel, but where is its front!? Is it the steering shed on the model, just in front of the mortar, is it one of the long sides like the renders suggest, or is there so much vodka on board that it depends on what kind of socks the commander is wearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Delboy!  It was well worth the wait!! 

 

You've also peaked my curiousity with 'Danish Naval Fleets' now that sounds like an excuse to send my Prussians to the breakers (fleabay).  Any chance you could let slip what we might expect with them?  ;)

 

Heavy cruisers sound good, I always thought gunships should have been classified as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poland can into new fleet? Sweet! My Poles really need some boats, so that they can go charge at battleships as well... those watery sods have avoided my wrath for too long! Though I can only imagine them being surface skimming blimps- actual boats seem a little out of place for the PLC, considering their location.

Keep in mind that "fleet" isn't a naval-only designation in DW. So, that PLC stuff can totally be tanks and planes.

 

Anyway, it will be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the types in each class sound quite interesting, dare I say "Pocket Dreadnought?"

No you may not. Period. End line. Log out. Etc.

What the Magenta Pocket Battleship wasn't enough of a warning? Sure, the Aussies did okay with theirs. But one should never tempt fate. Or as they used to say.... "Do not awaken a sleeping dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup." ;)

Not that I'm against the 'heavy' concept, just a bit biased against 'pocket' anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am missing something with the tiksi. I love the damn thing and think its great, but only in a squadron with other tiksi. Why the attachment (medium)? I would think large would make more sense as then you can get the new big boat to lay down 3 sheaf fire templates. But it cannot link with any of our mediums so....yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Delboy!  It was well worth the wait!! 

 

You've also peaked my curiousity with 'Danish Naval Fleets' now that sounds like an excuse to send my Prussians to the breakers (fleabay).  Any chance you could let slip what we might expect with them?  ;)

 

Heavy cruisers sound good, I always thought gunships should have been classified as that.

A rendering of the Danish Skyfortress is shown in the Danish thread in the Allies and Mercenaries section of this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Myshkin mkII Class Bomber

 

 

Gunnery, MARs and Generators

The primary Fore Gun is limited to a 90-degree Fire Arc with 6/4/-/- for a slight AD presence at RB 1+2 – hardly likely to set the work on fire, but the effectiveness of the vessel in other areas is the thing that marks it out!....besides its good fun shooting Escorts into their Parent vessels...... ;)

 

Hi Delboy,

 

Long time reader, first time poster. Been loving the write ups all year; they really add that personal touch to the game which sets it apart :)

Anyway I noticed the para above regarding the Myshkin Mk II gunnery arc and noticed its different to the arc quoted in the support box booklet pdf which has them down as as Fixed Fore arc.  Personally I prefer the 90-deg arc from both a model design and a flexibility point of view, but i'm now wondering which is correct and which is the typo? :wacko: 

 

Thanks in advance :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

Hi Delboy,

 

Long time reader, first time poster. Been loving the write ups all year; they really add that personal touch to the game which sets it apart :)

Anyway I noticed the para above regarding the Myshkin Mk II gunnery arc and noticed its different to the arc quoted in the support box booklet pdf which has them down as as Fixed Fore arc.  Personally I prefer the 90-deg arc from both a model design and a flexibility point of view, but i'm now wondering which is correct and which is the typo? :wacko:

 

Thanks in advance :D

Booga.....its a typo on my part. ;)

I'll fix it.

 

Cheers!

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*drools over the danish blimp-carrier.*

oops better clean that up.

----

am I a bad person for wanting everything else to come out AFTER DW2.0 is released? I needs monies for goodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sturmbringer is good, very good, but if its the victim of focused fire it will die. Its certainly a very effective unit, but its not invincible. I actually find that its very good paired with two metzgers (metzgers are very good a drawing fire)

 Like with any new British torpedo volley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delboy - belated question on the FSA design choices. Why did you make the strike bomber the Water Hunter and the flying boat the Air Hunter? Intuitively it seems to make more sense the other way around. The small agile strike bomber looks like it could rival other flyers in maneuvarability and hunt them with rockets whilst the flying boat would work better as a long range ocean crossing platform for dropping bombs on subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you make the strike bomber the Water Hunter and the flying boat the Air Hunter? Intuitively it seems to make more sense the other way around. The small agile strike bomber looks like it could rival other flyers in maneuvarability and hunt them with rockets whilst the flying boat would work better as a long range ocean crossing platform for dropping bombs on subs.

Because you don't need an agile dogfighter when using long-range rockets, but that agility might come in handy when you need to accurately drop a bomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.