Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RazorWing

Armoured Clash vs Dystopian Wars (Land)

Recommended Posts

I'm looking at starting some land forces and I am curious why 2 similar land games? What is the difference between the two? I am still learning Dystopian Wars (navy mostly), so why would I want to do Armoured Clash instead of Dystopian for the land game? I've not actually found a direct comparison between the two and not yet. Where would you recommend jumping into a land game (dystopian or AC and which of the two armored starter boxes)? I play RC and EoBS in Dystopian, but focusing on Blazing Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I've never actually played a proper sized game of Armoured Clash, but my friend and I play games at dinners, and it is infinitely quicker than DW. We can wipe a pair of land boxes from the field in about half an hour, compared to double that for using DW.

I can't tell you much more for now, but the simplicity, one-attack-kills no degradation of ability, etc, makes it so much simpler for to play Armoured Clash, if that's what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the difference as far as gameplay though? I'm a bit stumped why SG released a game that uses the same models and same base rules that does something one of their other games already does. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but cant find the answer what. I'll read the rule book, but a bit worried to do that at the moment as I'm just now feeling pretty good about Dystopian Wars rules and don't want to get my head mixed up.

 

Also, which starter box would everyone suggest to start a land game (or would that vary by faction)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't really the same base rules though. The armoured clash rules are made to reduce bookkeeping to only really be on the landships, spotting, morale, and generator effects. As opposed to all of your core army having multiple HP, and thus weapon degradation, and such likes. There is no limited-turn maneuvering, but for heavies, which speeds everything up, there's no fuel or fatigue on tokens, the list goes on.

AC is made rot to make it all run faster, so that you can use more models, and have a big fun fast battle, rather than a big fun convoluted battle.

I play Brittanians against my friend's Russians,. Apparently the Brittanian mkII is crazy good, which I won't disagree with, but e battles are rarely a walkover. Problem is that fluff wise, we're allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference is that AC is much simpler and quicker than DW so is more suited to land battles where you tend to have few big models but lots of smaller units.

 

DW works well for naval games where there are relatively few models on the table, when you move the naval rules to a land game with lots of smaller units the game bogs down in detail, if you've got a dozen or so tanks on the table you can't realy be doing with recording lots of details about each one.  AC gets away from the detail and plays at a higher level, which is more suitable for large scale armoured warfare, there is far less book keeping and units don't have a trail of markers recording the minutae of their progress through the game.

 

Last night I played a AC game and my French force of some 33 units faced off against a British one of sligtly fewer units but the same 1500 points cost.  I claim a narrow victory but the main point is it was fun and we got the game finished in 3 hours or so, something not possible in DW land battles.

 

Also as mentioned above there is much more proscription in how a force is put together, models are organised into units which are part of higher formations, this allows a more historical type of mixed force to be fielded (albeit using fantasy models) while still allowing a degree of cultural difference. 

 

There is also much more emphasis on command and control with decisions about activation sequences becoming very inportant, units manouver and fight as units within an overall command framework, there's also a modicum of morale as well although it's not too heavy.

 

Several of us had invested quite heavily in DW land forces but had given up playing because the rules were just not suitable for the largescale land battles we wanted to play, AC has got us playing and buying models again!  Personally I'd only play DW for naval battles and AC for land engagements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference is that AC is much simpler and quicker than DW so is more suited to land battles where you tend to have few big models but lots of smaller units.

 

DW works well for naval games where there are relatively few models on the table, when you move the naval rules to a land game with lots of smaller units the game bogs down in detail, if you've got a dozen or so tanks on the table you can't realy be doing with recording lots of details about each one.  AC gets away from the detail and plays at a higher level, which is more suitable for large scale armoured warfare, there is far less book keeping and units don't have a trail of markers recording the minutae of their progress through the game.

 

Last night I played a AC game and my French force of some 33 units faced off against a British one of sligtly fewer units but the same 1500 points cost.  I claim a narrow victory but the main point is it was fun and we got the game finished in 3 hours or so, something not possible in DW land battles.

 

Also as mentioned above there is much more proscription in how a force is put together, models are organised into units which are part of higher formations, this allows a more historical type of mixed force to be fielded (albeit using fantasy models) while still allowing a degree of cultural difference. 

 

There is also much more emphasis on command and control with decisions about activation sequences becoming very inportant, units manouver and fight as units within an overall command framework, there's also a modicum of morale as well although it's not too heavy.

 

Several of us had invested quite heavily in DW land forces but had given up playing because the rules were just not suitable for the largescale land battles we wanted to play, AC has got us playing and buying models again!  Personally I'd only play DW for naval battles and AC for land engagements.

+1 for you, thank you very much. That is exactly what I was looking for!

 

Two questions if you don't mind.

1) how well does AC work out for smaller games (say the AC or ground force starter boxes)?

2) which starter box would you reccomend to start into the land game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) how well does AC work out for smaller games (say the AC or ground force starter boxes)?

It will work well with the AC starters but not with the DW ground force starters.

 

2) which starter box would you reccomend to start into the land game?

I would recommend the AC starters because you would get enough to start both games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to small games, my friend and I play with just an armoured regiment, more often than not, coming in at five hundred points, ish.

I imagine it's quite a different game, as the Russian landship is nigh on unbreakable, playing as we do, without artillery, but the game is still immense fun, and isn't just a static slugfest. When it is a slugfest, my Brittanians lose the field very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very curious, we have played a lot of land games - roughly 50%.

 

We got the game time down to around 3 hours for a 1000 pts game.

 

What I like about Dystopian Wars with land forces:

  • Very good control over units, hardly limited by tight turning circles etc.
  • Winning/Losing has to do more with overall strategy than single maneuvers
  • Medium and small units matter most, unlike with naval
  • Relevant unit classes with clear counter structure, bombard, small tank, medium tank, landship

 

How are these qualities reflected in armoured clash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Very good control over units, hardly limited by tight turning circles etc.
  • Winning/Losing has to do more with overall strategy than single maneuvers
  • Medium and small units matter most, unlike with naval
  • Relevant unit classes with clear counter structure, bombard, small tank, medium tank, landship

 

The movement of AC is more simple, while battalions of tiny, small, mediums don't need any template. They simply move without penalties for turning etc.

 

medium ant small units are vulnerable and of limited size. This means that they get reduced quiet easyly against long range fractions. So it seems to be necessary to use all sizes of tanks.

 

winning and losing has to do lots with overall strategy, game cards, activation order and dice colour.

 

I would recomment a game size of 1000P+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very curious, we have played a lot of land games - roughly 50%.

 

We got the game time down to around 3 hours for a 1000 pts game.

 

What I like about Dystopian Wars with land forces:

  • Very good control over units, hardly limited by tight turning circles etc.
  • Winning/Losing has to do more with overall strategy than single maneuvers
  • Medium and small units matter most, unlike with naval
  • Relevant unit classes with clear counter structure, bombard, small tank, medium tank, landship

 

How are these qualities reflected in armoured clash?

#1: Only Larges, Massives and Cumbersome stuff (basically, fixed-wing aircrafts) use the DW-like turning template. The rest is 360° free.

#2: With AC being partly objective-based and asking a good deal of anticipation (for Command Points and activation order), I'll say it's fine one that side.

#3: Generally, Smalls and Medium are frail but pack a good punch, a greater mobility and use terrain better. Larges and Massives are important by virtue of often being command units and having the HQ MAR, making them vital to morale and orders management. Keep in mind that spamming is almost impossible in AC due to the way the ORBAT works, meaning most 1500pts force would have 3 or 4 Larges at best.

#4: That's still DW models, to each its role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1: Only Larges, Massives and Cumbersome stuff (basically, fixed-wing aircrafts) use the DW-like turning template. The rest is 360° free.

#2: With AC being partly objective-based and asking a good deal of anticipation (for Command Points and activation order), I'll say it's fine one that side.

#3: Generally, Smalls and Medium are frail but pack a good punch, a greater mobility and use terrain better. Larges and Massives are important by virtue of often being command units and having the HQ MAR, making them vital to morale and orders management. Keep in mind that spamming is almost impossible in AC due to the way the ORBAT works, meaning most 1500pts force would have 3 or 4 Larges at best.

#4: That's still DW models, to each its role.

#1: Okay, that's good

#2: Well, objective based play can lead to very artificial situations - especially when you must manage some kind of 'metagame' tasks in order to succeed in the 'real' game. Tell me, how does this Command Points 'game' work?

#3: Spamming, ORBAT, tell me more please :)

#4: Okay, cool :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2: Well, objective based play can lead to very artificial situations - especially when you must manage some kind of 'metagame' tasks in order to succeed in the 'real' game. Tell me, how does this Command Points 'game' work?

It's not really a "game" but each formation gives you command points that are used to play cards and do some special maneuvers but they aren't "necessary" for a squadron to do things.

 

#3: Spamming, ORBAT, tell me more please :)

Put simply, you can not spam anything (or at least not to a game breaking point). The army composition is fairly rigid so you have to meet certain criteria for a battalion to be legal (X number of Y unit, up to Z number of Q etc.). Also, most land-ships ans carriers come in battalions of one or two, but the way the activation system works is that both players activate all units in both of their current battalions before any of them starts activating an other battalion, thus small battalions will give you 1 or 2 activations while your opponent can get 4-6 activations if he chose a larger one to activate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer tanks to boats, so I mostly play land games of DW. However, it never really seemed "right". It seemed kind of pidgeon holed.

 

Now with the advent of Armoured Clash, I'm happy to play Naval games, as the DW rules seem to fit boats (and starships in the case of Firestorm Armada), and the AC rules seem to fit the feel of tanks better.

 

At least, in my opinion.

 

Sorry if that didn't really add anything to the conversation... sitting at my desk at work and waiting to clock in (i.e., BORED!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you've noticed, the AC rules are geared more towards what's in a blister.  Merlin Interceptors, a squad of them is 3, how many in a blister 3, DW squadron 5.  Hawk rotor squadron 2, blister 2, DW squad 3.  It's easier and a bit cheaper to due AC than DW Land/Air.  At least that's my thought today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried a combined land/sea battle where the ships use DW rules but the land units use AC?  Do the naval units just blow the land units off the board quickly since they don't keep track of damage?

 

Are the two systems completely incompatible on the same board with each other?

 

And is AC a downloadable ruleset?  I didn't see a rulebook for AC at my local store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried a combined land/sea battle where the ships use DW rules but the land units use AC?  Do the naval units just blow the land units off the board quickly since they don't keep track of damage?

 

Are the two systems completely incompatible on the same board with each other?

 

And is AC a downloadable ruleset?  I didn't see a rulebook for AC at my local store.

You cannot run AC rules and DW rules on the same table...they're completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a relatively new player, with no experience from Land battles, I also try to make up my mind whether DW or AC should be chosen for larger land battles. As a 40K player who enjoyed the occasional 6 000-10 000 Point game, complexity in ruling does not deter me and what at least from a Quick glance at the AC army lists annoys me as a Russian player is that their big (and cool) advantage Ablative Armour seems not to exist in AC. Now what is the Russians trade mark in AC then? Did they get any other feat as a replacement, Another thing that makes them unique, as the other sides have their specialties?

 

So I understand the desire to simplify things and lose some deadweight and make larger battles doable in 3 hours, but I also like the complexity of the DW system. Admittedly, there are many things in the DW rules that could be changed and it seems that DW inherited the Firestorm Armada rules which was not Always suitable for a naval 19th Century battle system. But in general I like the rules and see no immediate gain in gameplay experience from the simpler rules in AC; do you really save that much time? Is it less die-rolling? I am probably totally wrong because it is only from presumptions and no play experience, the infamous gut-feeling... But please can you straighten out these questionmarks for me?

 

I was also thinking to essentially use the army lists of AC for building an army while using the DW battle system. Would that be disastrous from balance purposes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what at least from a Quick glance at the AC army lists annoys me as a Russian player is that their big (and cool) advantage Ablative Armour seems not to exist in AC. Now what is the Russians trade mark in AC then? Did they get any other feat as a replacement, Another thing that makes them unique, as the other sides have their specialties?

They still have it, in a way. Their first KR is around 2 points higher than anyone else's (for units with multiple KR, obviously). That, a killer RB1 and some King Size infantry regiments.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • 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.