Jump to content
Brother Glacius

Request for v2.0

Recommended Posts

Please find a way to speed up the game. I really really like DW. The models are great, the background is fantastic. The premise behind the game with all three types of units is super. But the game plays at a snails pace. I know you guys are doing your best, but I hope that this is one of your top priorities in game design for the next version. Anything you can do to speed up play would help this game immensely. I have two suggestions:

 

1: movement templates, a la X-Wing. Drop a template down, move your ship along it anywhere from the minimum distance, to its max distance. This would really simplify movement. Lumbering ships are limited to a single template worth of movement. Agile ships could do a combo of two or more templates. Again, just quick examples of how it could work.

 

2: in order to make #1 work, you have to get rid of fixed channels. They have to be the number one snail-causer in the game. They require super-precise movement. Just not worth the hassle IMHO.

 

Anyways, just had to share. I have spoken to many local gamers. Most of them seem to have DW in some form or another, and almost all of them say that the reason they aren't playing, is that because the game takes too long to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one thing that gets my group to, we love everything about dws, but can be a lengthy game, we've had to cap our games at 1250pts atm, which takes a fw hours, multiplayer games just cant happen atm, unless you reduce each players points to nearly nothing, which is no fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, as an option, I wouldn't mind removing template movement (loads of fleet games have several grades of movement system).  But a lot of us actually derive pleasure from the manoeuvring itself and the limitations on that is actually part of the fun for us.  The movement phase is, to me, the real phase where stuff happens in fleet games.

 

But having varied grades of it is probably the best of both worlds.  Have Casual Movement where there is an extremely simply set of of movement rules.  I hesitate to make it 100% free.  But something like having giving all ships a 90 degree turn at the beginning of the move and maybe giving manoeuvrable ones a 90 degree turn at the end; smalls could do, maybe 180 degrees.  Ground vehicles could go 100% free though (and maybe air as well).

 

Standard movment could be the normal style.

 

And for real manoeuvre nuts create an advanced system where you pre-plot your move before actually enacting it.  So no take-backs and requires a bit of planning before putting your move in to action.  Not quite simultaneous pre-plotting, but still a lot of fun.

 

That said, probably easy enough to do all this via house-ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, as an option, I wouldn't mind removing template movement (loads of fleet games have several grades of movement system).  But a lot of us actually derive pleasure from the manoeuvring itself and the limitations on that is actually part of the fun for us.  The movement phase is, to me, the real phase where stuff happens in fleet games.

I'm firmly in this group, the movement phase (and it's freedoms and limitations) IS the game to me. Avoiding horrible traffic accidents (something I still can't seem to avoid... Damned drunken Russki's...) and trying to get those broadsides, turrets and fixed channels all lined up are where the tactics in the game are. Once you've done that, then you roll some dice, remove some models, and it's the other guys go. :)

I don't want to see this simplified just to move the game along quicker... The templates idea is nice, but with some of the maneuvers I've attempted to pull off, I'm not sure I have enough space for all the templates I'd need... :P

This is just my opinion, of course. Maybe the multiple optional variants/house rules would be the way to go, rather than drastically changing the core system. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Delboy

The idea of 'no-takesy-backsy' does appeal to me, its certainly how I choose to play myself :) ......if I'm silly enough to collide with something then I reckon I deserve it! It would fit with the Predetermined Fire mechanics too, which already exist [...creating consistency!]

 

I guess its player's choice though, and so I wouldn't want to dictate such a measure in the rules as a requisite because to do so might penalise new gamers in particular.

But as players' skill increases I would certainly recommend a notion of 'no-takesy-backsy' !! :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I also reckon that Dystopian wars can be a little lenghty sometimes.

 

To make the game a little faster I set up a jewel box with many different sections for the markers so that I dont take that much time looking them up.

 

A friend of mine set up a dice-Tower, will it may not be very elegant it saves the time of collecting the dice.

 

What seems to take most of the time, even among the experienced players I met was flipping around the rulebook to find an answer for the resolution of a certain situation (Seems to take around 20% of the time) and finding or not finding an answer.

 

You learn most things by experience but one human rarely knows "Everything" specially in a game as diverse as DW.

 

Some people rule that if they cant find an answer quickly they just throw a 50% dice to see if things work out, but the flipside of the coin is that also could lead to certain people flaunting the rules in a way that suits their tactical advantage.

 

I hope (And recommend highly) that for D.W 2.0 Spartan includes a Glossary of the terms since it would speed up searches and help the players out and make the game faster.

 

I also think that publishing a glossary for DW 1.1 as a download would be a pretty nice move to ease current play-snags. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there will be an inevitable bifurcation into the standard DW 2.0 ( just roughly based around a 1500 point per side 4 hour game) and a fast play/big battle version for 3,000+ points per side in three hours along the lines of Armoured Clash/Planetfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In X-wing, you have a template that marks the entire route for the ship. That is what I'm thinking of. The current templates give you inch by inch changes in direction. I'd rather see a path template put down, and the ship would move along that route. The ship has to go at least its min distance up to its max. Maneuverable ships would get to use multiple templates instead of just one.

 

At least I think that would help to speed up the movement phase. Probably the bigger impact is to remove fixed channels. That would allow greater freedom of movement and not having to pull out the laser pointer to make sure your ships are on the intended target.

 

EDIT: p.s. I would hope a standard sized game would take approx. 2hrs to complete. That would be a good goal to aim for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Glacius' is an interesting suggestion -- an element to the X-Wing game is that movement is simplified but also pre-plotted, which in some ways makes it harder to get the combatants where you want them. 

 

He may have a point, though, that the DW ethos is generally 'beer and pretzels' but that the movement mechanics do have the potential to become slow and finicky, mainly to accomodate fixed channels. 

 

It does make sense to me that the fixed channels should, in general, be assigned cautiously, so that e.g. you're not tempted to spend a lot of time to align multiple fixed channels from a single squadron on a single target, etc.   

 

Certainly one thing to remember from a design perspective -- to simulate 'real life' arcs of fire, you have to account for the fact that both target and firer are moving continuously over time (rather than discretely in the DW igo-ugo-igo impulses), so the exercise of 'lining up' a fixed channel shot is an artifice of the turn/impulse system that could as well be submerged into combat resolution (6s mean you managed to get a good spread).  The alternative that actually does allow a game to to capture the fleeting moments when the guns are aligned is either (of course) video games, or the old Starfleet Battles/Car wars system of breaking up the into "N" simultaneous impulses (accurate as N>infinity, and a nice demonstration of Calculus in action, but awfully slow for fleet combat). 

 

In general, there should be a two part occam's razor for game design: 

1) players should only have to make the finicky decisions their real life counterparts might have to make (vis. at battalion level, a player should be choosing the ammunition fired)

2) if it's an abstraction, it can probably be replaced with a quicker, easier abstraction. 

 

Fixed channels may be violating both those rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say DW is that lengthy.

 

What it really needs is a neatening of certain sets of rules like LoS and terrain.

 

Making those more intuitive and easy to understand would make the slower parts of the game move much faster.

 

In part, the time taken is due to the tactical depth and I'd rather not lose that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do find DW to be lengthy compared to other games.  I know efforts have been made to streamline the game (a la fleet orders and the removal of individual fuel for tiny flyers etc) and overall the game is very enjoyable

 

I too wish for a swifter game - in my opinion the most time consuming element is when your opponent must roll during your activation (i.e. counterattack, defensive fire, shields etc.) adding the notification (hey, I'm firing rockets, can you roll your AA?), calculation (so, this model intiates the AA, then I link with other models in the squadron and reduce for HP suffered), and rolling sequence (hey, I roll two 6's, now I need to roll again, add the hits, then check against another statistic or dice total to see if this has any effect).  I'm not convinced that this interactivity adds more than it detracts from the game.  My preference would be for a more simple mechanic, like a reduction in dice rolled by the attacker or something similar, with interactive phases saved for a few special things (like shields and boarding only).

 

Calculating fire arcs, and non-reiprocial L.O.S. also often causes confusion for new players (I woudln't have moved my models like that if they couldn't all fire...) and while I understand that some folks like this, again my preference would be for a simpler system which doesn't favour experienced players.  The exploding dice mechanic and other neat rules give DW a real beer and pretzels feel, which is awesome, but sometimes at odds with the complexity of some components of the game (as Carrington points out).

 

And finally, my own personal wish for 2.0 - I'm not a fan of the infantry rules or 'counter style' models - in fact they have turned me off playing land games.  The small robots are great, and I know there are people who passionately support the role of infantry in DW, but for me the AP and boarding rules and small robots are enough of a nod to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

I don't really like the X wing system for Dystopian wars, because that really pushes the feeling of Speed, that you are going so fast that you can't slow down to turn in a reasonable way. You are almost fighting with your craft to make it do what you want.

Ships are more ponderous in Dystopian Wars, and I prefer to keep that feeling with the current system. 

 

Actually, I think the easiest thing would be to give every model a base. If every model has a base, then measurements are *so* much easier. I'm working on giving my Brit fleet all bases now, because it just saves time and effort. From that, arcs are easy, movement is easy, LOS is easy.

 

If I had any wishes for 2.0 it would be:

 

1. Making Boarding less influential on the game. Boarding doesn't feel right in this game since this is at a time period where that kind of combat has become mostly unfeasible due to the power and range of gunnery. I would prefer to make Boarding more likely to happen, but less powerful. Something like rolling AP vs AA, and then you pick a 2-11 on the critical hit table (doing no damage, though) to inflict on the ship. 

 

2. Clean up the wording on certain things. Cloud generators specifically. Keep your wording on dice modifiers consistent. 

 

3. Make Cruisers good! I would love to see more fleets using their mediums as ships of the line. 

 

 

Thats almost it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had any wishes for 2.0 it would be:

 

1. Making Boarding less influential on the game. Boarding doesn't feel right in this game since this is at a time period where that kind of combat has become mostly unfeasible due to the power and range of gunnery. I would prefer to make Boarding more likely to happen, but less powerful. Something like rolling AP vs AA, and then you pick a 2-11 on the critical hit table (doing no damage, though) to inflict on the ship. 

 

2. Clean up the wording on certain things. Cloud generators specifically. Keep your wording on dice modifiers consistent. 

 

3. Make Cruisers good! I would love to see more fleets using their mediums as ships of the line. 

 

1. Eh, I like boarding as it stands, especially with the introduction of the Salvage mechanic that is coming, and with the apparent proliferation of MARs that allow you to recrew Derelicted/Prized vessels. Plus the idea of lots of angry marines jet-packing across the gap between ships, through clouds of flak and tracer fire, to rain lead, fire and steel down upon the heads of the doomed crew of enemy vessels is one of the main reasons I got into the game. The visual aspect is just way too awesome... :D

2. Agreed. And a nicer Index. One that isn't hidden in the middle of a picture section... :P

3. Oh yes please! Some already are (Such as the Suvurov and Dao for two I personally use), but there are others that really need a bit of loving (I really want a reason to take my Reivers other than 'well, I have painted them...'). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be more straight forward to keep the current templates, make it that models can use templates equal to their size or larger and give them a limited number of turns during their activation. Small, fast, nibble ships might have say 3 or 4 turns available to them; while large, slow ship only have 1 and then everything in between. Models could use as much of the template(s) during any of these turns as well as any normal forward movement as they have speed. This would stay true to the original system but further differentiate ships of the same class (ie cruisers getting more turns than gunships) and simplfy movement considerably. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think movement takes that long. With a bit of training you get rather fast in moving those little ships (even for fixed channel weapons). Sometimes one has to concede that it simply is not possible to line them all up for a perfect shot and sometimes one has to be a bit generous for the opponents movement and things are getting way faster in the movement section. EG if the opponent wants to place 5 Corvettes somewhere about 8" ahead in the approximately same facing, it simply is no use to move each little ship inch per inch (taking 40! separate movement steps). Or what we often do (knowingly against the rules) move each ship from the squadron the 2" straight ahead at first and complete the rest of the movement afterwards. As long as it is not a traffic jam like situation it simply does not change anything regarding possible manoeuvers, but it helps to plan and speed up movement.

 

What I think costs the most time is if you have to look up your weapons stats, then start counting dice, doublecheck with the opponent and compare to his damage/critrating check again if you are not sure and so on... If you know your ships (and the basics for your opponents ships) the game simply gets more intense and way faster.

 

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh we are probably really bad if a squadron we mesure 1 and as long as there is no obvious collision just place the rest roughly where they should be if following same movement. We then ajust for fixed channel if movement was spare enough. We also declare im lining this up for fc on x to further aviod problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

althorin: nothing wrong with that in my humble opinion.

 

I would really love to see some slight tweeks to boarding. It just seems a bit convoluted (okay divide up your pools, declare which ship you are ack acking, now which marines are allocated to marines from which boarders, etc etc).

 

Armoured Clash has a great solution to this and I would love to see an adaptation of it for dystopian wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main reason the template movement mechanic works so well for X-Wing is the small amount of ships in the game. In a starter set alone for DW you have around 15 different models. The other thing is in DW there is a variety of elements that can be played in. Sailing on the ocean has very different physics to driving a tank on land, or flying an aircraft. Different templates would have to be developed for not only every class size of model, but also every element. With so many templates cluttering the edges of the board would movement become any faster? Those who have been playing this game for years have already developed the ability to use the current system at speed, why take that away?

 

The TL;DR version  :D

1. The template system would require too many templates to meet all of the different model requirements.

2. If such a system were to be introduced a re-tooling of the entire movement mechanic would be needed.

3. The end result would be no better than before, as players search through piles of moving templates to find the exact one they are looking for.

4. Veteran players would have to re-learn the movement rules and how to use them accurately; slowing down the game considerably for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

althorin: nothing wrong with that in my humble opinion.

 

I would really love to see some slight tweeks to boarding. It just seems a bit convoluted (okay divide up your pools, declare which ship you are ack acking, now which marines are allocated to marines from which boarders, etc etc).

 

Armoured Clash has a great solution to this and I would love to see an adaptation of it for dystopian wars.

It's getting changed somehow in version 2.0.

Your prayers may have been heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will start by saying that I really like both DW and x-wing. I have played both since they came out. Having x-wing ships being moved and tapped about at ,high points, with only about a dozen ships per side as you adjust the template is a problem. I cannot imagine the chaos that would result at just 1k of DW. Between tiny fliers and how closely some ships move I think that using the flight path system in DW would cause more problems than it would help. I agree that DW can drag but I really like it the way it is. I would not argue against a proper index.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another suggestion would be to include the token images for the critical hit effects. I still don't know which token is "Chaos and Disarray".

 

 

I will start by saying that I really like both DW and x-wing.

Absolutely agreed, I love the mechanic in X-Wing and the game as a whole. But for DW? I don't think that would be feasible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another suggestion would be to include the token images for the critical hit effects. I still don't know which token is "Chaos and Disarray".

There's a page for all critical effect images in my main rulebook (July 2012 Print edition). Chaos and Disarray is the big exclamation mark - !

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.