Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

HERO

Some things that can work well in DW2.0

Recommended Posts

boarding is still a very valuable and viable tool even for the coa. you just have to be a lot more careful with it than say Prussia or China. coa can board anyone with preparation, planning and a wee smidgeon of luck (or failing that we probably have a generator for it :P)

except maybe against Russians or Chinese. their vessels tend to have too many bodies on them to kill off in boarding. counterboarding yes, but against them it is probably easier to just shoot the ship out from under them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the problem is that instead of simply not being as effective as another faction, a facet of the game is practically denied to them. For ships like the British, French, CoA, etc, AP is closer to ablative armor than something you yourself get to use , and I think that feels wrong.

 

It's not that everyone has to do everything equally well. It's that every nation should have everything on the table. Some can board better than others, but no one should feel like they can't board. It should be a tactical option for everyone.

 

I believe that it is a tactical option for every faction, it is just not a strength for every faction. Just like not all the factions have long range firepower (which largely removes it as a tactical option for them), not every faction can build a force around a particular play style. However every faction has the ability to board, just some factions will only see the greatest benefit in specific situations.

 

Boarding has been a game winner for me playing KoB, RoF and even CoA. You just need to know when the appropriate time is.

 

The alternative is to just have a single faction... kinda boring.

 

But what you are talking about is one of the most discussed problem topics on the forum: The fragility of the Prussians and how that's made them so one-dimensional. Because boarding has such a high-upside for strong boarding factions right now, it's difficult to make the Prussians able to actually hold a gun battle at any range without risking making them really powerful really quickly.

 

Yes, it was a problem with having a one dimensional force. The benefit of the most recent ships is that PE is no longer a one dimensional force. Instead of being forced to rely completely on boarding, you can take ships that synergise with the old ships. You have more tactical options than just charge at the enemy and play Prussian Roulette. The fix was not to make them even stronger at boarding, but to broaden their tactical options and allow players to play more broadly within the faction whilst still keeping a Prussian feel. It hasn't made them overpowered, it has just given players more options.

 

You see this in other factions also. For instance the Aronnax gives CoA a significant boarding threat either putting them on the front foot or providing a massive boarding counter punch. It doesn't have longe range dominance, but it does broaden the options for the CoA player.

 

 

Boarding as a whole can still have that big upside, but it needs to be intergrated into the system better. It needs to be tempered so that being good at boarding doesn't force fleets like the Prussians to be so weak in other places.

 

I guess we will just have to disagree. I think the boarding in DW works quite well and now that the fleets are better fleshed out, doesn't pigeon hole fleets into playing a certain way or be overly weak in certain areas. Nor are any of the main fleets super susceptible to boarding so long as you pick appropriate units.

 

 
And to me, it's as something that is so unpredictable as to not fit well into the game. I can understand wanting it to have it's own place within the system, but given the problems I think we should focus on making the results unique rather than the mechanics.

 

I find the magazine explosion to be far more unpredictable and detrimental to the overall gameplay than boarding, but randomness seems to be just part of the system, so I dont think there is any getting around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boarding is still a very valuable and viable tool even for the coa. you just have to be a lot more careful with it than say Prussia or China. coa can board anyone with preparation, planning and a wee smidgeon of luck (or failing that we probably have a generator for it :P)

I don't think I've seen a luck generator. Can I put one on the Euclid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to wings (a few posts back) I dont think that the firestorm approach is needed in regards to staying by your carrier. In space there is some justification for this (protection, re-fueling, command and control distances and such) but with the scale differance I could put my DW TFTs 3 houses down from the game board and they would still be closer to their carrier than a firestorm one within 6 inches of its carrier (if you follow me!). Its a scale question. I see the attack runs in FSA as burning the thrusters for one massive distance boost.

 

Boarding is a tricky issue, but I think the most urgently required change is Robot boarding. I can make no logical sense of how that works in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, we can just agree to disagree then, Winter. I don't think adding units that have benefits under the current rules really solves the systemic problems that boarding has. I think Firestorm Armada has it right in this case, with a simpler system that actually has a lot of potential for depth.

 

Another thing to take away from Firestorm Armada 2.0? The linking rules. Not necessarily "everything links, but you get benefits when certain types link alone", but definitely the "Add it all up and halve it at the end" compared to the "link individual ships first" rules. Allow me to show a bit of math using the old CoA Beam Turret Stats:

 

3 Platos linking 6 turrets

 

Old Version:

3 + (3/2) + ((3/2)+3 + (3/2)+3))/2 = 3 + 1 + (3+1)/2 + (3+1)/2 = 3 + 1 + 2 + 2 = 8.

 

New Version:

3 + (3+3+3+3+3)/2 = 3 + 15/2 = 3 + 7 = 10

 

Not only is it simpler, but the odd numbers don't drop dice quite like they did before. That result right there, going from Nucreum's wonderful SG Dice Calculator, basically gains more than a hit and a half (From 6.4 to 8 hits). That opens up using odd numbers more often because you aren't losing dice like you once were not having all even numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, I hope they clean up linking a little bit too. It even makes it easier to explain rather than add all of those up (while halving all but one), then pick a ship and add all the other ships to that one (after halving them, of course). :P

Oh, and PLEASE get rid of being able to use more than a single Firing Option on an attack... Link/Splitting is horrendous maths shenanigans, and only serves to slow the game down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boarding is a tricky issue, but I think the most urgently required change is Robot boarding. I can make no logical sense of how that works in the slightest.

 

I agree with this.....

 

The idea of an Ika or Metzger 'finger-flicking' Assault Personnel off a target vessel is daft, and in no way cinematic.

The idea of the same robot smashing its way through the target's superstructure however......that's cool!

See picture below for what I mean!! :o

 

Steampunk_concept_will_blow_your_mind8_z

 

Expect changes! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with this.....

 

The idea of an Ika or Metzger 'finger-flicking' Assault Personnel off a target vessel is daft, and in no way cinematic.

The idea of the same robot smashing its way through the target's superstructure however......that's cool!

See picture below for what I mean!! :o

 

Steampunk_concept_will_blow_your_mind8_z

 

Expect changes! ;)

Spartan Neil always complained and said there where persistant problems about the 8:15 from Somerset to London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, robot boarding should be :

1. The AP never degrading, unless they recieve a robot specific critical effect (loss of an arm for example)

2. They should have destructive ordnance as standard when boarding (it should be just as able to tear through a battleships hull just as easily as it can crush a frigate like a coke can)

3. All of the attacks are made against the DR and CR values.

That is what I would do with robot boarding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how that would work hbt, or maybe instead of distructive ordinance the Mar combo hull breaker and hull ripper? Considering the brit submarine rams are a close approximation of how I imagine the effects of an aronax or ika attack could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using Destructive Ordnance as the main sort of idea. You can't use Destructive Ordnance in a Boarding Assault but the same mechanic could be used for Robot Boarding specifically and it wouldn't be a MAR. It would be automatic as decreed within a rulebook

 

I didn't clarify that well enough.......or at all in my previous comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree, the way robots currently work is silly to me.

 

I would also like to remark that the way the TFTs work in Armoured Clash is super clean if you ask me. They launch they attack or they abort they 'vanish' a new wing is spawned.

 

Local air support can just consistently spawn in. Drones never abort but don't get other rules. Add that you kill tokens on certain values like sixes as you do currently. And rather than this silly business of having different hit values for all the different types of dice try to just change the number of dice. TFT bombers just get 4 dice instead of 3 on 3+ ect.

 

The number one complaint my gaming partners have against TFTs is the token tracking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree, the way robots currently work is silly to me.

 

I would also like to remark that the way the TFTs work in Armoured Clash is super clean if you ask me. They launch they attack or they abort they 'vanish' a new wing is spawned.

 

Local air support can just consistently spawn in. Drones never abort but don't get other rules. Add that you kill tokens on certain values like sixes as you do currently. And rather than this silly business of having different hit values for all the different types of dice try to just change the number of dice. TFT bombers just get 4 dice instead of 3 on 3+ ect.

 

The number one complaint my gaming partners have against TFTs is the token tracking.

 

Just remove fuel (It was a bad idea to include it in the first place) and have TFTs disappear back to the carrier when they make their attack run or are forced to abort. Also speed them up so that my bombers don't have trouble catching frigates (Seriously?! :huh:) and add in a multi-role fighter-bomber to give people some options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on board with TFT's needing to be the fastest thing on the table and ditching fuel cuts down on record keeping ( possibly return to the v1.0 abort rules?) but TFT's shouldn't be an inexhaustible set of bullets a carrier fires when the first bombing run ends. Making them return to the carrier builds in a cycle time in the absence of a refuel/rearm cycle and allows the other side to try and shoot down additional TFT's on the way back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on board with TFT's needing to be the fastest thing on the table and ditching fuel cuts down on record keeping ( possibly return to the v1.0 abort rules?) but TFT's shouldn't be an inexhaustible set of bullets a carrier fires when the first bombing run ends. Making them return to the carrier builds in a cycle time in the absence of a refuel/rearm cycle and allows the other side to try and shoot down additional TFT's on the way back.

 

Let's not return to 1.0 Abort rules. Those things basically assured TFTs would remain useless because even the biggest wings wuld have their runs reduced to piddly numbers.

 

As for the cycle part... Maybe? I always thought the cycle was way to long to begin with; it needs to have some cycling back, but as it was it always felt like it took too long.

 

To steal a good idea, I played a great Midway con game a while back using the Axis & Allies rules, which have some similarities to Spartan Games. What he did to simulate that sort of thing was whenever the planes got used up, he had a little mat where you'd put the planes. It had three spots (if I remember correctly): Returning, Rearming/Refueling, and Ready. Admittedly these carriers had a lot more aircraft han your average Dystopian Wars game, so even having all those spots you generally had something to launch.

 

I think cutting it back to "Rearming" and "Ready" would be fine. Give carriers a few more tokens so they can launch a bit more (My old suggestion was that standard carriers should have 8 TFTs to allow for more aircraft configurations), but force whatever planes to come back to spend a turn on the carrier being "Readied". You could even have a roll to "Rush" them out on the same turn, like a 5+ or a 6+. It minimizes book-keeping and keeps things simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not return to 1.0 Abort rules. Those things basically assured TFTs would remain useless because even the biggest wings wuld have their runs reduced to piddly numbers.

 

As for the cycle part... Maybe? I always thought the cycle was way to long to begin with; it needs to have some cycling back, but as it was it always felt like it took too long.

 

To steal a good idea, I played a great Midway con game a while back using the Axis & Allies rules, which have some similarities to Spartan Games. What he did to simulate that sort of thing was whenever the planes got used up, he had a little mat where you'd put the planes. It had three spots (if I remember correctly): Returning, Rearming/Refueling, and Ready. Admittedly these carriers had a lot more aircraft han your average Dystopian Wars game, so even having all those spots you generally had something to launch.

 

I think cutting it back to "Rearming" and "Ready" would be fine. Give carriers a few more tokens so they can launch a bit more (My old suggestion was that standard carriers should have 8 TFTs to allow for more aircraft configurations), but force whatever planes to come back to spend a turn on the carrier being "Readied". You could even have a roll to "Rush" them out on the same turn, like a 5+ or a 6+. It minimizes book-keeping and keeps things simple.

The AC rules simply state that the supply of aircraft is nearly endless and is instead limited by the capacity of air command to keep flights in control. So planes are either in the sky and fine or on the carrier awaiting launch. Planes that are disabled, out of munitions ect are simply removed from the table as it is assumed that RTB aircraft are able to be maintained as part of your normal limits.

 

While this abstraction does make it harder to wipe out the firepower of a carrier fleet, I don't feel that hurts anything so long as carriers are balanced in cost. Not to mention that in the  AC system there is no abort the planes are just gone so the tft are both more plentiful and more fragile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not return to 1.0 Abort rules. Those things basically assured TFTs would remain useless because even the biggest wings wuld have their runs reduced to piddly numbers.

 

As for the cycle part... Maybe? I always thought the cycle was way to long to begin with; it needs to have some cycling back, but as it was it always felt like it took too long.

 

To steal a good idea, I played a great Midway con game a while back using the Axis & Allies rules, which have some similarities to Spartan Games. What he did to simulate that sort of thing was whenever the planes got used up, he had a little mat where you'd put the planes. It had three spots (if I remember correctly): Returning, Rearming/Refueling, and Ready. Admittedly these carriers had a lot more aircraft han your average Dystopian Wars game, so even having all those spots you generally had something to launch.

 

I think cutting it back to "Rearming" and "Ready" would be fine. Give carriers a few more tokens so they can launch a bit more (My old suggestion was that standard carriers should have 8 TFTs to allow for more aircraft configurations), but force whatever planes to come back to spend a turn on the carrier being "Readied". You could even have a roll to "Rush" them out on the same turn, like a 5+ or a 6+. It minimizes book-keeping and keeps things simple.

The AC rules simply state that the supply of aircraft is nearly endless and is instead limited by the capacity of air command to keep flights in control. So planes are either in the sky and fine or on the carrier awaiting launch. Planes that are disabled, out of munitions ect are simply removed from the table as it is assumed that RTB aircraft are able to be maintained as part of your normal limits.

 

While this abstraction does make it harder to wipe out the firepower of a carrier fleet, I don't feel that hurts anything so long as carriers are balanced. Not to mention that in the  AC system there is no abort the planes are just gone so the tft are both more plentiful and more fragile.

 

 

I'm on board with TFT's needing to be the fastest thing on the table and ditching fuel cuts down on record keeping ( possibly return to the v1.0 abort rules?) but TFT's shouldn't be an inexhaustible set of bullets a carrier fires when the first bombing run ends. Making them return to the carrier builds in a cycle time in the absence of a refuel/rearm cycle and allows the other side to try and shoot down additional TFT's on the way back.

 

I agree that TFT are way too slow. However, I don't agree on your assessment of aircraft. Carriers do have limited aircraft yes, but typically they have far more aircraft than ever get scrambled in DW games. A person taking long distance runs against your fleet already has made cycle time for themselves and carriers in DW can have a cycle time of ZERO if they're close enough as it is already.

 

Additionally if tft aborts are removed entirely and a wing is there or gone mechanic is put in (5 hits on 5+ no more aircraft tokens at all for a 5 aircraft wing, hits required = aircraft token count in wing) a long strike deep into your fleet should give you plenty of chances to make an attack.

 

That said, I don't feel that any bomber aircraft should have a speed beyond 12"-13". Balancing it out so that there is a TFT phase at the beginning of each turn where all tft are moved, launched ect on each side would remove this silly activation spam and allowing respawning Local Air, Close Air, and TFT support to come from board edges would help protect non-carrier fleets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW2 Naval game 'victory at sea' has some 'ok' rules for TFT's.  Its a similar system to Dystopian however most bombers/torp wings move about 16 inches fighters move about 21 inches depending on nation.  Bombers and torp wings only get one attack and then return to rearm.  Fighters have a maximum of 3 attacks/dogfights etc before they refuel/rearm and can be used to fly escort to bombers/torp TFT's.  There is no fuel!  Because of the increase in movement you can usually return to refuel and rearm in a turn or at worst two.

 

Regards

 

DC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fuel didn't exist, it would improve gameplay as well.  For example, no fuel is needed for TFT.  They have 1 shot like always, but this is something that the player keeps track of mentally, or with a simple marker.  Once they blow their load, they either fly off the board or return to the nearest carrier.  I don't really see a point to having fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they're still abysmally weak.

 

Anyway, can we just...make the TFT's a "lingering" rocket attack? Like moving mines?

 

I reeeeally dont like how the game moved from "titanic ships clash on the rough seas" to "Midway! We meet at midway! Nanananana*guitar solo*"...I just so do hate TFT's...

Link to comment
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.