Messages

1

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW 3.0 Open Beta Discussion

« on: September 25, 2018, 12:19:24 am »

"Also, the impact of a successful boarding in 3.0 seems to be a bit less than it was in previous editions."
Bit of an understatement.
In 2.5 it was a major aspect of the game. An attack that can turn the tide, but fraught with danger and with limited uses. This Firestorm Armada import is not welcome. I don't need another ranged attack. I prefer the 2.0or 2.5 version. And I don't find the 3.0 assault "simpler" to implement. So Why?

 

2

Dystopian Wars / Re: [Video] Britannian Overview/Tactics

« on: June 24, 2018, 10:06:06 am »

Just recently added KoB. He makes a lot of good points on their strengths. The Hood is probably the worst BC in the game.
If I face them I find RB3 and RB1 to be the best bands to engage them. Especially if you have something to help with the torpedoes. The best match I would like to see is LoIS vs. KoB. The Italians are good against submarines and long range attacks. Hit and run can complicate counter punching especially against fixed channel torps.
I agree on the Stalwarts- Their limit of 3 models to a squadron (any other destroyer have that? ah the Yale, which really needs something.) is a hint to their power. They have 4, "cough," Aggressive AP each and 4/5 DR/CR with 3 HP. A Lt.Cruiser with Pack Tactics-  20 AD at RB2.
Not sure which version he is using. 2.1?

3

Dystopian Wars / Re: To Robot or not to Robot?

« on: March 05, 2018, 10:35:32 pm »

 I

n some cases, yes. Then again it comes down to design; A dirigible often has multiple engines on several points of the hull,an if those engine's thrusts can be directed for additional steering or "vectored", then you can get a blimp-like craft to spin on its vertical axis. That is, of course, given the proper co-ordination of control.

 A winged flyer is limited by the strength of structure and the need to keep moving forward to continue to generate lift, so in some cases the turns are going to be bigger. Again, it depends on design.

 Let's not even start on combined rotor-lift and gravity-resist craft like certain Britannian designs, shall we? :

D

I see your point on design. But, it does seem odd that a design that would require strength of structure consistently seems to lack a quality that is integral to its whole purpose. Blimps are just "better" than planes? Also the orientation of a dirigible and/or its engines doesn't change it direction of travel until its thrust overcomes it MOMENTMUM. Also, It just seems wrong.

4

Dystopian Wars / Re: [Experimental Rule] Fixing 2.5 Entropy Generators

« on: February 24, 2018, 03:08:09 pm »

The old Calcification Generator was a great fit with the Italians. LoIS has Excellent but small crews for boarding. It gave them a reasonable boarding threat. Something they lacked. It should be standard on the BC (and the otherwise unremarkable Pilum) and a 15-20 point add-on to the BB.
If you want to go with not changing the name but adjust the capabilities by nation, The LoIS should get one that helps with boarding.
Perhaps something that detracts from anti boarding fire, like a  target ship hits on black sixes fro anti-boarding fire and CQB.
Though the -1 to DR/CR sounds like the description for the entropy generator they gave. Perhaps on a 3-5 you get -1 on DR/CR, on a 6 -1 to DR/CR and no auxiliary fire for the rest of the turn- BUT- it goes away. No repair roll.

5

The Swap Shop / Re: Dystopian Wars Clearout

« on: February 22, 2018, 10:02:42 am »

Interested in KoB Dominion and the Vengence Sub, also the Valint small subs. If the Lord Hood is still around, that as well.  You added to the KoB list but I can’t see that. I am likely to sell some factionss, The FSA EIMC and the Blsck Wolf. If it works out for me.

6

Dystopian Wars / Re: MBS DW Fan 2.5 FAQ - Working Thread UPDATED 2/20/18: FAQ is Live!

« on: February 21, 2018, 11:06:03 pm »

Another small rules conflict: The KoB Halifax comes with a SAS CAP Squadron. It also has a specialist Group Squadron that includes a Halifax and three Merlins. 2.5 only allows one attached squadron.
Soooo, exception? 

7

Dystopian Wars / Re: MBS DW Fan 2.5 FAQ - Working Thread UPDATED 2/20/18: FAQ is Live!

« on: February 21, 2018, 08:18:53 am »

I have a scenario with infantry in trenches, to clarify Area Bombardment (as opposed to a targeted attack) of Infantry in trench would use: Hits on 5-6 (Red) and no benefit from the trench. Correct?
Robot Attacks against infantry: hits affect the Infantry hull points, but do not reduce the AP.

8

Dystopian Wars / Re: MBS DW Fan 2.5 FAQ - Working Thread UPDATED 2/20/18: FAQ is Live!

« on: February 21, 2018, 12:38:25 am »

The entropy generator sucks, truly. It needs something, Like -1 DR/CR for the turn if successful- THAT sounds like its description.

Alternatively, Spartan had talked/hinted about modifications to some of these generators/weapons for specific nations in the (never completed) final ORBATS. E.g. LoIS Entropy generators could be: if successful the attacker rolls a die. A result of 1-3  = 1 Corrosion marker, 4-5 = 2 Corrosion markers, 6 = 3 Corrosion markers.

9

Dystopian Wars / Re: MBS DW Fan 2.5 FAQ - Working Thread UPDATED 2/20/18: FAQ is Live!

« on: February 21, 2018, 12:16:43 am »

I noticed that the Tunguska in the new RC ORBAT has: Hunter (+1).
 In 2.1 it was Hunter Aerial - Primary/secondary (+1)
Let's go with that.

10

The Swap Shop / Re: Ruckdog's Sale/Trade Thread

« on: February 19, 2018, 01:07:06 am »

For Sale/Trade:
Dystopian Wars
French Fortification Set (1x Bunker, 2 x Towers, NiB)
Assorted Frigates for the RoF, RC, FSA and LoIS
Assorted SAS tokens and other odds and ends

Looking For:
KoB Dominion Support Cruisers 1, 2 or 3.
KoB Vengance Submarine
Or
KoB Wolf Pack Flotilla

11

Dystopian Wars / Re: To Robot or not to Robot?

« on: February 16, 2018, 08:06:50 pm »

Fun to think about.
Metzgers have Aquatic Assault, They can act as if submerged it seems. So the parts that need to be airtight are airtight. The Water lined version is just a representation to me. It could be in more or less depth of water than shown. It gets too complicated to have them go submerged, so a happy medium is reached. Of all the things contrary to science in DW, this doesn't make my RADAR.

Wing-lift aircraft with wing based control surfaces have momentum, large initial movements and bigger turn limits than dirigible based ACs. That is the reverse of what it should be I think.

12

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 09:52:07 pm »

So I can go along with all that.
CAP: no re-tasking.  That makes sense
SAS CAP can be replenished by carrier actions. Why not.
Orphaned SAS become independent. A reasonable interpretation of a missing rule.

13

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 06:05:06 pm »

I am not sure I would say CAP functions like other attachments. It can be acted upon by another squadron through Carrier Actions. You may be right that "it is all there," but like I said it has to be pieced together.
So what happens to orphaned attachments? To Escorts and CAP? And where is that addressed in the rules? If it is not addressed in the rules then people have to figure out by inference.  The rules state that attachments, escorts and CAP must be attached to Parent. It is just as valid in logic to infer they are lost when the parent is lost as it is to say they become independent squadrons. Something that is not described in the rules except to imply it is not allowed. It is silly to use that interpretation but the approach you use would allow it.
Lastly the extensive changes from the 2.0 rules and interpretations for SAS should have been addressed specifically. That is just good communication. One can not say that the Spartan rules sets have not needed interpretation and further refinement in the past.None are perfect, so expecting people to understand it when they can't sure it isn't wrong and overcoming past expectations by piecing a rule set together is a bit hard.

14

Dystopian Wars / Re: DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 05:47:25 pm »

Disorder and CAP: Page 105
If a Disorder Test is Failed, the Squadron is Disordered. Models that are Disordered cannot:
• Perform ANY Firing Options other than Standard
Fire.
• Have Tactical Action Cards played upon them by
their controlling player.
• Initiate a Boarding Action.
• Perform Carrier Actions or Launch Drones.
• Have a Combat Patrol attach to them.
• Disembark any units Embarked upon the

15

Dystopian Wars / DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

« on: January 31, 2018, 08:02:39 am »

So SAS need some work, both in 2.5 and hopefully in 3.0.
CAP- seems messed up and a bit contradictory/not well defined in 2.5.
 It is now an attached unit. you can piece together its limits and uses from different rules sections. It is limited to being taken from Local air with common exceptions for Medium Bombers and other notable ones like the Tunguska. SAS can roam within command distance and can attack and link as other escorts- or be attacked independent of the Parent. It can also be out of ACK ACK Counterair range when its parent is attacked!
It cannot become an attachment after the game starts since it functions like other attachments/escorts and they can't attach or re-attach during a game-even if a parent is lost (or CAN they?).
Like other attachments it can not be detached- except that Disorder detaches it by rule-- then what? No more CAP and an extra activation and an independent SAS unit appears? The Disorder rule is probably an unintended leftover from 2.0 since it confuses the attachment aspect-- are SAS the same as other attached units, (as the rules state) or not?
It can be affected by carrier actions by default, since nothing says it can't. So a nearby carrier can replenish CAP? The rules don't address other carrier actions, like rebuild, or re-task. One infers that since CAP must be fighters re-task is not allowed. Presumably a SAS CAP unit can be rebuilt if lost and then be an independent SAS unit.
Many aspects affect CAP which result from a lack of rules describing it and inferences and generalization from stated rules.
There are more than enough inferential applications of the rules to cause misinterpretation to be common and to deserve a paragraph consolidating them.
I usually ask to not have local air in my games. It cleans things up, lowers the activation count and makes SAS less dominant. Since I play mostly scenarios it is written in. If an airbase is involved we just use the LF unit. Some scenarios have one side with local air.

Re-build needs to be limited-I would make it a commodore ability and limit it to once per game. Units rebuilt would start with an activation marker.

Thoughts?