Man Battlestations Forum
Warcradle Naval Games => Dystopian Wars => Topic started by: Ruckdog on August 22, 2018, 11:00:56 am
-
WC has put out the formal announcement on Facebook today.
-
From second hand sources the stats sound the same, just with an unnecessary lick of new company paint so DR is now armour, CR is penetration, hull instead of hullpoints, fray instead of assault points and defence aerial/submerged for aa and cc. Nothing wrong with it, but hoping IR or RR has just been forgotten rather than removed.
-
The rules will be out tomorrow! We should know soon. I hope to do a deep-dive and detailed comparison post over the weekend.
-
This was just posted by WC Stuart in the official DW Facebook group:
I hope you are all getting ready for the Dystopian Wars Beta for later today!
A couple of things to go through now, rather than once it’s all online and this kind of preamble gets ignored!
It’s a Beta test. That means that while it is certainly playable, there are parts that are still in development. We will add new Encounters, Patrons, more units, more Outfitting Cards etc as the Beta progresses. It won’t all be here on day one.
You will not be able to replicate existing units. You can use your existing miniatures to count as generic faction units for the Beta Test. If you are expecting specific weapon load outs and behaviours as seen in second edition, you are going to be disappointed. On the other hand, there’s a whole bunch of new weapon load outs and behaviours to start to explore!
We’ve deliberately given you just enough to start testing. The Beta is not designed for you to immediately start replicating lists from second edition, start competitive point match games, organise public tournaments etc. It’s a Beta, you are part of a play test group when you use it. Balance is something we will reach together over time.
It isnt version 2.6. It is a significant evolution from second edition. While it retains some of the feel of earlier Dystopian Wars editions, it introduces many new elements.
It is not a game to start recruiting the masses with! We’re pleased with the Beta, but it’s not new player friendly. It’s designed for those with a vested interest in Dystopian Wars to help contribute to the final shape of the game.
The Beta requires quite a bit of effort on behalf of the players using it. You will need to proxy dice, print cards, print the rules, print tokens, templates and more. In the full version released after the Beta finishes, all those components will be included as a high quality product. For now though, you have to make your own.
It is a Beta. It will change significantly and frequently through its run - based on your feedback.
With those caveats out the way, start loading your printers with ink, sharpen your pencils and get ready. The Beta for Dystopian Wars should be on line some time this afternoon (GMT)!
-
Thanks for posting that Ruckdog. A lot to chew over.
-
https://www.dystopianwars.co.uk. its a lot to take in, and my skim gave me a headache.
-
Been too busy at work to read in depth, however, notes from others summarised -
1. Critical Hits and damage work very differently, simplyfing the latter but reducing the former and their effect.
2. Custom dice will be needed if the system continues unchanged.
3. All ship classes use the same turn template. no mention if they all move at the same rate.
4. Drift and Move allows ships to go backwards. Hopefully, just a glitch in Beta version.
5. Boarding is quickly resolved but heavily biased towards defenders.
6. Torpedoes are no longer in fixed channel form, are much more effective.
7. Again in Beta, all ships are generic; Special wepons are mentioned as upgrades in "Outfitting Cards"
8. Instead of national characteristics or faction advantages, these are bonuses based on the fleets "Patron".
Apart from that, players report the "feel" of the game is still DW though quicker and with less detail.
-
I just spend a few hours going through the rules and have posted a summary of major changes on the blog:
http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2018/09/01/dystopian-wars-3-0-changes/
Regarding the points that CW raised:
Been too busy at work to read in depth, however, notes from others summarised -
1. Critical Hits and damage work very differently, simplyfing the latter but reducing the former and their effect.
2. Custom dice will be needed if the system continues unchanged.
3. All ship classes use the same turn template. no mention if they all move at the same rate.
4. Drift and Move allows ships to go backwards. Hopefully, just a glitch in Beta version.
5. Boarding is quickly resolved but heavily biased towards defenders.
6. Torpedoes are no longer in fixed channel form, are much more effective.
7. Again in Beta, all ships are generic; Special wepons are mentioned as upgrades in "Outfitting Cards"
8. Instead of national characteristics or faction advantages, these are bonuses based on the fleets "Patron".
Apart from that, players report the "feel" of the game is still DW though quicker and with less detail.
1. That's pretty much my reaction, too. It will be a lot harder to delete a model in one blow, but at the same time it will be easier to make each attack count and damage something.
2. Custom dice are intended, but not an absolute requirement. Tere are conversion charts that are easy enough to follow. It will be easier to convert than, say Halo dice.
3. Yep, all models have one template now. There is a "Unit Special Rule" (the new equivalent of a MAR) called Lubmering that makes models have to move 1" straight between each turn on the template, though.
4. The rules explicitly state that Drift cannot be backwards, and has to be in a forwards direction. Models can go in reverse up to 1/2 of their move value. Of note, the whole concept of "low speed maneuvers" and going "all stop" have been done away with in 3.0.
5. I'm not sure I'd say its heavily biased. Surface models defending against aerial or submerged assaults get a big boost from being able to use their Aerial or Submerged defenses, but otherwise I think it actually skews to the side of the attacker thanks to the fact that the attacker's dice explode while the defender's do not. Also, the impact of a successful boarding in 3.0 seems to be a bit less than it was in previous editions. On top of that, there is no longer AP to lose, multiple boarding attacks can be made per game, and you aren't prevented from boarding models that you have shot at.
6. Firing arcs in general are greatly simplified. All there is now is 360, and Fore/Aft/Port/Stbd 90s. No more fixed channel, broadside, offeset 180, etc.
7. Unit stats are, by far, the least developed part of what we were shown this week.
8. So, it's not quite clear that there won't be any national advantages, though there is no sign of them in the beta rules we have so far. The Patrons are said in the rules to operate more or less as you describe, but it's tough to say what their real impact will be without having an example to work from.
-
I really hope I can still like the game, and that extends to Firestorm soon.
I don't want DropFleet to be my best/only spaceship game option :-)
-
An updated version of the Beta rules have been uploaded. Here are the list of changes that Stuart posted on FB:
Stuart Mackaness shared a link to the group: The Sturginium Lounge - The Official Dystopian Wars Community Page.
4 hrs ·
Ahoy fellow Dystopian Wars Beta Testers! The plan going forward is to update the Beta document regularly. We are aiming for the second and fourth Thursday of each month.
The latest update to the Beta is now online. Changes from the previous revision are numerous but are as follows:
General clarification and grammar/typo corrections.
Added more terms to the glossary
Revised images for Action Dice Symbols and Critical Damage symbols to more closely match the products already being manufactured.
Changed Short Range to Closing. Unit cards have not had that terminology change as yet but will do in the next update.
Clarified Fire Arcs and Line of Sight
Updated Obscured Condition to give an additional benefit when stacked.
Clarified SRS token use and that they literally stack as well as figuratively. New illustrations to reinforce that point.
Increased range of SRS tokens.
Changed Generator Power Up to happen on a 'Counter' result. Generators made more easy to Power Up through Victory and Valour cards.
Update to the Victory and Valour deck to increase the variety and add new in-game effects. Particular note are two new Valour abilities that make repairing and generator activation easier as well as introducing the ability to piggy-back an additional activation.
Updates to generic ships to include obscured rule on Aerial and Submerged units as well as Attribute corrections.
Modifications to the effectiveness of Support weapon values and Mortars in general.
Tweak to Rockets and Torpedo effectiveness.
Revised how Initiative is earned and added an additional benefit for those that want to 'Hold Their Nerve'.
Clarified that attacks are not simultaneous.
Units can now stop and move backwards!
Revised the Escort rule.
Removed Twin Screw and Homing Torpedo Outfitting Cards
Expanded Squadron rules and explained multiple model units.
Expanded more detail on Fleet building rules.
Added two Common Encounters to the Beta.
Added the Blast/Torrent Template and resized the Turning template. It is now the same size as the second edition Medium template.
Made Boarding more deadly and broadened results.
Made criticals more effective against both Activated and yet to Activate units.
Updated Ramming profile (value of Ramming will be added to unit cards in next update, the profile is given in rules doc already).
Some pretty significant changes here. I'll have to read over the new version carefully!
-
Its frustrating the dice are being made when they seem unpopular with fans. There was interesting conversation between myself and a friend after playing our first DWars 3.0 that it didn't seem that streamlined and rather clunky, that it felt like a game for fans of WWX rather than existing DWars fans, with things like the cards and the stat cards that felt cobfusing and unwelcoming to existing fans.
-
I really hope I can still like the game, and that extends to Firestorm soon.
Oddly enough, the way Tiny Fliers are treated as part of Assualt and Boarding rules feels very much like 1.0 Firestorm to me.
-
Its frustrating the dice are being made when they seem unpopular with fans.
For areal crowd divider, the insistance on the use of teh Victory/Valor deck is far greater FWIW. In fact, the discussion between Warcradle workers and players comes down to "Are the cards that vital to play, because we don't think they are that good " and the reply "Cards are integearl (Sic) to the game - far better than dice for inititative as they are reliably random and the decks will be valuable as play items for other reasosn. Besides, cards work in the other games we like, you'll like having them in your game too!"
There was interesting conversation between myself and a friend after playing our first DWars 3.0 that it didn't seem that streamlined and rather clunky, that it felt like a game for fans of WWX rather than existing DWars fans, with things like the cards and the stat cards that felt cobfusing and unwelcoming to existing fans.
That seems to be the direction - Also you read Warmahorde players on the "Sturginium Lounge" FB page saying how they love the idea of a wargame that shares the card mechanic of that game and even expands on it.
-
It does feel a lot of book keeping for a streamlined game. It seems odd to streamline the interestimg bit, rolling dice, moving and how you blow people up, and make the arguably more boring bits of book keeping like tokens and initiative more complex.
-
Here's my reaction to the recent updates to the beta rules:
http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2018/09/15/dw-3-0-beta-updates/
Its frustrating the dice are being made when they seem unpopular with fans.
For areal crowd divider, the insistance on the use of teh Victory/Valor deck is far greater FWIW. In fact, the discussion between Warcradle workers and players comes down to "Are the cards that vital to play, because we don't think they are that good " and the reply "Cards are integearl (Sic) to the game - far better than dice for inititative as they are reliably random and the decks will be valuable as play items for other reasosn. Besides, cards work in the other games we like, you'll like having them in your game too!"
You know, I've been thinking about the STAR/TAC/V&V mechanic a bit over the last few days. I have to say, I'm not fundamentally opposed to having these cards in DW. I'll be the first to admit that I've used them in fewer games that I have not used them, but I always sort of liked the idea. In previous editions, the STAR/TAC cards really did feel like a true "module" as I defined it on the blog earlier this year; something tacked on that could be dispensed with. As such, I appreciate the fact WC seems to have recognized this as well, and is clearly making some design choices with 3.0 to more fully integrate them into the game. Hmmmm....this might be worth a blog post all on its own! 8)
-
I really haven't had a chance to really dig into it, and honestly I've pretty much given up on Warcradle after their heavy handed moderating/editing on FB. (mostly because it comes across as not actually willing to listen to players unless they tell you what you want to hear)
I've still been following it to see what happens and see if that was not actually the case.
It seems to be a common theme with table top gaming, to "simplify and streamline." Which is what they are doing here, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for in tabletop war-gaming. Sure there is a point where complexity gets too deep and things that are needlessly complex, but I think they've went too far the other way. If I wanted something quick and easy with simple mechanics there are hundreds of boardgames to get that from now. Or even a truly light miniature game like Gaslands. But to me, by taking away the importance of really lining up a shot, or of being precise in movement and planning... well it seems like Gaslands has them beat hands down. Tactical depth is why I play table top games, especially over electronic games, and they seem to be actively working to remove the tactical aspects to speed up the gameplay, but even then I'm not seeing the game be fast, just a little less slow. It also doesn't seem to be simplified enough that I could play it with non-table top gamers, which I could also see the desire to do. I'm sort of just left wondering what the game is going to do to give me a reason to play it over all of the other choices.
-
My concern has gradually developed out of playing and thinking about the game is that Warcradle have put the wrong emphasis on 3.0. The main complaint about Spartan's version was an excess of token spam and book keeping, while the naval warfare element was popular. That suggests to me that what needed tidying was the book keeping element that dustracted from the blowing people up. So while the linking dice prewritten and the removal of boarding book keeping helps, by removing the complexities of moving templates, firing arcs on weapons and different patterns of warships reduces the naval character, and risks making the game indistinguishable from gaslands, gorkkamorkka or even Firestorm. At the same time the critical table has added multiple tokens per effect and the complex armour vs. Critical no longer related has also complicated the book keeping phase as has the now integral cards. I would go back to the 2.0 dr/cr relationship, keep the d6 and have each critical either have an immediate effect and a hazard or a token effect, restore turrets and obscured and maybe look at giving larges and massives three stages of damage. But that is just my feeling as someone more interested in the naval events.
-
Have to agree with RuleBritannia and Erloas here, and lately the carrier rules are being talked about. Seems liek consensus is that the new fighter rules are too simplified, limit the SRS to defensive and escort roles in the main, and make any carrier without weapons pretty much only a large escort.
Now, to me, carriers in miniatures games usually fall into three camps - Long-range weapons platforms, sending out units that make small but repeatable strikes on targets at longer engaement ranges than standard weapons and ships; Assault ships that carry small wesapons suties as well as the above, so can skirmish with other craft directly while maintaining the long-range attack as above; And escort carriers that supply fighter groups to defend other ships from arttacks by opposing fighters and/or assist ships in defense against other ships. ( In the real world, only the first and third actually exist in most navies, though you *could* argue a modern LCS has some assualt carrier features ).
In 2.5, the ability of carriers to do the first and third jobs was curtailed by the Carrier Points rules, which somewaht limited the number of Tiny Fliers were able to operate at any given time; This did not really affect the thrird escort job so much as the operations for close-in work were still applicable, but it di prevent long-range strikes of any greta number. The second option, of course still existed as weapons on carriers were unaffected. ( A suggested house rule we use locally is to allow carrier points to represent the ability to launch/ maintain a fighter group, and to allow them to be reapired, to symbolise decks and hanagers being put otut of action then repaired, a compromise between 2.0 and 2.5 in some ways. )
So far, the carrier rules as seen in the Beta do almost nothing to make carriers perform in the first role as detailed before - Which in some ways limits the game given the lack of long-range raech weapons like missiles ( Sure, there are rockets, but rockets are by definition unguided and thereby limited, unlike manned fighters, and which restriction is well-modlled in all versiosn of the game so far ). I'm hoping then to see these rules expanded on this point myself. But it seems taht somethign has been lost in the drive for simplification and lowered token work, and it's to the detriment of the game to my mind.
-
"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?
-
"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?
Well, the most recent revisions to the beta do make boarding a bit deadlier, so WC is buffing it a bit. And, while there are some similarities to the current beta version of DW boarding and the mechanics in FSA 2.0, there are some important differences as well; the biggest one is that in FSA ships were limited to launching one assault per game!
Just having read the rules, the boarding in the 3.0 beta seems simpler to me...no AP to track and not worrying about trying to keep straight which model shot at which model seem like it would streamline the process considerably. Maybe it will feel different on the table when being played, but on paper the new rules do seem a lot less involved than the old ones.
-
Finally got a game of 3.0 in! Here is a brief battle report and what my opponent and I thought about the rules:
http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2018/09/30/dw-3-0-gameplay-first-impressions/
-
I've yet to play any form of 3.0, and I'm not sure the group I'm playing with will ever adopt it.
I'm pretty sure I'll have to play it if I want to reamin in the loop of course, as it will become the standard. That will be independent of my feelings about the game; To be honest, I'm not impressed by some of the ideas involved in 3.0 ( Single turn template for all size of ships, and tiddlywink-level rules simplification of things like firing arcs) but I'm definetely in the minority by the sound of things.
Well, at least I'll have 2.5. :)
-
I dislike the deck and the custom dice.
The game is still not scaled right in my mind and you still have to roll too many dice to get a resolution. Still too much fiddliness in my mind to get results. I also am disappointed they did not re-jig the turn sequence/activation process.
However, I know that is just MY taste in games and many other people feel very different.
-
Here's the latest - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsj4VaaOc8&fbclid=IwAR3RdqaCgw0VK6zBf-cJzvTEHXdo-u-K2NvMKvuDEFpEVYSt2aDZn79PcO0
Now, this may be semantics on my part, but I have a problem with the idea that you can call people with no miniatures or rules "players", since they haven't the wherewithal to play.
-
I was disappointed that the weaponry would have identical stats across fleets, eg a turret is the same between KoB and RC. On the forums there was a discussion of this and the point was made that there would be a diversity of weapons and ship designs outside of the beta. I don't what this means for the early discussions of modular design and the outfitting card system.
-
Got another game of the Beta in yesterday. Here is my write-up!
http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2019/04/07/further-adventures-with-the-dw-3-0-beta/
-
Just read through your 3.0 game, reflects a number comments made by others on forums ( Especially the comment about frigates and large ships ), and certainly recalls a comment made by the authors about their dislike for frigates as a concept.
I do admit, the Obscured rule makes some sense, but as you say a Generator that causes that effect on a surface ship should be an expensive item.
The destroyers being powerful units . . . Well, I suppose that makes some real world sense with ceratin weapons loadaouts and swarm tactics, however it seems more of a civilian misunderstanding of the term ( Cide "Babylon 5" Earth Force ships, which anyone in the gaming and /or navy world would classify as at least battlecruisers ). Given the way that large units have been so "nerfed' in these rules - Ask anyone who has been playtesting with a Zhanmadao lately - it seems rather odd and a reflection again of what caould be percieved of teh influence of skirmish gamers in the command seat, as it were.
Still, it sounds like it was an enjoyable game . . . I am obligated to say that's proabably all that really matters. :)
-
So latest scuttlebutt from Stuart is that they are looking to close the Open Beta by the end of June and that the greater part of the current rules are locked down - including the removal of all fliers except token-style fighters, gyros and airships, which was a controversial move but apparently a vital one from a system point of view. Certain people are runnign a sweepsatke on whne the 3.0 rule sand new models might be released, arbnging from Secodn Quarter 2020 to May 2025, however, I'm thinking ( And feel free to hold me to this if I'm wrong ) sometiem around December this year, under three assumptions -
1. Nothing major is found in the beta rules that needs to be fixed, and that it truly is at a completion point by the end of the month;
2. That theri marketing philosophy follows the mainstream approach, i.e. drop large releases during holiday periods, and release a full system ( Forces, rules and accessories ) in one single burst.
3. The company doesn't get distracted by some other project, like, say a tie-in to a computer game, or even a game based on some 30 year old cult movie series . . .
So, good news then. Oh, wait, almost forgot this - https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/5/bill-and-ted-riff-in-time-board-game
-
I think December this year is a reasonable goal. A few months ago, I was really pulling for Gencon 2019 to be, at the very least, a soft release for the game (perhaps just the new starter set, with other fleets and expansions by the end of the year). However, the fact that we have not yet seen a finalized set of new ships for the main fleets (not renders, but actual physical models) and the fact that the Beta is not finalized (meaning that a final rulebook is probably a ways away) makes me think that it will indeed be later this year.
I was a bit surprised (puzzled really) by the announcement of the Bill & Ted boardgame! That came out of left field, though it is in line with the veiled comments that were made during the last WC Q&A video about new projects coming down the line. As others have said it does lead one to make worrying parallels between WC and Spartan regarding project ADHD. On the other hand, WC does seem to me to be perfectly willing to delay new product launches until existing products are established, so perhaps there is hope.
-
I am rather puzzled by limiting fliers. You'd want everything on the table from Doom Frisbees to true heavy fixed wing craft that allow you to go wild as a designer, and very very importantly, don't make people's air fleets redundant. Some statements recently from Warcradle have skated a thin line between understanding that things won't be an exact port and throwing out the sense of continuity that can help smooth over the awkward moment of crossing between two different rules sets, something Ruckdog and Landlubber have described in some detail in your excellent podcasts.
Timing is everything with a release. I'd not mind a staggered release with a ravening hordes style play like this for now booklet as we factional boxed sets with their own booklets/online rules released. The time scale currently is starting to drag down even the most enthusiastic. But it is what it is, and its vital to get the vision right. Maybe they will surprise us, as with this new game, with something totally radical at Gencon.
The Bill and Ted thing worries me not because, or not just because, of the fear of late Spartan Sprawl. Certainly there is a perception problem. They have announced two new games with renders and an actual model while progress on Dystopian Wars has stalled. Sometimes that is just how projects work out. However, it looks like the Spartan games are being shelved after an early burst of enthusiasm for something short term. If this Bill and Ted game is done in one boxed set that might get an expansion later that is less problematic, but as it stands I make it now part of eight rule systems that Warcrdale has created or inherited and I think Warcradle needs a certain level of honesty and say that Dystopian Wars is this imminent, and this means Firestorm is likely this further, whilst Uncharted Seas, Armoured Clash, and Planetfall must by necessity be left on a shelf until the rest are sorted. Instead the uncertainty and radio silence is having an unintentional effect of causing resentment and alienation.
But as always my comments come from my own perspective and that perspective doesn't have a background in the business of wargaming.
-
However, it looks like the Spartan games are being shelved after an early burst of enthusiasm for something short term.
Wouldn't be surprised if WC were expecting a much more positive fan reception than they got, and had plans based on more of the fanbase flooding back than actually happened.
-
However, it looks like the Spartan games are being shelved after an early burst of enthusiasm for something short term.
Wouldn't be surprised if WC were expecting a much more positive fan reception than they got, and had plans based on more of the fanbase flooding back than actually happened.
I think tardines, too many rules systems and not enough models seems a valid criticism that harks back to Spartan's golden age.
I'm more curious about why it was vital to expunge fixed wing aircraft from the naval game. Certainly it can be argued it differentiates land from sea but that is a more aesthetiuc choice.
-
Wouldn't be surprised if WC were expecting a much more positive fan reception than they got, and had plans based on more of the fanbase flooding back than actually happened.
I'd question that: Warcradle have almost consistently said they were more interested in gaining new players than retaining the older players, same as with WWX; And that goal is certainly in sight - when you look at the most enthusiatic posts on the Facebook page and the fora, you see they are in the main from people who have joined after the IP was taken by Warcradle. In point of fact, most of the FB Sturginuim Lounge commenters seem to have no attachment to any other hobby pages - just to Warcradle and the Lounge itself.
But yes, they certainly didn't recieve the overwhelming gratitude that they expected for "saving" the game, though in all fairness, they have brought back a lot of desirable miniatures ( With a large number of DW coming out this past week or at least being promised ).
-
It's odd that the release of all those gorgeous Spartan models doesn't get more publicity considering their popularity and the fact they aren't cheap means they must not be a loss making venture.
-
It's odd that the release of all those gorgeous Spartan models doesn't get more publicity considering their popularity and the fact they aren't cheap means they must not be a loss making venture.
Hard to say, TBH, as to the profitability.
As to the publicity, the first 7 groups of releases were higly publicised, on the website and FB pages, but that was when it was practically half a dozen re-relases a fortnight . . . . Now, they are down to maybe 6 re-releases every four months, and they are even quiet about the Firestorm Armada items that they discovered recently. Most welcome part being all the Indian Raj naval units.
Also some oddities - They have for example the Titan Class Trropship/Liner but also adertise another one called the Olympic. Only photos are of the Titan, and while I know there was a planned resculpt of the liner in the Spartan KS, this sounds like the same damn model to me.
-
So the Beta is what is on offer at Spiel in October. Does mean the release of Warcradle 3.0 is going to be over 2 years after the announcment of the Dystopian age?
-
So we have a better look at some more FSA and CoA designs of the new age. Amongst my circle the whale launcher has not gone down well, but a different paint scheme might help.
(https://community.warcradle.com/uploads/monthly_2019_08/219290227_whalelauncher.jpg.6fbb976185a347a30255f930a83b5841.jpg)
(https://community.warcradle.com/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1220787520_wcgenconyanks.jpg.4528ef135d19e3cecd110db3a5a7a959.jpg)
(https://community.warcradle.com/uploads/monthly_2019_08/1154352960_genconwc.jpg.39ec0f5706347460f9a8bcb35e97ff62.jpg)
-
OK, that is to me the most awful thing they've produced bar none.
It bears the most passing of resemeblence to the artwork produced and as for the styel - Well, the detail features on the American and Britannian/Crown ships at least compares to the Spartan ones, and the Prussians decidely similar ( Apart from the foreshortened hulls ). . . . These look like blocks of Green Stuff applied to the hull.
I might well have bought a model that resembled to original sketch, modified that 1960s "Futurist" house of a bridge, and used it to carry Reaper submarines ( Yes, the original fluff would permit that ).
This? You would have to PAY me to put it in my fleet; My price would be a Dynasty, a Magnate, 3 BW Cyclops, 3 LoC Blades, a LoC Lyceum and USD2000 in cash.
I hate to be negative, but it's just so dissapointing; Lets' hope the cruiser they planned comes out more like the art, as does the KoB carrier.
-
You can just make out a CoA cruiser in the top right of the last screenshot- looks more like a CoA ship, except lumpier. Hard to make out any detail or lack thereof.
-
I agree with Sebenko. While the Covenant battleship has... issues what we can see of the cruiser looks passable, and we can't see any frigates. Its a pity Warcradle won't share any decent pictures, instead leaving it to fans to get potato shots that many not do the ships justice.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/2zjCQf6.jpg)
Close up of the CoA cruiser. It's okay.
- Why is it lumpy? Not just the lumps on the side, but the aft of the hull between the engines looks bulbous too.
- Why are there so many random segmented plates- like behind the bridge/large turrets and under the fore broadside mounts?
- Why are there so many random portholes? Two rows behind the broadside mounts look wierd, as does the single one crammed in between the front broadside and where all those plates meet.
- Seems to be lacking those little details too, like hatches- how does anyone get to the foredeck around the fore turret?
- Where are the smokestacks? The sweeping upward line of smokestacks has been mentioned in design documents as part of the whole CoA "ascendant" theme.
The longer I look the more I see that I dislike, ended up having to bullet point them for clarity. It's lacking the consistency and passion of old CoA models.
Its a pity Warcradle won't share any decent pictures, instead leaving it to fans to get potato shots that many not do the ships justice.
Maybe they're embarrassed.
-
Its a pity Warcradle won't share any decent pictures, instead leaving it to fans to get potato shots that many not do the ships justice.
Well, the modern cellphone has a camera more than a match for CLR cameras of ten, fiteen years ago, so I'm not convinced of that argument. Besides, if you take a photo of a potato you have to expect it to look like a potato unless you Photoshop it until it looks like Kim Kardashian ( Whci may be harsh . . . However, they have the same skin tone . . . Come to think of it, they have aome other similariteis . . . Has anyone seen Kim and a potato in the same place at the same time . . . I'm drifting ).
It could also be the opposite, like Revell USA did in the 1970s - replaced artwork on boxtops with photos of poorly- assembled models , to avoid being sued by disgruntled customers for misrepresentation ( They diod this on legal advice, not from any actual litigation I might add ); That killed a lot of sales, and may well have been a contributing factor in their demise.
In all events, that picture of the Covenant cruiser is much more like the artwork, and frankly, it does work for me - I'd use it as a Heavy Armoured Cruiser, with similar weapons to a combined Plato and Fresnel. Maybe the other was kjust one of those "dud" designs you see in an entire range. I'd take 3, and I'll add it to the price for how much you have to pay me to take to have the "whale launcher" as it stands - Heck, knock USD500 off that two grand, I like the cruiser that much! :D
All rather moot in any case, as in reply to a friend's query on FB's Sturginium Lounge, Richard of Warcradle commented - "I don’t think we at any point have said pieces printed and painted for demo of the game rules are production models. They are simply for demonstration purposes." So,, since it's similar to the comments about FSA's return and artwork thereof, it seems Warcradle policy.
-
Richard of Warcradle commented - "I don’t think we at any point have said pieces printed and painted for demo of the game rules are production models. They are simply for demonstration purposes." So,, since it's similar to the comments about FSA's return and artwork thereof, it seems Warcradle policy.
I didn't see them say they weren't, either. Why would they do a large demonstration at GenCon of all places with placeholder models? And then choose a facebook discussion thread to clarify? FB is terrible for actually getting anything seen.
-
The strategy of vague comments on facebook threads doesn't really help much. Seem to be unreliable and unhelpful.
-
Richard of Warcradle commented - "I don’t think we at any point have said pieces printed and painted for demo of the game rules are production models. They are simply for demonstration purposes." So,, since it's similar to the comments about FSA's return and artwork thereof, it seems Warcradle policy.
I didn't see them say they weren't, either. Why would they do a large demonstration at GenCon of all places with placeholder models? And then choose a facebook discussion thread to clarify? FB is terrible for actually getting anything seen.
I'm not going to knock FB as it does have a pretty good miniatures scene, and it certainly doesn't charge people for sharing their wares like a certain Typical Miniatures Page; However, I do agree that given how Stuart actively defended the designs we saw with these now supposedly "stopgap" or "interim" models, ( In one memeorable comment, telling someone they had three choices - Stick with the old Spartan models, buy into the new designs, or "Go and make your own, toot toot! " . . Yes, that last is a verbatim quote ), it certainly gave the impression to amny that these were, if not actual production models, at least they were very close to such.
Still, Spartan certainly made models just for demos, though that was more through bad management/cancellation than design . . . Anyone recall seeing the photos of those gorgeous Wierd WW2 6mm vehicles from around 2012 or so? Wonder what happened to those . . . Or that lovely tilting Canadian Mobile Airfield?
EDIT: Oh, and all the thread where that quote from Richard came from? It's been erased from FB. In fcat, all the DW FB pages bar one have had notices put on them by Stuart from Warcradle* that " Any and all discussion of new rules and miniatures will be restricted to the Sturginium Lounge".
*Oh, I should say for those not in the know . . . Stuart very early on asked to be made admin of every Spartan Games relevant page on FB.
-
I find its necessary to save the comments if they are important, just in case.
-
So we have an update from Warcradle with stat cards for the FSA/Americans and one that could be controversial with some faction bleed/very different vision of what the faction represents. https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/8/warcradle-studios-diary-1?fbclid=IwAR1VXbWyNVfoXcfukH9wFxYRBrw7GvfGdvO8HOZZ1cel8TFR4IShIYJytLg
-
Another update that has some design work ( Even with the caveat that Richard and Stuart keep adding ) of interest for Japanese players - https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/8/warcradle-studios-diary-4
-
Thanks for posting!
-
As people say elsewhere these are quite nice, emergent from the Spartan Japanese Battlecruiser, so feel like they will work more with Spartan models. Negatives though with the larger turrets still looking odd, rather than like turrets that fire. Just like a mortar? Also all frigates shown so far have the exact same layout of turret and broadside, and similar problem very similar load outs on the other models. I hope we get some sense of how flexible these models are soon. On a more speculative note the render/sketch combination does this suggest a redraft or that things are close?
-
So production has begun? Presumably then the Beta is over? So we still have no idea how the list building will work.
-
Update from facebook
'Looks like v3 will be coming out early next year, with Crown and Union coming out first. Other forces will be coming out on a monthly basis with a battle force first, and then smaller ships available the following month.'
-
Seen the Crown ships that were on display; Imagine slightly squarer versions of Indian Raj, but with small discreet lions on them. Not entirely awful, not entirely unlike the originals; With the usual modern Warcradle caveat that just because they show us something doesn't mean they will release it :D
I still just don't like those rules - Soem good ideas, the totality however just feels like naval gaming shoehorned into a skirmish game, like playing a freeform LARP to D&D 5E, or BFG using Space Marine 2.0.
-
Any pictures? And any ideas if these are supposed to be part of the FSA vs. KoB starter box?
-
Any pictures? And any ideas if these are supposed to be part of the FSA vs. KoB starter box?
Might be able to get a picture up later in the week, time, work and other chaos allowing.
No idea of the release plan at all. Sturginium Lounge at present seems to be full of converts to 3.0 saying how great it is, or people showing off minis. And saying how great 3.0 is.
-
What a sudden and unexpected conversion. Are these old hands who have seen the light or bold neophyte? I thought the problem with the beta was not many people were playing, a lot of changes were cosmetic ie Warcradle renaming everything like a dictator in a small caucuses ex Soviet Republic and there not being enough factional variation so you couldn't use your fun units and everybody played these same.
-
Sorry to double post but we have the new KoB sketches from Warcradle. I really hate the new fluff, it really doesn't feel steampunk, and so utterly AHistorical it might as well be the land of Albion commanded by the immortal Elf Queen from Spenser, but that is just my opinion. The Carrier isn't too bad, but the sky fortress shape is very odd and feels too organic to british or really to be Steampunk. I don't like the overdesign on the drummer boy, the Chaplain is just off and seems poor taste. The Nautilus crew really crosses a few lines for me in poor taste. All the female models seem to have random high heels, far too cheesecakey and the Japanese Catwoman is just unpleasant culturally speaking as both stereotype, fetish appeal and seems a little too on the nose. The mutant Thuggee seems again far too orientalist, too fantastical and makes no sense in a steampunk setting or in her Majesty's navy. The new submarine is a mercenary ship, and fine as that, but as usual with Warcradle's designs feels impractical and unVictorian enough. But I'm sure I'm just in a minority, and I'm sure I am so annoyed because I loved collecting the British which were my favourite fleet and Legions force.
https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/warcradle-studios-diary-10
-
But I'm sure I'm just in a minority
The way Warcradle censor criiticism carefully monitor social media for negativity, I wouldn't be enitrely sure of that.
As for myself, I don't utterly hate this lot. There's a distinct Spartn indian Raj feel to the general shape of the other ships that we've seen ( YES, I'll try and get pictures . . ), and I can comfort myself that these might not even be finalised designs as they keep saying. That sub has a lot of original KoB feel, but as you say RuelBritannia, not quite enough. And that decoration on it . . . James mason would plotz if he saw it.
I just don't like the background, the move towards a more skirmish game like mechanic, and the attitude of the company. Which is why i'm sticking to 2.5 and endeavouring to tidy up those rules. It worked with netEpic, it can work again.
-
The Order vessels are very odd. The big one seems a mix of covenant, Turkish and screaming faces along with Raj turrets. The smaller just seems like the Turkish destroyer but less fun. But then I am not keen on postmodern energy aliens in a VSF setting, but it seems a bit late to be annoyed about that.
https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/warcradle-studios-diary-12
-
The production models for KoB 3.0 https://community.warcradle.com/uploads/monthly_2019_11/20191025_095358.jpg.8a1c79e53417b2774b0bef85c76d55d1.jpg
-
Noting too surprising here in terms of design...these look right in line with the pre-production samples that have been shown at shows over the last year.
Compared with the Spartan KoB models, I note the follow major differences:
-The ships are now much "busier" with detail.
-The proportions are a bit more squat (ie, shorter and wider).
-It's tough to tell from the pictures, but it looks to me like the overall size of the models has been increased. The Battleship seems like it's close to Dreadnought size, the cruisers look more in line with Spartan's battle cruisers, etc. This could just be an optical illusion brought on by the changes in proportions, though.
So, as expected, a pretty significant change in the overall looks of the fleet.
-
It would be good to see them in better quality and next to done Spartan models.
-
So we have the official announcement of the End of the Beta and the push towards release. Not sure what to make of the very cut down starter sets, lacking even full units. All will be just one battleship, two cruisers and four frigates, and to play you will need a separate tokens and dice box unless they reveal a free tokens download. The fluff starter box set will be the escape of Markov, but even in Warcradle's convoluted fluff that is set in 1860s and the main game sounds closer to the 1880s?
https://blog.warcradle.com/blog/2019/8/warcradle-studios-diary-15