It is currently Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:23 pm

Anti drop spam suggestions

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
User avatar


  • Posts: 788
  • Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 10:33 pm
  • Location: Leipzig, Germany

Anti drop spam suggestions

PostTue Apr 17, 2018 7:17 pm

I opened a thread on Facebook to collect all suggestions to counter drop spam list building. Here they are so far:

Well there seem to be several suggestions how to change the game to make spamming strike carriers not a viable tactic any more. Lets collect all suggestions here for easier finding. I will edit this first posting to include all suggestions.

- Give all corvettes Caliber (L) on their CAW or ad a +1 bonus for the Air-to-Air ability (that's: if being in atmosphere and firing at a target in atmosphere you not only hit with your normal lock value but also one better)
- Corvette-only order to allow skipping out of atmosphere and back in.
- Air-to-Air acts as a penalty in orbit and a buff to attacks in atmosphere.
- Air-to-Air as only usable in atmosphere, with drastically alternate profiles which take corvette power up against targets in atmosphere, with current profiles for void combat.
- Faster corvettes in Atmosphere.

- more weapons with the Atmospheric Weapon rule especially point efficient ones which average 2 damage or more.
- Allowing low orbit -> atmospheric launch assets or CAW.
- introduce atmosphere capable launch assets = launch assets which only operate in atmosphere (basically the Fast Movers from DzC).
- Make the penalty for shooting into/through atmosphere 5s and 6s. Including bombardment.
- Give targets moving less than 3" a bonus to being hit, even in atmosphere. +1?

- Remove nuke penalty to VPs.
- Get rid of sector saves for bombardment. Making bombardment more tempting.
- Make sectors completely destroyable. Clusters with less than 2 sectors is worth nothing. -1VP for the player destroying it.
- Bombardment causes Area of Effect damage in atmosphere.
- Bombardment can hit ships in atmosphere.
- Bombardment cannons serving a secondary role as "interdiction" guns, bonuses for hitting targets in lower orbits than them.
- Give some/most ships auxiliary Bombardment weapons, similar to how everyone has Close Action weapons.
- Bombardment can target sectors with friendly troops (UCM Kodiak ability).
- Make bombardment more viable. No minimum on cluster vp reduction. Make ground combat more streamlined, opposing tokens negate each other- 1 to 1 ratio for troop on troop or armor on armor and 2 to 1 for troop on armor. Therefore it would take 3 strike carriers to contend a troopship, making troopships more efficient and appealing and cleaning up tokens in each sector every turn- meaning they're targetable with bombardment weapons in the following turn.

- Critical Locations should be worth more Victory Points.
- Clusters only score (or only score full) if you also win the Critical Location (or are in a position to gain VP for CL even if the cluster is no actual CL).
- add scenarios where claiming clusters doesn't get you VPs.
- add scenarios with more varied weighting of VPs.
- Victory points for destroying enemy drop capable ships (so one would need to win space superiority befor commiting the drop assets).
- Missions that interact at all levels of the game so that there are more reasons to have a mixed fleet instead of Drop Spam.
- More scenarios with different objective types/scoring methods (ex. bombardment mission, critical location only mission, scanning clusters)
- his is more in depth so this will be a longer read.
The idea is a change to the scoring nature of the game. This should allow a bit more variety to the game and I have tried to flesh this out but I need people to question this so I can hit any missed areas.
OK, finally the idea. It is Category Scoring.
Splitting scoring into 4 categories. The first two are scored progressively from T3 onwards. The others will be listed on how they are scored.
The 4 categories are:
Critical Locations
Kill Points
The first 2 are like normal for the most part.
On T3-T6 you count the number of sectors you control and and the Critical locations you Control.
I.E. Take and Hold at 1250 has 18 sector's and 5 critical locations. So if Player A has 12 Sectors and 2 Critical Locations and player B has 6 sectors and 3 critical locations yoy would mark that Player A won Drop on T3 but lost Critical Locations. Repeat every turn. You just need to know who won which of the two categories per turn. This is conducted during the clean up phase at the end of the turn before starting the next turn.
You count Victory Points (VP) for Bombardment every time a sector is destroyed. If a player takes out the last sector in a cluster they get an additional VP.
Kill Points:
The Kill Point spread does not change from current rules but adds VP to your final score and your overall VP score for tiebreakers.
VP will determine the games winner and the margin of victory.
Depending on how many VP you get vs your opponent will determine if you have a Major Victory, a Minor Victory, a Tie, or a Loss.
Major Victories are worth 5 points, a Minor worth 4, a Tie is worth 2 points and a Loss is worth 0. These are your Tournament Points.
At the end of each game you count up the number of tournament points. Winner is the player with most Tournament Points at the end of the tournament.
Ties are handled by total Victory Points (this means Bombardment can shift games and ties)

- add a limit for drop as already exists for launch (for example 8/12/16 for bulk landers and dropships together). Or tie the number of strike carriers to the number of troop ships (up to 3 strike carriers for every troop ship for example).
- X free drop assets per Y points. No firm proposed numbers in original posting.
- Cap the number of drops per player who can drop on a cluster to one per sector, either by drops or by number of ships.

- Monitors as a ship devoted to hold atmosphere positions.
- Monitors with dedicated anti-drop armament.

-End of each round they inflict damage on the opposition.
Infantry: 1 damage, 1 health.
Tanks: 1 damage, 2 health.
Defender assigns where damage goes, wounds that don't destroy are removed at the end of fight step.

This means that tanks can hold ground well, but unless they have 2-1 odds, can't win a battle by themselves.

Should also speed up the ground element, leaving more time for the bit we all wanted to play (the space fight)
- Bonuses in ground combat for player which controls the sector/station space in low orbit.

- Use Force Org. like in DZC. Ships have roles (Line, Support, Drop, Scout, Heavy, Exotic)
Line ships are combat type cruisers, heavy cruisers, and combat destroyers.
Support ships are those with Bombardment or Launch (but no Dropships/Bulk Landers.
Drop ships are those with Dropships/Bulk Landers/Gates (except Battleships).
Scouts are combat Frigates and Corvettes, and some Light Cruisers (ie: Shaltari).

Heay ships are all Battlecruisers and Battleships.
Exotic ships are specialist Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers (ie: Jakarta, Scylla, Calypso, Jason, Opal and so forth)
Last edited by BlackLegion on Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.


  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:57 am

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostTue Apr 17, 2018 11:28 pm

It is so much easier to read this in a forum rather than facebook.

Anyway. Though I like many of the suggestions I really feel like buffing bombardment would be a good option. It should be a large part of the game but currently feel like it doesn't even get used in the games I see. Its only two uses currently are

1. Destroying an objective you will not be able to take. However, for the points required to do this you could have just landed enough drop assets to take the cluster. It is also easier to stop low orbital ships who have to hold station for 2-3 turns than to get at strike carriers.
2. Eliminating enemy ground assets. Very limited as most will be engaged (And therefore safe). It doesn't help when your opponent continues to outdrop you next turn (which they will, because you wasted points on bombardment).

The listed suggestions for bombardment don't seem to address these fundamental issues. My thoughts would be
1. Make bombardment cheaper. It should be less expensive to eliminate a cluster than to hold it as that option is worth less victory points.
2. Add close orbital support. Allow bombardment ships to fire during ground combat, perhaps at some penalty, to assist friendly forces. This makes some sense as troops can take cover from bombardment under normal circumstances, but will have to leave their buildings if they want to advance and maneuver through the streets. Even in the fluff it mentions bombardment of scourge armor assets during a running battle before Shaltari interfere.

I feel the net effect of these changes will be that the player that controls the orbitals will be able also gain an edge on ground combat, linking the two parts of the game. Besides isn't that what we all want for combined dropfleet/dropzone games? The chance to drop a few rocks into the ground game. Conversations should go something like this (00:18-01:00)


  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:57 pm
  • Location: Lower Austria

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostWed Apr 18, 2018 5:41 am

Thank you for the sum up.

my 2 cents:

I finally want a game that works with only a few minor houserules.... although I appreciate the communities efforts.... still we don't know if TT Combat is willing to listen to the gamers (and customers respectively)

That being said I'd like to see the following approach....

First thing to do is to make things you want in the game more attractive... and not unwanted things less attractive.
So.... change the VP system first.
Second..make bombardement useful (and plz dont forget that the current bombardement beta rules weaken the PHR even more... so plz no VP penalty for bombing....)
Third... Make troopships more attractive (more HP, cheaper, more dropcapacity or the like)
aaand lastly...limit strike carriers (not dropassets) and calculate 1 voidgate as 1 strikecarrier... this could also bring some balance against imbaltari.

did I mention playtesting would be fine? After the release of the "pre-alpha-rules" for the destroyers I get (more than ever...) the impression that hawk/TTC have absolutely no clue about how this game works in reality...

and I'm getting tired of houseruling...


  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:57 am

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostWed Apr 18, 2018 1:32 pm

Though I agree with all those goals Metal, I don't feel like hard limits on strikes is a good option. Many people have called for it, but I think it would be admitting a failure to balance. By placing a hard limit you essentially admit that these units don't have an effective counter, and all serious players will be required to include as many as allowed. That makes facing them less fun and gives you less flexibility in list building. Ideally many ground strategies should be viable, each with their own strength and weakness. Perhaps lots of strike carriers will remain the strongest drop strategy overall, but if you know that is what your opponent is bringing there should be a way to punish it. Balance is an issue when you know exactly what your opponent is going to do before the game even starts and the community still cant find a way to stop it.

I will add that fixing bombardment should act as a buff to troopships. Troopships lose out to strike carriers because of the strength of armor. But if combined arms with bombardment and drop becomes the most cost effective ground game, infantry with their high bombardment save will be used more often.


Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 154
  • Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:12 am

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostTue Apr 24, 2018 10:49 pm

If was nice to see Andy Chambers comment on the facebook post that he was reading these suggestions.

From my reading of the rules I think bombardment was supposed to be the natural check to strike spam. Whatever makes bombardment something that happens every game should balance out spam issues.

My suggestions were:
- Make the atmo penalty 5's and 6's - Or whatever would make it tempting enough to attempt to bombard with a normal weapon instead of a specialized bombardment weapon.
- Take away sector saves - I feel like it requires too many rolls to end up hurting ground troops.
- Winning the CL with a medium tonnage or above gives you bonuses in the ground combat. (I wouldn't mind taking away light tonnage from the ability to score CLs) I think this is an elegant solution. If the bonus is significant enough (more dice? rerolls?) it would highly encourage the space game but also keeps the focus on the ground game as it was designed to be. It also feels thematically correct.

Making bombardment happen more should also give the overall drop sequence tougher decisions. What do I drop? Do I think I will get bombarded soon? What do I need to counter the troops already there? Which sectors should I drop on and/or might die soon. Typically now everyone just drops armor. With more bombardment Inf and bulk landers will become more tempting.

If that's not enough I've thought about making Inf worth more in taking a sector, just how they are essential in zone. 2 armor tokens equals 1 infantry token?

I'm also against hard limits on drop. In a way I don't want to kill spamming too much. I think everyone should have the option to spam but you should feel the pain of having another hole or two in your list to which you must compensate. Some of the zone games that were most fun, although I didn't win, were when I spammed something and desperately tried to make the list work somehow.


  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:54 am

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostWed Apr 25, 2018 2:35 am

For the idea of limited drop maybe increase substantially or double current launch asset numbers then share between drop and launch assets, so you can relly pick and choose on it, but still be capped at a fairly high limit
I am a young prowler with much to learn...


  • Posts: 1070
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Anti drop spam suggestions

PostWed Apr 25, 2018 10:42 am

Winning the CL with a medium tonnage or above gives you bonuses in the ground combat. (I wouldn't mind taking away light tonnage from the ability to score CLs) I think this is an elegant solution. If the bonus is significant enough (more dice? rerolls?) it would highly encourage the space game but also keeps the focus on the ground game as it was designed to be. It also feels thematically correct.

This is a great idea.

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest