Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:03 am
Consider the dominant force in tabletop wargaming: 40K.
What is the ubiquitous icon that any tabletop hobbyist readily associates with 40K?
It is, I would argue, the Space Marines. Regardless of medium, they are the poster-boys of the 41st Millennium. They are the most popular faction by far, with a large majority of players having at least some form of investment in power-armoured super-humans, regardless of colour or relative loyalties to corpse-worship.
However, do Space Marines account for the entirety of the setting of 40K? They may be prominent, but they most certainly do not. The various adversaries and allies and their interplay all add to the depth of that setting’s arguably greatest strength: the depth of its background and how this enables the scope of its gameplay. Although it is common, not every game of 40K is played with Space Marines vs. Space Marines.
Similarly, for both Dropzone and Dropfleet, the iconic representation of the setting is the fiery descent of a dropship as it brings its deadly payload to battle. Both games are entirely focussed around the core theme of airmobile units rapidly taking and holding core objectives, before rapidly redeploying again.
It is a strong and evocative theme, grounded (at least partially) in realistic science-fiction and Western military doctrines from the past two decades.
However, I do worry that both games may end up painting themselves into a corner as niche-games within a niche, because while other tabletop settings may have an iconic theme/idea/protagonist faction, they also expand beyond that initial ‘hook’, in depth or breadth. Infinity has a broad focus on squad vs. squad combat, and marketed as such, but the objectives of each game, faction gameplay styles, and the terrain upon which games are played vary widely.
After 6 years on the market, I haven’t seen that happen with DZC. The perception of the game, true or not, still seems to be just dropship-borne forces fighting over objectives in a Neo-Art Deco urban environment.
For one, this eliminates potential playing styles that could attract more players to the game. Dropzone is akin to a World War II game that focusses purely on German blitzkrieg tactics in the early stages of that conflict. Instead of using that as the springboard to possibly explore other areas and themes of note within World War II (and thus expand the base of interested players), this hypothetical World War II game decides to limit itself to that gameplay focus, despite the enormous potential of the setting.
What about situations in a protracted conflict where enemy anti-access or area denial tactics means that you can’t deliver your troops by dropship?
What if your supply chains fail, and the well-oiled logistical machine that allows for just-in-time dropship deployment breaks down?
What if, due to military stalemate, your forces have to dig in and fight under siege?
None of these three examples of thematic ideas can really be explored in DZC, I would argue, because they do not fit within the neat mechanical paradigms of the game. Units must have dropships to move around effectively. All forces follow this paradigm. There is no room for expanding gameplay beyond this paradigm.
Secondly, with regards to terrain - while I duly acknowledge that many players can and have gone beyond the basics with different terrain, different scenarios – the game still seems consciously or unconsciously marketed purely on that basis – you bring your airborne tanks and fight over a cardstock city. It seems a shame to me that neither HWG nor the various terrain manufacturers out there showed leadership by trying to deliberately expand public perception by providing DZC with non-urban terrain sets.
Yes, the enterprising gamer can go and find interesting scale terrain from model railway companies. But that is not the same as the original wargames company taking the lead, reducing obstacles, and actively promoting gameplay beyond the original selling point of ‘nice skyscrapers, bro, what’s this dropship game then?’
Eventually, as nice as something like chocolate is, if you have enough of it, you will eventually lose your taste for it and look elsewhere for variety. I fear that DZC is falling into that trap, especially now with the disadvantage that 40K has become more dominant.
For its part, while DFC is still in its infancy, I fear that it may yet go the same way – a niche game in a niche market. For Dropfleet in particular, every game played is D-Day – the arrival of assault forces to take a contested strategic objective. While some of the scenarios offer variation to the battlespace, the core mission remains the same regardless: deliver strike carriers and troopships to their target.
Ultimately, the focus of the game, contra immediate expectations, is not on space combat, but on how well you play the ground game. I would strongly argue that part of the appeal that DFC initially had was that is seemed to be promising the market a game that was the spiritual successor to BFG, in a market where the only real competitors either torpedoed themselves (Spartan Games with Firestorm Armada), didn’t care (GW with a BFG remake) or more casual (Star Wars).
Unfortunately, besides Kickstarter issues, I think DFC as yet is missing an opportunity to become the dominant space combat miniatures wargame, which it could seize if it took the conceptual leap of expanding beyond space D-Day.
Offer players the chance to simply duke it out in orbit. Or heck, in deep space. You mean to tell me that the defending side in a planetary invasion is always going to wait until the attackers are in orbit over their target to intercept them? What about convoy interceptions? Surely there are ways that can expand the scope of DFC’s gameplay.
Conclusion
I am not arguing for the elimination of DZC/DFC’s core theme. Rather, I believe strongly that if both games are to grow, they need to expand beyond their core gameplay offerings – especially given today’s tabletop market. I want to see TTC succeed.
The contested D-Day drop of DFC and the blitzkrieg airborne warfare of DZC should be the iconic gameplay ‘flavours,’ but I think they need to build on their initial success with an expanded menu of possibilities that the combined Dropzone setting provides. This may require a rethink of rules and concepts, but in the present context of DZC's 2.0 Beta and the slow relaunch, this seems like an excellent opportunity to take the Dropzone setting to the next level that it deserves.
To that end, I am experimenting with developing scenarios for DFC that, quelle horreur, have little or no need for strike carriers, and would help newcomers to the game learn the rules. I would be very interested in hearing what others have to say though, as I have been mulling these points for some time, and often wondered if others thought the same way.
As an aside, this post appears at my new DFC/DZC blog, Dynamic Entry. I hope to promote discussion and interest in the games from a humble Australian perspective.
What is the ubiquitous icon that any tabletop hobbyist readily associates with 40K?
It is, I would argue, the Space Marines. Regardless of medium, they are the poster-boys of the 41st Millennium. They are the most popular faction by far, with a large majority of players having at least some form of investment in power-armoured super-humans, regardless of colour or relative loyalties to corpse-worship.
However, do Space Marines account for the entirety of the setting of 40K? They may be prominent, but they most certainly do not. The various adversaries and allies and their interplay all add to the depth of that setting’s arguably greatest strength: the depth of its background and how this enables the scope of its gameplay. Although it is common, not every game of 40K is played with Space Marines vs. Space Marines.
Similarly, for both Dropzone and Dropfleet, the iconic representation of the setting is the fiery descent of a dropship as it brings its deadly payload to battle. Both games are entirely focussed around the core theme of airmobile units rapidly taking and holding core objectives, before rapidly redeploying again.
It is a strong and evocative theme, grounded (at least partially) in realistic science-fiction and Western military doctrines from the past two decades.
However, I do worry that both games may end up painting themselves into a corner as niche-games within a niche, because while other tabletop settings may have an iconic theme/idea/protagonist faction, they also expand beyond that initial ‘hook’, in depth or breadth. Infinity has a broad focus on squad vs. squad combat, and marketed as such, but the objectives of each game, faction gameplay styles, and the terrain upon which games are played vary widely.
After 6 years on the market, I haven’t seen that happen with DZC. The perception of the game, true or not, still seems to be just dropship-borne forces fighting over objectives in a Neo-Art Deco urban environment.
For one, this eliminates potential playing styles that could attract more players to the game. Dropzone is akin to a World War II game that focusses purely on German blitzkrieg tactics in the early stages of that conflict. Instead of using that as the springboard to possibly explore other areas and themes of note within World War II (and thus expand the base of interested players), this hypothetical World War II game decides to limit itself to that gameplay focus, despite the enormous potential of the setting.
What about situations in a protracted conflict where enemy anti-access or area denial tactics means that you can’t deliver your troops by dropship?
What if your supply chains fail, and the well-oiled logistical machine that allows for just-in-time dropship deployment breaks down?
What if, due to military stalemate, your forces have to dig in and fight under siege?
None of these three examples of thematic ideas can really be explored in DZC, I would argue, because they do not fit within the neat mechanical paradigms of the game. Units must have dropships to move around effectively. All forces follow this paradigm. There is no room for expanding gameplay beyond this paradigm.
Secondly, with regards to terrain - while I duly acknowledge that many players can and have gone beyond the basics with different terrain, different scenarios – the game still seems consciously or unconsciously marketed purely on that basis – you bring your airborne tanks and fight over a cardstock city. It seems a shame to me that neither HWG nor the various terrain manufacturers out there showed leadership by trying to deliberately expand public perception by providing DZC with non-urban terrain sets.
Yes, the enterprising gamer can go and find interesting scale terrain from model railway companies. But that is not the same as the original wargames company taking the lead, reducing obstacles, and actively promoting gameplay beyond the original selling point of ‘nice skyscrapers, bro, what’s this dropship game then?’
Eventually, as nice as something like chocolate is, if you have enough of it, you will eventually lose your taste for it and look elsewhere for variety. I fear that DZC is falling into that trap, especially now with the disadvantage that 40K has become more dominant.
For its part, while DFC is still in its infancy, I fear that it may yet go the same way – a niche game in a niche market. For Dropfleet in particular, every game played is D-Day – the arrival of assault forces to take a contested strategic objective. While some of the scenarios offer variation to the battlespace, the core mission remains the same regardless: deliver strike carriers and troopships to their target.
Ultimately, the focus of the game, contra immediate expectations, is not on space combat, but on how well you play the ground game. I would strongly argue that part of the appeal that DFC initially had was that is seemed to be promising the market a game that was the spiritual successor to BFG, in a market where the only real competitors either torpedoed themselves (Spartan Games with Firestorm Armada), didn’t care (GW with a BFG remake) or more casual (Star Wars).
Unfortunately, besides Kickstarter issues, I think DFC as yet is missing an opportunity to become the dominant space combat miniatures wargame, which it could seize if it took the conceptual leap of expanding beyond space D-Day.
Offer players the chance to simply duke it out in orbit. Or heck, in deep space. You mean to tell me that the defending side in a planetary invasion is always going to wait until the attackers are in orbit over their target to intercept them? What about convoy interceptions? Surely there are ways that can expand the scope of DFC’s gameplay.
Conclusion
I am not arguing for the elimination of DZC/DFC’s core theme. Rather, I believe strongly that if both games are to grow, they need to expand beyond their core gameplay offerings – especially given today’s tabletop market. I want to see TTC succeed.
The contested D-Day drop of DFC and the blitzkrieg airborne warfare of DZC should be the iconic gameplay ‘flavours,’ but I think they need to build on their initial success with an expanded menu of possibilities that the combined Dropzone setting provides. This may require a rethink of rules and concepts, but in the present context of DZC's 2.0 Beta and the slow relaunch, this seems like an excellent opportunity to take the Dropzone setting to the next level that it deserves.
To that end, I am experimenting with developing scenarios for DFC that, quelle horreur, have little or no need for strike carriers, and would help newcomers to the game learn the rules. I would be very interested in hearing what others have to say though, as I have been mulling these points for some time, and often wondered if others thought the same way.
As an aside, this post appears at my new DFC/DZC blog, Dynamic Entry. I hope to promote discussion and interest in the games from a humble Australian perspective.
Lurking with intent.
