It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:31 pm


Drop Spam Commander

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

brandothecommando

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:51 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 17, 2017 12:02 am

So, rather than having a simple fix of reducing the prevalence of strike carriers by slightly increasing their points and making them not super attractive but balanced, you'd rather make a significant number of changes so you can keep your precious strike carriers at the same points limit for essential the same end goal? That seems ridiculously inefficient.

Nowhere am I saying to make strike carriers useless, just make it so that a list doesn't include 10+ without any troopships and that they are not such a hugely more attractive selection than troopships (which they currently are). Also, strike carriers are just dull because they're very hard to kill once in atmosphere where as troopships can be easily engaged in low orbit thus making actual combat ships far more attractive all while encouraging more intelligent maneuvering and deployment.

However, I can see that you are stuck in your set of thinking and I'm set in mine, so this will go around and around in circles.
Offline

Takxis

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am
  • Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 17, 2017 2:17 am

just increase CL value to equal the sector value, so a sector worth 2 points is Cl 2 points 3 to 3 and 4 to 4. it means that spamming strike carriers may win you the ground but the opponent will just have as many points for Cl. also take away L ships ability to hold Cl so M size plus become more important to the orbit victory.
i don't agree with those who say the game is all about the ground control, that's like saying the Pacific War was all about island control, and the battle fleets had no influence. you can only control the island if your fleet controls the sea around it. and planet/sector control is the same.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 17, 2017 1:11 pm

brandothecommando wrote:So, rather than having a simple fix of reducing the prevalence of strike carriers by slightly increasing their points and making them not super attractive but balanced, you'd rather make a significant number of changes so you can keep your precious strike carriers at the same points limit for essential the same end goal? That seems ridiculously inefficient.

Nowhere am I saying to make strike carriers useless, just make it so that a list doesn't include 10+ without any troopships and that they are not such a hugely more attractive selection than troopships (which they currently are). Also, strike carriers are just dull because they're very hard to kill once in atmosphere where as troopships can be easily engaged in low orbit thus making actual combat ships far more attractive all while encouraging more intelligent maneuvering and deployment.

However, I can see that you are stuck in your set of thinking and I'm set in mine, so this will go around and around in circles.


Your simple solution would just shift the balance and would not help the game at all imho. If strikecarriers would be that expensive PHR gets buffed a lot while other factions, especially Scourge and a partly UCM suffer - Shaltari just would not care and I also think the Shaltari need another approach to balance them.

The Idea behind a buff of corvettes and hopefully some other changes, e.g. other scenarios and destroyers with atmospheric interaction would not only solve the problem instead of shifting it to somewhere else (Troopshipspam PHR is already quite ugly) it would create several approaches to build lists and increase variety.
E.g. Pure strikecraft spamming would not be worth it / a gamble as a list with corvettes and or destroyers would be a great counter while troopshipheavy lists would be great against corvette, destroyer heavy lists but would be weaker against a huge amount of strikecarriers.

Restricting something is always hurting a game when you can instead work around it by creating more viable options and thus increasing variety and the need to adept to be able to work around it during the course of a tournament set.
Offline

Takxis

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am
  • Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 12:45 am

whats wrong with the idea of increasing the victory points of Critical Locations to the same as the Clusters themselves? And if you make Cl based on M H and S ships only then spamming strike carriers is useless and at best will give you a draw, because you can only ever get half the points on the board. then there is no need to fiddle with cost of ships and lists etc to try to balance. it has always baffled me as to why the game is based entirely on who controls the ground when losing control of space has no penalty.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 1:54 am

Imho this works in theory but in practice not so much. The Problem is that it is way easier to deny / get those Critical Locations on T4 and T6 without the chance for your opponent to do something about it - getting all those Crits in T4 and T6 is very optimistic... while groundasset heavy lists against very limited drop lists can spiral out of control on the ground pretty heavily while also standing relatively save and with the potential to bring in some bodies for Crits later on.

I think Mixed Engagement is a very good example as it already has roughly 50-50 ground and crit VP, even in the favor of crits but I never had issues to get some crits or at least deny them when running a ground heavy list. Not talking about a stupid ground only skew but something mixed like e.g. 12 Strikecarriers + 2 Troopships and the rest in BTL ships or Shaltari with 3-4 Motherships and 15-18 Gates.
Offline

Takxis

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am
  • Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 3:41 am

but if your list is drop heavy and frig size dont' count for crit then how do you gain the crit if you have put all your eggs in that basket. to just bring in ships that specialize in killing atmo drop ships just leads to a greater number of drop ships (arms race and all that, history and games as well are full of this mentality) i really think the problem lies with the VP imbalance overall as it will always promote spamming drop in its current form,as victory is achieved by ground control only at the moment, there is no reason not to spam and those intent on winning the game will just put in more drop if there is something that can kill drop.
how is "Not talking about a stupid ground only skew but something mixed like e.g. 12 Strikecarriers + 2 Troopships and the rest in BTL ships or Shaltari with 3-4 Motherships and 15-18 Gates." not a spam! my biggest worry atm is if it keeps going the way it is it will devolve into a game where the big ships become irrelivant to the overall game, and i dont know about you but a space combat game that does not at least give a reasonable focus to big ship combat soon loses its attraction. dont get me wrong i like the ground aspect it is what attracked me to the game having a reason for fleets to engage. but as time has gone on i have seen more and more growth of the ground aspect and less on the actual orbital game. many games become a race to see who can get in and down to atmo the fastest and thus dump the most troops to win. i have been playing wargames for 40 years and seen many games falter not on the individual unit/ship types and interactions but the basic core rule inadaquacies tinkering with what can kill what or increasing the cost or limiting the number never solves the issue if the core idea is at fault. i left Firestorm (well before the collapse) because it became too complicated, and again it started to be lots of small ships began to dictate the game, so people did not bring the big ships, i dont want to see the same with Dropfleet, and at the moment there are a lot of big ships that are next to useless under the current format.
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 10:00 am

Lmao! How is 12 Strike Carriers and 2 troopships not spam! That's at least 3 BGs.

What would that list even look like?

Something like this perhaps:

--------------------------------------
Forum - 1237pts
UCM - 0 launch assets

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (195pts)
1 x Avalon - 195pts - H
   + UCM Commodore (40pts, 3AV)

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x Jakarta - 32pts - L

SR10 Line battlegroup (222pts)
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x Jakarta - 32pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

I buy into the argument. That would be super tough to deal with.
Offline

Shikatanai

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 11:15 am

Takxis wrote:but if your list is drop heavy and frig size dont' count for crit then how do you gain the crit if you have put all your eggs in that basket. to just bring in ships that specialize in killing atmo drop ships just leads to a greater number of drop ships (arms race and all that, history and games as well are full of this mentality) i really think the problem lies with the VP imbalance overall as it will always promote spamming drop in its current form,as victory is achieved by ground control only at the moment, there is no reason not to spam and those intent on winning the game will just put in more drop if there is something that can kill drop.

I really do not see how ~7 Tonnage 10 or 5 bodies and 12 Strikecarriers (yes frigate size counts for crit - just below does not count and that's very handy later in the game by just getting some into low above some clusters where they tip the battle) have issues with getting in some of those crits. Also keep in mind that your opponent needs to go for the crits exposing themselves earlier than the one who does not need to do it. One problem is that there are no ships that actually kill atmospheric ships cost efficient... Corvettes are just too ineffective in atmosphere to really count on them (or you just invest way too many points lacking drop or orbit force yourself).

Takxis wrote:how is "Not talking about a stupid ground only skew but something mixed like e.g. 12 Strikecarriers + 2 Troopships and the rest in BTL ships or Shaltari with 3-4 Motherships and 15-18 Gates." not a spam! my biggest worry atm is if it keeps going the way it is it will devolve into a game where the big ships become irrelivant to the overall game, and i dont know about you but a space combat game that does not at least give a reasonable focus to big ship combat soon loses its attraction. dont get me wrong i like the ground aspect it is what attracked me to the game having a reason for fleets to engage. but as time has gone on i have seen more and more growth of the ground aspect and less on the actual orbital game. many games become a race to see who can get in and down to atmo the fastest and thus dump the most troops to win. i have been playing wargames for 40 years and seen many games falter not on the individual unit/ship types and interactions but the basic core rule inadaquacies tinkering with what can kill what or increasing the cost or limiting the number never solves the issue if the core idea is at fault. i left Firestorm (well before the collapse) because it became too complicated, and again it started to be lots of small ships began to dictate the game, so people did not bring the big ships, i dont want to see the same with Dropfleet, and at the moment there are a lot of big ships that are next to useless under the current format.


It is spam (even though it is very subjective where spam starts, don't you think so? ;) imho it is not very useful playing a game with 4-5+ ground objectives with 6 or 8 drop - it is just not enough to reliably play around those objectives with that amount). Skews are more like one trick pony where they either wipe the floor or get wiped themselves depending on the opposing lists. Skews do not work in DFC because of the tournament / game design compared to other games where skew lists are really popular because of two list-based or team tournaments.

I get your fears for the game (Big ships are dead already with some exceptions) and that's why everybody agrees on the fact that something has to change! The important part is to draw the right conclusions while not overstepping it to making groundgame useless. A simple VP change won't do the trick or will switch it up completely. That's why I think the key is getting in some cost efficient stuff for anti atmosphere which will immediatly result in more balanced lists around corvettes (maybe destroyers), strikecarriers, troopships and Orbit force because troopships gain value as well.
Atmospheric ships are just too save and thus can put too much pressure easily which enables smaller Orbit forces to trade more cost effectively.

Stompzilla wrote:Lmao! How is 12 Strike Carriers and 2 troopships not spam! That's at least 3 BGs.

What would that list even look like?

Something like this perhaps:

--------------------------------------
Forum - 1237pts
UCM - 0 launch assets

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (195pts)
1 x Avalon - 195pts - H
+ UCM Commodore (40pts, 3AV)

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x Jakarta - 32pts - L

SR10 Line battlegroup (222pts)
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x Jakarta - 32pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

I buy into the argument. That would be super tough to deal with.


Yeah it might be called spam... would call that really subjective but that's why I used the word skew... some pages earlier there were some lists that brought even more strikecraft and basicly no Orbit force and I think those lists only work when missmatching the opposing list and only in certain scenarios :)

Actually very similar with the exception that we usually run different group compositions.
E.g. I like this list right now:
-------------------------------------
UCM 1250 Doppel Avalon - 1250pts
UCM - 0 launch assets

SR11 Vanguard battlegroup (227pts)
1 x Avalon - 195pts - H
+ UCM Commodore (40pts, 3AV)
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR11 Vanguard battlegroup (227pts)
1 x Perth - 195pts - H
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR6 Line battlegroup (137pts)
1 x Berlin - 105pts - M
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (239pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M

SR6 Pathfinder battlegroup (192pts)
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

And a friend uses the following regularly:

--------------------------------------
Mario - 1246pts
UCM - 0 launch assets

SR10 Vanguard battlegroup (195pts)
1 x Avalon - 195pts - H
+ UCM Commodore (40pts, 3AV)

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR11 Line battlegroup (208pts)
2 x New Cairo - 176pts - M
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR6 Line battlegroup (137pts)
1 x Berlin - 105pts - M
1 x New Orleans - 32pts - L

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (239pts)
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L

SR9 Pathfinder battlegroup (239pts)
1 x San Francisco - 111pts - M
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
2 x New Orleans - 64pts - L
------------- dflist.com -------------

We use additional strikecarriers as Scanners as those Jakartas are only working against certain opponents and lists and still are not that effective... so as a more general approach the strikecarriers give us flexible use in later turns. Yes those lists are hard to play against but again I don't think it is very reasonable to play e.g. Take&Hold with e.g. 6-8 Strikecraft... reliably playing 3+ objectives does not work this way and I think 12+ Strikecraft should not be deleted completely but there should be things (besides doing the same thing) to counter those approaches and thus generating more flexible list building where it is not as easy to build an allround list (or it will have disadvantages against certain lists in certain scenarios).
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 11:38 am

You've presented an excellent argument and I'm inclined to agree - with your assessment of the situation and your solution.

The game really is suffering from a lack of points efficient ways of taking down atmospheric ships and to make the action more focused on the battle for low orbit whilst still making the ground game the central focus of the mission. (Much like how dropzone is often a battle for the skies, even though it's objectives you're fighting over - can't get those objectives off without safe skies!)

Destroyers are what we're all hoping for.

As soon as I saw the way you'd structured the list, I knew the New Orleans were there for scanning. Very sneaky. I had the Jakarta's for the same reason and they do really help against long range bombers and sneaky, fast Djinn. They're the same price as the NO but add a new ability to the fleet. I'd probably keep them but structure the fleet more like yours, so that every group has a potential active scan.

Locally and in most tournament lists I've seen, people tend to be restricting themselves to around 6 Strike Carriers and a Troopship with perhaps some bombardment which plays quite nicely. It won't take long for it to become pretty unfun IMO if a few drop-through spam lists start making the rounds though.
Offline

Takxis

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:57 am
  • Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 11:44 am

i am not sugesting that the ground game become useless but that space become more important. at present to translate it into a plane that might make some sense it looks like US could have won the Pacific war just by having multitudes of landing barges and not worried about having so many "expensive" capital ships because they dont contribute to winning the war. something needs to change to make the use of capital ship viable not just the landing craft. who wants to play a game were it becomes all about getting troops on the ground (Dropezone anyone) and the big space ships have no real reason to be there (and i dont count multiple troopships as a viable replacement to cruisers and battleships)
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests