It is currently Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:57 am


Drop Spam Commander

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

Shikatanai

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 11:55 am

Stompzilla wrote: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.


Yeah we had some Jakartas initially as well - we just came to the conclusion that long range bombers can be handled in other ways and that Jakartas do not really help against those Djinns unfortunately, but yeah that's personal preference I guess. Having those active scanners is a really huge deal because it can enable firststrikes even when getting onto the field if the SR-Cards are played well with the New Cairos :-)

In our south-german metagame nobody goes out below 10+ strikecarriers... I don't think it is a bad thing because there is action all over the place at those clusters and the games are still fun (I can't imagine games with 6 strikecarriers really... guess it would be more like split map with 1 or 2 clusters being relevant for fighting?!), what bothers me is that there are no ways to counter it besides bringing a specific number of Groundassets on my own. More variety is necessary!

@Takxis

I did not assume that you want to make groundgame irrelevant but imho simply changing VP for Crits either does not change the problem or will completely shift towards Orbit control... Just wanted to state why I think that a simple VP change, even though it would be an easy change, would not achieve as much as viable anti atmospheric weapons (and maybe some more scenarios) would do!
I totally agree on your analogy and I think it also backs up my point a little because the landing barges would have just been shut down while this is not possible in DFC right now ;)
Offline

Stompzilla

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 4:55 pm

Shikatanai wrote:In our south-german metagame nobody goes out below 10+ strikecarriers... I don't think it is a bad thing because there is action all over the place at those clusters and the games are still fun (I can't imagine games with 6 strikecarriers really... guess it would be more like split map with 1 or 2 clusters being relevant for fighting?!), what bothers me is that there are no ways to counter it besides bringing a specific number of Groundassets on my own. More variety is necessary!


Pretty much. Ultimately you're not trying to win all the clusters, just more than your opponent, so 1 or two clusters tend to become hot zones. This is probably why Bombardment plays more of a role in the UK meta too. Clusters you have no real interest in capturing can just be dropped down to one less VP with a well placed volley and it can make quite a difference in a heated ground battle. A turn 4 Bulk Lander rush can prove decisive too.
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostSun Dec 31, 2017 10:18 pm

my main concern with the talk about 'destroyers will fix it or change the points etc' is that is smells of warhammer the latest model/ship out is the bomb and everyone rushed to get them because they are the new game winner, this sort of thing ultimately drives people away as they begin to think, why spend the money on ships that by the end of the month/year will never see the table. i really think fixing the victory system is the more solid way to solve the issue (how that is done is open to debate) not adding more ships/changing individual ships stats.
Offline

_ghost_

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 4:54 am

I hope the destroyers will add an additional Layer to the game. Nothing Game breaking but a thing you have to keep in mind.
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 12:08 pm

Takxis wrote:my main concern with the talk about 'destroyers will fix it or change the points etc' is that is smells of warhammer the latest model/ship out is the bomb and everyone rushed to get them because they are the new game winner, this sort of thing ultimately drives people away as they begin to think, why spend the money on ships that by the end of the month/year will never see the table. i really think fixing the victory system is the more solid way to solve the issue (how that is done is open to debate) not adding more ships/changing individual ships stats.



So you would rather drive away the people who reacted to the current meta by building strike carriers? :lol:

Honestly I cannot comprehend any argument against changing individual ship stats, if certain ships are to weak they should be changed, if others are to strong they should be as well. This worked well with dropzone as long as the changes are not to drastic. Which was the GW issue.

At least in 40K "balance" changes usually meant that a top tier unit became garbage either with the rare FAQ or the next Codex or Edition. The issue was not that changes were made but that they were to drastic in nature to compensate for the scarcity of them and likely to sell new models. DZC mostly avoided that my favourite example being the Wolverine which at 1.0 replaced MBT for the UCM which was not intended and Simon literally asked "we are selling quite a lot of those are they to good?" after which they got a minor nerf and remained quite viable, just not in the former quantities.

Fundamentally I also fail to understand how changes to core rules or scenarios are so different from changes to units as they can equally influence the usefulness of a ship. If all scenarios rewarded players for destroying sectors for example the meta would shift quite heavily yet no ship stat would be changed. Even the introduction of more (usually used in tournaments) scenarios can shift metas quite a bit.

Lastly in regards to destroyers, they have to fill a role to be a viable choice and nobody benefits from them being garbage. In particular if they do not invalidate existing models which they would not if they have the capability to efficiently fight atmospheric targets from low orbit. No dedicated ship type that does that exists. Only Light Batteries have a roughly comparable function but they are not that efficient at it.
In terms of attacking Atmospheric targets Corvettes might get competition but, they have issues well before that that need fixing namely their ineffectiveness at their intended role and there is a functional difference.
First off Corvettes don´t score meaning you cannot use them to shift Critical locations in your favour.
Secondly they themselves are atmosheric and thus hard to kill (in particular for their points) in atmosphere. Offering them protection over the suggested destroyer role. The latter would be easy targets for Combat ships.

Combined with the suggested enhancement of the Corvette role (less firepower out of atmo, more efficiency in it) these ships would offer two different types of tools to influence the ground game around clusters.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 1:20 pm

Lorn wrote:So you would rather drive away the people who reacted to the current meta by building strike carriers? :lol:

Honestly I cannot comprehend any argument against changing individual ship stats, if certain ships are to weak they should be changed, if others are to strong they should be as well. This worked well with dropzone as long as the changes are not to drastic. Which was the GW issue.

At least in 40K "balance" changes usually meant that a top tier unit became garbage either with the rare FAQ or the next Codex or Edition. The issue was not that changes were made but that they were to drastic in nature to compensate for the scarcity of them and likely to sell new models. DZC mostly avoided that my favourite example being the Wolverine which at 1.0 replaced MBT for the UCM which was not intended and Simon literally asked "we are selling quite a lot of those are they to good?" after which they got a minor nerf and remained quite viable, just not in the former quantities.

Fundamentally I also fail to understand how changes to core rules or scenarios are so different from changes to units as they can equally influence the usefulness of a ship. If all scenarios rewarded players for destroying sectors for example the meta would shift quite heavily yet no ship stat would be changed. Even the introduction of more (usually used in tournaments) scenarios can shift metas quite a bit.

Lastly in regards to destroyers, they have to fill a role to be a viable choice and nobody benefits from them being garbage. In particular if they do not invalidate existing models which they would not if they have the capability to efficiently fight atmospheric targets from low orbit. No dedicated ship type that does that exists. Only Light Batteries have a roughly comparable function but they are not that efficient at it.
In terms of attacking Atmospheric targets Corvettes might get competition but, they have issues well before that that need fixing namely their ineffectiveness at their intended role and there is a functional difference.
First off Corvettes don´t score meaning you cannot use them to shift Critical locations in your favour.
Secondly they themselves are atmosheric and thus hard to kill (in particular for their points) in atmosphere. Offering them protection over the suggested destroyer role. The latter would be easy targets for Combat ships.

Combined with the suggested enhancement of the Corvette role (less firepower out of atmo, more efficiency in it) these ships would offer two different types of tools to influence the ground game around clusters.


I agree completely.

For my 2 cents regarding potential for Destroyers:

I would view a decent unit that can effectively make the bridge between the space side of the game and the atmo side, allowing the two to interact properly, much like I view AA in Dropzone.

You would actually have a reason to engage in a proper scrap in LO, because if you don't, your strike carriers are going to get shot down, in the same way that if you don't force a fight in Dropzone the enemy AA is going to stop your infantry from escaping, or from stopping your transports from going where you need them. Your AA protects your tanks, your tanks protect your AA and both team up with the infantry to win the mission and defeat the enemy. It enforces a natural balance and makes list building very thoughtful with many aspects to consider.

In Dropfleet that sense of overall balance and complexity is missing because it's largely irrelevant what goes on in orbit because the game is won in atmo and there's really not that much that orbital ships can do about what happens there. (Beyond the rare troopship and/or bombardment cruiser - which is why these are always target no 1). I honestly think that not including units of this nature from the very beginning was a major oversight on the part of Hawk.

The ability for ships in LO to seriously and meaningfully affect the outcome of the game is the crucial piece that is missing and is preventing DFC from being a GREAT game, rather than just a pretty good one.
Offline

Nobody

  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 6:23 pm

To be fair the Wolverine-B virtually disappeared after the nerf, and Sabres went back out of favor when Katanas showed up :p

That said I'd rather see updates to Corvettes first, then roll out Destroyers (assuming, of course that Destroyers do what people expect).
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2445
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 6:38 pm

Nobody wrote:To be fair the Wolverine-B virtually disappeared after the nerf, and Sabres went back out of favor when Katanas showed up :p

That said I'd rather see updates to Corvettes first, then roll out Destroyers (assuming, of course that Destroyers do what people expect).


Not in my meta, they kept showing up in number from 4-8 though not every list had them anymore. I agree on the Sabre though that had little to do with the Wolverine nerf and more with Sabre issues and the issue of drive on demo being a bit to amazing. Which the Wolverine B was also guilty of pre nerf. The thing costed 14P (2 less) and had +1 E and infinite range at R(f). Also they still sold, partially because, as you mentioned, the A variant was in the same Bilster.

The way I understand you you don´t claim the game would be better off if they left it like that.
Also the Odin-Ares Balance that was just "interesting". :lol:

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 8:44 pm

case in point, teaching my 2 sons the game and after only 3 turns my elder one (26, played numerous other games and very competative) says 'why do i need these cruisers etc, they dont win me the game' his point was that he thought that strike carriers and corvettes was all he needed to win in the points game rush up drop as much as you can and wait it out. now i know it was his first game and first scenario but his analysis to me did point out the issue. something needs to change. i am playing in a tournament in a couple of weeks (my boys are considering it as well) but to win do i need to spam motherships and voidgates? how much fun is that!
Offline

Shikatanai

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 9:30 pm

Takxis wrote:case in point, teaching my 2 sons the game and after only 3 turns my elder one (26, played numerous other games and very competative) says 'why do i need these cruisers etc, they dont win me the game' his point was that he thought that strike carriers and corvettes was all he needed to win in the points game rush up drop as much as you can and wait it out. now i know it was his first game and first scenario but his analysis to me did point out the issue. something needs to change. i am playing in a tournament in a couple of weeks (my boys are considering it as well) but to win do i need to spam motherships and voidgates? how much fun is that!


Actually it is a lot of fun as long as your opponents also bring reasonable amount of strikecraft ;) and to be honest I think there will always be people that will complain about certain metagames - if it isn't strikecarrierspam it will be something else. Players have to adjust or live with the results when playing subpar lists.

I also do not get how anybody was thinking that this game would be played with like 6 strikecarriers or something like that - a short look at the scenario design basicly screams that you need to invest a lot in groundgame to play the objectives reliably (as your son also realised).

We are all agreeing a change to the strikecraft issue would be a good thing, the only thing we disagree is that simple VP changes for scoring won't deal with it and will just shift it. We need fighting over atmosphere and we need things that can influence atmospheric fights from orbit - right now we do not have anything like that.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron