It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:21 pm


Drop Spam Commander

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

Nobody

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 9:45 pm

Lorn wrote:
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:


Your meta seemed to be rather unique in a lot of regards, like, most UCM players (at least, the ones that were posting their lists online or playing in tournaments) started skipping tank blocks once the Ferrum showed up and Falcons got buffed, but I know in Germany they were still in favor. I know when I checked the higher ranked UCM players in many tournaments (like Invasion) there were very few Wolverine-Bs (or there were a couple just so they could squeeze in 2-3 more Wolverine-As and they didn't have the points for the full 8).

Not quite sure I'm following on the second paragraph :P I agree that Wolverine-Bs as they were was not ideal but they became less than ideal after that (it was likely other factors, like the Ferrum, as well). I also think having over a dozen strike carriers in a list isn't good for the health of the game. I'm just afraid that if they buff Corvettes and introduce Destroyers that fire into the atmosphere at the same time it'd cause a major negative meta shift. I'd rather it come in waves.
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 11:07 pm

what we need is something that stops the unrealistic scenario of holding the ground victory but losing control of space. how can you claim victory by having grunts on the ground when you have no ships in the sky to back up and resupply? it creates an artificial situation like the US having Marines on Iwa Jima with the Imperial fleet cruising off shore, then the US claiming they won! no control of space means troops on the ground are now useless, cannot move, cannot fight, cannot be resupplied, cannot leave, how is that victory.
Offline

Shikatanai

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostMon Jan 01, 2018 11:12 pm

Takxis wrote:what we need is something that stops the unrealistic scenario of holding the ground victory but losing control of space. how can you claim victory by having grunts on the ground when you have no ships in the sky to back up and resupply? it creates an artificial situation like the US having Marines on Iwa Jima with the Imperial fleet cruising off shore, then the US claiming they won! no control of space means troops on the ground are now useless, cannot move, cannot fight, cannot be resupplied, cannot leave, how is that victory.


Again, providing the tools to shoot down strikecraft is exactly what is necessary for that because you just cannot safely drop all day long... but we are running circles right now.
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 5:56 am

swampsheep has some worthy ideas in his Blog 'linkedbroadsides' http://linkedbroadsides.com/strike-carr ... solutions/
i do like his idea of
Sectors can defend against unsupport strike carriers
All ground sectors have some anti-air support. This is easily negated with a ship of the line nearby, but without it, the strike carriers have a hard time penetrating and launching troops.
this gives weight to ground assaults needing to be supported by bigger ships, and rushing in without large ship support will result in high loses, just as you would expect. (also it gives the idea that the clusters are not neutral and will defend themselves)
Offline

Shikatanai

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 9:30 am

Takxis wrote:swampsheep has some worthy ideas in his Blog 'linkedbroadsides' http://linkedbroadsides.com/strike-carr ... solutions/
i do like his idea of
Sectors can defend against unsupport strike carriers
All ground sectors have some anti-air support. This is easily negated with a ship of the line nearby, but without it, the strike carriers have a hard time penetrating and launching troops.
this gives weight to ground assaults needing to be supported by bigger ships, and rushing in without large ship support will result in high loses, just as you would expect. (also it gives the idea that the clusters are not neutral and will defend themselves)


This would completely shift balance between factions imho and I'm pretty sure it would just lead to even more Troopship spamming PHRs dominating the battlefield. Such drastic changes by inserting new mechanics should not be taken lightly.

I also still did not hear any argument against making corvettes viable instead of useless (which is also mentioned in this blog) and against potentially other ships being able to trade costeffectively into atmosphere.
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 11:46 am

the reason i like the support option is that it gives a reason for capitol ships to be a major part of the game. your ideas just lead to more smaller ships on the table and less capitol ships. using big ships is a draw card i believe for the game, adding destroyers although it might help the strike carrier spam just leads to less capitol ships and people beggining to think why the heck did they spend all that money on models that will never be used, this mentality will eventually kill a game. i see this as no less drastic than what you propose, yes PHR has great troopships but points cost have been adjusted before with no great consequence. not everyones troop ships can act alone either so will need heavy support. changing the effect or cost or both of corvettes imho will just lead to a spam of them. battles will consist of strike carriers tackling corvettes in Atmo, (as this is how you win, big ships need not apply) and even less reason to have capitol ships on the table. on its present course of total focus on ground control, the game is moving toward Dropzone Mk5 not Dropfleet. what has the FLEET got to do with the landing barges, i see the fleet aspect slowly disapearing from the game. and yes people can house rule things to suit their preferences but compitition play is what keeps a system alive in the long run and if people feel that they need to do weird and unrealistic things to win in comps they will stop playing.
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 11:54 am

Nobody wrote:Your meta seemed to be rather unique in a lot of regards, like, most UCM players (at least, the ones that were posting their lists online or playing in tournaments) started skipping tank blocks once the Ferrum showed up and Falcons got buffed, but I know in Germany they were still in favor. I know when I checked the higher ranked UCM players in many tournaments (like Invasion) there were very few Wolverine-Bs (or there were a couple just so they could squeeze in 2-3 more Wolverine-As and they didn't have the points for the full 8).


Yeah the British-US Meta tended to be quite different, last time I checked the differences where smaller. At least that was my impression.

Not quite sure I'm following on the second paragraph :P I agree that Wolverine-Bs as they were was not ideal but they became less than ideal after that (it was likely other factors, like the Ferrum, as well). I also think having over a dozen strike carriers in a list isn't good for the health of the game. I'm just afraid that if they buff Corvettes and introduce Destroyers that fire into the atmosphere at the same time it'd cause a major negative meta shift. I'd rather it come in waves.


I think the issue was clearly with the Ferrum, at the start the Wolverine B was to good at AT work for a light Scout vehicle also the Wolverine Variants where the only Scout variant. So for taking Exotics they where essential. The Ferrum Drones replaced both the Wolverine A and B in their Combat rules only retaining them the role to unlock the Expeditionary BG and it´s 2 Exotic slots, which before the Hazard Suits few people liked (even less outside the German Meta).

In conclusion I think the issue was primarily with the Ferrum and less with the Nerf to the Variant, lastly I was suggesting that without nerfing the Wolverine B from 1.0 the game would be worse off. Mainly because Takxis was so adamant against changing model rules comparing it to GW. Which I strongly disagree with, for me the willingness to change subpar or broken units made DZC great, though it did not always work out perfectly it was usually an improvement.



In regards to DFC I would not mind having the changes in waves to see how it works out, though as far as I understand we are all in agreement that there are some improvements to be made in regard to the ground game. Just not how exactly. As said earlier it is fine to make the changes one step at a time, but I hope they are making some or Destroyers fulfil the hopes some (including me) place in them. As currently a good portion of the ships are not viable choices for most races. And at 1250P we usually see less variance then in DZC.



Edit:
@Takxis

Maybe I am not the best person to tell you this given our disagreements but I would help a lot reading your posts, in particular longer ones if you used spacing from time to time and run a program to check spelling I do that too and it makes it easier to follow you. Try to gather a subject in a paragraph, and not produce one block of text. Just a suggestion.

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
User avatar

swampsheep

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:24 pm
  • Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 9:27 pm

Takxis wrote:the reason i like the support option is that it gives a reason for capitol ships to be a major part of the game. your ideas just lead to more smaller ships on the table and less capitol ships.


This is also the core of my argument.

I think capital ships needs to be more important - and for a good incentive to bring a mix of smaller and larger ships. As was said elsehere in this thread I think, the idea of just bringing all strike carriers is a tempting one. If you make the strike carriers bad, you just see an overweight of capital ships and no strike carriers. I think what is really needed is to make sure that neither one nor the other is best, but that they both are best when run together.

EDIT:

Another approach I came to think of afterwards - which works along the same lines - is that points for a cluster or a spaceship is heavily minimized if you do not hold the corresponding critical location (here assuming that all clusters and space stations will also be critical locations).

For instance it could be like this; the most you can score holding a cluster is 1 VP unless you also hold the critical location in which case scoring is normal. On top of that, the critical location is worth 3 VP.
In that case, if you can manage to hold both critical location and cluster points are very good, if you manage to only hold the critical location, points are still neat and if you manage only to hold the cluster, points are very slim.

This gives you are more fitting simulation; The important part is the ground but only, if you can also hold the air. Secondary is to hold the air solely and third priority is to hold the ground only - while it might be fine to hold the ground, solely holding the ground is not that valuable since you are unable to support your ground troops properly.

This will create a situation where the emphasis is to control the airspace and commiting strike carriers early - and bring loads of them - is less important. You are awarded for being able to combine troop deploy with air superiority. You can choose to ignore the ground completely, but if your opponent does not, he or she can get some very easy points with little effort - and the chance to gain a lot more, if they manage to gain air control.

And about the PHR troopships being too good; I play mostly PHR and I tend to agree. My best suggestion would actually be to let it lose the heavy cruiser hull and downgrade to a normal cruiser hull. It would be a bit faster (which in many cases would be most usable) and somewhat less durable. While it is neat, that it is armed almost as well as a cruiser, the really nasty part is the crazy durability. The Orpheus might also need a slight price bump even with that change, but it is already rather pricey, so I don't think that much more is needed.
http://linkedbroadsides.com - My blog with analysis, tactics and thoughts about dropfleet. Updates weekly, mostly on Mondays.
Offline

Takxis

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 10:38 pm

@swampsheep, agree, agree, agree. there needs to be a big reason to bring capitol ships to the fight. at present there is little incentive.
sorry for my cramped posts.
Offline

Shikatanai

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

Re: Drop Spam Commander

PostTue Jan 02, 2018 10:41 pm

@Swampsheep

The Idea sounds interesting but this will most likely lead to boring splitmaps and fighting for one single objective. What I like about DFC is that you can play around the complete map right now bringing some action nearly everywhere. And again... I see this shifting balance by a lot potentially.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron