It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:54 pm


Destroyer rules are up!

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

Intruder313

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 9:25 am

As ever, once my initialt excitement wore off I am increasingly finding myself agreeing with Lorn and Lordprinceps - I don't want the DD to change so much that you could churn them out via a robotic stat generator (they need to remain interesting and unique) - but there are definately some tweaks needed to some.

Given the speed at which the Centurion was nerfed I can't see the Incubus or Kiev reaching the table in their current forms (2 weeks until physical launch).

More later...
Offline

Dheran

  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:30 pm
  • Location: Ballybrack, Co. Dublin, Ireland

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 11:21 am

Shouldn't the Mauler weapon be also marked as Close Action?
If I remember correctly the rulebook, Mauler rule could only be used on Close Action weapons, because it allowed PD to defend against it.
Offline

Stompzilla

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

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 2:15 pm

Brutoni wrote:Succubus needs atmospheric IMHO. Would work well.

Kiev I like the concept of. However it has BB guns on a DD. That should tax its generators. Reduce attacks to 1 but up Fusilade to 2. Drop armour back to 4+. Now you have a great WF efficient ship able to really hunt but requiring clever play not to lose.

PHR need some work IMHO. Electra sits well enough and is an example of a well balanced ship IMHO. Ariadne is interesting and will be curious to see how they stack up against troopships.

Blockade runners are poor. Tbf Id consider giving the chin guns atmospheric also for PHR. They look turreted with nice depresion and rotation arcs.

In short the key thing DDs need to give is all races a reliable and efficient way to kill strike carrier spam. Let's see balanced fleets that need to FIGHT to establish the beach head.


I can t really comment on the PHR, I've only given them a cursory glance but I like your Kiev fix.
Offline

Intruder313

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 3:53 pm

Brutoni's Kiev fix seems fair to me also.
Offline

Brutoni

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:17 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 5:07 pm

The Jason for PHR is harder to fix. I think D3+2 and swarmer would work perfectly. With its small signature and the heavy calibres for the approach. Still fragile but D3+2 and swarmer on the CAW will make them more reliable anti-atmosphere weapons or indeed assault weapons.

Thoughts?
Offline

Intruder313

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 5:48 pm

Brutoni wrote:The Jason for PHR is harder to fix. I think D3+2 and swarmer would work perfectly. With its small signature and the heavy calibres for the approach. Still fragile but D3+2 and swarmer on the CAW will make them more reliable anti-atmosphere weapons or indeed assault weapons.

Thoughts?


I've suggested D3+2 as an absolute minimum but I can't comment on Swarmer as I've not seen that rule!
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2443
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 6:14 pm

Swarmer requires one more PD hit to negate a hit or crit. So instead of 1 Hit for a Hit and 2 for a Crit you need 2/3.
See page. 68 of the rulebook.


I think that this is a decent idea for a minimum, though I think the anti-atmoshperic destroyers should be better then Corvettes at taking out Strike Carriers, for two reasons. First they themselves are easier targets for the enemy, in particular if they have to get close as a close action ship has to, second the Corvettes need a buff in their Strike Carrier killing role so using a underpowered system as a baseline will cause issues.

This is not easier due to the decision to only give 2 factions this ability, for whatever reason and both ships in question also can use their weapons against orbital targets just fine. Which I think is a serious game design flaw. As it limits their effectiveness in the anti-atmospheric role if they are not supposed to become too effective outside of it. The Kiev is a good example as it´s damage is not that much of an issue if it could only apply it to atmospheric ships but as it an apply it everywhere it is an issue.

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

Vaktathi

  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 7:00 pm

I'm really digging the role and look of the Jason, not sure how useful it will actually be, but it's a neat concept. The Vancouver is super cool too.

The Kiev & Incubus I'm sure will get knocked down a bit, they both look crazy good.

Lordprinceps noted about the Chromium and it's coupling Flash with the Shatari's already impressive scan/sig bonus, and that's the biggest standout to me.
Offline
User avatar

Lordprinceps

  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:25 pm
  • Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSat Apr 14, 2018 9:21 pm

If we're already making wishlists for some of the more too good / too bad destroyers, here's what I'd do.

Kiev
Change Kiev statline to 10" thrust, 7 hull, 4+ armor; increase points to 70

Personally, it makes no sense that it'd get SLOWER with more engines on it, and that armor would be increase rather than hull from all its extra mass. At the risk of it being "boring", it being a direct intermediate between destroyers and light cruisers makes far more sense. Likewise, its points should reflect this too; from looking at the rest of the destroyers, it appears that their baseline really should be around 60 points save for the two specialists (Havana and Cobalt), and baseline for light cruisers is 85 or so.

Leave the weapon as it is; as much as I knee-jerked upon initially seeing it, at a higher price point it meets all of my personal checkmarks. Two of these changed Kievs still come out highly efficient in terms of firepower, but they're actually somewhat significant of an investment (a group of 2 sitting neatly in cost between a regular cruiser and a heavy cruiser), and 4+ armor makes them just that more vulnerable to reprisal from more sources, balanced out by the extra 1 hull. I.E., they can tank a little bit more damage, but now 4+ and 5+ lock weapons are somewhat threatening to them as well.

Succubus
I feel like there was a somewhat missed opportunity in regards to the Scourge having an atmospheric weapon of some kind, and the Succubus looks like a perfect opportunity for that.

Change points cost to at least 60.

Replace first Oculus Beams with the following:
Oculus Lance: 3+ lock, 1 attack, 3 damage, F, Scald, Atmospheric

"The dense cluster of Oculus weapons at the Succubus' prow allows it to generate a frightfully powerful blast of energy, phased to where it can outright burn through a significant distance of atmosphere without losing overall accuracy or cohesion"

Incubus
Change points to at least 65

Upgrade Oculus Rays to Oculus Beams

Replace its Furnace Cannon with the following:
Light Furnace Cannon: 4+ lock, 4 attack, 1 damage, F(N), Alt-1, Scald, Burnthrough (6)
Light Furnace Cannon: 4+ lock, 1 attack, 1 damage, F(N), Alt-1, Scald, Burnthrough (3), Flash

It's still frightfully powerful for a destroyer, but its standard orders firepower from its beam has been reduced by about .5 damage for both its wide and narrow focus, and in exchange, its guns have gained .5 damage. Just as powerful in overall damage, but it's less of a "Scourgeified New Cairo"

Revenant
Change points cost to 55-57
Upgrade Oculus Rays to Oculus Beams
Downgrade Plasma Storm to Plasma Squall

As it was, the Revenant was effectively a bigger, slower Djinn with some launch assets on the side, unlike the "jack-of-all-trades" ship it's implied to be, unusual for the Scourge except on their biggest ships. The problem, of course, is that it was decidedly inefficient for this. It had nonexistent guns, CAW no better than the Djinns in exchange for better hull and armor, but worse sig and thrust, and its launch capacity is exceedingly mediocre on top of it all. I could take take a Hydra and three Djinns for about 30 points more, and end up not only with the same CAW firepower (with 3/4 of it being on faster hulls), but superior gun firepower and superior launch assets, all for the same strategic rating.

Downgrading the CAW and upgrading the beam, all while making it just a touch cheaper, makes it a solid jack-of-all-trades ship. No single one of its weapon systems can kill a frigate on their own, but any two combined likely will, giving a full squadron of them a lot of proper ways to bring down targets instead of "rush into scan range like a bigger Djinn"
Offline

Intruder313

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Destroyer rules are up!

PostSun Apr 15, 2018 5:08 pm

Lorn wrote:Swarmer requires one more PD hit to negate a hit or crit. So instead of 1 Hit for a Hit and 2 for a Crit you need 2/3.
See page. 68 of the rulebook.


I think that this is a decent idea for a minimum, though I think the anti-atmoshperic destroyers should be better then Corvettes at taking out Strike Carriers, for two reasons. First they themselves are easier targets for the enemy, in particular if they have to get close as a close action ship has to, second the Corvettes need a buff in their Strike Carrier killing role so using a underpowered system as a baseline will cause issues.

This is not easier due to the decision to only give 2 factions this ability, for whatever reason and both ships in question also can use their weapons against orbital targets just fine. Which I think is a serious game design flaw. As it limits their effectiveness in the anti-atmospheric role if they are not supposed to become too effective outside of it. The Kiev is a good example as it´s damage is not that much of an issue if it could only apply it to atmospheric ships but as it an apply it everywhere it is an issue.


I've since found Swarmer and fully agree, though I think the Kingfisher missiles would still need extra attacks due to Armour Saves. If an Anti-Atmo Destroyer can't reliably destroy one Strike Carrier per attack, something is amiss :P
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests