/dcg/ Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander General

Kick-starters report in.

Have you received your rewards?
How are we going to get our boxes?
Have you prepared you complaint letters? Please share for fellow kickstarters.
Theres rumours of a law suit threat should we not get our boxes. Can we all please coordinate this?

>>49773688
pls no meme

>>49773698
that post is entirely unironic.

Commodore here.
Haven't received pledge.
Gonna chase after Dave on my bicycle shouting "Where's my retail box!" until I get one.

>>49773688
Got my package from Hawk today. Bunch of white plastic on weird frames inside.

Where are my models?

File: P1260121.jpg (270KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1600x1200px

So jealous of this dude.

Post more schemes!

I just got the Dropfleet starter box from my local game store, I've never actually played a game on this scale (more used to the smaller skirmish type wargames out there)
Can anyone give me a brief rundown on the differences in play styles between the 4 fleets?

>>49773947
dropfleet isn't much bigger than a skirmish game

>>49773947
Tell us where you store is and if they've got any more; then maybe.

>>49773947
It basically boils down to:

>UCM
+Excellent field of fire, excellent weapon arcs
+Second toughest faction in the game
+Arguably the best beam weaponry of all factions
+Excellent support frigates (Lima, Jakarta)
+Cheap and efficient ships in general
+/-Baseline stats for everything else
-Launch assets are the most mediocre out of all factions
-Them being successful is more about forcing the other factions to play to their weaknesses, rather than the UCM playing to their strength

>Scourge
+Huge amount of firepower in the front arc
+"Scald" utterly destroys armor
+Their beam weapon is less outright powerful than the UCM beam, but has more utility
+Fast
+Hands down BEST general purpose close action weaponry in the game
+Long range launch assets, can put out a lot of them per carrier
+/- Guns are more spiky, having less shots but more damage
-Paper thin armor
-Larger signatures than most other factions
-Mediocre PD

>PHR
+Toughest out of all of the factions; best armor, most hull
+Most firepower out of any faction, have between 50% to 100% more firepower than the equivalent UCM ship
+2nd best scan
+Best bombers, good fighters
+Most carrier options out of any faction
+Excellent troopships
-Slowest faction
-Their firepower is split between side arcs
-Worst PD

>Shaltari
+Fastest faction
+Smallest signature
+Best scan
+Stable, consistent damage
+While the Scourge have the best close action overall, the Shaltari dedicated CA ships are better
+Long range launch assets, best fighters
+When shields are up, they're potentially tougher than the PHR
-When shields are up, they have the biggest signature in the game and have no PD
-When shields are down, they have armor worst than the Scourge
+/- Lots of front(narrow) weapons, maneuvering is incredbly important
+/- Different method of troop deployment from the other three factions

>>49774127
A small store in England, they got 3 boxes in and I bought the last one, sorry.

>>49774302
Thanks for that, I like the look of the Scourge stuff the most and I do like fast stuff with little/no armour.

>>49774407
Central England here anyway. Ah well mine's SUPPOSEDLY getting dispatched tomorrow according to element.

Is it possible to get a pledge refunded? I am frankly appalled at the way they have been handling the KS. I want to dump this game. Can I get refunded? If not do you think the community would pay me what I paid for them in the KS?

>>49774844
No memes pls

>>49774854
Not a meme. The retail release greed was the final straw.

>>49774869
>retail release greed
fulfilling contracts and making achievable release dates is 'greed'.

Do these ships come prepainted?

>>49774989
They come un assembled on sprues

File: 1465521695409.png (1MB, 960x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x1600px

>>49774844
>>49774869
How many Kickstarters have you backed? Because, even for all the stuff that's gone awry, this one has been pretty decent. The models a) actually exist, b) were delivered on a reasonable timeline, and c) resemble what was promised. For a /tg/ related Kickstarter that earns them three gold stars.

And fuck your retail release angst. Logistics are /hard./ Shipping and shipping cost overruns can kill the profit margins of any Kickstarter.

File: 04 - LOVyhw4.jpg (116KB, 762x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 762x720px

>>49774989
Dank.

>>49774869
Dude, KS only says the creator has to make a honest effort to fulfill the idea you funded. If the models never released because all the ships carrying product sunk you'd get no refund. If the money wasn't enough to produce more than a hundred models? No refund. KS isn't a guarentee, nor is anything the creators say related to it.

>>49775017
But do they come prepainted?

>>49775681
>If the models never released because all the ships carrying product sunk

Oh god I am having Leviathan flashbacks now

>>49774989
The original DZC/DFC general shitpost. Anyone have that dank copypasta?

>>49774869
What the fuck are you talking about?

>when you stress out over getting the stickers on right and you forget you didn't cut off a little bit of sprue from the base dial, and now it is wedged in tight and I can't move it at all
Also I can tell all the UCM apart now that I've built them but goddamn the fucking Scourge cruiser all look same.

>>49776178

UCM options change the silhouette significantly, scourge options dont

Quick, flex your autism and stat/ideaguy hypothetical destroyers for each faction

>UCM Houston class destroyer: 55 pts
>6" scan, 4" sig, 10" thrust, 6 hull, 4+ armor, 4 PD, 1-3 Group, L
>Cottonmouth Light Laser: 3+ lock; 1 attack; 1 damage; F(N); BTL(4), flash
>Medium Mass Driver Turret: 4+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F/S
>Barracuda Missile Bays: 4+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F/S/R; CA

>Scourge Ghoul class hunter-destroyer: 60 pts
>6" scan, 5" sig, 12" thrust, 6 hull, 5+ armor, 4 PD, 2-4 Group, L, Stealth
>Occulus Beam Array: 3+ lock; 2 attack; 2 damage; F; Scald
>Plasma Cloud: 3+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F/S/R; Scald, CA

>PHR Cadmus class heavy destroyer: 60 pts
>8" scan, 4" sig, 10" thrust, 7 hull, 3+ armor, 3 PD, 1-2 Group, L
>Medium Caliber Bank: 4+ lock; 3 attack; 1 damage; F; Linked-1
>Medium Caliber Bank: 4+ lock; 3 attack; 1 damage; F; Linked-1
>Spinal Heavy Cannon: 3+ lock; 1 attack; 2 damage; F(N); Caliber(H/S)
>Mosquito Drones: 4+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F/S/R; CA


>Shaltari Nephrite class destroyer: 65 pts
>10" scan, 2"/12" sig, 12" thrust, 5 hull, 5+/4+ armor, 6 PD, 1-3 Group, L
>Particle Lance Dyad: 3+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F(N); Particle
>Harpoon Volley: 4+ lock; 2 attack; 1 damage; F/S/R; CA

So as someone who's literally just read the background stuff now the scourge are legitimately horrifying.

No, no! Destroyers should be... interesting.
Light Torpedos anyone? Torps but with Damage 3 or 4 instead...

Move in for the attack. Fire off ordinance, then disengage and provide light fire support.

Alternatively, combination stuff like an Aegis ship that's also a combatant.
Or an ECM ship that's also a CAW ship.

>>49776178
Eh, it'll get easier with time
>does it have big ass fat wings? It's a Hydra
>is it smiling? It's a Chimera
>does it have dinky little wing caps? It's a Strix/Yokai
>does it have proper wings? It's a Wyvern/Sphinx/Ifrit/Shenlong/Raiju/Chimera
>does it have a hat? It's a Shenlong/Raiju
>does it have teeth? It's a Strix/Wyvern
>does it have cones? It's an Ifrit/Raiju
>does it have lots of eyes? It's a Yokai/Sphinx/Shenlong

>>49776275
>>Medium Caliber Bank: 4+ lock; 3 attack; 1 damage; F; Linked-1
>>Medium Caliber Bank: 4+ lock; 3 attack; 1 damage; F; Linked-1
>F
>F
Wew, S(L) and S(R)*

>>49776275
What is their role though?

>>49776425
To fill a gap between frigates and light cruisers, being the heaviest ship in the light tonnage.

>>49776276
Being possessed does sound like the worst fucking thing ever.

>>49776452
Living for like 150 years conscious but unable to act. That's some I have no mouth but I must scream bullshit right there

>>49776481
Also you get to watch as a parasite forces you to kill and then LITERALLY DRINK THE BLOOD of other people.

>>49776525
Not just watch. FEEL. While dressed like an HR Giger designed Nazi.
Basically, it's being /d/.

>PHR are orca/dolphins
>Scourge are lionfish
>Shaltari are coral
What kind of sea life can you paint the UCM as?

>>49776525
>watch

If you only knew how bad it really is.

>>49775879
Is that what happened? I was super involved with that for a while before release

>>49776275

Houstons just a debatably better andromeda.

Cadmus is just a worse andromeda melted into a Europa for barely anymore points

>>49777195
>Andromeda
Surely you mean Pandora

>>49777313

Yeah that

File: O6jRaOy.jpg (974KB, 2000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 2000x1334px

>>49776713
>PHR are orca/dolphins
>Scourge are lionfish
>Shaltari are coral
>What kind of sea life can you paint the UCM as?

Oil tankers.

>>49776713
Sharks.

>>49773688
>Have you prepared you complaint letters? Please share for fellow kickstarters.
Dear Hawk Wargames,

Get a dedicated PR guy next time you try something big like this. Most of this shitshow could have been avoided if you had someone on board who could calm down whiners without actually giving them anything.

Also a webmaster, the forums are a fucking travesty.

Love,
Anon

P.S: gibe pretty box i hav no box vry angry DDD:<<< worst kikestarter evar nevr buying hawk agan

File: Raven-A touchdown.png (446KB, 417x480px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 417x480px

>tfw you just want your ships

>>49776713

Boats


I find it interesting that there is no spam faction in DFC, everyone will have about the same parity of ships between fleets and specific comps.

Perhaps race X will end up being lots of cheap ships

>>49778816
I think it's more to do with keeping the literal price of the fleets the same; if you want a spam faction, all of their models will either have to be smaller, or you'll need to buy more of them.

Additionally, ship classification and tonnage is pretty much based on sized; this spam fleet would have lots of light and medium ships, and thus have less of a use for vanguard and flag groups.

>>49778869
On the flipside, they might be able to do something with "battleriders" to have a swarm-like feeling to them.

They have limited proper launch assets, but can deploy squadrons (let's say of size 4-6) of light corvette sized ships, in the same manner as the ferrum.

The drones are fragile as fuck, but are fast, armed with a decent gun for their size, and actually small enough that they get some kind of evasion bonus against enemy weapons.
Have them added onto sprues (or come as an entirely seperate sprue) in the same vein as voidgates.

>>49778816
there isnt really a spam faction in DZC either. DZC itself wouldnt really support a spam faction, given the limited shots per unit, and limited units, being able to saturate the map with lots of small targets would make it very difficult for most factions to deal with that opponent. DFC doesnt seem to to really be much different given the limited amount of fire that can be put out, being able to spam lots of even weak ships would possibly edge towards too powerful. The base factions would be unable to really thin the hoard enough to make it manageable, and lots of cheap ships with few weapons would easily be able to fire every turn, and make it even worse if one opponent ship gets a spike.

File: image.jpg (102KB, 807x568px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 807x568px

>no 3up Odin or Zeus to grace my displays and game nights with its majesty
You're nice and all, Ares, but you're not all there like the delicious Type-2 chassis.

>>49777111

I beleive the boat that all of the boxes were on was captured or sunk by Somali pirates. Also the guy designed everything died and all of his stuff was destroyed or lost?

Something ridiculous along those lines.

>>49776436
Is there a gap? Once dreadnoughts appear there'll be two types of ship in every weight category:
>Light: corvettes & frigates
>Medium: light cruisers & cruisers
>Heavy: heavy cruisers & battlecruisers
>Superheavy: battleships & dreadnoughts
Seems a nice even spread to me.

>>49780789
Same. And that's not even getting into the fact that naval classes are a clusterfuck to begin with and basically mean whatever the fuck the Navy at the time wants it to mean. I mean, the US Navy has "Primary Surface Combatants" in the form of cruisers and destroyers that A:Mount little to zero offensive weaponry, focused only on defensive munitions to protect carriers and B: Severely over weight in terms of tonnage and manpower compared to the US's historical classification system, let alone other navies.

I mean seriously, you could take the same ship to multiple navies and they'll call them anything from destroyers to cruisers to frigates to corvettes. About the only thing that isn't fluid is battleships, battlecruisers, and dreadnoughts but that's because no one uses them anymore so thus we don't end up with undersized purely defensive dreadnoughts or over sized battlecruisers that carry only tomahawks.

File: 1024px-kusnzov2.jpg (262KB, 1024x674px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1024x674px

>>49780960
>you see ivan, when you make put cruise missiles on carrier, decadent westerners not to be knowing of classification

This is a "heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser" if anyone's wondering.

>>49780789

I suppose in game you'd then have to come up with hybrid ship classes that bridge two classifications and can be used in either.

So, Light/Medium would be Destroyers, Medium/Heavy could be something like a Strike Cruiser or Armored Cruiser and Heavy/Superheavy could be Pocket Battleships or High Speed Battleships or something.

What those would DO would possibly down to the individual races and how they employ those respective classes.
So, where the UCM uses it's Lights as support ships (see Lima + Jakarta) and it's Cruisers pack the same firepower as heavies if they don't go weapons free, the UCM Destroyers could be Aegis ships packing cruiser tier firepower.

Whilst the Scourge Destroyer could simply be a crazy Beast Suicide monster with Heavy Cruiser tier firepower on an even more flimsier hull than the Light Cruisers.

>>49780993
I'd classify it as a priority target, but I guess that's just me.

>>49780993
Don't forget the Japanese's "Helicopter Carrier Destroyer"

>>49780994
>Pocket Battleships or High Speed Battleships
So battlecruisers then.

>>49780994
Seems unnecessary to start creating new classifications. Not that your ideas are bad for the ships themselves, but they can easily be filed under the current class system. Just a further specialization within that class such as the Scourge "destroyer" being a cheaper, even flimsier version of the Strix with the beast rule but still just a light cruiser.

Basically, create more specialized versions of what we have, like gun heavy UCM cruisers that can't take max thrust or course change, but pack battleship tier weaponry and have a slightly higher sig.

>>49781065
A high speed battleship has battleship armour.

A battlecruiser has cruiser armour.

Ask the Hood about the difference.

And a pocket battleship is fucking tiny compared to either. The hood had a displacement more than four times that of the Deutchsland class.

>>49777111
>>49780539
The ship from China with all the finished product sank and the company/government with the mould plates and CAD files were pretty much ransoming them for the entire cost of the production run so the moulds could not be reaquired either.

>>49781218
I am so sorry to anon for making the 'ship sinks' comment. Was simply trying to make a point not give you flashbacks.

>>49781065
Pocket battleships are small brown water craft. Battlecruisers are large blue water craft.

>>49781161
Alright, calm down. See>>49780960 again, it varies by navy, by time period, and possibly by how big the budget was for dozens of meetings between admirals & engineers about what class the new ship should be.

I just still don't think we need extra classes in DFC, I feel what we have already gives a pretty broad range of types. Mainly because currently it's very easy to tell at a glance what a model is, for example what differentiates a light/normal/heavy/battle-cruiser model for each faction. Extra ship classes will require their models to be different somehow, and there will come a tipping point where it's no longer easy to work out what a ship does just by looking at it.
>So this UCM ship has guns on the top deck, that means it's a Moscow heavy cruiser, right?
>No, wait, it's got short nacelles, it must be a destroyer.
>Hang on, I also got a strike cruiser model (short nacelles with medium mass drivers) mixed with my Rios (long nacelles with medium mass drivers) and Osakas (short nacelles with no mass drivers).
>Wait, I now realised that ship from before was a strike destroyer, (not a strike cruiser or a normal destroyer,) because it's got medium mass drivers on its short nacelles.

>>49781239
Its the price we pay for dealing with chinaland.

>>49781291
You could just make destroyers a totally different shape. It's not so hard, it isn't like you have to use the cruiser base for new ship classes. It would probably only be a couple new ships per faction anyway.

I'd be open for destroyers, but only if they had something to make them more than just fat frigates. Something like stealth abilities on the Scourge ones, uncharacteristically light armour and powerful engines on the PHR ones, and some ridiculous gimmicky shenanigans on the Shaltari ones could make them unique and interesting, and I'd be down for that.

>>49781413
But consistent hull types has, to a greater or lesser extent, been a theme of dropfleet commander. There's a few outliers, but generally basing stuff off the same basic hull shapes is how Dave does things. Hell, it's not just dropfleet, you can see in dropzone how the katana, sabre, gladius, broadsword, and ferrum's base, all are designed around the same vehicle structure.

>>49781492
There's been one release that was tuned to reduce a large number of hull types with very high quality while minimizing the modeling work. I wouldn't count on that continuing to the same extent in future releases.

>>49781492
I think that might be more a product of the release than anything. Making things share hull types is really good for efficiency when you're starting out with around 20 ships per faction. Outliers will probably include corvettes, non-KS battlecruisers and dreadnoughts. Destroyers wouldn't make much of a dent there.

>>49780789
Destroyers where?

>>49781845
I believe Hawk mentioned them in passing as a potential post-dreadnought release

>>49781845
Nah man, I'm pretty sure the point of that post was that there would be an even spread of ships in weight classes without the addition of destroyers.

Honestly though I don't really see corvettes as a full type anyway. It's one per faction and all of them have the exact same role of going into atmo and blowing up strike carriers. If I was to put destroyers in the game I'd make them light tonnage.

>>49773688
I haven't received anything yet. Anyone got any idea if I can check on shipping status?

Ids habbening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u6lzTpwLxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTsgAmhmXhY

>>49781218
I wondered what happened there, have the base game and waited a long time for expansions before I gave up. That's a shame.

>>49779786
>Implying I don't play with 80 technicals

>>49782512
Helios and longreach to the rescue!

File: Laughing walker of ballistic doom.jpg (89KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x640px

Daily reminder that the Annihilator is the cutest sculpt in the game.

>>49782849
>when her legs go all the way up

>>49782849
Happy little plasma chicken

The game is not even fully released and this thread is already filled with shitposters and 'ironic' memers. Good job guys.

>>49782904
>implying it wasn't just as bad during the KS campaign

>>49782918
Honestly never read all that much, I just lurked for the beautiful minis. I'm just surprised how shitty this thread is. I hope once the faggots itt get their minis, they stop posting shit and start posting painted ships.

>>49782512
well you could get up to 120 technicals in a list at 1500 points, but that would be 10 squads of 12 + a drive on alexander, and youd be at 1325/1500 pts, and frankly if you painted em all, id play against it Once.

>>49783009
my bad youd also at least need one squad of fighters bringing it to 1373/1500 minimum

>>49783700


Oops can't post that in a spaceship game thread

>>49783700
Are you the same guy who thought this was infinity general or was that someone else

>>49783803

No I just have two tabs open.


Anyway back on topic: anyone feeling that a UCM launch capped fleet won't be giving up that much shooting capacity? A bunch of seattles, a few johannesburg and a New York seems nasty.

>>49783841
You could do it with any combination of 3 seattles/jonnies and a new york, and a Seattle is pretty much a Rio anyways. I suspect UCM launch skew will be pretty good.

>>49783841
Pretty much. UCM space rowboats seem best for support work while guns and lasers do the main job. All the carriers are heavily armed.

>>49783841
I'm actually hoping I can get away with very few launch assets since the UCM bombers suck and the Jakarta exists. But that's just cause I hate strike craft.

>KS comments shifting back into maximum autism
>again

>>49783919

Jakartas exist but they're a little expensive to spam solely for PD.

UCM launch assets have the advantages of A) being attached to good ships that don't depend on them and B) giving them a flexible launch phase where they can either be used for anti bomber defense or for doing opportunity attacks.

UCM bombers might not be anything special but they're not worthless. They just aren't your primary weapon

I just realized what we're all forgetting; torpedoes take up LA capacity as well; a new York rakes up 7 cap, while a dragon takes up 5.

the Seattle isn't a primary carrier. It's a cruiser that trades the shoulder guns for bombers or fighters. That's pretty solid, considering now it can 'attack' without going weapons free.

Only what, about 20-odd points more than a standard Rio? Not bad.

>>49783936
Wait. Did they shift away from that at some point? What did I miss?

>>49783971
Launch 6 on the New York actually. You don't add extra over the actual "launch" statistic.

>>49784003
Ah, fair point; on the upside, this means that 3 Seattle and 1 New York is precisely 15 LA

>>49784026
>Dave
>Just as planned

>>49784026

Two seattles, an Atlantis and a New York. Not bad at all.

>>49783974

It's a pretty balanced carrier, if it was 2 launch it would just be a light carrier but at 3 it's pretty solid at shitting fighters

So, what are all the nicknames for the ship names that are a mouthful?

>New Orleans =Nawlins
>San Francisco =Sanfran
>St. Petersburg =Pete
>Johannesburg =Johan/Jonny

>Charybdis =Kerry

>Calypso =Cally
>Bellerophon =Bell
>Leonidas =Leo
>Scipio =Skippy
>Heracles =Herc

Anything else?

>>49784227
Literally the only ships you listed that are actually a mouthful are the UCM ones, the Leo and the Bell. The rest don't need nicknames.

>>49784227
Johan pls

>>49784227
>Not calling St Petersburg "The Saint"
Anon, please.

>>49784292
>The Berlin fucks the enemy, but the Saint rogers them more.

So, looks like Admirals are getting their stuff shipped out, which means that Captains/Commodores are next.

>>49784227
Agamemnon could be aggy
Aquamarine could be aqua

File: image.jpg (92KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x450px

>>49784403

>I will be the literal last person to get their order

File: image.jpg (371KB, 1018x728px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1018x728px

>checked the Seattle dropzone Facebook group
>last post was in April

>>49784403
This is true suffering.

I assumed that after the petty officers were done the captains and commodores would have their day. Fuck.

>>49783936
>Luke literally lying about what Hawk are doing because he's so determined to sperg

This rustles me a little.

>>49778566
Exactly what I want to tell them too. Most of this complaining isn't because stuff's late or because there are o printed boxes, not really. The actual root cause is that Hawk aren't jumping into the discussion and listening to people. This has been a bad kickstarter campaign, they're not going to lose my custom and I'm happy with the company but man did they not do this specific thing properly.

>>49784227
>tfw when 3 or 4 syllable words are too long for you

>>49784516
>they have packaged delivered stuff... we don't. Clearly what could/should have been earmarked for KS was slated for retail; I cannot see how you'd claim that wasn't so. The proof is they told us that is where stuff went and the stuff is there. That is indisputable. Hawk's told us all of our stuff was not yet shipped while retail was putting models on the shelves.

Is this fucker serious?

>>49781270

Yeah, Pocket Battleships are weirder than you can believe. They were budgeted as updated direct replacements for the pre-dreadnoughts (themselves a displacement-match for a better-sized modern destroyer, or a then-cruiser) that Germany had retained post-WWI as coastal defense ships. And they pretty much were that. *Weird* concept, when you think about it, although the Swedes tried it out themselves without anyone twisting their arms into designing obsolete ships.

The Scylla seems kind of bad. Is the gimmick really worth it?

>>49784908

Yeah I don't really know either. 3 of them will do 6 4+ lock shots and are very hard to retaliate against from orbit, but while in atmo they're very slow and vulnerable to corvettes who will eat them alive

>>49784227

Class nicknames derived from official names? That actually happens? Engineers and technicians would probably call them depending on how ships perform and what parts break more often.

I feel like scourge are going to have a tougher time with Gargoyles. That 5+ save is not going to go very far when it only takes 2 damage to cripple it. The above average PD helps but not by much.

>>49784908
I'm not a fan myself. I think its best role is distracting your opponent's corvettes away from your gargoyles, but I'm not convinced it'll do enough damage to make people think "yeah, I NEED to deal with this". Also reasonably expensive for a frigate, it'll add up fast.

My DFC starter set just got delivered and I'm 1,000 miles away from it :(

>>49784666
Even Satan is dumbfounded by the deceptive evil in Luke and Khell's retarded hearts.

For real though, I feel sort of sorry for everyone that's trying to just keep up with the comments and has to talk down these stupid arguments whenever they pop up.

>>49785249
Urgh, dat name.

Everyone, pretend you never saw nothing. There was no namefag here.

>>49784227
I'm waiting for the Hector:
"HECTOR!" <close up of angry breathing > "HECTOOOR!"

>>49785236
Raw, anon. Where are you/it?

>>49785280
>Hector
>shit tier
Will build one and name it Paris.

>>49785249
Just go comment on the KS to tell these morons off. They're actively making shit up like Dave openly sniping at other kickstarters.

let's beat this dead horse

Make the Hector viable, be creative but don't change its weapon layout

>the Hector is the prime example of the PHRs relentless technological advance. Even though the Orion class cruiser is hypthesized to be only a few years old, the Hector appears to be the next generation of the main ship of the line for the PHR.
>mercifully only appearing in limited numbers so far, the Hector is the retrofitted and upgraded future replacement for the Orion. With improved firing systems and a brutal prow mounted laser, the Hector is able to adapt to any combat situation.

Same stats, linked broadsides, fusillade 2 on the medium guns.

special rule that allows 1 be taken as a medium choice in a line battlegroup

>>49785564
"Although the Hector has a comparatively light weapon loadout for a heavy cruiser, its extra tonnage is put to good use with improved fire-control systems allowing target acquisition from frighteningly long ranges."

Add 4" to its Scan.

>>49773572

> I am a special snowflake and cannot play the most popular army

http://www.strawpoll.me/11428548
http://www.strawpoll.me/11428560

>>49785564
Vectored, or some special rule that lets you make a (small?) turn while weapons free. Means you can line up those BTL shots along with the broadsides. Fluff it around those movable manoeuvring vanes PHR ships have at the back, the Hector's got better ones or something.

>>49785646
What, the one *I* have the most hype about, or the one I think there's generally the most hype about?

>>49785594

Make it +2" scan and rare at its current cost and it's not too bad

Firepower wise the current Hector is just schizophrenic, it's actual damage numbers amount is quite good as it'll handily beat a Moscow if it can fire all its guns...which is the hard part.

Linked medium broadsides would be pretty sick though, being able to do 16 medium shots on normal orders would be brutal

>>49785564
>Special Rule: Divert Power!
When going Weapons Free, this ship may choose not to fire its front weaponry. If it does so, its remaining weapons fire at -1 Lock Value.

>>49785564
Get rid of the linked broadsides, but instead give the guns fusillade 4; 50% more firepower when going weapons free.

Most Hector rule proposals make no sense. Just make it cheaper.

>>49785770
Making it cheaper is probably the way to go, but it's not a fun change.

>>49785770
Even if it was cheaper, I wouldn't take it.

Unless it were cheaper than an Achilles, I'd rather have an Orion plus other stuff. And even if it was that cheap, why would I ever waste my limited vanguard spots on it? The Achilles and the Bellerophon have specific roles that they do extremely well, and that you have to spend more points to do better with multiple ships. The Hector doesn't really do anything super well. It needs to change.

>@Graeme noble
£150, that's the amount of money I have lost because I am no longer interested in funding Hawk gaming system, sure I have the models but they are worthless if I don't invest in wave 2 releases and rounding out my fleets. Something I'm unfortunately not prepared to do anymore, I'd rather just cut my losses, sell what I have and keep to existing systems or purchase products in the traditional manner and not support companies directly.

LOL.

>>49786192
Are these fucks serious?

>>49786254
I think a lot of it is empty threats.

Some of these fuckers are ebay scalpers pissed that they can't make money off the project by selling the fleets they don't want before they're available in stores.

File: mERUfZs.jpg (526KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 2048x1536px

>>49777545
Got a solid "heh" out of me. UCM would be the rustbucket, un-painted, un-glamorous fleet.

>>49785750

Eh at that point it's just a Leonidas -.5. It needs something unique to set it apart

>>49785770

If it was 150 I would strongly consider it but that's boring

>>49785787
>not a fun change.
>>49786603
>that's boring
Many a game has been ruined by broken mechanics in the name of fun

>>49786741

Fusillade 2 and linked-1 on the broadsides would make it a very versatile ship that can always be useful no matter the range or enemy positions. It's not that crazy of a buff. Making it cheaper isn't bad and is probably what they're going to do.

The BCs are there for sick nasty firepower.

>>49785770
Most don't make sense, since it's weapons are obvious.

Perhaps a weird tweak: Increase her scan range to 12. Improved sensors or something.
It'd allow the Hector to play a different role than an Orion + Pandoras slapped on.

>>49787413
Only if the troopships, Achilles, and Bell got the 10" (12" is too much) scan as well, since they have the improved sensors on their ventral prow as well.

File: qtSDWrt.png (120KB, 297x303px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 297x303px

>People speculating commodores shipping soon
>Work 8-5 every weekday
>Season is typically quite wet and rainy for the next few weeks
>Now doubly worried about not getting a shipping notification

>>49787545
Commodores are last, reports are that Admirals are getting theirs now.

What the hell is "Scald" rule. It doesn't look like its in the OP's Links.

>>49787660

If your target is within your scan range, they have a -1 to their armor rolls against hits from the weapon with scald

>>49787660
Basically, it adds +1 to the target's armor value if you're attacking it within scan range.

Not sure at all how one would use a St. Pete, that thing's got probably the worst soft stats of any ship.

Humongous frontal firepower. F(N), requiring weapons free to use to any ability better than an 80 point light cruiser...

Better just throw down the extra 40 points for the Avalon and be done with it. Or just run a pair of light cruisers.

Against > 1 damage weapons, do you make one save or multiple saves per hit

>>49787815

The advantage of the Pete is that if it's in a corner looking at the enemy side from an angle, F(N) can be a wide-ish arc

You just have to activate the Pete first if it's looking at an enemy ship that hasn't activated yet and is right in its gunsights

I agree though the Avalon is a pretty good upgrade

>>49787849
You make one armor save per damage point inflicted by a non-critical hit.

>>49787815
I think it's one of the two least viable heavies, alongside the Hector.

It edges out ahead for me because it at least does what it does very well. The problem is that it's an unreliable expenditure. I can see it being replaced by an Avalon in many lists, but I reckon MOST lists will never take many battlecruisers for BLT purposes either.

I expect to see a lot of UCM lists with a Beijing, then Moscows rather than battlecruisers, and a bunch of Berlins for BLT duty.

>>49788166

The Avalon, because of how normal orders negate bloom, is actually pretty sweet for some serious poking armor ignoring damage. Plus if it wants to go weapons free and add another 2.21 damage, it's not penalized by bloom at all.

That's not bad considering an Avalon on weapons free will do around 7.21 damage to a 3+ target and a Beijing will do 8 ish.

An Avalon on normal orders will do around 5, slightly more than a Moscow on weapons free.

>>49788476

>normal orders negate bloom

Well, you still have to go a whole turn with it spiked so it's not that great. You could do back to back activations across turns, but that restricts your activations and makes you a little more predictable.

>>49788661
>Well, you still have to go a whole turn with it spiked so it's not that great.
Nope; Bloom gives a minor spike when the weapon is fired, and standard orders remove a spike at the end of that ship's activation.
Bloom only matters when you're using that weapon in combination with Station Keeping or Course Change.

>>49788700

Yeah, just saw it was at the end of activation. I was sure it was at the beginning but I guess not.

>>49788476
I feel like it's probably going to be more economical to have a battleship, then some heavies, then normal cruisers. At least for the UCM.

The PHR look different. I get the impression they're gonna have super polarized lists. Battleship, battlecruiers, then light cruisers and frigates.

>>49788811

The battleships do different things than the UCM BCs, I think we probably won't see a ton of heavy cruisers (after a while) but they only have a few dud ships (Rio, Toulon, Pete, etc) in their whole lineup so their fleet comp could be all over the place but probably won't see too many Rio heavy lists.

PHR on the other hand have cruisers that punch way above their weight class and heavy cruisers that are more utility than pure firepower.

Orion's and Ajax are wonderful ships for how dirt cheap they are and all the frigate options are excellent. You can make some absolutely nasty battlegroups with just plain cruisers and frigates in PHR. Even the troopships can have a very viable battlegroup made around it while it poops troops all over the objective.

I think you'll see plenty of bells and BBs but the bread and butter of a PHR fleet is going to be its cruiser + frigate combos. It's going to be a bunch of sharks with their pilot fish buddies.

The BB battlegroups are interesting because per battlegroup, they don't hit quite as hard in total but can focus damage better due to their crippling weapons and/or torpedoes.

The Heracles is the prime example of this as it's the best PHR ship at focusing down one enemy ship. It's also disproportionally tough with some two callistos

But for total damage at equal points, two Orion's and two Europas will actually out dps a Heracles in their broadsides by a fair amount (12 damage broadsaides versus about 7.22 damage heavy broadsides, plus about 5 for the DMC)

>>49788700
What is the exact wording for Bloom?

>>49789194

A ship firing this weapons immediately gains one minor spike

>>49789147
I think you're underestimating the usefulness of the Toulon as a cheap flanker or for throwing lots of shots at atmo frigates/corvettes.

>>49789147
Rio and Toulon are alright. Toulon can consistently put out a bunch of shots for its price and Rio is a versatile frontline fighter that's 30 points cheaper than a Seattle.

Honestly the only real dud I can think of is the St. Petersburg. Needing to go weapons free with F(N) weapons to be worth the price is not the sign of a great ship.

>>49788811
I'd disagree. UCM Fleet Cruisers seem the best buys you can get. Solid defenses, a good primary weapon system, a little utility when you go weapons free...

Heavy Cruisers for UCM only shine (and really, only the Moscow) when you weapons free, which limits your options. Avalon and Beijing at least can still be potent while maneuvering.

>>49789256
>>49789356

Maybe dud was a bit of an overstatement

The Toulon specifically I just think is a bit over costed for its firepower, it does have nice firing arcs but it's the most generic ship in the game, bar none.

Two Toulons against a 3+ target are very slightly less effective than one heavy battery from an Osaka. How you prefer your light battlegroups is up to you.

The rio isn't bad in a vacuum, it's just that the line slot is crammed for UCM who need it for their bombardment, BTL and troopships. you can perform the same job with the heavy slot very well. But it's no where near bad.

>>49789666
Rio's a solid ship IMO.
You're not paying for the wing turrets, though they are potentially useful. You're paying for the 2 HP, 3+ armor, and major upgrade of CAW for only a small bit over an Osaka. That's not bad.

When not weapons free after all, this ship is 'better' than a Moscow. Much more free to maneuver and do some CAW damage.

Admittedly a Berlin is better in pure firepower, but keeping that BTL on target IS a cost. Rios just don't give a damn.

>>49789666
You're paying for those arcs, the Europa has double the firepower but is usually only going to use half, and against front targets won't be able to use any at all. Not to mention that it's damned cheap. It's hard to be overcosted at 35 points.

>>49789794

The reason the Europa is quite good is because it's a tagalong to a battlegroup whose sole purpose is to get enemy ships in both firing arcs. It doesn't have to worry about weird maneuvering in its own context because it's hanging out with your Orion's or Leonidas that want to go balls deep anyway.

The thing with the Toulon is that it pays for being a generalist ship and doesn't have a niche. It's a neat and low strategy value way of adding some plinking power to a battlegroup.

But anyway, I might just be in love with the Taipei. What an annoying little shit.

>>49789925
Something that's also quite nice about the Europa is that, as they don't need to go Weapons Free, they can act on standard orders while the rest of the battlegroup does something else.

They can potentially run in 10" on standard orders and get some opportunistic shots in, disrupting enemy lines while your slower Orion sets itself up for a better broadside plunge at Silent Running.

There's something to be said for a full group of just x4 Europas though. Together they can put 12 lock 4 shots out on each side without going Weapon Free, and their speed makes it possible for them to almost always get into the enemy formation before losing too much.

>>49790104

I feel like Andromedas will work best for the flanking loner battlegroup but Europas can definitely do the job too.

Europas really shine when they can get both broadsides, at which point they even outdps Andromedas bombing 0 PD targets

File: city buildings mate.jpg (166KB, 594x590px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 594x590px

Flocking the rest of the board tonight - still gotta work on the buildings themselves

File: c1.jpg (191KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 768x960px

>>49790881

Half the board w/no buildings

>>49790904
>>49790881

Lookin good

walk on nemesis with high CV: how dumb?

>>49791260
One of the best walk-ons (walk-ons are usually bad)

I still prefer a zeus and fly it on with an odin, but the nemesis is perfectly valid.

>>49791260
Not dumb, depends on your playstyle. It'll only ever get to midfield by like last turn. I personally prefer more mobile commanders, but this works for some people.

>>49791260
High CV is always a good idea as PHR.

>>49791294
>>49791303
>>49791431

Huh, cool.

I'm trying to make a decent list out of my PHR collection. It's not much and I only have a few games played total.

I've got

Marcus "Flint Ironstag" Barros (also my nemesis stand in)
1 Hades
1 Medusa and triton X
2 Zeus
2 Odin
2 ares
2 Phobos
2 Juno A1
4 Janus (don't laugh)
4 bases of immortals
4 bases of sirens
2 triton A
2 Triton B
4 Neptunes
1 Poseidon
2 Athena (I had a minor miscast and they sent me a whole new one)

How do I not be shit with this collection

>>49792027
So no type-2s, no type-3s, no helios, no valkyries, no mercuries, and your only type 4 is marcus barros? Not looking great.

>>49792099

I haven't bought anything in years, in my defense

>>49792099

Also I have type 2's in there, not many but some.

Once I have a spare railgun from the cruiser sprue I'm going to make that second Zeus into another Odin

>>49792167
How are more railguns going to turn an odin into a zeus?

>>49792196

huh?

I'm going to add another railgun to my spare Zeus instead of the shield arm and make it into an Odin

File: image.jpg (67KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 655x527px

>>49792099

>no type 2's

There are four there

>only type 4 is Marcus?

There's a Hades there too.

>>49792196

I feel like you might be dyslexic

>>49792231
>>49792260
Alright. You caught me. I'm too drunk for this.

>>49792027
>Janus
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously though, you've got no arty so you can probably live without scouts if those are your only option. Get some Valks as soon as you can though, those things are fucking ridiculous. For now maybe you can pretend your Triton 2s are Triton 1s so you can use more infantry.

Phobos are a good foundation for a list, and people give the Ares shit but it's honestly not bad.

You have 2 solid command choices in the Zeus with Odin posse and the Nemesis. You're going to be relying heavily on brute force since you don't have any of the new fast and maneuverable stuff like Apollos, Helios and Valkyries.

The Athena has the potential to win games, but it also has the potential to do literally nothing. It's up to you whether you want to take that gamble.

>>49792468
Ares are fucking great, no idea what cunts are talking about.

File: robobaby.gif (1MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x270px

>check email as soon as I get home
>Your order has shipped!
But it was just from the WarStore.
Guess I'll have PHR ships on the workbench by next weekend, one way or another.

File: HelloSadness.jpg (62KB, 639x641px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 639x641px

>reading KS comments
>reading youtube comments on the BoW videos
>all these people who honestly think that Hawk took backer product and gave it to retail instead
>or that it was willingly done for the sake of greed
It's not even fun to laugh at them anymore.

File: tumblr_oa27gyrVIA1vzqrm8o1_1280.jpg (280KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1280x1280px

>>49793719
This KS seems to have a greater proportion of sperglords than most. I wonder why that is?

File: 1434504640950.jpg (102KB, 680x966px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 680x966px

>>49793859
Probably a perfect storm of factors. It was a pretty big kickstarter and so we have a larger pool of people to gather spergs from. We have the disconnect between Hawk's eagerness to please, and their capacity to handle several thousand custom orders in a timely manner. And probably the most important factor is that they planned the retail release for the quarter immediately following their planned fulfillment date, so the built-in Kickstarter delay of several months minimum made it so we now have retail product shipping in the middle of the delayed backer reward dispatch process.

Of course the retail product and backer rewards are completely separate entities aside from their demands on Hawk's limited manpower, but leave it to internet manchildren to jump to false conclusions when they see other people getting the shiny toys they "preordered" before their personalized and more complex box of stuff is even fully packed.

>>49789666
The big issue I have with light cruisers is, because they come in 2s, it's a big committal to put some in a list. You can't just plonk one in when you've got 100 odd points spare, you actually have to start rearranging shit to fit the light cruiser squadron into the fleet.

>>49793859
Quite a few of them are admitting they only backed so they could sell one or two factions on ebay before it was available anywhere else and making a profit.

Basically, they're scum.

I like how many little unfair things Dave and Andy have already thought of in dropfleet. I was just thinking that hiding a Lima in atmosphere would be a devious way of keeping it safe, but they've thought of that and made it so you can't active scan in atmosphere. Top rules-writing there.

>>49796239
You can't Lima in atmosphere either. Only corvettes, strike carriers and Scourge frigates have the atmospheric rule.

>>49796263
Huh.

>the game isn't even out yet
>I've already made an entire homebrew faction and the only thing left to do is pricing and proper ship designs
Is there a cure?

And does a ship that can remove minor spikes (and downgrade majors to minors) from nearby ships while putting a major spike on itself sound too open to abuse? I know it always helps to get additional opinions on such things.

File: image.png (358KB, 552x543px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 552x543px

>Well I haven't bought anything in DZC for a while, let's see if I can pick up one of the newer releases with my spare pocket money today

>Valkyries look great
>guess I'll need another triton pair for them

>and I guess my janus are just collecting dust, should get some mercuries

>I only have a few Phobos, some Helios would really help out

>maybe some apollos too

>total charge: $58

>I have no one to play with anyway

>>49797836

It would be neat, I don't think it's OP

>>49797836

Let me elaborate: the heat sink ship wouldn't be all that OP because of how the turn order works with alternating battlegroups. To get maximum effectiveness you would need to activate it dead last and even then it'll probably get to do it just once

>>49797852
>58 bucks
up here that's like 80-100 dollars

>>49797877
The concept ship I've got is a pretty tough cookie. 3+ reinforced armour with 14 hull, made to pop off its ability and take as much enemy fire as possible before going down. On the other hand it's slow as balls with very limited weaponry for its class, so it can't really do much other than act as a particularly hardy punching bag.

>>49798084

Eh I suppose it would depend on the price although hardened armor is probably a bit too optimized

>UCM: baseline with good arcs
>Scourge: fast with good weapons, but front-arc mostly and weak armor
>PHR: slow, tough, and limited arcs, but powerful
>Shaltari: fast, maneuverable, and sneaky, good weaponry, but fragile

Quick, toss out archetypes for faction X.
>somewhat fast, maneuverable, best arcs (most weapons are F/S/R), but sub-par weaponry
>they're not!flying saucers

>>49798265
Don't we already have saucers with the Voidgates?

>>49798265

That's literally just shaltari again but with good arcs

>>49798351
The Shaltari are space pirates that ignore space copyright law.

>>49798357
Not necessarily, there's still
>scan
>sig
>shields
>armor/hull

>>49798265

Could make them BFG Necrons.
Ludicrously OP ships, always massively outnumbered.
Super mobile, can almost spin on the spot.
Few weapons, but massive damage spikes.
Few launch assets.
Tough and self -repair, but when cost is considered they are fragile.

>>49798592
>wanting to bring back BFG necrons
>when Andy himself wants DFC to be the game where he fixes all the mistakes of BFG
I don't really think there's a way you could balance out a Necron-tier faction, besides making their ships ludicrously expensive.
However, if you did that, then their fleets would be much cheaper (in terms of models) compared to other factions which is pretty unfair, so you'd have to make them arbitrarily more expensive as well.

> People getting autistic on the BoW unboxing
> 'But I won't get muh satisfaction of opening the box myself'

What do these fuckers think their shit is going to be delivered in? A bag?

>>49798592

BFG necrons were fun but were in no way balanced

>>49798265
I'm voting for AI race.
>Modifying command value
>Weapons that force cripple without dealing damage.
>Weapons that give outright orbital decay
>Weapons that make unactivated ships shoot their own ships through weapon hacks.
>2+ Armor saves and reinforced armor but abysmal hullpoints.
Just a few shit-tier ideas I've spent exactly 5 minutes contemplating.

>>49798710
A loose pile of parts wrapped in newspaper, secured by duct tape and a bow.

>>49798881
As a special bonus, admirals get a video sent to them of Dave eating fish and chips out of the very newspaper their order will be wrapped in.

>>49798710
no they want an official retail starter box box, because nothing that will be done by hawk will be good and or satisfying

>>49798710
>>49798881
>A loose pile of parts wrapped in newspaper, secured by duct tape and a bow.

Funny thing is, you're not wrong. All my stuff game in a sort of waxy plastic sack. The base stickers and paper came in a brown manilla envelope, and the book was just at the bottom of the shipping box, which means it's nice and evenly damaged on all sides.

>>49798734
afaik, you had to git gud and play a little different vs them, but they absolutely were.

>>49799298
Fun or balanced? Because I lost a bit with them, but damn I always had fun.

>>49799298

Unless you were Eldar in which case get fucked

>>49799828
Eldar were the worst example of cool theme, bad design.

>2+ immune to lances
>2+ immune to torpedos
>2+ immune to strike craft
>ancient starfaring race
>spam all the frigates, because battleships aren't much more durable.
>OH FUCK ASTEROIDS
>OH FUCK CANNONBALLS.

are there any UCM ships where all of the turrets are mounted on the centerline or do they all have wing turrets?

>>49800743

The Carrier?

>>49800760
Which ship is that (I'm not really familiar with DFC)? It looked like there was more than one kind of carrier for the UCM.

>>49800743
Osaka and Seattle

>>49800743

Seattle and Osaka have no wing guns and just heavy turrets on their dorsal ridge.

The New Cairo doesn't have wing turrets either but it just has a big honking laser instead of turrets

File: f2385827c4a8881220fbe533f96f8d08_original.jpg (101KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 680x453px

>>49800852
Osaka

>>49801177
Fuck, no, New Cario I'm retarded

File: 347d1100aba088efbe09c83f9e29c84c_original.jpg (92KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 680x453px

>>49800852
>>49800743

What is the consensus on Tarranis vs Thor?

>>49801439
The Thor is just fucking ridiculus in squads of 4.
They can shoot from full-cover with STR 11 Large blast. The Taranis is just unreliable with it's sometimes demolition, sometimes not.

>>49801580
>strength
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>49801865
>It shoots 11 Terrwatts of bullshit

File: UCM_BattleCruiser_Avalon0.jpg (57KB, 960x512px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x512px

>>49802466
>8 perawatts of FUCK YOU

For any /sci/fags here, how powerful would you estimate the Viper laser to be?

>>49803751
Using GURPS as a reference, I'd say somewhere in the range of 3-30 GJ.

>>49803827
I think that would depend on how long the laser lasts. Considering that BTL's are considered as "cutting beams", able to slice through a ship, I would say that they're on for pulses of at least a second, able to burn through most of the ship along their entire path.

>>49803751

My head canon is that a BTL burst lasts probably 10 seconds or so and it can cripple but not likely destroy an enemy cruiser, so powerful but not insanely so. Still a big fucking gun and a lot of power

>>49801439
Taranis is a pretty worthless unit unfortunately. It's not good at demo or being artillery. It's blast is hilariously weak.

>>49804190
So, how much energy is required to blast through like 300 meters of metal and armor?

>>49805012
Depends too much on the armour in question, armour-beam interaction mechanics, etc. Lots.

So Scourge bombers have the scald rule, so they auto increase the armor save by one against them? Jesus. I think that might just put them on par with PHR bombers then, if not edge them out due to having a longer range. While yes, a crit negates armor completely, they CAN still crit, and they'd really showcase themselves against lighter armored ships on top of having 3/6 inches more in range.

>>49801580
>>49804991
Follow-up question, is the Njord worth the extra points over just taking 2 neptunes?

>>49805080
Depends.
Neptunes are cheaper. But aren't nearly as useful in combat for the extra 30 points.

A Typhoon's a great gunship, but costs 70 points for 3 E10 shots. Njord costs 110 to transport 4 walkers and have 4 E10 shots.

So your call on that. IMO it seems pretty viable for one in a list.

>>49805065
True, but I don't think they're quite as good.

PHR bombers do an average of (10+2n)/18 damage, while Scourge bombers do an average of (6+2n)/18 damage, where n is the armor rating of the target ship, not counting PD.

>>49784323
Either that is a reference nobody got or I am getting old. The Saint was played by Roger Moore on TV, he was proto Bond.

>>49805065

Scalds nice but more crits are nicer

Still scourge bombers are useful for scald and their longer range

File: PHR_HeavyCruiser_Hector.jpg (78KB, 637x424px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 637x424px

>tfw thred ded

File: c36df2287c1476e61122f11b236f3fae.jpg (81KB, 640x396px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x396px

>>49806758
Britain's asleep, and I'm pretty sure we've got a ways to go before we clear the delivery doldrums here in the States.

Once the PHR starter box I impatiently ordered gets here and/or I finally get a friend to sit down and try DZC, I'll try to throw up some content.

File: im a real ship now see.jpg (144KB, 680x453px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 680x453px

>>49806758
We should post our favourite ships to keep the thread alive.

File: 1399253036040.jpg (127KB, 500x691px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 500x691px

>>49773572
>Pledge to the kickstarter right away
>still waiting
>MFW

File: UCM_Battleship_Beijing0.jpg (106KB, 797x532px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 797x532px

>>49806901
The Emerald is your favorite ship? The saucer is pretty sexy, not going to lie.

File: Moscow.jpg (252KB, 1500x798px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1500x798px

>>49806940
With great patience comes a lot of free plastic space ships, captain Anon.

>get ships on monday
>have until the 28th to assemble and paint and learn rules
>hanging out with m80s that weekend, want to get them hooked

Is there a best list for the 2-player starter set?

>>49807022
Probably what the box shows.

Berlin
Seattle
Moscow
2 Nawlins
2 Toulons

Wyvern
Ifrit
Shenlong
2 Gargoyle
2 Harpy

>>49807022
are you getting the cruiser and frigate bonuses from the kickstarter?

>>49807022
The stuff they recommend should do. Toulons+New Orleans+Berlin+Seattle+Moscow against Harpies+Gargs+Ifrit+Wyvern+Shenlong. There's only a 1 point difference between the two sides and it introduces a lot of basic mechanics.

File: 1460671154531.png (8KB, 200x210px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x210px

>>49806901
>not Talc-class

>>49807022
Oh yeah, taking into account >>49807097, that might be a bit more tricky.

Assuming you're just a Captain (and thus only one 2-player), you're getting an extra 4 frigates and an extra cruiser per faction.

For the UCM, I'd say either an Osaka or Cairo, along with two more Nawlins and some combination of Limas or Jakartas.

For the UCM, probably a Sphinx or Yokai, along with two more Gargoyles and some combination of Djinn or Charybdis.

>>49807189
Talc has perfect cleavage though. And we all know Voidgate-chan's cleavage is very poor.

>>49807273
yeah but voidgate chan's self esteem is low. There's something so enjoyable about boosting that with proper dickings. Gentle kisses and demonstrations of love feel so much better when your partner loves to hear them.

>>49807097
No. Preorder scrub.

>>49807295
>Gentle kisses and demonstrations of love feel so much better when your partner loves to hear them.
You mean when your partner is dependent on them. Sicko.

>>49807087
Seattle+Moscow seems a bit top-heavy for a small flotilla. I'm not sure if that's just me? What if you wanted to save larger-than-cruisers for later, would balanced lists still be possible?

File: geology[1].png (36KB, 697x264px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 697x264px

>>49807295
too lewd, anon, gotta stick to the geology/gemology innuendos.

>>49807332
>Seattle+Moscow seems a bit top-heavy for a small flotilla. I'm not sure if that's just me? What if you wanted to save larger-than-cruisers for later, would balanced lists still be possible?

Eh, the Moscow takes up the vanguard slot (and thus is the admiral ship) while the Seattle is more of a Rio+hangars, not a dedicated fleet carrier.

Now, a Basalt, Hydra, or Bell, that would be too much for a 500~ point skirmish.

>>49807383
I guess I can see that reasoning.

Are the Seattle or Moscow any of the ships people have been going on about being lackluster or underwhelming? (Or any of the scourge ships I know nothing about?)

File: 35.png (225KB, 368x444px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 368x444px

>>49807295
Woah there, anon. Slow down. I think your innuendos need work.

>>49807407
Not really, the Seattle is good because there's no opportunity cost to not going weapons free (it only has one primary weapon system), and thus is slightly easier to wield than the Rio. The Moscow is pretty much THE baseline by which all other heavy gun cruisers are measured, since its dangerous and tought under standard orders, but really shines when weapons free.

Remember with heavy cruisers, you're not just paying for more weapons (in general), you're paying for more hull and armor.

>>49807407
Not really. Moscow needs to go weapons free to get the most out of its guns, but it has great arcs and 10-12 shots so that's not as much of a problem. St. Petersburg is the lackluster one since its best weapons are F(N) and so the inability to turn when you go weapons free really fucks it over.

Seattle is just generally good. You can't go wrong with big guns and hangars.

>>49807484
>St. Petersburg is the lackluster one since its best weapons are F(N) and so the inability to turn when you go weapons free really fucks it over.
Eh, you just need to ensure that it goes before its target in activation. This is where the chess-like nature of the activation system comes into play, where you need to ensure that you have at least two major threats lined up, and that your activation stack is ordered in such a way that no matter what your enemy does, one of them will pop.

>>49807524
Or you could use a Perth and not have to deal with that at all, while still having a vicious weapons free option with those quad medium turrets. St. Petersburg could work as a budget Perth, but I'd still probably spend that extra 40 points for the real version most of the time.

>>49807655
Perth is only BTL(8) though, while a Pete is, in total, a BTL(12). A Perth will do more damage on standard orders, but a Pete has the potential to cripple any battleship on the field if it can draw a bead on it. It's pretty much THE premier superheavy killer.

In larger fleets, it'll definitely be a one or two of, if only to set up that xanatos gambit I mentioned.

>>49807796
Don't forget the other guns, and definitely don't forget that you cannot rely on burnthrough to do max damage. Pete and Perth have the same damage potential when you go weapons free, and while the mass drivers are only lock 4+ fucking up with some of them doesn't nullify the others. Pete is generally less reliable with the upside of being cheaper.

>>49807911
Fair points; the Perth is far more likely to hit BTL(8) with 4 attacks, than the Pete is likely to hit BTL(6) with two attacks, twice.

And while the both of them have the same maximum damage, far more of the Pete's is likely to be cascaded criticals, while more of the Perth's will be subject to armor saves.

>>49807412
yeah, I need to work on subtly hinting at Voidgate chan's gasps of embarrassment as you gently exclaim at her beauty as she writhes naked on the bed, her face crimson as she is told how her butt is so cute and you wouldn't settle for anyone else. As it is now I'm just kinda showing, not telling. Guess I gotta just keep practicing.

Perth?

Also, how do you all intend to transport your spaceships?

>>49808028
I believe its the Avalon's non KS hull. All battlecruisers have two names, one for the KS exclusive hull and one for the non KS exculsive hull.

I was thinking of buying some of the same tupperware boxes I use for Armada. They've been serving me pretty well in transporting my fleets around.

File: UCM Battlecruiser Perth.jpg (126KB, 1312x984px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1312x984px

>>49808028
The Perth is the Avalon's evil shitposting twin. The KS battlecruisers are separate (but functionally identical) classes to the unreleased proper battlecruisers.

>Shipment Progress
>Location Date Local Time Activity
>San Pablo, CA, United States 10/15/2016 9:33 A.M. Arrival Scan
>South San Francisco, CA, United States 10/15/2016 8:51 A.M. Departure Scan
>South San Francisco, CA, United States 10/14/2016 9:43 P.M. Arrival Scan
>San Pablo, CA, United States 10/14/2016 8:53 P.M. Departure Scan

why

>>49807655
The St. Petersburg will obviously require a lot more thought to get it's full potential, but I can already see it being very useful. Having the ability to put out 12 damage with just the lasers, it will cripple the hell out of battleships and heavy cruisers, and annihilate anything smaller. Being able to evaporate a cruiser with one ship in one round is no small feat and should rightly require a little planning and a little luck.

I can see it being used in a few ways, one as a flanker that you set up for the last 2, maybe 3 turns to hit something big and vital. Second, you can dive straight in at the enemy with it and hope you win initiative after lining up a target and maybe use some scans to make sure you are in range, essentially jousting. Third, use them as a psychological weapon. No one will want to be in front of that thing. No one. Especially lighter ships. Use that to your advantage. Have them cover a cluster with their lasers from a distance, making minimal moves forward, just threatening. And if they call your bluff, weapons free. Enjoy destroying troopships in one turn. If after a few turns, they don't go for it, start to angle for something else.

So guys, how are you fluffing your ships?

I'm going to name one of my Hectors "TGS Kida" and paint it shit-brown. It'll go in the Atlantis wing of my fleet.

>>49808662
Lad pls fuck off, I told you to not shitpost.

>>49808105
Because FedEx is beyond your mere mortal logic.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Another evening well spent. One last effort in the morning and I can finally start organizing demo games!

>>49809216
Nice work on the models, but that Kodiak needs a bit of work; interesting that you've got an Athena in your demo games!

>>49809216
>no scourge

0/10 missing best faction

>>49809250
Haha, I dryfit the Kodiak together fresh out of the box on a whim to give the UCM a command unit for the picture. And the Athena's just in the shot for looking pretty at the moment because I love that model.

Should I be concerned about giving another player Tritons and Valkyries for a practice game using PHR? I never bought Junos on account of their poor reputation, but having a ton of flying troops feels like it could be unbalancing in a tiny demo.

File: Prowler uguu.jpg (92KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 900x600px

>>49809269
I promise once I build up a bit of disposable income again I'll buy an Oppressor and at least 48 Prowlers.

File: images.jpg (10KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x168px

>>49809302
>48 Prowlers

Yes please. Love those cute little bastards.

>>49809302
Remember that the enemy actually has to focus the little buggers, and against PHR, that sometimes mean to use your E11 shots on them.
And that scares the PHR player.

>>49809661
Works against UCM too. Hell, anyone really. 8 prowlers means 8 shots not directed at other targets and since they're so cheap in terms of points, you're not really hurting yourself bringing them and they will almost always accomplish their mission of fucking up whatever they go after.

>>49775746
No wargames company does gunpla-style colouring, I'm afraid.

I fucking wish, though. They'd probably have to sell a squadron or two in a box to make it worthwhile, but you could make some really nice spaceships with a few different colours of plastic and well-designed pieces, and they'd be pretty easy to touch up if you wanted more than a basic scheme (or just repaint entirely).

>>49781041
Classifying ships based on "it sounds cheap so the government'll fund it" will result in 400,000 ton attack boats one of these days. They'll carry a small country's airforce, making them something like "aviation corvettes."

It's why no-one much technically builds cruisers any more.

Dropboat Commander when. My arms aren't nearly combined enough.

>>49810036
>Dropboat
>not Droptrooper, 30 mm tactical skirmish game
>not Dropsquadron, 10 mm 3d aerial/orbital dogfighting game

>>49810049
I don't see how those are mutually exclusive. All those things sound kickass.

Dropdiplomacy Ambassador when

>>49810049
>>49810036
What about taking the game's scale in the other direction? As war spreads across the galaxy away from merely being focussed on the cradle worlds, it could be time for Dropsystem Commander, the game where you move entire fleets from world to world and engage in intersteller politics with the rival factions.

>>49810063
We already have Dropdiplomacy though.

Tokyo

>>49810077
>Reconquest arc finally finished up, humanity takes back the cradle worlds and situates themselves as a galactic power.
>big bad the PHR are going on about rears its ugly head
>other portions of the Scourge swarm are found, they're nearly omnipresent across the milkyway
>story switches from podunk bipeds taking back their backwater worlds, to a galaxy-spanning tale of intrigue and total war.

>>49810049
We can go smaller.
>Drophost Commander, the game of gruesome body horror! Play as a scourge parasite, or a hapless host, as you battle for control of a body! Thrills! Spills! Laughs! Barfs!

>>49810108
That would be a spin-off party game rather than a full addition to the franchise, though.

>>49810108
>Hawk branches into wacky party boardgames
>Pin the Spines on the Shaltari!
>Punt the Pungari!
>Razorworms and Despoilers!

>>49810128
>>49810139
>make ridiculous and unpleasant suggestion
>"Hmm, yes, I can see how that would make a good party game."
Fucking 4chan, man.

>>49810139
>Punt the Pungari!
That's probably an actual in-setting game, with the Pungari often fighting among themselves for the honour of being kicked across a field by their Shaltari masters.

>>49810161
Ridiculous and unpleasant party games are the best kind of party games.

>>49810161
This is by far the least interesting or extreme derail in the life of this general, let alone all of 4chan.

Now, how much of a dick am I for bringing 4 slayers packed with razorworms against my friend's legionaire heavy UCM list. He's got like 15 bases of them.

What do beam CA weapons do compared to normal ones?

>>49811077
You don't get any PD 'saves' against them.

>>49811163
I thought it might be that. Guess I'll be shelving my Jakartas when I face Shaltari then.

>>49803905
>pulses of at least a second
No, you'll want multiple ~microsecond pulses to minimize the amount of shooting you do through vaporized hull.

>>49805040
Also depends a ton on how big you want the hole.

>>49807524
Bonus points for putting two St Petersburgs in one group and pointing them in targets in separate battlegroups.

>>49807087
Any reason to pick a Berlin over a New Cairo?

>>49809983
Pretty sure it's because cruisers are force projection vessels and for now at least carriers are better at that.

>>49811925
I'll assume you mean over two New Cairos. More armor, takes more damage before combat effectiveness is compromised, shoulder guns

>>49811925
Toughness, mainly. 3+ armour is a pretty decent step up over 4+. The guns are just icing on the cake.

>>49807938

I think you have that backwards.

So I tried reading the pics that were uploaded for DFC army building in the OP, but I still don't really get it. It kind of looks like the system for DZC, but you're tracking more stuff per battlegroup or something?

Why no space nukes in dropfleet?

>>49812119
>Why no space nukes in dropfleet?
Doesn't know about torpedoes.
Doesn't know about nuking cities from orbit as a last ditch.

>>49812093
Could you be more specific about what you don't understand?

>>49812137
Torpedoes (the kind in the game) are a really dumb way to deliver nukes. No need to be so big, better to have many small delivery vehicles.

I'm aware of nuking cities. Those are space-to-ground nukes, not space nukes.

>>49812191
In space nukes are just a radiation bomb. There's no atmosphere to propogate an explosion through.
Just hit them with a bomb-pumped laser if that's what you want to do.
Also:
>muh missile halos

>>49812191
Nukes are expensive. The only other missiles in the game are CA weapons, and UCM/PHR ships span dozens of them at a time with many getting shot down before reaching the target. Torpedoes are so big because they're packed with fancy ECM shit, since people want to make sure their nukes actually hit things and aren't wasted.

>>49812244
>>49812257
>>49812191

Dont forget the giant engine and fuel source needed to be able to chase down a spaceshipp while conducting evasive actions against PD and the like.

>>49812342
Torpedoes are specifically designed to not give a fuck about PD, that's why they're so fat and slow. Gotta fit in all that jamming equipment and armour plating.

Someone get a new thread going. I'd make one myself but I'm on mobile so making generals is like pulling teeth.