• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Erloas

  • Rank
    Strategos (General)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

870 profile views
  1. Because you are in an active combat situation. You have a lot of threats to deal with. Why extend yourself and put yourself more at risk to kill someone that is no longer a threat than to engage someone that is currently an actual threat to you. To chase after someone that "has been forced to fall back" is pretty much *the* way pincer maneuvers and ambushes happen. It pretty much makes them "bait" to get anyone foolish enough to chase after them to do so, so the other combatants can take you out. It would be different if it was a recon situation, or a very small skirmish that is almost over, but not in this case. As for pilots being rare, I think, relatively speaking, that SAS pilots aren't all that rare. They aren't as numerous as AP, but there are dozens of SAS pilots in any given engagement. With all of the other ships, and the size and scope of this conflict, I would bet most SAS pilots probably only fly 1-2 runs in their (short) life, they are a small step up from assault marines. The good pilots become aces, if they survive there for any length of time they're probably moved up to piloting things like sky fortresses. Gamewise, it is all about managing resources. You only have so many of your own units and so many activations to do things in. Even if rebuilding wasn't a thing why would you sent a unit of 5 fighters to take out 1 bomber heading back to reload when there is another unit of 5 bombers in route to dropping their payload on your ships? They are the higher threat. And if you can take out that carrier before the bomber gets back, well then he is even more useless. Even in real life there was a lot of weapons that have been built not to kill, but to wound. A wounded enemy takes a lot more resources than a dead one.
  2. In your example though if you let the divebombers do their run and first and the dice don't go in your favor you could end up taking damage to the BB. If you wipe them out preemptively then they don't get their activation, the carrier has to activate to rebuild them, and then they have to do their own activation. The SAS/carrier combo has gained nothing by rebuilding, still 1 SAS unit and 1 carrier, and still 2 activations, but this time the carrier has to activate before the SAS does (because the SAS doesn't exist until the carrier takes its turn). If you preemptively come in and take out 4 SAS leaving 1 alive, they have two choices: Active the single one and try to get it killed, then active the carrier, and then activate the newly rebuilt squad. 3 activations and 1 real attack. Or activate the carrier, replenish the SAS squad, then activate the SAS unit. 2 activation and 1 real attack. In both of those scenarios preemptively taking out the SAS unit completely is at least as good as just damaging it. The fact that it puts you in more control over what is going on is a good thing, you've forced the activation order of the carrier and for all you know they could have (and still might) send the SAS squad after a different unit, one without the 5 fighters close enough to support it. It is always going to be better for fighters to take out fully armed bomb/torp units than to let them do their thing first. Now if they've already dropped their ordinance and are heading back they've already done their job and your fighters are too late to help. In that case it would be better to let them return to the ship. But that would be true of real life combat too, if you failed to stop them from dropping their bombs it is better to be prepared for the next batch of planes than to expend resources to take out ships that have already done their job.
  3. While theory crafting is fine, without some real world games, and some time for people to adjust to those changes, it really is only theory. After all, in theory exploding dice will let a 40 point small ship take out a dreadnought in one turn, in practice that is never going to actually happen. Same here, while in theory you can launch and launch huge numbers of SAS in a turn, in practice I think it is going to be *far* fewer. And the way SAS works if they are getting wiped out it means they aren't actually making a meaningful attack. So spending a lot of points in carriers with the hope of the SAS they produce getting shot down completely, and therefor not being a threat to the target, just to gain activations doesn't seem like it is going to work well in most cases. You can't just spam the cheapest carriers possible like you could with Recon planes because they're going to take enough damage, even at RB4, to not even be able to re-build if they get any attention at all. It is one thing to spend the points for known and reliable activations, it is another to spend those points to maybe get those activations if the dice work out in your favor and you time everything correctly. Also, unlike recon planes, there aren't going to be several "free" activations with every ship that needs a spotter. In the end, if all of the SAS from local air support and the plethora of carriers you bring are doing no damage at all because you want to get them shot down completely, and carriers have very little firepower on your own, you're going to be in much worse shape than someone with fewer activations if they are making good use out of everything they have. I just couldn't see an extra 6 activations a turn making up for a "500 point list" when your opponent has 1000 because you spent 500 points of your list on nothing but getting those extra activations.
  4. I think the biggest issue with carriers and rebuilding will be meta related. If you get enough carriers you might be able to not have to worry about it, but if you only have one or two it could become a much higher priority target.
  5. The main thing is just that there were a lot of "the person inputting the data into the new ORBAT format got the wrong copy of the testing documents." So there are a lot of "this isn't actually what the playtesters ended up with" as well as a lot of "someone fat fingered a number here and there." So it seems that many of the initial changes Spartan Mike was aiming for got missed, got an older version, or they got it correct. So where any given ORBAT ended up on that spectrum could have an impact on the "right now" balance.
  6. Yes. It is already available to backers. I would expect the "everyone" release at pretty much any time. They might wait until all kickstarter packages have been shipped but have no actual info.
  7. Mike or Josh already answered this, though trying to search for a thread with Spartan and SAS is a lost cause. They said a unit must be wiped out completely before a new one can be re-build. And the rebuild unit is the size the carrier launches. If you lose a 5x LAS and the only carrier you have does 3x that is what you rebuild. If you lose a 3x unit you can rebuild with a 5x carrier, but you would have to have lost the other 2 from another SAS first.
  8. If I'm not mistaken Spartan Mike is in CA, USA and only an hour behind me, which would put the time stamp on those posts at a very reasonable 10:30 pm. Given what has been said, Spartan doesn't seem to have an official document control section which lead to a lot of half changes and errors in the ORBATs. So I wouldn't worry too much about some "illogical changes" until those are worked out. As an aside, I was thinking about the height band to-hit numbers and while it makes sense with a surface centric approach, it just seems like the end cases need to be changed. The fact that if you are firing from stratospheric you can hit a surface model just as easily as a deep diving one. And that firing at another ship in Stratospheric is also just as hard to hit. From a simplification of game play sense I can see why, but I think a few changes could make things more interesting from a meta/list building point of view. Firing from deep diving to deep diving or from stratospheric to stratospheric maybe could be at 5s to hit, the distances to see and aim should be easier than from outside the range band. It would have a great deal of impact on what someone might field as counters to other models people will bring that can enter those bands. Flying sky battleships would then have a great role of hunting the large flying carriers that are trying to hide up there. They can also use the defense of stratospheric without making their armament useless. It gives them a very clear role and reason to take compared to surface vessels. As for the range bands and firing out of the extremes, once you pass surface height. BASIC ‘TO HIT’ VALUES from Stratospheric: Stratospheric 5 Obscured RED (6) Surface or Flying RED (6) Submerged blue (6) Deep Diving black (6) Deep diving would be the same only reversed (though I'm not aware of any weapons that can be fired from diving at an flying model). Although it would go to reason obscured to deep diving should then be blue(6). And any related target painter, hunter, or similar MAR would move up a step or two based on value. Is it worth the extra complications based on how little it is likely to come up? I'm not sure. It wouldn't change things with set to-hit numbers like area bombardment and I can't think of any airships (excluding SAS, which can't leave flying anyway) with torpedoes. So would really only come into play for medium+ airships with bombs but not area bombardment. So at least that part might be too obscure to worry about. But the 5+ to hit if both are in deep diving or both in stratospheric is definitely worth looking at.
  9. Currently there is nothing saying any SAS/drones launch with an activation marker. It isn't indeterminate. Now if balance adjustment will eventually say they should is to be determined.
  10. I sent an email to dispatch to see if I can change my order to one of each box instead of the 2-player box (don't need a 3rd rulebook either), I couldn't do it from the shop as the order already says processing. I just hope I hear back before they run out/the deal ends, last time I had a question for dispatch it didn't get answered until the sale I was asking about was already over.
  11. The shop has "Quantity in Stock:" right under the price on the order page. It is assumed that they all started at 150, so that is the counter. They all seem to be in the 110-120 range as of right now.
  12. I pre-ordered the 2-player set, but I guess I didn't look closely enough at the bonuses because that doesn't include the Quebec, it is the Newfoundland Battleship... a ship which I can't seem to actually find in the shop or mentioned in the email. Is it a renamed lend-lease from another ORBAT? Hmm... I really want that Quebec, but I don't actually see any way to get it other than to order the individual Canadian box... but I want both DoC and STO and don't need two copies of the rest of the ships (at least at this point). And there isn't an individual order for the Quebec or the support box. And it seems the box set doesn't have the corvettes or heavy frigates... maybe I'll see about canceling the order for the box set and instead do both boxes individually... I guess I got a bit too excited. A bit too much
  13. I haven't had time to read everything yet, but they are some amazing looking models. And maybe its just because I'm a sucker for airships, but the Canadian Quebec Armada Class Support Flyer I think jumped to the short list of my favorite models ever. and a short story to make it all the better
  14. But being very narrow is actually an improvement. Taking the example on pg 122, example C is very clear how wider is better, and B could be all-in if it were wider, but example A is probably one of the easiest ones to hit, and in that case the narrower the ship is the easier it is to use. I would think that a wider ship would run into a lot more of example B. It would make it a bit trickier to line up an entire squad on an individual small, or some mediums, but neither of those cases are going to need the full firepower anyway. If you're just shooting at another small, one or two Stolz is all you're really going to need on each enemy. But if you want to link them all then you're probably firing at a large/massive and it should be really easy to get them all pointed correctly there. I think if anything, making a fixed channel forward weapon use the width of the weapon rather than the ship (and in the case of torpedoes, it generally is the entire width of the ship) it would make them much better to use. I'm thinking specifically of some of the larger ships with fixed fore channels like the new Gustav. Although in general, I think the issue with fixed channel weapons isn't that their fixed, but that the partially blocked part is too nebulous. To put a bit of example Example A would technically be partially blocked, but it doesn't make any logical sense. As would C. In both cases the majority of the model is well within the range but doesn't fit the wording to be in-the-open. And then there is B, which is entirely within the channel but there is an obstruction but a very small one. Every other type of LOS would call B in the open, but RAW might imply that B is completely blocked based on the green section of pg 119. Of course those are issues with all fixed channel weapons and not directly to do with the Stolz. But the fix for that isn't to remove fixed channel from everything, or even most ships, it is to fix the way fixed channel LOS/blocking is written. To change the Stolz away from fixed channel is to ignore the real problem, the many ill defined real world situations that come up with the way pg 119 is written. As actually the way pg 119 is written would make the example on pg 122 wrong for example C.
  15. I'm thinking the way you take it out is to figure out how to get it stuck. It is, unsurprisingly, not very maneuverable, with a decent amount of it's move going to minimum movement, you just have to figure out a way to get it to run into an island. Get it to pull a Costa Concordia. Then it gets to see what 80 dice feels like, even it will be afraid of that.