Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.
PrussianJunker

Bombs, And The Changes To Them.

138 posts in this topic

I too am in the 360 camp (and so voted) but here is a reasonable and simple suggestion to counteract the so called buff to many models that allows them to use a weapon they already have...

TF tokens remain unchanged

Models get;

360 degree 4" arc from center of flight stand

allow AA to be used against bombs as if they were rockets

buff and nerf all in one go

too easy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, too easy. The AA is already being used in Counter Attack fire against the flying model(s) doing the bombing - to allow it to fire AGAIN would violate several other rules and conventions already in place that do not allow a weapons system to fire twice in the same activation. So you really don't want to open that can of worms.

4" from the center of some of the Large/Massive flyers would only allow the bombing from the port or starboard sides. That makes an interesting picture! I think you have to keep the measurements from the center of the edges of the base, just as the fixed aft channel is measured now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll give you the base edges (although I have yet to see a flying model with an 8" long flight stand - admittedly, I haven't seen all the new FSA and RoF flyers yet - thought it might be an easy way of representing the lower ballistic arc of the larger models overall lower speed by forcing them to close to almost base contact), but it has already been determined that AA can indeed be used as both counterattack and defensive fire in the same activation (i.e range band 1 rocket attacks from EotBs bombers) so that is NOT changing any game mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, too easy. The AA is already being used in Counter Attack fire against the flying model(s) doing the bombing - to allow it to fire AGAIN would violate several other rules and conventions already in place that do not allow a weapons system to fire twice in the same activation. So you really don't want to open that can of worms.

4" from the center of some of the Large/Massive flyers would only allow the bombing from the port or starboard sides. That makes an interesting picture! I think you have to keep the measurements from the center of the edges of the base, just as the fixed aft channel is measured now.

Actually you could use it in that way, if it's changed to be like that. As we get one use of both Defensive and Counter attack AA in each and every Squadron Activation.

I'd rather Bombs be the Skyship's trump card, as they are fragile little things and once gutted they have few other ways to threaten the enemy forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it might be useful to look at this in scale. Below is a diagram of a WarGyro (large flyer) operating at 1900 ft above a body of water that is all of 200 feet deep.

Bombdrop.png

(Key: The horizontal blue bands are one inch thick, the Gyro is 19 inches from the surface, the green and red wedges together span a total of 8 inches, i.e: 4 inch bombing radius, where they meet the water. Each individual wedge is 2 inches wide at the waterline.)

The game largely abstracts altitude so it is easy to get distracted by picturing the height of the flight stand as being the actual altitude. 1900 feet is not very high at all for a flying machine.

I don't think it is a big stretch to think of basic gravity bombs being dropped out of cylindrical chutes that tilt and pivot in a way analogous to turntable, deck-mounted torpedo tubes. That is a simple mechanism easily within the reach of the technology of the game's background. The bomb does not have to angle very far from vertical to reach 4 inches away.

After looking at it, it does not seem like a big leap of imagination to think that a bomb could land somewhere in a four inch circle measured from the center of a big flyer. Please feel free to download a copy of the picture for personal use if you need to download it to see the whole thing all at once.

But I have a compromise/tweak to suggest:

1) Use the handy blast template to measure whether things can be reached with bombs.

2) Measure from the flight posts or post. (By letting the big flyers measure from either post that helps them a little without making things too hard or too good for bombers or other single post flyers.)

3) Leave dive bombers alone: they still run-up to base contact. (The radius bombing only works for flying machines supplied with stands and posts. And the radius bombing only works with flight stands matching those supplied by Spartan.)

MadDrB likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about ground scale in term of ship scale is misleading. If you want to compare a 4" range to something then it should be other weapon systems ranges as they clearly conform with a different scale, your talking about chuckling bombs 1/8th the maximum range of massive ships main guns!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, Game Scale is roughly 100ft per inch.

Take two guns of the Era from our Earth:

A 12-Pounder Napoleon had an effective range of 1440 Yards, or 43.2".

A 68-Pounder Gun had an effective range of 3000 Yards, or 90".

That's without Sturginium strengthened and lightened cannon barrels, gunpowder and shot.

I mentioned that the scale was divorced from reality, that was meant to point out this fact.

So why should we be using 'dumb' bombs dropped from bays, that can't be 'fired' or 'lobbed' from Capital Vessels, this smacks of a lack of flair and panache the vessels have shown thus far. Few Skyships get a 'gimmick' like a Generator.

These are Bomb-Launchers, not Bomb-Bays, as the term implies a bit more force involved in their exit from the skyship propper.

These could be Air-Mortars, Mechanical-Quarterbacks, EM-Rails or even just a directed shute that has 'winged' bombs that glide a bit before hitting the ground, all of which oculd be found in the Sturginium enhanced mad science we have access to in the Dystopian Wars setting.

Are we all just content to lose out on something that brings some 'fear' back into the Air Cores?

My opponents don't 'fear' my Hawks nor my Eagle, they merely toss errant shells at them until they fall out of the sky.

I don't fear Pflichts or Gewitterwolkes, nor the Tenkei or Inari for they die far to quickly for me to fear them now, should they even show up.

The Icarus and Daedalus are somewhat feared, but they lack bombs and weren't designed with thier use in mind, Instead they carry shields and are decently armed in another fashion.

These are what I've seen in use around the tables in my local shop. FSA is not mentioned as there are no FSA players where I live, the only one gave up after 3 months of total and catastrophic losses and going through 10+ cubes of dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group started playing with 4inches fore fixed/aft fixed for bombs. You can only fire them once per turn (Can't bomb off both angles) and we measured from the base. If you use the center base, most SF have 3 inches of model which equates to basically 1 inch of bombing, making the problem even more frustrating than 4'' fixed aft. Even regular bombers do not have the speed/maneuverability to use their bombs well. This is a problem in my eyes as they are a fantastic weapon system and would give me a reason to take bombers over Inari, which right now there's only some weak reasons to do so.

Realism should not get in the way of game balance. We already have giant flying sky fortresses so realism is pretty much already gone ^_^ Anyways most bombers in real life can shoot their bombs forwards, bet it modern smart bombs that use fins to adjust the angle of descent or WWII area skipping bombs that would literally skip along the surface of the water. Or sometimes they dropped the bomb with forward momentum and drove another direction, but bombing in the movement phase has tons of issues.

Edit: Relevant Wikipedia article about skipping bombs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_bombing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about ground scale in term of ship scale is misleading. If you want to compare a 4" range to something then it should be other weapon systems ranges as they clearly conform with a different scale, your talking about chuckling bombs 1/8th the maximum range of massive ships main guns!

I have long since accepted and embraced the cold, hard fact that "massive ship's main guns" in this Dystopian setting are simply vastly INFERIOR (when comparing ranges) to the artillery from our 'real world' history.

That giant + enormous (henceforth: ginormous) 34 inch bore diameter FSA battleship shell is propelled by an itty, bitty, little, teensie, tiny powder charge (at least by comparison to anything we might be familiar with) and consequently it cannot fly more than 1100 yards. (Three-thousand-two-hundred feet = 1066 or 67 yards = 32 inches = Range Band 4).

Just accept the odd technology limits of Dystopia.. <_< ..you will be so much happier.

It should be noted I would be perfectly happy if the bomb casting ability was limited to a smaller circular template: 3 inch or even 2 inch radius would suit me fine. But I would really prefer to measure from the posts. That would make it so easy to check the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Eagle has 'Bomb Launchers' at both the Fore and Aft Posts, so either post may be acceptable, I've run the 360' arc from the either post.I don't have any other models with me at the moment to check, but the other multipost models could probably be sporting the same. There is precident for sucha thing from a similar case with the Princeton's Rocket Batteries.

Running from the either post has worked so far and since the Large models in question take until Turn 3-4 to close, that little bit of flexibility has not been too 'overpowered' in thier case, and it's far simpler than finding the middle of the unmarked bases the Gewitterwolke/Imperiums arrived with. Especially since it's rare for my group to get a fifth turn in a single day of play.

Also the Medium Models simply have a little easier time lining up a bombing run, combined or not. But we've not had swarms of Medium Flyers to run tests with, and since the Medium flyers that have been taken rarely live past turn 2-3, well I don't see a problem with that either.

Do remember, it's rare for my group to get a fifth turn in a single day of play. So 1-2 turns of use is all we get out of bombs, I can see where this can bring a problem in longer games, but really one can take out flyers with a fair bit of ease, once in bobing range, they are also in boarding range and I've found most flyers weak to counter boarding, even from us K[n]oBs.

One thing worth noting here, the EotBS Incendiary Rockets have a noticed impact on limiting the lifespan of enemy air fleets as they prevent them from benifitting from running obscured. They are still penalised in thier shooting, though the penalities are mostly noted when someone was trying to attack while obscured and the counterattack sets them on fire, yo ho Fuel Reserves.

Now I should let you know how Tiny Flyers have been affected during the testing in our group as well.

Since the Bomb 'changes' made do not affect Divebombers there's no boost, as only models have access to the 4" radius.

The Larger Flyers are still suseptable to a one-two hit from Divebombers using their Bombs and Ack Ack to attack, infact my own Divebombers often B-line to a Gewitterwolke or Tenkei and swarm it before they book it back to an airfield to regroup and resupply.

The one thing that's been seen is that players will take more Fighter wings, though the British DIvebombers are seen in fair droves as well. Also Airfields/Carriers have seen a resurgance as more Tiny Flyer tokens are taken to ward off the other flyers.

The CoA and Prussian players are the ones that can field the most Airpower, followed by the EotBS player, unless I borrow from a chap from out of town I don't get to field much more than my Doncasters and Eagle, unless we 'proxy' with Firestorm Ships that use the same base types. I must admit this is pretty surreal as all but the CoA player also have a Firestorm faction as well. EotBS has Aquans, Prussian has Terran, Both Kob have Soryllian. Funny how that worked out really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group started playing with 4inches fore fixed/aft fixed for bombs. You can only fire them once per turn (Can't bomb off both angles) and we measured from the base. If you use the center base, most SF have 3 inches of model which equates to basically 1 inch of bombing, making the problem even more frustrating than 4'' fixed aft...

I thought Fixed Channel Fore + Aft in the original proposal was supposed to be measured from the front or rear edge of the base? Your group seems to have tested a curious hybrid idea by measuring from the center of the model.

I have to wonder why the restriction on 'dropping' from both channels was used. What was the reasoning behind that?

IIUC your group was waiting until the flyer finished its move (True/False?) to drop any bombs so the 'firing' (dropping) would only have occurred once in the turn(?) even if somehow two targets were lined up. (A ship with fixed channel broadsides can do this if it sails between two targets...but in the games referenced flyers could not?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about ground scale in term of ship scale is misleading. If you want to compare a 4" range to something then it should be other weapon systems ranges as they clearly conform with a different scale, your talking about chuckling bombs 1/8th the maximum range of massive ships main guns!

Then again, 1/4 of maximum gun range is already close enough to impair the targeting reaction of the main guns, and 1/8 is close enough to allow jumppack troops to traverse the gap between ships, comined with the fact that the range of the guns would be something along the line of at least 20+ kilometers, would encourage the notion that the Range Bands are abstract and not equal; the closer you get to to the ship the less each inch actually represents in distance.

My guess would be that Range Band one (point blank range) is about 500 meters(?), otherwise boarding troops and bombs would have a range of 2+ kilometers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess would be that Range Band one (point blank range) is about 500 meters(?), otherwise boarding troops and bombs would have a range of 5+ kilometers.

Range Band one is 244 meters, as is Range Band four. But a better question is why are you hurting your head by using the metric system ;) when pondering a game / rules set / fictional setting that is clearly denominated in Imperial Units?

1:1200 --- One Inch equals One Hundred Feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Range Band one is 244 meters, as is Range Band four. But a better question is why are you hurting your head by using the metric system ;) when pondering a game / rules set / fictional setting that is clearly denominated in Imperial Units?

1:1200 --- One Inch equals One Hundred Feet.

It´s more like you are hurting my head by using imperial units when i´m used to metric :blink: , additionally, when i was looking up the gun ranges of shipborne artillery, everything was measured in kilometers.

I know that the models are in 1:1200 ratio (some at least), but is it actually stated that all distances are meant to be viewed in this ratio as well? Because, that would probably be the shortest firing distance in naval warfare since the beginning of naval warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^the man has a point

Well let’s face it bombs are always drop behind the plane dropping them, even bouncing ones (bonce on the suffice they dont bonce past the plane), as for launchers… that’s all good and well but you would have to launch them with some force, i.e. you will no longer be using bombs but firing short rang high explosives “shells” from a gun, or firing rockets!

Bombs should be aft weapon, as noted you need to be good at the game to make them work… I think some think because the AD is high they should be able to hit with them more, so it should have a bigger ark, I see it as you have to work to get your high AD.

iamgraef likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^the man has a point

as noted you need to be good at the game to make them work…

I agree completely. I'm fine with whatever is decided to be the bombs' arcs, they have a high AD, ignore shields, and can't be fired at with defensive Ack-Ack. They should be a bit tougher to use. There is great satisfaction in your Prussian bombers getting that activation within target range...

While this thread has had some enjoyable reads (and homemade diagrams!), I think it's important for people on the Rules Forums disucssions to remember that we are discussing game rules and how these mechanics relate to the game.... we are not discussing game mechanics in terms of how they relate to the physics of reality or historical record. Sure it's nice to have a game that mimics reality as closely as it can, but the game needs to be a successful self-enclosed system by itself first.

As a side note, this is why I don't think Spartan should have put this issue to a vote: it's a lose-lose result. For those players who are predisposed to complaining, playtesting the 4" arc will now have people complaining its OP, and keeping the rear arc will have people complaining its underpowered. If you want to test out both ways, sure, the more results the better, but don't leave the official decision up to the players.... It should be an optional houserule agreed upon pre-game like any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s more like you are hurting my head by using imperial units when i´m used to metric :blink: . . .

I'm sorry. I blame Bonaparte for the spread of the metric system <_<

I know that the models are in 1:1200 ratio (some at least), but is it actually stated that all distances are meant to be viewed in this ratio as well?

The only official statements I have ever seen from anyone at Spartan about matters of scale have always been: "1:1200". (And I have been looking hard because I do maps and build terrain and the scale of things matters greatly for both activities.)

Because, that would probably be the shortest firing distance in naval warfare since the beginning of naval warfare.

Yes. Exactly. Artillery technology took a hard left turn somewhere around 1750 ... or so ... DW is an alternate reality where some things are just not the same as history.

It amuses and astounds me that so many people happily accept Sturginium and Sky Battlewagons and teleporting and mechanical men (and I could go on) without a blink but then they balk at very short, radically different, ballistics range values.

But of those things the short ranges values are the easiest to explain. Really big shells --- very modest powder charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely. I'm fine with whatever is decided to be the bombs' arcs, they have a high AD, ignore shields, and can't be fired at with defensive Ack-Ack. They should be a bit tougher to use. There is great satisfaction in your Prussian bombers getting that activation within target range...

While this thread has had some enjoyable reads (and homemade diagrams!), I think it's important for people on the Rules Forums disucssions to remember that we are discussing game rules and how these mechanics relate to the game.... we are not discussing game mechanics in terms of how they relate to the physics of reality or historical record. Sure it's nice to have a game that mimics reality as closely as it can, but the game needs to be a successful self-enclosed system by itself first.

As a side note, this is why I don't think Spartan should have put this issue to a vote: it's a lose-lose result. For those players who are predisposed to complaining, playtesting the 4" arc will now have people complaining its OP, and keeping the rear arc will have people complaining its underpowered. If you want to test out both ways, sure, the more results the better, but don't leave the official decision up to the players.... It should be an optional houserule agreed upon pre-game like any other.

I cannot agree with you, they are asking our opinion because they clearly do not believe the bombs are game breaking as an ark/radial. And dismissing people talking about real technology and science as a justification for their own arguements and beliefs is dismissing their fair and perfectly valid, as well as for the most part, completely civil arguments for their side of what's going no.

And do take note that most of the vessels that would benefit the most from this need the help.

Small fliers benefit the least because they are fast small and quick to turn: cool they are also rather balanced.

Medium non capital fliers benfit quite fairly: This is OK because they are in poor shape right now as with the debuff to their ability to avoid damage above the clouds as well as a lack of speed on some or reliance on low powered foreward weaponry (or otherwise gimped by AA foreward weaponry) the bonus to bombing is A-OK and it makes them into more of bombers and less of some sort of straffing run vessel. Low armor and CR means that the amount of responsive AA from a well set fleet will ruin them if you're not careful anyways.

Medium capitals are already fair but are not nearly so indestructable as they once were, there is nothing wrong with buffing thier firepower a little. Generally these don't want to be clsoe enough to use their bombs as it is, or they specialize in things that mean they don't want to bomb thier primary target.

Large and Massive Vessels are very slow, large vessels are buffed a lot by this when and if they ever get close enough to bomb you. But these vessels need it the most as fleet formation shananagans make it very easy to avoid their attacks where they need to be while maximizing AA pain. Those few vessels that don't need this sort of boost to be effective agaisnt surface cores supporting things like dreadnaughts generally don't have many bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only official statements I have ever seen from anyone at Spartan about matters of scale have always been: "1:1200". (And I have been looking hard because I do maps and build terrain and the scale of things matters greatly for both activities.)

It amuses and astounds me that so many people happily accept Sturginium and Sky Battlewagons and teleporting and mechanical men (and I could go on) without a blink but then they balk at very short, radically different, ballistics range values.

Spartan has never said that ground scale and model scale are equal. Indeed, in Firestorm Armada, they are explicitly stated to be different, which would seem to be a reasonable precedent. Given that the assumption that they are equal leads to obviously ridiculous consequences, why wouldn't you reject that assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^the man has a point

Well let’s face it bombs are always drop behind the plane dropping them, even bouncing ones (bonce on the suffice and bonce past the plane), as for launchers… that’s all good and well but you would have to launch them with some force, i.e. you will no longer be using bombs but firing short rang high explosives “shells” from a gun, or firing rockets!

Bombs should be aft weapon, as noted you need to be good at the game to make them work… I think some think because the AD is high they should be able to hit with them more, so it should have a bigger ark, I see it as you have to work to get your high AD.

I will say though, that planes also don't stop to fire thier weapons either, so the whole 'aft' bit has bugged me.

I'm not saying I'm a godly strategist, but they don't get used because the models either don't last, or are too slow to be used in an average 4-turn game.

I will say that I usually make the points I put into my Doncasters back before they are wiped out, as they make surprisingly good 'Assault' units but I never get to use thier iconic weapon system when using the aft channel.

I cannot agree with you, they are asking our opinion because they clearly do not believe the bombs are game breaking as an ark/radial. And dismissing people talking about real technology and science as a justification for their own arguements and beliefs is dismissing their fair and perfectly valid, as well as for the most part, completely civil arguments for their side of what's going no.

And do take note that most of the vessels that would benefit the most from this need the help.

Small fliers benefit the least because they are fast small and quick to turn: cool they are also rather balanced.

Medium non capital fliers benfit quite fairly: This is OK because they are in poor shape right now as with the debuff to their ability to avoid damage above the clouds as well as a lack of speed on some or reliance on low powered foreward weaponry (or otherwise gimped by AA foreward weaponry) the bonus to bombing is A-OK and it makes them into more of bombers and less of some sort of straffing run vessel. Low armor and CR means that the amount of responsive AA from a well set fleet will ruin them if you're not careful anyways.

Medium capitals are already fair but are not nearly so indestructable as they once were, there is nothing wrong with buffing thier firepower a little. Generally these don't want to be clsoe enough to use their bombs as it is, or they specialize in things that mean they don't want to bomb thier primary target.

Large and Massive Vessels are very slow, large vessels are buffed a lot by this when and if they ever get close enough to bomb you. But these vessels need it the most as fleet formation shananagans make it very easy to avoid their attacks where they need to be while maximizing AA pain. Those few vessels that don't need this sort of boost to be effective agaisnt surface cores supporting things like dreadnaughts generally don't have many bombs.

I whole heartedly agree with you, I've mentioned I've done testing with my group.

It really did shake up the types of games I've played with them, as Flyers had a way do dish out damage despite being shot to pieces by everything and thier dog's chewtoy. It saw Aerial units being added to lists and in the odd Friendly game we took I finaly faced a 'Prussian Scourge' list using an Imperium, a Blucher, Pflicts and Arminus. This is after all but the CoA flyers and my set had been 'banished' from the board since November/December, and flyers have been taken since then.

I consider this to be a huge and positive change.

It´s more like you are hurting my head by using imperial units when i´m used to metric :blink: , additionally, when i was looking up the gun ranges of shipborne artillery, everything was measured in kilometers.

I know that the models are in 1:1200 ratio (some at least), but is it actually stated that all distances are meant to be viewed in this ratio as well? Because, that would probably be the shortest firing distance in naval warfare since the beginning of naval warfare.

I see you on the Metric/Imperial, I've been born and raise Metric, though I'm decent at fractions so Imperial's easy enough to understand and I've had to learn it through work and hobbies.

The Archaic nature of it's use of fractions still bothers me, I like the simplistic elegance of decimals.

I will say that sea conditions plays a huge part in the effectiveness of naval weapons. In the olden days of sail and cannon balls, one could reasonably fire a 12-pound cannon roughly a 1000 ft or more when it's used as a field piece, but in a naval engagement on the waves, one could reasonably get maybe 300 ft out of the same kind of gun and still hit accurately.

I'm assuming of course that the ships we command in Dystopian Wars are a bit more 'stable' as platforms though, allowing for more accurate shots at range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always felt that the scale for distance was RB4 = Horizon or roughly 3" is a mile.

32/3 is 10 and 2/3rds. This means that you have estimated the horizon to be ... let's call it 11 miles away. I am genuinely curious how you decided on that distance for the horizon.

09c3a696f80a0d375ba87cd30b15a94f.png (This is the math formula for the distance to the horizon in case you are curious. BTW, I am not any sort of a math genius --- I just know how to look stuff up. BTW #2, in your example " d " is 11 miles and " h ", the height of the observer, is approximately 77 feet.)

Please consider that Scout Gyros would enjoy a far more distant horizon than Frigates.

Spartan has never said that ground scale and model scale are equal. Indeed, in Firestorm Armada, they are explicitly stated to be different, which would seem to be a reasonable precedent. Given that the assumption that they are equal leads to obviously ridiculous consequences, why wouldn't you reject that assumption?

Nail, I believe you when you say "...Spartan has never said..." anything about the ground scale. To answer your query:

It is right there in my previous post. A new mysterious quasi-magical element with an atomic number of 260 is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more 'ridiculous' than giant cannon that can only shoot 1100-ish yards (or 3200 ft -or- 32 inches -or- RB4). You included the relevant words as a quote.

Since I am fine with Element 260 (...and robots and steam powered teleporters !! ) surprisingly short gun ranges are just no big deal. The degree to which I must suspend disbelief is much greater for all things Sturginium.

If you find a reference published by Spartan stating that the ground scale is something other than 1:1200 I want to know about it please. Seriously. That will mightily inform my efforts to build terrain items.

And then there is Firestorm Armada. I don't play that one (but there are one or two models I like so much I may just buy them for the coolness factor). And it has never/would never occur to me to look at those rules when trying to figure the Dystopian rules out.

In these DW rules if my battleship wants to shoot directly at something that is in RB4, intervening ships or islands need to be out of the way. If RB4 was 8 to 11 miles away as Carl chooses to believe intervening ships would matter very little. Only the gun director high up on the battleship needs LOS (and at about 80 feet above the water he'd have LOS) and the shells would be fired at an elevation of 30 degrees (or more) and have no chance of being blocked by ships in the way.

But it does not work like that in this set of rules. Direct fire out to RB4 is a possibility within the Dystopian rules. But any kind of fire past RB4 is not possible. And those two facts together have implications.

Big shells. Miniscule powder charges. Short ranges.

Look up carronade sometime. It feels like to me that all the artillery in this game had the carronade as a direct ancestor rather than proper cannons. It is as if USS Essex defeated HMS Phoebe and HMS Cherub in the Dystopian history. (Essex was armed entirely with carronades and was beaten handily.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. Moderate time lurker, first time poster here.

This thread seems to have digressed onto the matter of ground scale. To return to the original topic, I think that some people have made excellent points about the fact that realism is a distraction here. The real issue is game mechanics. I can see why the 360 degree objectors feel that it is unrealistic but at the same time the fixed channel aft is plagued by two problems:

1. It's also unrealistic because in practice the easiest way to use it is not to fly over the target but to fly past the target and then turn, spitting out bombs onto a location that was never underneath the bomber.

2. More importantly to my mind is that players can and will, both intentionally and inadvertently, block bombing runs by placing additional models behind the first. In real life an airship has no problem flying over a formation of tanks. In DW the fact that you can't place one model on top of another means that every surface vehicle effectively projects a column of unusuable airspace above itself (invisible barrage ballons?!). Under the fixed channel aft it is common for an airship to be unable to drop bombs on an enemy tank because its nose passes over another enemy tank before its tail has cleared the first target. How is it in any way realistic that positioning your forces closer together makes them invulnerable to bombing by enemy aircraft instead of more vulnerable?

My personal preference and house rule is the fixed channel aft or base contact. This way flyers can bomb large formations without overcomplicating matters. I don't see the problem with the concern that a flyer can bomb a target twice with these rules. From a game mechanics perspective the target has to remain unmoved between the flyer's two activations and from a "realism" perspective it just means that the flyer has sacrificed some speed to really hammer its target. Imagine the Star Destroyer passing over the camera at the opening of A New Hope but now imagine not one launch bay but multiple bomb bays along the length of the hull raining destruction on its enemies. If you let a 6" move Sky Fortress pass over you then I think that's what you deserve! :-)

Another way to think of the 360 degree rule would be an element of "fudging" the position. If it's measured from the centre of the model then particularly with the larger models we're not talking about a great shift of position. We've already reduced aircraft to a stop/start, pivot on the spot abstraction of how a real aircraft moves (continuously with smooth curving turns), the 360 arc is basically saying, with the practicalities of placing models that aren't literally flying but held up with clear plastic pegs we're allowing a bit of "wiggle room" for the fact that we aren't able to place the models exactly where the flyer could be/hit once you account for windspeeds, altitude, etc.

Danigma, iamgraef, BigB and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warcradle Studios are looking for active community members to support the forum upon its relaunch!
If you're interested, drop us an email at forum@warcradle.com.