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.
pancakeonions

Official Thread: Chinese Federation

686 posts in this topic

28 minutes ago, Grand-Stone said:

I think all forts should be able to be damaged by rockets...

I think that is their balance for being hit +1 easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jupjupy I hear your pitch. I think that is a good counter argument for the most part!

 

But the reality is the Zhan will be taken down more easily than almost any dread in the game now. But give your opponent 485 VP in the "uber" heavy carrier version you noted.

 

Oh yeah....if prized, that uber version is worth almost 1000 points to your opponent. 970 to be exact.....which is why it has security posts three. So I am going to charge out there with it? And pretty much guarantee losing the game when/if it gets prized? Security three is simply a game balance measure so that this moment of near instant loss on VP isn't simply too easy for the other side to achieve. That is a good design thought.

 

Remember, China has no escorts either. So this weakness to rockets and torps is magnified further. The whole concept of the Zhan was it was this epic near invulnerable thing....and now it is literally fragile. I grant you the offense is fantastic, but the defense is paper thin at best. If Denmark got a dread I would expect it to be harder to score a hit or crit on that the Zhan in this form. That is 100% counter to the concept is it not?

 

There is a lingering psychology to the Zhan that it was ridiculously overpowered. And it was since upon a time for sure...the cost was too low. I am not here to try to give China an unfair advantage! But it has been hit over and over since then....yet the psychology remains, even if no longer so warranted.

 

The Zhan has two things I see going for it currently.

1. Due to redoubtable and tertiary, the Zhan maintains effectiveness while heavily damaged. This is countered by an opponent who either ignores it, or focuses fire on it until it is destroyed or captured.

2. The specialist squadron....which may be broken.

 

But the limitations are extreme! Rugged 2 is the minimum requirement to even make this okay from a design standpoint.

 

 

Gen. Eric likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 10:32 PM, Phant Mastik said:

2 amendments:

the ZMD turrets link to 23/20/17/14

and carrier points are not redoubtable

My apologies for the mistakes, you are absolutely right. The Redoubtable Carrier points was something I had carried over from 2.0, though looking back, that was probably a mistake as well given how the rules were written.

Anyway, I have amended the above post in case anyone catches it :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BuckDharma said:

<stuff>

Of course, I do see your point, BuckDharma, but ignoring it is a death sentence considering it gets deployed rather close to your fleet, and focusing it is not an easy task given it's giant health pool. 

That being said, firstly, Strategic Value does not apply when being prized, not like 870 points is much less considering its incredible value, but not only should you NOT be throwing a carrier 12 heavy dice pool into range of boarders (and especially not ones that can take down 10 elite + 6 or so AA + 3 security posts!), but it is a tactical consideration to know when to let the ZMD take fire and when to get it out of there. 

My overall point was that, while it is easy to crit, yes, it is overall far more difficult to cripple and finish off. While it does not take a lot of firepower to hit it, it is in that spot where any extra firepower would not be pushing for a double crit, maybe at most a damaging crit with some overwhelming dice.

In comparison, other dreadnoughts are almost utterly neutered at around 4, 5 damage, except maybe the Prometheus' energy weapons or the broadsides on the Kanuni.

On the other hand, I don't think the ZMD would be fun to play with or play against at all if it was the other way around: weak attacks but high defenses. Being hard to hit and weak to retaliate, every game will end up being a fest of "ignore the forbidden palace", which is certainly not what we want to happen. Think the Japanese Yurei, except without the cool boarding shenanigans.

Now, at least, it requires strict decision making on each side to figure out how to use it, how to counter it, and what the end goal for each commander should be.

Overall it is a much more tactically pressuring model on both the player and the opponent, and I think with some playtesting and good old trial and error, the ZMD in its current state will be where and what it wants to be in the Chinese navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree mostly also, I think the Zhan is "close", to a good and balanced place.

 

I mentioned bringing her forward only in the sense that was suggested elsewhere...ergo the flame throwers have limited situational/emergency use. It is the gunnery+rockets that make this thing scary. (And potential for carrier actions.) I also agree that in this form, ignoring one is suicide....in two ways. You want to take down that Zhan, especially the maxed out carrier version to rob you opponent of the capability....but also it is now literally easy to crit...so you would be crazy not to.

 

And even at a mere 870 points to my opponent, prizing this is still a really good way to seal the win for them. (I have been doubling strategic value all this time....and apparently wrongly? Son of a.....)

 

I stand by my thought that the one tweak that is absolutely necessary here is at least rugged-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that a Dao cruiser can't have a rocket upgrade. We already have the gun turret, why not the rocket like our battleship. Because it can become to powerful to put in a 2-3 squadron, make it a attachment ( medium, 1 ).  Same stats as the Dao, but with a rocket battery for 80 pnts. Adding it to a Dao cruiser squadron will make it more survivable/offensive

Yasbir and Nicholas like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change Log for the Chinese Federation:

Universal Rules:

  • Rugged Construction changed from all models to only Capital Models

Naval Units:

Jian Battleship

  • Flamethrower reduced from 14/7/-/- to 12/6/-/-

Guan Dao Battle Cruiser

  • No noticeable changes

Wo-Dao Gunship

  • Isolated Systems reduced from +5 to +6

Chui Support Carrier

  • Price Increase from 75 to 90
  • Carrier (4) Changed to Carrier (4, 1X4 Wing)

Dao Cruiser

  • No noticeable changes

Yue Destroyer

  • Flamethrower reduced from 6/3/-/- to 5/3/-/-
  • Pack tactics (+1 Flamethrower) changed to Pack tactics ( Flamethrower)
  • Lost Rugged Construction (1) due to Universal Rule Change

Nu Frigate

  • Price Increase from 25 to 30
  • Lost Rugged Construction (1) due to Universal Rule Change

Aerial Units:

Feilong Sky Fortress

  • Price Increase from 180 to 190
  • Carrier (6) Changed to Carrier (4, 1X5 Wing)

Chi Long Assault Flyer

  • Flamethrower reduced from 9/4/-/- to 8/3/-/-
  • Area Bombardment (Bombs) Changed to Area Bombardment (Bombs, 1)

Luxing Air Bombard

  • Gained Spotter (16")
  • Area Bombardment (Bombard) Changed to Area Bombardment (Bombard, 1)
  • Lost Rugged Construction (1) due to Universal Rule Change

Zhulong Small Interceptor

  • No noticeable changes

SAS

  • No noticeable changes

Armored Units/Fortresses:

Zhanmmadao Dreadnaught Bastion

  • +1 HP
  • +1CR
  • -1 Rugged Construction
  • Due to Change from Armored to Fortification 
  • +1 for enemies to shoot at (rockets and torpedoes can still attack it due to special rule)
  • Flamethrower reduced from 14/7/-/- to 12/6/-/-
  • Carrier (4) Changed to Carrier (4, 1X4 Wing)
  • Upgrade options for Carriers Changed: Carrier (8) Changed to Carrier (8, 2X4 Wing) AND Carrier (8) Changed to Carrier (9, 3X4 Wing)

Shenlong Land Assault Carrier

  • Carrier (8) Changed to Carrier (6, 1X5 Wing)

Tian Long Armored Dragon Robot

  • Price Increase from 135 to 150
  • Flamethrower reduced from 14/7/-/- to 12/6/-/-
  • +1HP
  • Added one more bombard Rocket Battery
  • Turn Template Change from Large turn template to 45 degree template

Sh i Medium Robot

  • Flamethrower reduced from 9/4/-/- to 8/4/-/-
  • Altered Sillouette MAR Removed

Dun Floating Bastion

  • +1HP
  • +1CR
  • +1 for enemies to shoot at (rockets and torpedoes can still attack it due to special rule)

Chao Feng Bombard

  • No noticeable changes

Chiwen Medium Tank

  • Spotter Regular changed to Spotter (16")

Yazi Small Tank

  • No noticeable changes

Fushi Small Robot

  • Altered Silhouette MAR Removed due to rule changes
  • +1AP 

 

 

BuckDharma likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of a blow do you all generally think the loss of rugged construction on our smalls is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moderate blow. Rugged removes successes after they have been rolled. Really any removal of defensive tech on a small weakens it. The changes to the ZMD came right after I finished assembling it, so my CF will sit on the shelf for a while.

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.