>Until the Kickstarter ends
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hawkwargames/dropfleet-commander
17 days left in the campaign
Dropfleet Commander is a space wargame set in orbital environments developed by Hawk Wargames, who are also the developers of the tactical wargame, Dropzone Commander. Dropfleet Commander is a 1:15000 scale game, with models ranging from 70 to 200 mm; see videos below for an example of play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLDc-iWib48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5xe3f5hyGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3e_RNSSST0
Update 15 shows Shaltari ships painted, with their ruleset a little expanded on.
Shaltari ships are just as modular as the other factions, with a lot of different weapons.
the Jade class Frigate seems pretty simple in design, but the number of rings and the weapon chosen can all be modified to produce different weapons. This variant comes with one Gauss cannon, I believe.
Instead of the usual dump shots down onto the planet method, the Shaltari use these Turquoise cruisers to stir up the planets field and generate massive storms and earthquakes in an isolated area, with the Shaltari's impressive tech managing to keep this occurrence centered on a small area.
Shaltari can definitely fight though. This class of ship has three burn through lasers that are supposedly more efficient and damaging then their UCM cousins. Considering how effective 2 weaker lasers proved to be, 3 stronger lasers could be very interesting.
It seems as though Shaltari diverge sharply from other factions by having their motherships carry their troops into battle. This Emerald Class mothership will coordinate with Void Gates to drop troops onto the surface of the planet. These void gates need to be somewhat close to the mothership to work, but can move troops around on the surface if the mothership is gone.
The update ends with promises to show more variants of these ships as they're painted and ready. Safe to assume Hawk really wasn't expecting to have to show these off for a while, considering we haven't gotten information on the scourge ships yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the plans to show them off and detail their weapons systems were replaced by the Shaltari. Doubt many are complaining though.
That's a dumbass name and you should feel bad.
>>43672150
>see update
>rush back to the dorm as soon as class is over to make thread
>it's already been made
Thank you, anon.
I have to say, the Shaltari look very interesting. I'm guessing they're going to be based very, very heavily on spinal weapons? I wonder how Hawk will differentiate between them and the Scourge.
>>43672319
Which one?
>>43672767
The update mentioned the Obsidian frigate had a very narrow attack profile. Shaltari might be a faction of jousting, with a focus on getting shots in then running past enemy ships. Would lead to very interesting moments ehere your guns can't fire and the enemy has a full broadside ready, so you have to use their full power to shields ability.
>>43672849
I'm still trying to think how that's different from the Scourge; I'm guessing they'll fill some kind of brawler role, where they close and stay in pursuit of enemy ships, but that's at odds to their combat philosophy in DZC.
>>43672895
The Scourge, that is.
man shaltari do look good
I feel they will play the opposite of PHR with a very front focused theme, using their better stealth to get a good firing position, they may have better turning ability to help keep them facing the right way
>>43673454
So;
>Turquoise
Planetary bombardment
>Granite and Obsidian
Heavy beams
>Amber and Onyx
Wide front-arc cannons?
>>43673547
Might be the Onyx and Amber have upscaled variants of that giant fuck off cannon the shaltari walker has. The Ocelot I think?
I'm really curious about that Topaz frigate. Wonder if it does similar attacks to Shaltari gates or something.
>>43674064
I believe the shaltari burn through laser is the giant fuck off version of the ocelot particle cannon, which is on the obsidian and granite cruisers
>>43674769
That actually makes a lot of sense. I guess the cannons might be upscaled Gauss cannons then?
>>43675292
that or they might use particle cannons of smaller caliber, or other exotic stuff, I mean in the ground component they have microwave guns, lasers, gauss, and gravity weapons, along with particle cannons
>>43675379
Yea but you could argue that they use many because some of the bigger guns don't miniaturize well.
On the space ships since they are so big you could just cherry pick the most useful.
>>43672150
Those are hideous.
>>43675782
Why do you say that?You're mum is hideous
>>43675782
I feel like the alien ships are a little too alien. The designs rely way too much on tiny rib patterns.
The Human ships are ace, though.
PHR frigates when.
>>43677249
Never. Glorious PHR uses jet-packed Hades' for that.
>>43672895
Scourge want to get close to use the Scald rule, Shaltari on the other hand want to finesse their low profile ratings to attack from longer ranges than they can be attacked back from.
On the other hand, in order to get a substantial range advantage they'd probably want to goad the enemy into going weapons free, so you'll need ships in a close melee with their Shields up, maybe use the Void Gates to teleport them out before they get too damaged? Or teleport them to a position more advantageous.
I think Void Gate shennannigans are going to heavily shape Shaltari tactics, much like they do in DZC.
>>43672150
Boring game,boring minis, boring fluff, boring prices.
>>43677937
Forgot your depression pills today?
>>43677937
Full rules aren't out yet
Shit taste
Shit taste
They're not boring, they're outrageous
>>43677970
Warmachine has objectively better:
>prices
>balance
>rules
>depth
>models
>fluff
You guys are almost as delusional as GW kids.
>>43678261
>Warmakiddies shilling
Maybe we don't want to play stompy steam punk fantasy mechs; maybe we want to play what BFG should have been with cool space ships.
>prices
It's all expensive, what's a few dollars more.
>balance
The game isn't even out yet, nigger.
>rules
THE GAME ISN'T EVEN OUT YET
>depth
NOT EVEN OUT YET
>models
Subjective, but you have shit taste regardless
>fluff
I read the warma fluff once, I puked from how bad it was.
>>43678261
>mentions warmachine
And that's how we know it's a terrible le meme shitposter. Do not answer, to not pay attention, let him chew on page 5.
>>43676020
But that's the point, they're aliens. And the pattern is how the Shaltari design all of their armor, so it's not like it's out of place.
>>43678399
Sure kid. Good luck getting a game or a tourney at your store with you le ebin flying machine game.
I tried a demo of this and was floored by how boring it was and the models made me want to fall asleep. What do I care. I have a tournament this weekend and please believe I'm going to play like I got a pair.
>>43678722
>Good luck getting a game or a tourney at your store
>implying half the fun in wargaming isn't painting
>I tried a demo of this and was floored by how boring it was and the models made me want to fall asleep
Anon, no you didn't, since the game is currently limited to in house testing.
>>43678758
DZC which this is a sister game to.
>>43678845
Well we're not talking about DZC, now are we?
>not liking DZC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bVY7tN1JZ0
>>43678861
DZC is pleb tier. Hoping this game will be any better is like a GW fanboy hoping his next edition of 40shit will finally fix its cancerous problems.
>>43678722
>Kid
Thank you. Once you hit 30, it's so rare people still call you that. Almost makes me feel like I'm 22 and give a shit about tournaments still.
>>43678985
oh please like warmachine isnt basically just a shittier version of mtg with models get your skipped legday robutts out of here you glorious ass
>>43678985
>DZC is pleb tier
>>43679034
>le ebin age meme
>le tournaments don't matter
How's pleb life treating you? Again I say "play like you got a pair."
>>43679102
oh man you're gonna quote your super edgy first page of your rule book now..
>>43679102
I've got a pair, I don't need to substitute warjacks for it, honeybuns. Wanna check it up close?
>>43679102
>>le tournaments don't matter
>willfully turning wargaming into mtg shittery
>>43679133
LOL I just looked that up. I didn't realize that was really their motto.
I have heard good things about Warmachines rules, but their models and fluff are complete shit. And they fucking charge GW prices for that crap.
>>43679288
Eh, IK fluff is actually pretty excellent once you get into the details. And Warmahordes armies almost always work out way cheaper than 40K.
But this guy is clearly a troll trying to fluster asses. He probably doesn't even play Warmahordes.
>>43679358
WMH is cheaper as you need less models, but per model cost is the same or worse as GW (which most companies are actually.)
>>43679358
I know overall its cheaper, but I don't think the stuff is worth it. Though from my understanding you basically play for the solid rules.
Back to the topic at hand. It looks like all the Shaltari ships have front firing arcs and no side mounts from what we have seen so far. If they have a lot of speed and long detection range they could be really tricky to fight as they kite you with their ships weakening all your key stuff before you are in range.
All the factions sound pretty unique and cool. I am really eager for some more game play footage once the KS ends so we can see how it all comes together.
>>43679524
I wonder if lateral and/or vector movement is going to be part of the game; it'd be an excellent homebrew if not.
>>43679524
It is worth noting that with a minimal rate of movement and a maximum turn of degrees, you will inevitably get closer to the enemy then you would like. I expect the difference between a mediocore shaltari player and a great shaltari player will be management of that movement.
>>43679568
It doesn't feature momentum. I'd say it's a safe bet that there's no lateral thrust.
Incidentally, Attack Vector: Tactical is a pretty interesting game system, though far too complicated to ever find someone else to play with.
>>43679664
This; you'd have to focus on turning just as much as necessary, while moving as much as possible, so that you don't accidentally end up pointing straight at the enemy ship with no choice but to close quarters.
>>43679687
Well, it sort of features momentum in the "minimum movement distance"; allowing there to be extremely limited lateral or reverse thrust (assuming those ships did a "hold position" order last turn) would be interesting.
>>43679568
It's written by the man behind BFG. It wont feature "hard scifi" elements beyond the notion of targetting signatures (someone finally doing submarines in space instead of WW1 battleships in space)
>>43679846
they already threw out the option for "hard" sci fi when they introduced aliens and FTL, also newtonian drifting is going to be less likely given the game takes place in orbit and you have gravity affects at all times
>>43680331
Gravity will be largely irrelevant in the timescales of these games
>>43680361
I mean for the purposes of manuerving there is a "down" unlike alot of other space based war games, also making transitional movements even in orbit is energy expensive compared to say deep space, IE youd have a harder time just tokyo drifting in high orbit than say deep space
>>43680483
No. If you have lots of thrust and lots of delta-v you can mostly ignore gravity.
Delta-v is delta-v. The only difference between deep space and a gravity well in this regard is your long-term trajectory.
>>43680647
well anywho we dont know how the various factions will move/turn during the game, so far it seems less restrictive than BFG.
I think while it might be more realistic allowing to much free rotation and drifting movement would remove alot of the tactical elements from the game and allow you to basically have your cake and eat it too.
>>43680801
Not especially. You would just have your facing constrained by your direction of acceleration rather than direction of movement.
>>43680801
>>43680851
>mfw some factions get the option for maneuvering modules
>Granite+Maneuvering (Shale?) able to turn on a dime
Speaking of, do we know how moving will work? Does a turn count as up to 90 degrees? 45 degrees?
>>43680911
We do not yet know. I'm sure smaller spacecraft will turn more easily.
>>43680851
this would essentially allow you to constantly turn whatever side of your ship you want to the enemy, negating the point of having weapons on side arcs and making movement a non tactical decision. Given the timescale of a turn in the games setting anyway (troops can be deployed from low orbit to surface in one activation)
In order to accommodate vector thrusting and so forth the game would have to be redesigned from the ground up and have much smaller turn segments which would make it radically different
>>43681227
You do realize that there are already games with unrestricted turning and movement is still a tactical decision, right?
>>43681311
yes those games usually feature terrain which blocks line of sight, when you have a game where there are no such considerations you need to restrict movement and turning or it just devolves into a shooting fest, and winner is whoever has more guns or better dice rolling
>>43681447
There are lots of ways to keep it interesting. In AV:T, for instance, accelerating laterally relative to your opponent makes you more difficult to hit. You also need to consider how close you want to be, how effectively opponents will be able to engage you, and tons of other things. Then there are considerations like armor facings. In AV:T attacks that hit you nose-on have the potential to do a lot more damage because they don't overpenetrate.
Think bigger.
>>43681503
that sounds like a system with more complicated rules for a fewer number of ships which have more detailed stats
This game is on a larger scale and the space combat is not the pure focus of the game, its part space combat, part orbital insertion of troops. In order to incorporate and balance that would require a complete retool of the whole game from the ground up.
Also what is AV:T I am not familiar with this game
I dont think you could really shift the movement rules around too much at this point without needing to retool the whole game, and I dont think it would work well given the setting.
>>43681708
Attack Vector: Tactical
2004 Origins Award Winner
You're right. More rules, fewer spacecraft.
I've already pledged the dropfleet kickstarter. I know as much about it as anyone not involved in development. You're right, the movement rules can't be changed without changing lots of other things, though I do think that Newtonian movement could be incorporated into a game with a level of complexity similar to dropfleet without much trouble. A lot of what makes AV:T work could be simplified considerably to support a larger scale. The true 3D movement would likely get problematic though.
>>43681827
Would be interesting, would probably work better for a system which features more "deep space" engagements so you can not have to deal with movement vectors which result in you crashing into a planet
>>43682029
I think the need to avoid collision with a planet would make it more interesting. It constrains the available trajectories.
>>43682097
oh certainly, im talking from a streamlined fast paced rule set, I dont think you could manage that with a large number of ships at the same time. At that point its starting to simulate Aerial combat as well, and there are few tabletop games which can do that well, without being clunky for more than a couple of ships/planes
Bumpu
![b2ef6be7d3dba829e868e0b9b57589bf_original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zoXZsRO.jpg "b2ef6be7d3dba829e868e0b9b57589bf_original[1].jpg")
>>43683919
and forgot pic of sexy battleship
>>43683927
I think I'm going to do a very similar paint job, but go for a dark blue instead of that white on the top. Not a huge fan of that white color. Anybody have alternate color scheme plans they want to mention?
>>43683951
I'm thinking of a more neutral-grey body with dark-blue on top, or grey with red. On the other hand, I kind of want to stay with the "official" colors.
>>43683927
>tfw no Houston class yet
>tfw no Cape Canaveral class yet
>>43678985
now in all-seasons mode...
>>43672251
I have no interest in this wargame, and I am only posting to say the general shape of this ship in particular Is 100 times better than the others in this group with their stupid green spherical highlights
This could be improved if they dropped the orange and ribbed theme, for a reflective liquid metal, or black obsidian, or even fucking bone and sinew, and I almost always hate bone and sinew
Hell bone and sinew would make sense with the ribbing
Looking at the other units/armies from this publisher look fucking horrid. With the Scourge Desolator the only runner up, how the hell did they run into a single good design among all this shit?
>>43684408
Additionally, this wargame has a fucking mad max faction.
I can't even take this seriously anymore
>>43684408
>>43684427
Well that's just like your opinion man.
>this... ribbing
Good thing the models come unpainted.
>Looking... shit?
A matter of subjectivity; personally, I like all the models.
>>43684502
I was just judging the foot they put forward to be judged
thanks for addressing the mad max faction
>>43684533
>thanks for addressing the mad max factionWe don't talk about the resistance.At least no one with taste does.
>>43684541
but when I apply that taste to everything else it's just an opinion huh?
>>43684689
>but when I apply that taste to everything else it's just an opinion huh?
Yes? It is also my opinion that people who have taste don't discuss the Resistance.
>>43684701
the point would be, then you can't just dismiss it as an opinion
>>43672150
WOW, those look even worse than I imagined.
Please, don´t tell me that they pay someone for theses designs.
>People not liking the shaltari
It's like you fagoots only want the same 3 designs over and over in every game.
>>43684408
Have you seen the Shaltari in DZC? These ships fit the races' aethetics. You don't like bright orange colors and shiny green jewels, okay. The good news is these come unpainted so you can do them however you see fit. Cant help you with the ribbed part cause that shit is for your pleasure.
> fucking mad max faction
You say that like its a bad thing. Plus technicals are a real thing now. Toyota pickups are the best warmachines ever conceived.
>>43685109
Oh no, I get they've got a theme they're running with, and that they're aliens and all. I guess I just don't know how much I like everything looking like a starfish.
>>43684408
>Looking at the other units/armies from this publisher look fucking horrid.
>UCM units look horrid
>PHR units look horrid
>Scourge ships look horrid
Confirmed for troll.
One man cannot possibly have this much shit taste.
143K left until our goal. We are pretty close. They said they are going to be adding in some more stretch goals. I wonder what else they are going to offer?
>>43686375
we should see a large bump when the other battlecruisers are unlocked for add on
Shaltari ships look as shit as their ground forces!
>>43684006
>no Achilles class battleship
>>43687251
On the other hand, it IS packing a missile that can kill a Battleship. So there's that.
Besides, we still haven't seen Priam, Aggememnon, Paris or Oddysseus yet. Or Theseus, Iason, Hercules or Aoelus.
>>43687466
I would really like something badass named Diomedes
>>43687484
I'd go for a supercarrier or mothership called the Argo, or an AWACS frigate called the Lynceus.
>>43687533
God, now that I think about it, Iason and the Argonauts was like the original ratpack roadtrip adventure.
>All the collected stars of Greek Mythology get together
>It's a heist
>Iason is a dick
>Seriously Zeus tier dick
>Has to fight a Hydra and then Skeletons at the end.
Seriously, it's like every Ratpack film ever.
>>43687533
>the Argo
Heh'd
What was Odysseus' ship?
>>43687586
We don't know, it's not mentioned. Although he actually started the Oddessy with 12.
>Just like in DZC, people either love or absolutely detest the Shaltari
Like clockwork.
>>43687780
I actually found my interests in the aesthetics reversed. The Scourge and UCM fleets look better to me than the PHR and Shaltari fleet, while for DZC I vastly, vastly prefer the Shaltari and PHR forces.
That said, I like PHR overall best. Would still prefer to go in with PHR and Shaltari. But the 2-player starter fleet is too good a deal to pass up since I'll have to build a player group from the ground up.
>>43688009
>I actually found my interests in the aesthetics reversed
Exact opposite for me; I like the UCM and Shaltari the most in DZC, and I like the UCM and Shaltari the most in DFC.
>mfw the Shaltari battle-ship is a five-pronged monstrosity that would make the Aquan blush.
>>43688192
That just gives me the want to do a weird backwards narrative campaign where we switch sides for fleet battles and land battles.
It's a terrible idea. It would be amazingly fun though.
I have no models prior to this kickstarter though.
>>43688009
>>43688192
UCM and PHR look great. The Scourge and Shaltari ships look fucking terrible. Xenos get out.
>>43688397
PHR isn't a -bad- aesthetic. It's just not really for me. I'll learn to love it for fluff sake and because dat Hades.
>>43688397
>not liking space squids
>not liking space hula hoops of doom
Personally I like them all at army scale, except Shaltari are a little worse than the rest, still passable, but I see huge differences in aesthetic quality at ship scale.
UCM >>>>> PHR, Shaltari >>>>>> Scourge
>>43688825
>>43688487
While I like the PHR cruisers shown, I do wish they were almost reversed from their ground play style. What if in space they were closer to BFG Eldar and flew fragile, agile and deadly ships?
Shaltari could be dark Eldar tier, so even more skewed, and UCM could have the highly armored tankers. Scourge could be medium ish
>>43688915
PHR having fragile anything doesnt make sense. They are the super minority faction, and while a juxtaposition with their ground forces might be interesting from a meta perspective it makes no sense from a background. The PHR are basically over armor and over weaponize all their ships because they just dont have enough to go around, same goes with ground troops
>>43684533
>>43684427
>>43684408
you need to learn the difference between, something looks poorly designed and is a poor design with bad quality, and I dont like this aesthetic it doesnt float my boat.
the Models for DFC are not poorly designed or poorly made or bad quality with little detail, YOU just dont like that aesthetic personally
There is a difference between: it looks like shit, and: I think it looks like shit. One is an objective statement, the other subjective. Please keep that in mind
>>43689291
It would make perfect sense if they had minimal crews on board and were focused on not getting hit in the first place. Eldar are even more minimal in regards to the Imperium and they did it fine (and were OP as shit)
Update 16: New Stretch Goals
£370k – Activation card pack
£390k – (Free to all Backers) Deluxe rulebook extras for all rulebooks
£400k – UCMF Admiral T-shirt
£415k – (Free to all Backers) Desktop and screen saver assets download pack
£425k – (1 Free to each High Rank Backer) Civilian Cruise liner (ship and base)
£440k – Eden Prime Map pack
£460k – Deluxe cluster upgrade pack (resin)
£475k – Dropfleet Commander Poster range
£500k – Frigate Bonanza
£525k – ???
£550k – ???
£575k – ???
Final Day unlock: (Free to all Backers) Dropfleet Commander KS exclusive T-Shirt
>>43689400
yeah but like everything else in 40k the Eldar were incredibly set in their ways, There is no reason you cant have very light crews on ships which are also heavily armored and armed because you believe in maximum surviviability of all assets, and expect to be outnumbered at all corners so you also need maximum firepower. The PHR are not the eldar faction they are the Space Marine faction, forever outnumbered, but our Armor and Guns are superior. The shaltari will likely play closer to the eldar if anyone, having paper thin armor without their shields up, making surgical strikes with very focused but potent weapons and out maneuvering all comers. Scourge are basically Orks + Dark Eldar maximum dakka, minimum range, cant take a hit to save their life, so we brought more backup. UCM= Imperials (mostly guard)
>>43689487
I know, I just thought it'd have been an interesting dichotomy since PHR seem to be able to show up out of no where even more easily than Shaltari.
I'm sure with the DFC book it'll change but so far the PHR has barely even engaged the UCM in space and when it does it overwhelmingly annihilated them
>>43689530
well they may be able to set up ambushes due to some tactical nonsense that makes harder for them to show up on sensors, the game will feature command cards and PHR always had some of the most annoying, haha going to shoot at my hades, nope now its cloaked, also you shoot your own dudes by accident woops..
>>43689530
>PHR seem to be able to show up out of no where even more easily than Shaltari
I think that's more to do with them not needing foldspace nodes to jump accurately. They're more maneuverable on a macro-scale than UCM ships (I won't be surprised if they have better turning in-game too, though. Most of their guns are on the sides of their ships, after all), not necessarily on a micro-scale.
Even Shaltari need either nodes or a void gate at their planned destination, IIRC.
So the PHR can jump wherever they want with their fuckoff dreadnought-like ships, open fire, then jump away to wherever they want.
>>43689609
>>43689705
That would be a neat way to reinforce the cruiser emphasis is if PHR cruisers weren't only heavily armored but more maneuverable in turning and had lower signatures than ships in their class
>>43689749
I'm relatively certain that they'll probably have a higher base scan range than everyone.
PHR doctrine is to shoot the shit out of people from well beyond their enemy's effective range.
>>43689472
>Eden Prime Map pack
I'm hoping this means the entire planet.
>>43690414
thats what i sounds like, at least all the relevent parts, gotta take them polar ice caps man
>>43690476
>It actually is the entire planet
>mfw you can place them down to make a 40' by 40' super map
>it comes with an extend-o-claw just to move models
>10,000+ point equivalent.
>DFC: Apocalypse edition
>>43690582
buy 30,000 points of each faction in DZC as well.. 6 month long 24 hour grueling campaign, results added to the lore.. maybe someday..
>>43690819
>only 30,000 points
Anon, the UCM strike carrier carries 100-200 (depending one whether the launch bays carry one or two medium drop ships); Assuming 250 points of units per medium dropship , and assuming the UCM takes a minimum of 4 strike carriers, that's between 100,000 to 200,000 points worth of units; and we both know that 4 strike cruisers isn't going to cut it on a planetary scale.
And keep in mind, these are just the light vanguard forces, without the motherships which deploy the heavy dropships.
DZC is on a 1:150 scale; DFC is 1:15000 scale; multiplying the points cost of a DFC fleet by 100 seems like a fair approximation of the DZC forces it's carrying.
>>43690900
yeah but an entire strike carrier force isnt going to deploy to a single battlezone, you only need the forces in a multiple city bock zone, and so forth
>>43691327
>not having all DZC games running simultaneously in unique and hand made environments
Wow what a pleb.
>>43691491
200,000 points is enough to have 100 4000 point games
>>43691678
yeah ignore this im retarded
>>43672150
Yeah...I was kind of torn over the UCM designs not being great but every other fleet is just pure sex. I am backing at Commodore level and I'm going to go heavy into one of the races for my bonus and I don't know which one to go for now.
>>43678261
>imblyign XD XD
You can play more than one game you know. That and the fact this'll be similarly sized to Battlefleet Gothic and Firestorm Armada means it'll probably work out cheaper than a Warmahordes army
>>43679664
This. I'm also a Firestorm Armada player and the Shaltari are setting off some real Dindrenzi/RSN vibes in that you've got to be careful to time your advance to prevent part of your fleet sticking out too far and getting cut off.
Incidentally why do Hawk have such a passive aggressive thing going on with Spartan? IS it a GW/Mantic thing?
>>43689291
>you ... mind
as has already been agreed, is that it is an opinion
Anyone who makes a statement like those is making the assumption that everyone will understand its an opinion
Only mentally bankrupt philosophers need to have that explicitly stated, not to mention it was never stated to be fact, so I'm not sure why you needed to attack it like it was stated as such.
however
Mad max pushes that opinion almost to obvious consensus, and certainly makes accepting everything else harder due to breaking immersion, and a huge gap in visual consistence
Additionally aesthetic made entirely from excessive useless detail, garish shapes and colors, and bland unimaginative repetition, is rarely ever considered a good aesthetic by any standard
>>43678261
false flag
>>43692407
I think Dave worked at Spartan at some point and left to make his own stuff due to irritation over how they do things (could be wrong not 100% on this)
>>43684787
Right? I'm not a huge fan of Shaltari, but at least it's a breath of fresh air for wargaming. And there's a reason the factions are styled differently.
>>43692483
really not sure what you saying, are you suggesting that a faction of people with cobbled together war vehicles made from old military equipment and civilian vehicles fitted with armor plates and randomized weapons is immersion breaking, or odd? I cant tell..
>>43687251
>>43687466
I'm hoping for a Gilgamesh class battleship.
>>43692720
That'd make sense, they've got this kind of 'yeah fuck huge ships *cough Spartan*' thing going on. I actually Love FSA but my favourite wargame of all time was BFG so I guess I just love spaceships.
>>43692845
Wrong mythology isn't it?
>>43692816
you better be joking
>>43692407
>Incidentally why do Hawk have such a passive aggressive thing going on with Spartan?
They do?
>>43692923
im not joking i dont understand why you find it immersion breaking that there is a faction in a near future war game whos military aesthetic is essentially whats going on in syria right now/what happened in libya?
>>43692483
>Mad max pushes that opinion almost to obvious consensus
Considering that most people with taste enjoy the Mad Max films, you'd probably find that the consensus would not be in your argument's favour.
Additionally, while I'm not a huge fan of the Shaltari ships, DFC/DZC has probably one of the best design teams in the business. Each faction has a strong, instantly recognizable aesthetic that points to their strengths and weaknesses on the table. None of them look quite generic - even the UCM, the 'generic' faction - and they all have design quirks that set them apart. All weapons are modeled, and the function of most parts of a model is implied by the design.
Basically, you got some shit taste there mate.
>>43692887
Yeah.
That said, most of the Classical epics borrow from Sumerian written tradition. Everyone except maybe certain East Asian nations borrows from Sumerian written tradition in some way.
>>43692929
They seem to, though most of it comes across in third party articles so I don't know how much is editorialising. Normally games companies avoid direct comparisons to competitors, I think partially out of politeness and partially because we're nerds and tend to hoover up merch from multiple companies, but Hawk frequently gets compared to Spartan and nearly always to Spartans apparent detriment. Some of that is obvious; The Drop* Commander and Firestorm* games are trying to do the same thingso there will be comparisons and, let's face it, Planetfall is now an awesome game. However it just felt like there was some beef.
>>43693005
*not an awesome game.
>>43693005
>>43693030
>Hawk starts off with ground, moves onto space
>Spartan starts off with space, moves onto ground
Hilarious desu senpai
>>43692976
Mad max is fine, mad max is not fine in a space faring scifi theme wargame
The only thing I though when I saw the mad max faction was "is this meant for a different game?, like warhammer and warhammer 40k?"
>>43692968
>understand word for word
>claim to not understand
>[doubt]
>>43692923
Given that it happens all the time in real life I'm genuinely curious as well. Not sure why you would think anon was joking.
>>43693080
>>43693005
To be fair Ive seen repeated statements that DFC is not trying to directly compete with other space based games by trying to do what they do but better, they seemed keen to differentiate it by having new mechanics and a different setting and objectives rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
To my understanding most of the combat in FSA takes place in "deep space" with nebula and asteroid belts as terrain, rather than DFC which will be almost exclusively in orbit (could be wrong)
>>43692887
So far we've only seen cruisers.
I'm betting frigates and capital ships draw from different mythologies. PHR ground units certainly do.
>>43693088
How is it not fine, do you even understand the context of the "mad max" faction and what they represent, because you dont seem to apparently understand any of that. They also dont have a space fleet component.
>>43693088
The Resistance aren't spacefaring. They're the underground populations of various subjugated worlds. They fit the setting just fine.
Especially considering they have an MBT that looks like a standard MBT.
>>43693005
Because Spartan have fucked up royally after almost redeeming themselves with Firestorm and Dystopian 2.0s. They are a mile wide and an inch deep before abandoning their systems.
Dystopian legions is DOA, planet fall is dead. Halo fleet battles is on permanent clearance on mini market. Spartan is an example of what not to do in miniatures
>>43693088
You do realize that Resistance isn't space-faring, right?
It's a bunch of guys living in caves under the ruins of once glorious cities.
>>43693133
Yeah you're right, they're aiming for high orbit combat with gravity and such, FSA basically plays pretty much like BFG so it's mostly deep space. Still, they did rush out those troopships and they have a game that's a broadly similar scale in each type now so I can see things feeling a little cramped. It wouldn't surprise me if Spartan got the planetfall fleets out in response to the first rumblings of this.
>>43693088
The mad max faction makes perfect sense in universe. They have an entire expansion book dedicated to explaining it. Why are you dumb?
>>43693149
All of the UCM ships are named after cities; all the Scourge after monsters; and all the Shaltari after minerals and gems
>>43693252
So? Gilgamesh is a mythological hero.
>>43693267
Ah, but all the PHR ships are specifically named after Greek heros, and there's no reason to believe that this would change for different ship classes (since it didn't change for UCM, Scourge, or Shaltari)
>>43693267
Possible the PHR could have a gilgamesh, their ground units drew from greek, egyptian, and norse gods/mythology, no reason they couldnt get some Sumerian stuff in space
>>43693192
I never got Spartans lack of an attention span. I've thought of buying their stuff before and then was like "Nope they'll leave this game to rot in another year" and I've always been right.
>>43693633
Seriously it's very disappointing to me. Dystopian wars is fun as fuck and I loved it when it first came out since it had good models, fun lore and was quite inexpensive. Had a decent group up here to play it. Then they started putting out more and more game systems (I only bought a starter box for legions) and just throwing them away.
>>43693633
I love FA, loved it since 1st edition, I would wish nothing more than for Spartan to bankrupt and sell the rights to a good company.
>>43693633
Agreed. I really wanted to get into FA with the relthoza, and I liked the general threads that would pop up now and then around here. But every time I thought about it, the feeling of abandonment just stuck out at me.
The minis are cool. A shame Spartan doesn't do much with them.
>>43694393
FA itself isn't abandoned, in fact it's what Spartan desperately clings to trying stay afloat. The new models look good too
>>43694476
Do they? The terquai are hit with elephantitis something fierce.
>>43694924
I was thinking of The Relthoza but the Terquai dread looks p cool
so, now that we've seen a bit of every faction and can guess at all their playstyles, where is everybody leaning? What faction do you most want to play?
For me, the Shaltari look really fun and interesting. I really want to try out their narrow attack profile, all shields forward approach and see how it goes.
>>43699003
PHR, I want to cross the T with mega broadsides gunned by robots
So the maps are supposed to be double sided paper. I figure they are the same material as the DZ ones.(which I don't have)
How do these hold up to wear and tear? Do you guys think these are going to be worth it?
>>43699003
UCM for me. I like the looks of those ships and the all arounder play style. I want to use a bunch of lighter frigates to zip around the board with one or two heavy ships that can take a beating to be anchors.
>>43699003
I'm going with all 4 through Commodore; I'll probably focus on one (at a time) after I play test all factions with some friends.
>>43699003
UCM look good, but I think I'll go for PHR. I really like the long range quality over quantity mentality and the focus on larger ships. I also really like the focus on both forward and broadside weapons as opposed to turrets. I figure I can get set up a cruiser with a fore burn-through and some hangar space and have it lay down covering fire while the bombers move in, or have drop ships with no fore weapon focused on big broadsides to get anyone contesting the landing zone to piss off right quick.
All that plus the distribution of weapon modules really removes a lot of the temptation to go weapons free except in situations where I'm already in close range.
>Shaltari are beating the fleet to hell as they aproach
>They close in and start to turn away for a second attack run
>Front line of ships move ahead and pass between them
>Weapons free
>LOOSE THE BROADSIDES, EXECUTING YARHARHAR.EXE
>>43699003
Scourge. No matter how stupid their stuff looks when I first see it, I somehow always come around to loving it.
>>43699501
They sure have that pull sometimes. Too bad their style hasn't been elaborated on much. The battle videos seemed focused on the UCM instead.
>>43700997
if the table top is anything to go by, their style will be 2fast2furious in your face with maximum dakka, also fear our frigate swarm
>>43701551
I really want frigate spam to become a thing for Scourge. Yokais as far as the eye can see.
I like the similarities between the UCM and PHR ships. Showing the shared history, of being humans an all, while the alien ships are exactly that, alien.
>>43699436
>I figure I can get set up a cruiser with a fore burn-through and some hangar space and have it lay down covering fire while the bombers move in, or have drop ships with no fore weapon focused on big broadsides to get anyone contesting the landing zone to piss off right quick.
I think the PHR Heavy Carrier is packing a quad of Hangars and twin Burn Throughs isn't it? Lemme look it up.
Yeah, Bellerophon class.
>UCM dreadnought
>Macross, but with rail guns on railguns that shoot railguns on railguns.
>PHR dreadnought
>2x2 or 2x3 broadside slots, and a FUCKHUGE doom laser
>Scourge dreadnought
>Fucking eats shit whole and spits it out as plasma
>Shaltari dreadnought
>oh hey look I just wormholed half your fleet into a sun :DDD
What are you're predictions.
>>43703948
The way you've phrased the broadside slots I assume you mean PHR dreadnought would have the same guns as cruisers? I could see two slots like that, with the main weapons being much cooler.
Battleship will probably just be a megacruiser like the Beijing
>>43703551
We'll have to see the effective range on fleet launch assets to know whether that's a great idea or not.
>>43704093
>PHR battleships and dreads can mount broadside lance batteries
"Alright, shooting at you with 6 4+ burn throughs with strength 2"
>>43704115
Also how they work.
They've made it sound like fighters/bombers provide buffs and debuffs rather than being extremely damaging.
>>43704343
Bombers act as mobile close in weapons; not sure if they can be shot down or not.
Fighters can be attached to a ship, boosting its PD; not sure if they can act independently and shoot down bombers and torpedoes in-transit.
>>43704190
>>43704570
>nano-virus munitions
>reroll on a one, hit on 4+, roll two more die on a six
Update 17; Hawk is answering questions in the update 17 comment section at 6:30 GMT today.
Some info on the Shaltari:
>The Shaltari are, similar to Dropzone Commander, all about your decisions and making the right tactical choice at the right time. While this can be said of all the factions, the Shaltari have the extra mechanic of the 'Shields up!' rule, which means you can have a small signature and low armour, or a huge signature and much more armour, but not both. When you use this order, and how you position is key. As some of thier most potent weaponry is also only front facing, manoeuvre is also hugely important, but if you get it right (again, as with al factions) it will be devastating.
>>43707776
You know, reading this, I'm starting to think that the Shaltari would have more of a "Strafing" style of play; come in hot towards target at full speed with shields up; weapons free; then speed away at full speed with shields down; then repeat.
>>43708089
It could be full speed, weapons free, speed away, TELEPORT VIA VOIDGATE (turning around is for primitives), do it again.
>>43708604
>TELEPORT VIA VOIDGATE
While that sounds cool, I think the voidgates are for ground forces only.
If I'm taking this correctly, it seems that the Shaltari keep all their ground units in the Mothership, and do not have strike frigates; in exchange however, the mothership can deploy troops to clusters adjacent to it, and adjacent to void gates. In addition, the voidgates allow for ground forces to redeploy to any other void gate.
TL;DR:
)all ground units concentrated in mother
+easier to defend
-eggs in one basket
-can't deploy as many per turn as you could with more strike carriers
)voidagtes deploy units
-if the mothership is destroyed, no more units
+units can redeploy from one gate to another, allowing you to react fluidly and redeploy to whatever cluster the enemy is trying to take.
![26f65ad33b55616c4567150a6b71c5d9_original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rJOgyos.jpg "26f65ad33b55616c4567150a6b71c5d9_original[1].jpg")
Bumping with more Shaltari pics.
![7310a466e0cf3c9015610e1fc94d56ab_original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xitjz62.jpg "7310a466e0cf3c9015610e1fc94d56ab_original[1].jpg")
>>43709827
![2004ea36814c75e07518a2203282d556_original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wNPbx7o.jpg "2004ea36814c75e07518a2203282d556_original[1].jpg")
>>43709851
>>43708889
You're reading it correctly.
Additionally, the void gates need to be 'near' the mothership (or presumably each other) to work.
Bumpu
I'm sorry, did you want to have cruisers? How unfortunate.
>>43714860
I really wish they picked a different angle; the Achilles looks really short in that cap.
>tfw blasting un-evolved humans the fuck out with massive cannons
>>43714860
I'm hoping there's another cruiser with the nose torpedo. Achilles seems like it might not have enough versatility to see a whole lot of use.
>>43714886
Considering the context in which it was released (alongside other cruiser pictures from other angles) I think it's fine.
>>43714886
>mfw puny UCM frigates in range.
>>43714937
>I'm hoping there's another cruiser with the nose torpedo.
I'm still confused on this point. Have Hawk confirmed that only the patterns released in the book are "legal", or will there be a point buy system for non-standard variants?
>>43714986
Only the patterns in the book are legal but we should not assume that we've seen all of the patterns yet.
>>43715023
>Only the patterns in the book are legal but we should not assume that we've seen all of the patterns yet.
Well that's fucking bullshit; what's the point of having modular ships if we're limited to a certain range. I fail to see why Hawk can't implement a point-buy system that affects the ship's overall states per system.
>>43715060
Unless the point buy system is horrendously complicated to account for synergies it can't properly capture the value of the ship. It's better this way, and constraints are good. Constraints encourage creative problem solving.
>>43715023
>>43715060
I mean, for fucks sake, there are 160 possible PHR cruisers (and that's assuming they're symmetrical from prow to stern, and is only counting combinations not permutations) with just the modules we've seen so far; at most, Hawk would put around 20 or so in the book; that's just 1/6 of all "standardized" variants.
>>43715116
Are you implying that's a good thing or a bad thing?
>>43715114
>Unless the point buy system is horrendously complicated to account for synergies
I don't see how it would be that complicated; every ship has a base statline, and adding modules subtract or add (or neither) to relevant stats as needed. Even synergistic, like having four hanger bays on a PHR cruiser, can easily be represented with a special trait (like they did for DZC weapons) like "For every two of this module installed, they count as three modules" or something like that.
>>43715174
Good, obviously; Hawk seems to have gone through a lot of work to make each base ship hull accept various modules, and not playing to that in the rules feels wrong.
>>43715206
It's the system for calculating point costs that would need to be horrendously complicated to be good.
>>43715060
I kind of prefer the current system where the different classes have names
I have no artistic ability thus these games don't pique my interest in the slightest because I'll be stuck with dull gray models that I paid out the ass for.
if I'm paying out the ass for miniatures they better as fuck be pre-painted.
>>43715308
Painting them decently really isn't that difficult if you take a little time to learn.
DFC would be particularly good for learning to paint because the sprues have lots of excess parts that you could practice on.
>>43715308
Pre-painted models look like ass though.
Either you paint them, or some Chinese sweatshop worker does. Even if you suck at painting, at least you will care if it looks good or not. The sweatshop worker doesn't.
>>43715308
>the pre-painted guy is back
M8, this hobby isn't for you if you don't enjoy painting, or aren't willing to commission a painter to do it for you.
And no, there will never be a good wargame with good pre-painted models.
>>43715382
Never is a long time.
There certainly isn't one now though.
>>43715409
>Never is a long time.
The statistical probability of such a game existing at any point in time is arbitrarily small but non-zero.
>>43715382
>x-wing
I'm trying to not get my hopes up for the frigate bonanza, but I think if they even put in a tiny effort for black Friday we could probably get it quick.
Where do,you think it'll end money wise?
>>43716272
Is that really a wargame? I was under the impression that it was more like an open form board game.
>>43716272
>>x-wing
Is meh, and the models are meh to shit.
>>43716345
Hopefully we'll just scratch 500k
Realistically? 425-450k, if that.
>>43716358
It's got a point buy list building system like almost every wargame now days, defined movement, it simulates combat in its respective universe, and has the same type of conflict resolution found in most wargames. It's mostly squadron scale, but has all the features that define a wargame.
>>43716345
I think this mostly boils down to how many people jump in at the last minute, which is hard to predict.
>>43716451
yes, but the models which are pre-painted look about kids toy quality it terms of pre-painting and detail hence >>43715382 is still correct, it may be a good wargame, but the models are not especially great, nor especially painted well. In fact I hear people repaint them all the time. The same goes for Armada, I have seen those also not especially great looking, sometimes the colors dont match. Do not hold a candle to professionally painted wargaming miniatures
>>43672150
I love how hawks models are so form-over-function that you have to seriously question where the ship is under all these busywork details.
Do they actually pay someone for designing this or do they take a basic shape and copypaste all over them?
>Too poor for this myself
>Instead showed friend who has like 3 other minis games this
>He's almost convinced to go all in on the 150 mark
>Get to just play the game with him when the game comes out now
>>43720419
Shaltari is supposed to look flimsy.
>>43720419
Butthurt FA player detected.
Literally the only faction 'form-over-function' could apply to is the Shaltari. And even they give you a solid idea of what they're capable of by their aesthetic theme.
>>43722014
I don't know. The posable fins on Scourge and PHR are pretty silly.
>>43715308
Yes, we know.
Love this game, but it's a bit off-putting just how far off-axis the main engines are from center of mass in some of these sculpts.
>>43722173
Why?
They clearly have a function, and they hint visually at how the ships in question work.
>>43722173
Fins on spaceships aren't dumb at all, handling waste heat is an enormous task on a spaceship let alone a warship with giant lasers. Having retractable heat dissipating arrays is a viable method of handling the issue.
>>43722839
And if there are small thrusters on the ends of them, you get better maneuvering control.
Update #18: Hawk is doing another update in about 45 minutes; 5:30 PM GMT, 11:30 AM CST.
Get ready to post those questions, /tg/.
>>43720419
But the whole point of the Shaltari is there weapons are so advanced they now decorate them and try to make them look as aesthetically impressive to make the stupid lesser species intimidated.
>>43722469
What possible function could they have for the PHR?
>>43722839
Fins 10s of meters thick are for heat dissipation?
Okay. Never mind all of the space they didn't use but could have. Plus they're not retractable. You can just change the angles a bit.
>>43724078
Sure, they're huge and should be on structurally sound appendages. They have to be armored unless you want your crew to cook from having their heat sinks blown off.
And they're retractable in the sense that they can reduce the silhouette of the ship, not telescoping obviously.
>>43724078
are you really complaining about fins on a space ship, really fucking fins. You know why they have pose able fins so you can god damn POSE THE FINS. It adds visual interest to the model and lets you personalize it by posing your god damn fins.
What is with the freakish amount of knit picking that crops up whenever this is mentioned, weve got guys complaining about it using D6s, weve got guys complaining the models are pre painted, weve got guys complaining they use turrets on space ships, someone hates ribbing on anything EVER, now its fins, why do they have fins, I dunno for visual interest, cause bricks sure are exciting.
>>43724173
You realize that if the heat sinks are blown off they take the heat with them, right?
Plus, it would be far more effective to use radiators that can fold behind armor panels. The difference between a radiator folded against the hull and a skin-mounted radiator is negligible aside from the huge amount of wasted mass and materials in the case of the chunky folded one. Then there's the issue that they don't actually reduce the sihouette when they move, can for some reason press them up against each other, and they're labelled "maneuvering fins"
>>43722014
>Literally the only faction 'form-over-function' could apply to is the Shaltari
>>43722173
>The posable fins on Scourge and PHR are pretty silly.
>>43724240
>It adds visual interest to the model and lets you personalize it by posing your god damn fins.
>freakish amount of knit picking
>It's a freakish amount of knit picking to say that something that is only there for visual appeal qualifies as form over function.
Okay pal. Take it easy.
>>43724280
>heat dissipating fins blown off
>ship magically stops generating heat
Smh family baka
>people whining about form over function
>guaranteed BFG babies where none of the ships were anything but cartoon characitures of their respective faction
>>43724340
>What's a coolant reservoir?
>We certainly can't turn off the engine in an emergency.
>Things the move don't break off more easily
>We can totally transfer heat efficiently through an articulated joint
>Maneuvering fins are definitely for heat dissipation
>Weeaboo stuff
>>43724378
I wasn't whining and DFC looks like it will be much better than BFG.
I apologize for having a conversation in a dead thread.
>>43724323
dont back pedal, you came in with the claim that I qoute: the models are so form over function I cant tell where the actual ship is. They have some fins that can be posed, but who can tell where the actual ship is in all the posable fins.
There is this thing called tone, maybe youve heard of it. You see since we cant read body language being on the internet you need to phrase things in such a way as to convey what your feelings are. Your statements indicate that you think the models are so over done and shitty that they no longer resemble space ships (a fairly hyperbolic statement) If you really only took issue with a couple of fins then perhaps you should have worded your post better
>>43724728
False. I'm a different anon with a middle ground opinion.
>>43724761
Which is to say that I said the fins were a bit silly but not the first thing.
>>43724780
well im sorry then, but after that post anyone on about the fins seems like theyd be the same guy. You dont like the fins on the PHR there is a pretty simple solution desu, you can just not attach em, or trim em way down and put some sort of minor greebly bumps there. The scourge fins are mostly aesthetic some of them actually contain launch bays, and may have weapons plus thats just the style
>>43720419
>Do they actually pay someone for designing this
I think it's all pretty much the one dude. At least it was before.
>you have to seriously question where the ship is under all these busywork details.
Pretty sure it's all part of the ship, yo.
>have wanted to play a spaceship game for fucking ever
>try to pitch the game to my group
>"its more like a submarine game than a straight up battleship game. There's a stealth element in drifting dark and timing your broadsides, and you can even dip into the atmosphere of the planet you are fighting over to escape detection at the risk of burning up."
>"That's not what I'm looking for, anon. have you heard of this game called Firestorm Armada?"
>mfw I tried to get everyone to pick up FA last year when all anyone wanted to play was fucking 40K
>mfw I grudgingly bought a small Dindrenzi fleet today
>mfw I'll still buy a UCM fleet just because the models look great
I was hoping mt group would be interested. I could have bought all four armies and snagged an Atlantis while I was at it. DFC just seems like a better game from what I've seen so far, and I vastly prefer the UCM/PHR ships over anything in FA's range.
Best high tech guns - still miss 16.67% of the time minimum...
Expensive for shit quality
Too luck based
= why ihate dzc and dont play anymore
>>43727037
Proxy that shit yo, im sure at least one of the FSA factions matches up approximately with whats on some of the UCM/PHR ships
>>43720432
I'm te complete opposite: I'm gonna buy the starter at the very least if only to paint these things. And the most i got from anyone was: "meh"
>>43672150
I'd go in for the commodore pledge level, but I just got another expensive game in two weeks ago, and my group isn't big on minis games.
A shame that I had to move away from my old store. Always had a few friends willing to try out new games.
>>43727114
A 84% hit rate is phenomenal for an unguided projectile
