Being able to kill a U-boat at range. It was a terrible idea with the Ward and it is a terrible idea here.
And a Warspite missing a turret is about as exciting as watching grass grow.
Why is everyone trying so hard to come up with bookmarks?
Like I said, my reaction to 3 turret Warspite isn't as visceral as my reaction to the idea of giving it a map ranging asw capability. I find the first option merely boring as opposed to gamebreaking.
Couldn't a Chitose or Teste style float plane detachment (or the new Swordfish) get the job done without being indestructible? Do you only play with pretty ships?
I'm hearing "units in War at Sea shouldn't be able to do what they actually did in real life." I don't know what this game is if it's not making some sort of attempt in that direction.
Couldn't a Chitose or Teste style float plane detachment (or the new Swordfish) get the job done without being indestructible? Do you only play with pretty ships?
I'm hearing "units in War at Sea shouldn't be able to do what they actually did in real life." I don't know what this game is if it's not making some sort of attempt in that direction.
Everyone bitches when their Hood blows up. Some things are "historical" but still game breaking, and this is a game.
I don’t know how one gives something to the competitive players without upsetting game balance, at least a little bit. I don’t think you can do both.
I agree. What I try to look for are units that break the current status quo of existing power builds and open up new options. This can be done without totally upsetting game balance. What I notice is people getting angry when a new unit takes the wind out of their current favorite power build. That is not the same as unbalancing a game. That is rebalancing a game and there is an important difference.
I don't think very many people would argue the USN air/carrier combination from 1943 onward is totally overwhelming (very rare to beat without unnaturally lucky dice rolls). However, the answer was not to create an equally newly broken fighter with VA10 and 10AA plus boosts that simply creates a new, higher level of almost unbeatable unit. Yes, I have seen just one or two Me-262s leave the opponent's USN air build as a pile of little blue aircraft on the side of the game map. A couple of times in fact. Although that can be temporarily satisfying, it just created an environment where it is foolish to bring any air at all in a build. We tried to address the USN "air cheese" issue back in Deck A with the Sam and Grace. However, extreme conservatism ended up with the Grace at least a point too high, and the Sam with AA one point lower than it merited. The Sam also should have been given a 1944 entry date as well. Game balance before history. (Manufacturing started in late 1944, but a severe earthquake destroyed the factory. And a lot of other aircraft factories in the same region.) The Sam and Grace ended up seriously defanged and not nearly as game rebalancing as they should have been IMO. Instead we get a nearly invincible "Superman" aircraft that wipes air out of the game completely.
The 10 VA doesn't break the me 262 it's the 12 dice against bombers possibly twice in a round that does.
I would say the sam and grace are costed fine. What I think has happened is the AA defense quality of the units in the game has dramtically increased since RB/wotc has left more then the capabilities of bombers to get through.
No but Ise is and it has an even stronger version of Scoutplane Attack.
A 1 off 2 or 3 dice ASW attack is not going to break any BB let alone one like Warspite
Context matters. Fly Off Strike is usually being employed against late war USN air and AA. This would be used primarily against Euro-Axis subs; much easier targets.
I'm still using SWO's Me262. Good but not game breaking. We have British BB's that aren't even done yet, maybe do that before talking about a float plane Warspite?
No but Ise is and it has an even stronger version of Scoutplane Attack.
A 1 off 2 or 3 dice ASW attack is not going to break any BB let alone one like Warspite
Context matters. Fly Off Strike is usually being employed against late war USN air and AA. This would be used primarily against Euro-Axis subs; much easier targets.
Yes but realistically they're going to have air cover the first two turns when they're the most vulnerable. So let's say in a 200 pt build you've got two of these.
You'll have to have 20 or 30 pts in Sunderlands to even have a chance at both of these getting through on turn 1 and 2. (More likely both on turn 2 since you should be mining turn 1) And this is assuming your opponent doesn't have 4 fighters you dedicate.
At BEST, this SA would save you 10 points from buying a 3rd or 4th Sundy. And that's assuming it comes in at 46 like the original Warspite. I think it would be a marginal but useful SA considering the ASW the Uk/Commonwealth has at its disposal. Game breaking? Absolutely not.
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea
We dont need a detachment, its a single aircraft and ASW is its primary roll. To much emphasis on specifics.
LPQ isnt a fair comparison because she dudnt launch her liore at kochange, the bombers were land based.
Give warspite torpedo protection and limited ASW threat and you'd have a sweet ship. Admiralty wouldnt risk a bb for asw sweeps so we shouldnt making a unit that has that niche
I agree. What I try to look for are units that break the current status quo of existing power builds and open up new options. This can be done without totally upsetting game balance. What I notice is people getting angry when a new unit takes the wind out of their current favorite power build. That is not the same as unbalancing a game. That is rebalancing a game and there is an important difference.
I don't think very many people would argue the USN air/carrier combination from 1943 onward is totally overwhelming (very rare to beat without unnaturally lucky dice rolls). However, the answer was not to create an equally newly broken fighter with VA10 and 10AA plus boosts that simply creates a new, higher level of almost unbeatable unit. Yes, I have seen just one or two Me-262s leave the opponent's USN air build as a pile of little blue aircraft on the side of the game map. A couple of times in fact. Although that can be temporarily satisfying, it just created an environment where it is foolish to bring any air at all in a build. We tried to address the USN "air cheese" issue back in Deck A with the Sam and Grace. However, extreme conservatism ended up with the Grace at least a point too high, and the Sam with AA one point lower than it merited. The Sam also should have been given a 1944 entry date as well. Game balance before history. (Manufacturing started in late 1944, but a severe earthquake destroyed the factory. And a lot of other aircraft factories in the same region.) The Sam and Grace ended up seriously defanged and not nearly as game rebalancing as they should have been IMO. Instead we get a nearly invincible "Superman" aircraft that wipes air out of the game completely.
The 10 VA doesn't break the me 262 it's the 12 dice against bombers possibly twice in a round that does.
I would say the sam and grace are costed fine. What I think has happened is the AA defense quality of the units in the game has dramtically increased since RB/wotc has left more then the capabilities of bombers to get through.
The 10 Va totally breaks the Me 262 IMO. AA values have not increased to the point that VA 10 is significantly threatened. The 12 dice against bombers (and possibly twice) was just adding insult to injury. Patrol bombers were already an iffy proposition in the game and this made them totally unplayable. That unit is busted in every way possible to create a busted unit IMO.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!