Ticat1 has started an explosion of activity here; from every possible ship and aircraft in every class, to who's who to design the next Forum deck; myself included;;
I give him much credit; he has started what i like to call the awakening, getting players involved.
BUT;; are we just going down that path again, i'm the next in line to control this thing;; or is there room for altering discussion.
The last Deck is not even off the press; so do you think we should throw some ideas out there, on possible new twist to the fledgling list of ships or just plow forward.
We can for a few more decks create a list of ships that will fill a view of what we expect from a balanced deck under a Weeds type leadership, which for the most part has served the game and Forum very well, but i think some can see game altering changes are immanent.
Some of the ideas on how the early decks should have been moved forward might have seemed sound, but i think now a new look is needed.
The one of a kind iconic Capital ships have made this game and history, if you limit their design you limit the growth of the game.
To be frank what is done is done both by RB and Expansion;but its never to late to move on; I think their can be plenty of ideas on this matter i see it in other designers cards.
Yes i have plenty myself; i'm just curious if anyone else is interested in exploring new ideas or is the status quo; like having an O'Doul's why bother good enough.
Probably means grey navies everyone the same no national flavor or uniqueness to any of the units . Making sure every nation has everything .
The decks and forum have been soo obsessed with missing units and filling gaps and strengthening biases that the game/forum itself has been overlooked and lost a bit of its charm.
If we change the core concept of War at Sea it's going to require a totally unanimous decision on the changes. If there isn't unanimity, people will leave.
The time frame for the game is 1939-1945. Anything blatantly before or after that it becomes something that it's not. I don't think there are enough supporters to warrant pre war units or starting a whole new line of ships for ww1.
You need a much clearer definition of "expanding the game" as well as parameters to stay within for expansion concepts
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea
The core of the game shouldn't be changed, certain things could get fleshed out more and you could add scenario and campaign ideas but nothing radical. Adding the Spanish war BB's and some Chinese units from 1937 is as far as I personally would want to see any outside 1939-1945.
War at sea is a fun playing game you have to be careful not to alter that making changes therefore anything done should be slight if at all imo.
Along these lines, one thing that I'd really like to see is the scenarios and house rules thoroughly play tested, edited and cleaned up. Then laid out like a magazine article. Basically making them look professional.
Then we could either sell print offs, or better yet, downloads
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea
Along these lines, one thing that I'd really like to see is the scenarios and house rules thoroughly play tested, edited and cleaned up. Then laid out like a magazine article. Basically making them look professional.
Then we could either sell print offs, or better yet, downloads
I agree. The teams have been focusing on adding units, when it may be time to take that effort and apply it to fine-tuning scenarios and house rules.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
Along these lines, one thing that I'd really like to see is the scenarios and house rules thoroughly play tested, edited and cleaned up. Then laid out like a magazine article. Basically making them look professional.
Then we could either sell print offs, or better yet, downloads
I agree. The teams have been focusing on adding units, when it may be time to take that effort and apply it to fine-tuning scenarios and house rules.
Yup. I'd love to have a really pro looking binder full of nicely laid out rule sets
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea
Along these lines, one thing that I'd really like to see is the scenarios and house rules thoroughly play tested, edited and cleaned up. Then laid out like a magazine article. Basically making them look professional.
Then we could either sell print offs, or better yet, downloads
I agree. The teams have been focusing on adding units, when it may be time to take that effort and apply it to fine-tuning scenarios and house rules.
I think this is a great idea. A book of scenarios and house rules may be better for the game's viability than a deck F. Then we could move on things like decks outside the core area of World War 2.
World War I would be a good era to expand into. There would be differences to the rules that can't be fitted to a unit card. A WW 1 rules set and scenarios, campaign rules, etc, could be in a second book.
A lot of scenarios will require counters and unit cards specific to them. It'd be worth looking into to see what printing out punchable counter sheets etc would be. That'd just add so much allure in my opinion.
Also, there's zero reason this can't happen parallel to Deck F
To you from failing hands we throw the torch be yours to hold it high. -In Flanders Fields. John McCrea
If we change the core concept of War at Sea it's going to require a totally unanimous decision on the changes. If there isn't unanimity, people will leave.
The time frame for the game is 1939-1945. Anything blatantly before or after that it becomes something that it's not. I don't think there are enough supporters to warrant pre war units or starting a whole new line of ships for ww1.
You need a much clearer definition of "expanding the game" as well as parameters to stay within for expansion concepts
Of all i read this gets to the point for me;; [You need a much clearer definition of "expanding the game" as well as parameters to stay within for [EXPANSION CONCEPTS]
What were the original concepts when it all started?? I believe; No errata; No refits; and First year of entry; I think California Tennessee and Lexington had a lot to do with that ; Although there is RB's IJN ISE That did make Pennsylvania a tuff fit;; true you can use Arizona and Saratoga's values by switch the names; still leaves a year anomaly. In hindsight it was fine for RB; but does limit Capital ship design for expansion.
Leave the Originals alone; By deck 3 we couldn't help it; Operational Units;; RB did it why not us. Except trying to fit them into the parameters of expansion it did put a big cap on Capital Ships Not to belabor my long disagreement with this; but by simply putting the year of the Operation on the unit you have not obsoleted the Original, had less impact on the game and increased Capital Ship selection.
As i said what is done is done; their a a lot of past units completed look at the door a SWO Daddy's Unryu opens instead of the Expansion one. If players want to keeping putting out deck after deck i believe some units and ways of doing them are going to need a long look. There were some good ideas post here i just hope we keep talking about them.