Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
I dunno about that. I am pretty sure you could make those games lore accurate - I know you can in DoW2, at least, because my own mod does exactly that and it doesn't break the game in any shape or form.
Yes and no - the thing is they know Necron player want to have more than one ship compared to other factions that might put down more. Furthermore a control system that is fun for 1 ship is very different to one that is designed for 20 ships to control and is fun and practical to use.
Most games will aim to get lore-friendly and carry a theme ,but will often sacrifice lore accuracy for fun and balance - within the bounds of the type of game the developers want to make
The necrons being Silly powerful isn't only a fluff thing, The rules in BFG for the necron ships were so over the top that you got bonus points for killing them. Don't believe me, go check it.
Every ship had armor 6 on all facings (even the light cruisers), and they were the only faction that had a straight up armor save. All of Their weapons ignored holofields, and some of them just did auto damage in 20 CM radius. They could wipe any ordinance within 20cm on a 4+, and/or cripple low leadership ships. Also Their lances could ignore shields on a good roll. Their boarding action game was on points they could launch multiple boarding actions per ship at ranges up to 10 CM. They were also fast as well, with good base speeds and an AAF of a d6 x 10 CM (as opposed to everyone else's 4d6).
The genius of BFG was that they could have an overpowered faction, and they made it fair by making necrons worth more to kill. So you could get tabled, do some damage to a necron fleet and still win. Which kept necrons playing conservatively, which also fit the fluff.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/27 04:36:09
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Grimgold wrote: The necrons being Silly powerful isn't only a fluff thing, The rules in BFG for the necron ships were so over the top that you got bonus points for killing them. Don't believe me, go check it.
Every ship had armor 6 on all facings (even the light cruisers), and they were the only faction that had a straight up armor save. All of Their weapons ignored holofields, and some of them just did auto damage in 20 CM radius. They could wipe any ordinance within 20cm on a 4+, and/or cripple low leadership ships. Also Their lances could ignore shields on a good roll. Their boarding action game was on points they could launch multiple boarding actions per ship at ranges up to 10 CM. They were also fast as well, with good base speeds and an AAF of a d6 x 10 CM (as opposed to everyone else's 4d6).
The genius of BFG was that they could have an overpowered faction, and they made it fair by making necrons worth more to kill. So you could get tabled, do some damage to a necron fleet and still win. Which kept necrons playing conservatively, which also fit the fluff.
I remmber discussions on that on the BFGA forums actually when people where discussing how necrons could be brought in, the problem as many people noted was that "it's not all that sastifying an outcome"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
I suppose the way to do it would be just reduce the number of necron ships rather than introduce a handicap. That way you could keep the battles fair, while still maintaining the feel of necron craft being apex predators.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
The genius of BFG was that they could have an overpowered faction, and they made it fair by making necrons worth more to kill. So you could get tabled, do some damage to a necron fleet and still win. Which kept necrons playing conservatively, which also fit the fluff.
I remmber discussions on that on the BFGA forums actually when people where discussing how necrons could be brought in, the problem as many people noted was that "it's not all that sastifying an outcome"
Aye, you lost all your ships and damaged the enemy - you won.
Yes that's valid if those Necron ships are superships and limited in number, but honestly for the average player its a hollow situation on both grounds. The Necron player keeps their ships alive and loses whilst the other player loses their fleet and wins. The Necron player feels that their victory was stolen from them; whilst the other player feels like they are being given the concession win - sure you lost your ships but you did some damage.
I think such rules work when its something "special" on the other site. Say a Blackstone Fortress. Ergo a single unique thing that is a special focus of a specific battle; rather than the focus of a whole faction. I'd say its a mechanic that would also work if players were doing a campaign series of battles - so sure you damaged the Necron ship with one fleet; you've got other fleets and the Necrons feel worried now that their assault upon a system is getting setbacks.
But for battle to battle in general counters - yeah - fluff is one thing but when it takes away the fun the game should adjust (or the fluff should - nothing to say that Imperials and other factions can't discover weak points in Necron design that render their superior strength suddenly a little less superior).
Grimgold wrote: I wonder how they will handle necrons having the best ships in the galaxy, with light cruisers that could tear apart battle ships and the like.
Careful. Apparently statements like that have to be cited in strict MLA format.
Harvard referencing is preferred for publications in this field.
I really liked the first game initially, but I was annoyed at how hard it became to manage larger fleets. Having played Battlestar Deadlock since, I really hope they take a page out of the mixture of turn based and real time combat that it employs, as it works really really well planning out what you want your ships to do each turn and then seeing them execute it in real time.
Just had a few games online - could tell how long it was since I had played!
I can manage it better than Total War which i find a bit of a nightmare to control
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Grimgold wrote: I wonder how they will handle necrons having the best ships in the galaxy, with light cruisers that could tear apart battle ships and the like.
Careful. Apparently statements like that have to be cited in strict MLA format.
I'm sure that if you were to request a source for Grimgold's claim, he could/would provide one (or somebody else would*) beyond a mysterious unspecified book somewhere. And then everyone would be more inclined to believe the claim too.
*The BFG rules for Necrons and the accompanying intro blurb in Battlefleet Gothic: Armada (pg.s.72-78) and/or Battlefleet Gothic Magazine #2 (pgs.4-14), the Battle of Amarah from Imperial Armour 12: Fall of Orpheus (pgs.40-58) etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/28 10:35:03
GenRifDrake wrote: I really liked the first game initially, but I was annoyed at how hard it became to manage larger fleets. Having played Battlestar Deadlock since, I really hope they take a page out of the mixture of turn based and real time combat that it employs, as it works really really well planning out what you want your ships to do each turn and then seeing them execute it in real time.
Battlestar deadlock was one of the worst space RTS I have ever had the misfortune of playing. I will be deeply distressed if BFG 2 copies them in any way, BFG 1 as it stands is far superior to Deadlock in all ways aside from the way the campaign is done.
GenRifDrake wrote: I really liked the first game initially, but I was annoyed at how hard it became to manage larger fleets. Having played Battlestar Deadlock since, I really hope they take a page out of the mixture of turn based and real time combat that it employs, as it works really really well planning out what you want your ships to do each turn and then seeing them execute it in real time.
agreed. and because deadlock is such a shallow game in general, armada 2 would really shine when you consider all the variety of strategy and fleets there are in the game. i mean, in deadlock there is only one strategy, that being launch fighters and guided missiles. in armada 2 you have so much more to consider, like non guided torpedoes, broadsides, lances, fighters, bombers, boarding, teleporting, and ramming. the game has a big emphasis on ship positioning and having the game be simi turn based is better than that slow mode, giving you time to think.
GenRifDrake wrote: I really liked the first game initially, but I was annoyed at how hard it became to manage larger fleets. Having played Battlestar Deadlock since, I really hope they take a page out of the mixture of turn based and real time combat that it employs, as it works really really well planning out what you want your ships to do each turn and then seeing them execute it in real time.
Battlestar deadlock was one of the worst space RTS I have ever had the misfortune of playing. I will be deeply distressed if BFG 2 copies them in any way, BFG 1 as it stands is far superior to Deadlock in all ways aside from the way the campaign is done.
from what i see in the new video, it seems the game won't deviate too much from the original
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/31 20:39:07
12 factions at launch, this sounds amazing. Almost 100% guarantee I'm going for this one.
ph34r's Forgeworld Phobos blog, current WIP: Iron Warriors and Skaven Tau +From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
GenRifDrake wrote: I really liked the first game initially, but I was annoyed at how hard it became to manage larger fleets. Having played Battlestar Deadlock since, I really hope they take a page out of the mixture of turn based and real time combat that it employs, as it works really really well planning out what you want your ships to do each turn and then seeing them execute it in real time.
Battlestar deadlock was one of the worst space RTS I have ever had the misfortune of playing. I will be deeply distressed if BFG 2 copies them in any way, BFG 1 as it stands is far superior to Deadlock in all ways aside from the way the campaign is done.
You can say what you will about the rest of Deadlock, mix of turn based fleet commanding and then real time visual execution plays a lot better than a slow mo function, especially when it's limited how much you can use it in multiplayer battles. Controlling a large fleet in BFG:A is much more of a detriment than an advantage generally, and if they're trying to go for bigger fleets and more epic fights like they say, then they need to do something about how well we can control large fleets.
I remmber discussions on that on the BFGA forums actually when people where discussing how necrons could be brought in, the problem as many people noted was that "it's not all that sastifying an outcome"
Aye, you lost all your ships and damaged the enemy - you won.
Yes that's valid if those Necron ships are superships and limited in number, but honestly for the average player its a hollow situation on both grounds. The Necron player keeps their ships alive and loses whilst the other player loses their fleet and wins. The Necron player feels that their victory was stolen from them; whilst the other player feels like they are being given the concession win - sure you lost your ships but you did some damage.
I think such rules work when its something "special" on the other site. Say a Blackstone Fortress. Ergo a single unique thing that is a special focus of a specific battle; rather than the focus of a whole faction. I'd say its a mechanic that would also work if players were doing a campaign series of battles - so sure you damaged the Necron ship with one fleet; you've got other fleets and the Necrons feel worried now that their assault upon a system is getting setbacks.
But for battle to battle in general counters - yeah - fluff is one thing but when it takes away the fun the game should adjust (or the fluff should - nothing to say that Imperials and other factions can't discover weak points in Necron design that render their superior strength suddenly a little less superior).
Yes as above. It hardly feels like a "victory" against the Necrons if the Necron player has essentially tabled you.
The problem with having victory points be the balancer was that it was also susceptible to being "gamed", at least using the default campaign system from the BFG rulebook. For example, the Necron player could ignore the whole scoring system and concentrate on destroying enemy capital ships in battle. Sure they might "lose" the initial few battles on victory points, but then the opposing player would have to replace their destroyed ships with fresh ships with new crews (i.e. low Ld). Then at that point the non-Necron player's fleet would be at a disadvantage and the Necron player could then get winning streaks.
A better option might have been to make repairing or replacing Necron ships near prohibitively expensive in campaign mode to make the Necron player play to preserve their ships rather than just going for the kill every time. Of course that still does not solve the issue in one off games...
Of course the initial problem is the whole overhyping of the Necrons as the supreme fleet from the beginning and continued in things like Imperial Armour 12: Fall of Orpheus where the largest single Imperial fleet since the Heresy (to our knowledge based on given numbers) is demolished with ease by the outnumbered fleet of a single Necron dynasty:
In the Fall of Orpheus FW book, the reinforced Imperial sector fleet was shown to comprise 7 battleships (including 1 Retribution and 1 Apocalypse class), "more than 60" cruisers and capital ships, "several hundred" escort class vessels, 4 Space Marine battle barges, and 8 Space Marine strike cruisers. In BFG rules, the Space Marine capital ships would be 2860 points already. Sixty cruisers assuming the standard Lunar class as a benchmark would yield an additional 10,800 points.
Facing them, the Necrons are described as fielding less than a quarter of the Imperial ship numbers. The breakdown was 2 Tombships, 20 harvest ships, and the rest escort class vessels, with some later confirmed to be Dirge class raiders. In BFG points, the capital ships alone would have been 6500 points.
Though the breakdown of Imperial losses was never completely given, the narrative showed that Imperial losses as at least 2 battleships, 1 battlecruiser, 1 heavy cruiser, 2 battle barges, 3 strike cruisers. In the end, less than 10% of the Imperial fleet was still fit for combat. Little detail was shown of Necron losses with the only definite details being 1 destroyed harvest ship and damage to 1 Tombship. The other Tombship was shown to remain operational at the end.
Grimgold wrote: I wonder how they will handle necrons having the best ships in the galaxy, with light cruisers that could tear apart battle ships and the like.
Careful. Apparently statements like that have to be cited in strict MLA format.
I'm sure that if you were to request a source for Grimgold's claim, he could/would provide one (or somebody else would*) beyond a mysterious unspecified book somewhere.
And then everyone would be more inclined to believe the claim too.
*The BFG rules for Necrons and the accompanying intro blurb in Battlefleet Gothic: Armada (pg.s.72-78) and/or Battlefleet Gothic Magazine #2 (pgs.4-14), the Battle of Amarah from Imperial Armour 12: Fall of Orpheus (pgs.40-58) etc.
Thank you. It is so refreshing to have someone cite their sources. So tired of all these authoritative sounding statements yet when asked for evidence, it defaults to some vague "I heard from some unspecified source somewhere" (aka pulling out of the ) Far too much misinformation, fanfiction, and headcanon gets spread around that way as if it were GW content.
Now the issue of the Tyranids is another matter which I don't think has been raised yet. The BFG tabletop Tyranids were IMO not a very good representation of the Tyranids, mainly due to fleet scale. The Tyranid fleets are described as immense in numbers, yet the tabletopc Tyranid fleet did not give such a feel of overwhelming numbers. Sure, it was handwaved that the Tyranid "shields" were really swarms of lesser Tyranid organisms that blocked enemy fire with their bodies, but in actual gameplay it didn't really feel that way. It would have been nice to be able to create the BFG equivalent of the "Gaunt horde".
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/02/01 12:45:17
Although they tout their supposed knowledge of the 40K universe as credentials, I cannot help but look back to the first Battlefleet Gothic Armada game, and note such inaccuracies as Eldar shuriken weapon batteries, for example. The Eldar background shows their weapon batteries to be primarily lasers, definitely not shuriken (see Aconite frigate entry in the BFG rulebook).
Now the issue of the Tyranids is another matter which I don't think has been raised yet. The BFG tabletop Tyranids were IMO not a very good representation of the Tyranids, mainly due to fleet scale. The Tyranid fleets are described as immense in numbers, yet the tabletopc Tyranid fleet did not give such a feel of overwhelming numbers. Sure, it was handwaved that the Tyranid "shields" were really swarms of lesser Tyranid organisms that blocked enemy fire with their bodies, but in actual gameplay it didn't really feel that way. It would have been nice to be able to create the BFG equivalent of the "Gaunt horde".
As I recall weren't Tyranids basically added in the very last days of BFG or even after it had gone specialist order only for a time? Ergo chances are GW just didn't want to throw large money at a swarm based faction in a game which wasn't selling in large enough volume to justify a large model-count army (thus higher starting costs plus potential need to re balance to fit into the games engine).
Tyranids in video games have the bonus that they can, in theory, swarm at proper numbers if the engine allows for it. However chances are, from what we've seen in early videos, the Tyranids won't be so much the "swarmy" army as they are the close combat army. That in itself is still a huge amount of work if those big mouths are actually going to BITE or swallow enemy ships (unlikely, you'd probably have to build a complex voxel engine to achieve proper close combat damage unless they model a huge number of custom animations).
They could use cloud visuals for tyranid air units to give them a sense that the fighters are swarming the enemy ships (even if the swarm mass equates to a single fighter in damage output the visual representation would fit)
Sorry if this off topic, feel free to remove, decided to do my own trailer to hype it up more
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/01 14:45:44
Chapter Master of Vigilia Mortis www.battle-brothers.net ------
[b]Eternal Crusade Forum
Project: Thinking of creating HH 1st Company Imperial Fist Templars
Now the issue of the Tyranids is another matter which I don't think has been raised yet. The BFG tabletop Tyranids were IMO not a very good representation of the Tyranids, mainly due to fleet scale. The Tyranid fleets are described as immense in numbers, yet the tabletopc Tyranid fleet did not give such a feel of overwhelming numbers. Sure, it was handwaved that the Tyranid "shields" were really swarms of lesser Tyranid organisms that blocked enemy fire with their bodies, but in actual gameplay it didn't really feel that way. It would have been nice to be able to create the BFG equivalent of the "Gaunt horde".
As I recall weren't Tyranids basically added in the very last days of BFG or even after it had gone specialist order only for a time? Ergo chances are GW just didn't want to throw large money at a swarm based faction in a game which wasn't selling in large enough volume to justify a large model-count army (thus higher starting costs plus potential need to re balance to fit into the games engine).
Tyranids in video games have the bonus that they can, in theory, swarm at proper numbers if the engine allows for it. However chances are, from what we've seen in early videos, the Tyranids won't be so much the "swarmy" army as they are the close combat army. That in itself is still a huge amount of work if those big mouths are actually going to BITE or swallow enemy ships (unlikely, you'd probably have to build a complex voxel engine to achieve proper close combat damage unless they model a huge number of custom animations).
They could use cloud visuals for tyranid air units to give them a sense that the fighters are swarming the enemy ships (even if the swarm mass equates to a single fighter in damage output the visual representation would fit)
The Tyranids were THE close combat fleet, with the best boarding ability (on a boarding strength per damage point basis, with only the Ork Space Hulk winning out on sheer size), and close combat options like crushing claws and feeder tendrils. The problem is they were a bit of a one trick fleet, and their relatively slow speed made it hard for them to actually catch anything, unless you inflicted hit and run attacks with escorts with feeder tendrils to slow down the enemy first. High mobility fleets like Necrons and Eldar ran rings round the Tyranids and were virtually impossible to catch. Tyranid ranged weapons in BFG had gimmicks but not enough IMO to make them competitive or interesting options. Sure their bio-plasma lances ignored shields but had such cripplingly short range you were practically in boarding range already. Their pyro-acid batteries with the bonus to inflict critical hits? Meh. While strictly speaking nicer in short range shooting than Imperial weapon batteries again on a firepower for firepower basis, they were so and overshadowed by the launch bay option. Shooty Tyranid ships could be done, but the virtually every other fleet could do it better, and even if you did, it was boring as there just weren't many options.
In a nutshell, the tabletop version of Tyranid fleets suffered from unbalanced options with some being clearly the better options, and only one real playstyle that was competitive. Basically it was launch bays for assault boats to sweep all enemy escorts then inflict hit and run attacks in order to slow down soften/slow down the enemy for boarding. Tyranid shooting became a distinct afterthought.
Graphics-wise, I think tentacles grabbing a ship kraken/octopus style could depict the feeder tendril attacks. Crushing claw attacks (which encompassed other things like biting as well) could be depicted as either a literal claw or talon striking the enemy, or the Tyranid fastening a lamprey like mouth over the enemy ship. That way there is no need to depict actual bites or discrete chunks being torn away from the enemy ship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/01 15:06:38
As opposed to the Babylon 5 game, which just made the uber fleet (initially the Minbari) ... better. Scenarios would be things like two cruisers on one, and then Minbari cruiser just gets no fighters.
Necrons on the iOS Armada not quite as exciting.
2018/02/01 20:29:52
Subject: Re:Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 Announced!
All the attempts to balance the tabletop Necron fleet didn't really do that good of a job because they never addressed the fundamental flaw of the original version of the Necron fleet: It was a fleet of superlatives. They were given the highest speed, the highest toughness, the most powerful weapons, improved teleport hit and run abilities, and (initially) stacking runaway LD debuffing abilities.
They were given far too much in all areas, and basically took other factions' strengths and one-upped them. All balancing attempts since have basically been shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, trying to pare back these things without considering that perhaps they should have been reworked from the ground up.
The victory point "balance" was IMO a tacit admission of defeat. One cannot balance purely by points or victory points, at least if it comes to player fun and satisfaction. It would be like having an uber 40K unit that could single handedly wipe the board of the enemy army, and which leads to defeat if it even so much as loses a Wound. Sure, it might technically be correctly costed for points, but it would not make for a fun gaming experience for either side.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/02/01 20:43:16
2018/02/27 16:47:09
Subject: Re:Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 Announced!
This is my summary interview with the developers of Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2. I asked a number of questions to the developers about the sequel to the game and how they plan to make it bigger and better. This game takes place during the fall of Cadia and will explore everything around that period.
Some big confirms are Tyranid and Necron SP Campaigns!
Chapter Master of Vigilia Mortis www.battle-brothers.net ------
[b]Eternal Crusade Forum
Project: Thinking of creating HH 1st Company Imperial Fist Templars
) Far too much misinformation, fanfiction, and headcanon gets spread around that way as if it were 
and overshadowed by the launch bay option. Shooty Tyranid ships could be done, but the virtually every other fleet could do it better, and even if you did, it was boring as there just weren't many options.
