Compel wrote:
Most of the DZC complaints I've heard along those lines were actually dated from the original release of the game where there was only a single choice in each 'slot.' There's far more releases now, with more options to theme your armies in different ways, so I don't think that's too much of a problem anymore.

A 2-up of the Atlantis though? That sounds really frikking awesome and would make one helluva display piece. I could put it alongside my Mass Effect Normandy's

 Alpharius wrote:
I meant the first one - thanks!

While I've got you here...

I've heard some concerns about DZC in that, while the miniatures are great, the gameplay quickly became boring and/or too 'samey'.

Any concerns of that happening here?

 Krinsath wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Historically dreadnoughts were smaller than battleships (as dreadnoughts were in fact the first battleships and were ultimately replaced by battleships), and gkven the "hard scifi" approach of Hawk I would be surprised if they went this route with DfC.

Battleships existed prior to Dreadnought, but the idea of using just big, long-range guns and wide fire arcs of turrets was seen as so revolutionary it made every other battleship obsolete because the way naval battles were to be fought was forever altered based on that and the Japanese victories in the Russo-Japanese War. There was no need to close with the enemy, so secondary armament was not needed which simplified logistics and fire control. Pretty much every major navy agreed and the battleship was scrapped. The era of the Dreadnought (as later "battleships" are really following in that design mold so for the DFC discussion they would be Dreadnoughts and not battleships) lasted for not quite 40 years. Carriers would obviously replace them as the key to naval supremacy during World War 2, and have held that role for twice as long just for context.

So, in a hard sci-fi sense, the battleships should have reasonable speed, a few hefty guns and a good amount of close action weapons. Their design revolves around trading a few shots at range and closing in to bring their close action weapons to bear. The Dreadnoughts would be bigger and have some massive main batteries, but very little close action and need to stand off. They would be roughly the same size relative to each other, as they're not so much different classes as different design philosophies.

The Battleships would be tactically variable, where you could use a variety of commands and avoid the worst spikes while still being effective in combat. Dreadnoughts would need to be Weapons Free for maximum usefulness as they rely on the big guns, which means they would want to be at the limit of range to avoid getting blasted by every enemy ship on the board due to the Major Spike.

That's how I see things playing out given the historical context, and that does sound like a fun and interesting game both in list-building and on the table.

chaos0xomega wrote:

It might be semantics, but the term "battleship" was not widely used prior to the launch of HMS Dresdnought. To my knowledge the Royal Navy was the only entity to formally adopt that terminology, and only did so about a decade prior to HMS Dreadnought. Those early "battleships" would later be knwen as pre-Dreadnoughts. Ten years after Dreadnoughts launch, "Dreadnoughts" had already been rendered obsolete by Super-dreadnoughts armed with more powerful guns positioned in a centerline configuration, as well as a revised armor scheme. This new design paradigm proved itself inadequate over the course of WW1, particularly at the Battle of Jutland, and post war naval shipbuilding as a result went in a new direction which resulted in even larger vessels. This coincided with the term dreadnought and superdreadnought falling out of popular use, and the vessels bult from 1919-1922 were more commonly referred to as battleships. This new terminology was formalized by the adoption of the Washington Naval Treaty which placed limitations on ship sizes and armaments, vessels which complied (kinda) with these limitations were referred to as "treaty battleships". The resulting vessels were larger, better armed and heavier than any of the dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts built prior to the end of WW1, and were for the most part roughly on par with the (battle)ships built post war (which technically violated the treaty, but as we all know, nobody really followed it anyway, and in q couple notable instances, were far larger).

TL;DR - Dreadnoughts were smaller than Superdreadnoughts. Both terms fell out of popular use around the time of WW1, after which even larger ships were built which were commonly referred to as battleships.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Can I just settle this tangent right now, please? A Dreadnought is a spaceship with three nacelles. There, it's settled.

Have we seen any PHR frigates yet?

prankster wrote:
I'm sure there'll be a way to include it in friendly games. Fairly easy to come up with a 'protect the mega-super-dreadnought' kind of scenario.

I think I prefer it as a 2up Beijing rather than a 2up Atlantis. They're both nice ships, but the Beijing just looks more threatening imho. Not sure I'd pay for either one, but at the moment that's not a concern, it only becomes an issue if I drop to multiple commadore pledges.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Most of the DZC complaints I've heard along those lines were actually dated from the original release of the game where there was only a single choice in each 'slot.' There's far more releases now, with more options to theme your armies in different ways, so I don't think that's too much of a problem anymore.

A 2-up of the Atlantis though? That sounds really frikking awesome and would make one helluva display piece. I could put it alongside my Mass Effect Normandy's

Not to mention that they are still making new units.
The game is pretty much a work in progress.

 Mymearan wrote:
It's double size from the one in the game so yeah it's only a display model.

 zedmeister wrote:
Orbital assets incoming!


Early concept for the next unlock...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'd love to see them leverage their existing intangibles to increase the value, like giving every backer a pdf of the DZC rule book, or even just an art book collecting their design sketches. Maybe they can add some sort of fun scenarios for including DZC inside a DFC game, such as a Seize the Defense Guns mission that affects a game of DFC or vice versa.


And a novel.