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.

So I was reading through forums and when someone asked which is better it seemed DZC was getting pretty trashed..that is until I realized I was on a Spartan games forum so obviously there was going to be some major bias derp

so I'd like to ask the same question in a place that has no general loyalties to see whats better in terms of affordability, gameplay, models ect and see which comes out on the eventual top. Although it will always come down to personal taste in which game you want we can still debate the finer points.

Planetfall:



Or Dropzone:

I would say that DzC is the all-around superior game in every category, but thats just me. I'm generally not a fan of Spartans games & product lines for a whole host of reasons (Halo being the only exception, even that I have some serious issues with)

Two incredibly different games. Planetfall will be easy to pick up for anyone familiar with Spartan Game's system. It typically has pitched armies, long range weapons, exploding sixes, and handfuls of dice. The game can last up to 6(ish) turns, but typically ends decisively on turns two or three. Dropzone Commander on the other hand is a game that is won in the movement phase. Weapon ranges are kept low due to the presence of active countermeasures, dice pools represent individual shots (like in 40k), and deployment is extremely dynamic. A game of DZC will always go six turns unless one side or the other chooses to scoop.

Dropzone is also an extremely balanced game. I am not sure where Planetfall stands, but the DZC results from the Invasion Tournament are as follows:

The autumn Invasion tournament had 280 games played. These are the win/draw/loss performances tallied up by Grey Hunter on the DZC forums:

UCM 37.14% 8.57% 54.29%
Scourge 48.57% 5.71% 45.71%
PHR 48.00% 17.33% 34.67%
Shaltari 45.00% 15.00% 40.00%
Resistance 43.33% 13.33% 43.33%

Planetfall is less entrenched than DZC (it is a newer system), but has a well entrenched space combat game attached to it. DZC has no space combat game yet, but the Dropfleet Commander kickstarter (with Andy Chambers) was successful at bringing in $940,000 dollars. The game features orbital combat and modular plastic ships. It is slated to release in May or June.

Our club has gone the DZC route and we have six active players. My suggestion is to try them both out or watch some battle-reports and see which one you like more.

Honestly I'd say somewhere between the two I the perfect game personally I love planetfall I've got 3 armada fleets so it made a lot of sense to me and I already liked the asthetics. That being said I would have preferred Spartan make more use of differing dice qualities to curb exploding dice shenanigans. Planetfall is a game that runs best in big games where statistical outliers are less painful.

That said I love the idea of relocating your troops via dropship in dzc BUT the price point and some of the model designs have kept me out (scourge dropships and a lot of the resistance light vehicles.... And the infantry in general)

Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.

Dropzone meanwhile, is mechanically simple but exceptionally deep in it's strategy. You can out-maneuver superior forces, and the emphasis on scenario means maneuver warfare actually is rewarded in terms of 'winning the game'. You have to have a balanced set of anti-tank, anti-air, and infantry options to successfully defeat an opponent, who may try to force asymetrical engagements on you (such as having gunships try to catch tanks out of their AA coverage, or a raid by light vehicles to knock out AA guns).

The use of infantry not as a 'this unit fights like a tank' but rather as a 'this unit engages enemy troops in built up objective areas' is a great way to make them relevant and reasonable.

Add onto the good rules is that Hawk supports it's game very actively and is continuing to build on it.

If on the fence, I'd support Dropzone Commander 100% of the way.

I definitely prefer planetfall. I just find the constant maneuvering of dropzone to get really tiresome. I like the fact that I can run through a game of planetfall in an hour. It's still got a few balance issues, but they seem to be working through them fairly quickly. My main problem is finding a store that carries the range.

DzC in every way possible.

Not only is the game amazing, but its run by a good and intellegent company that actually cares about its product and players. Spartan is horrid.

I have them both. Both are amazing and really exciting, fun games. They are also very different in rules though. Both are very well supported. I haven't gotten the chance yet to play much of either, so I will leave the rules comparison to others.
Talking about the models and their costs, Planetfall definitely comes out on top. Not only are Planetfall miniatures much, much larger than DZC miniatures 15mm vs 10mm, they are also cheaper than DZC resin miniatures. DZC plastic miniatures are cheaper, but much lower quality than Planetfall. Quality of resin miniatures is about equal. The design of the miniatures themselves is purely a matter of taste. I like both.
One thing I really like about DZC in comparison with Planetfall is the customisability of building an army. With Planetfall, you take entire formations rather than individual units. DZC has a much larger variety in units, though it also has been around longer. DZC does only have 5 factions though, which can get boring. Planetfall already has more factions than DZC, and many more are yet to be released.
Companywise, both companies do a good job of supporting and building their games, as well as communicating and listening to their fans. Spartan is a lot bigger and more established than Hawk, and has more regular and frequent releases and updates. On the other hand, Spartan has many different game systems, so sometimes it can be a long time before they get around to the stuff you want (still waiting for Dystopian Legion's Russian Coalition...)

Both games also have an attached spaceship combat game, altough Hawk's Dropfleet Commander will only be released in 2016. Spartan's Firestorm Armada has been well-established.

If on the fence, don't pick anything until you have tried out both. Rules for Planetfall are free, try them out with proxies! DZC rules you will have to buy or borrow.

Just to note: DZC has five armies and an incredible amount of variance in how your force can be built. Shaltari and Scourge can both run walker heavy, skimmer heavy, or a blend. UCM can run with heavy armor, medium armor, heavy air assets, specialized infantry (AA Teams, Mortar Teams, Hazard Suits, etc), or a blend to suit your tastes. PHR have long broken out of their slow and lumbering period with units like Type-3 light walkers, microthruster skimmers, and jet-pack infantry. Resistance are possibly the most varied of them all though. With the distinction between Feral and Allied forces in addition to the wide variety of pre-invasion military tech and post-invasion mad max style cars and trucks.

There is a lot you can do.

 Killionaire wrote:
Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.
.

I must say this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written. Firestorm Armada is one of the deepest and most strategic games around period, never mind about space games. What I've seen of DFC so far looks decidedly thin by comparison.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1520354196/age-of-tyrants


the above is definitely another contender, if you can manage the wait.

Age of Tyrants looks more like Epic 40K.

We have like 8 players around here with Dropzone Commander armies, 2 UCM, 1 Scourge (me), 1 Shaltari, 2 Resistance and 3 PHR. More than half of them dont play that much because they play X-Wing, Infinity or Magic TG.

I dont think a game like Planetfall in the same scale as DZC is going to attract new players here. In fact, I don´t think Dropfleet Commander will be able to compete against X-Wing, a game ready to play right from the blister.

alexmann wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.
.

I must say this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written. Firestorm Armada is one of the deepest and most strategic games around period, never mind about space games. What I've seen of DFC so far looks decidedly thin by comparison.

I've been playing Firestorm Armada for a year and I really must question what else you have played to think it's a deep or strategic game, let alone among the MOST deep and strategic. I have never, EVER played a game of Firestorm where I felt like decisions made by either player were critical to the outcome of the match. It ALL boils down to who can roll more 6s, and sometimes who has a better sense of target priority. It's actually one of the most shallow games I've ever played.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

alexmann wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.
.

I must say this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written. Firestorm Armada is one of the deepest and most strategic games around period, never mind about space games. What I've seen of DFC so far looks decidedly thin by comparison.

I've been playing Firestorm Armada for a year and I really must question what else you have played to think it's a deep or strategic game, let alone among the MOST deep and strategic. I have never, EVER played a game of Firestorm where I felt like decisions made by either player were critical to the outcome of the match. It ALL boils down to who can roll more 6s, and sometimes who has a better sense of target priority. It's actually one of the most shallow games I've ever played.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I agree Alexmann. Just played a game tonight where I outmaneuvered my opponent and crushed the core of his fleet. The game for me was won in the movement phase. If you find that dice rolls are the only deciding factor you are probably not making use of maneuver or your table is very light on terrain.


As far as Planetfall vs DzC. Planetfall will have more of a massed combat feel to it. Lots of units to choose from. DzC is more of a spec ops raid. Go with the style you think you would like more.
Model wise I flat out prefer planetfall. I just don't much care for the DzC aesthetic, but that is a purely subjective viewpoint.

That's a pretty good assessment. That said, previous Spartan games with older iterations of the rules did have dice off issues, so it's in many ways fair to state that opinion after dealing with it for so long, but also fair to defend the latest iterations that might have fixed some or all of that. I know I had a lot of the same feelings about Dystopian Wars being a dice off, and after being screwed once it's usually not worth the time to find out about future versions or other games using similar rules.

Planetfall definitely gets a plus for being a big stompy mass battle game, if you want to see hordes of minis on the table, rushing out into the open firing pew pew lasers while stompy robots and giant cybertanks battle around them, it's a good way to go. I just hope their rush to jump into the Halo license doesn't distract them from fully realizing the game like they've done in the past.

DZC is precision or lightning strikes, stuff doesn't last long once in combat not for lack of HP, but just that you don't get as much on the table and everything's a bit deadly. It has its own rules flaws, but a lot of its own positives too. Much like SG with Halo, Hawk might be getting distracted from DZC with their Dropfleet game too.

creeping-deth87 wrote:

alexmann wrote:

 Killionaire wrote:
Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.
.

I must say this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written. Firestorm Armada is one of the deepest and most strategic games around period, never mind about space games. What I've seen of DFC so far looks decidedly thin by comparison.

I've been playing Firestorm Armada for a year and I really must question what else you have played to think it's a deep or strategic game, let alone among the MOST deep and strategic. I have never, EVER played a game of Firestorm where I felt like decisions made by either player were critical to the outcome of the match. It ALL boils down to who can roll more 6s, and sometimes who has a better sense of target priority. It's actually one of the most shallow games I've ever played.

You must have been playing a different game than I did.

 Killionaire wrote:
Dropzone by a mile.

I've played a lot of Spartan Games... and by a lot, I mean more or less the various naval reskins, and failed attempts at successful land games. They're just not deep enough, nor are they supported by the company to any extent to have staying power. I Like Firestorm Armada, but Dropfleet's looking to be substantially deeper and better balanced.
.

Nonsense. Firstly, Firestorm has a pretty good balance, secondly, both Firestorm and D-Wars are supported very well by Spartan, with regular new releases, updates etc. There is also no seperate land game (unless you are referring to Armoured Clash, which is more of a supplement to D-Wars than a full game). D-Wars is sea, land and air all combined into a single game. I think it is great. There exists no other game with such variety and so many options.

neiltj1 wrote: As far as Planetfall vs DzC. Planetfall will have more of a massed combat feel to it. Lots of units to choose from. DzC is more of a spec ops raid. Go with the style you think you would like more.
Model wise I flat out prefer planetfall. I just don't much care for the DzC aesthetic, but that is a purely subjective viewpoint.

I don't think Dropfleet is any less massed combat than Firestorm. Just the starter box has already 14 ships, compared to 12 ships in the old Firestorm starter.
And how couldn't you like those UCM ships? They are the most awesome things ever! In fact, seeing those UCM ships is what finally got me into DzC/DfC rather than continueing with Firestorm/Planetfall.

Iron captain i was talking about the ground combat games not the fleet games.

 neiltj1 wrote:


Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I agree Alexmann. Just played a game tonight where I outmaneuvered my opponent and crushed the core of his fleet. The game for me was won in the movement phase. If you find that dice rolls are the only deciding factor you are probably not making use of maneuver or your table is very light on terrain.

Never played a game where maneuver had much of an impact. It's pretty easy to keep your targets in the right firing arcs, and then it just comes down to who rolls more exploding dice. Not saying that it isn't fun, I've enjoyed some of the games I've played, but it's such a shallow game I'm honestly really surprised there are people out there who think it's deep. It's a very put your models on the board and chuck dice at each other kind of game, totally something you could play with your brain turned off.

I've played both.
However I've also stopped playing DZC and I'm still playing PF occasionally. PF is very lite mechanics wise, but if people can play WH40k, then PF certainly has its own market. Not to mention PF prices are imo, cheaper than DZC.

As for DZC, here's a list of reasons why I stopped playing.
1) The time issue. As someone said, PF can be settled by turn 3-4 usually. This is maybe 1-2 hrs for a 1000-3000 point game. However, DZC requires you to play a FIXED number of turns just to find out who wins. I've had most games go on for 3 + hrs for a standard sized game of 1,500? And there's honestly not enough happening in the game for me to be constantly interested for 3 hrs +.

2) Random &!)* objectives. I hate the random objectives. I feel like objectives really should be fixed. I don't like going into a building, rolling a 6 and then escaping on turn 2, nor do I like going into a building and constantly rolling 1s and failing to get an objective by turn 5. Seriously, why is capturing objectives random in a competitive game??

3) Balance. Depending on who you ask, DZC has balance issues. When I last played as UCM, I generally felt my stuff were vanilla. We had some standout units but in general, they were so vanilla, they failed to do much when every faction seems to excel at something. Especially Shaltari. IIRC Shaltari were the Cryx of DZC, having the highest number of tourney placers in 2015.

Never played PF, but have played lots of DzC and it kicks arse.

Check out some youtube VBRs for DzC and see if you like it.
https://www.youtube.com/user/newtoncain/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0

 neiltj1 wrote:
Iron captain i was talking about the ground combat games not the fleet games.

Oh yeah. Stupid of me. Just too excited for Dropfleet I suppose

But for the ground games that is most definitely true yes.

Sining wrote:
Not to mention PF prices are imo, cheaper than DZC.

That is not just your opinion. DzC is expensive as hell.
Not only are Planetfall mins cheaper than DzC minis, Planetfall minis are also about 2 or 3 times as large as DzC minis. So purely based on the amount of resin you get, Planetfall is better value. Of course, value is subjective and also depends on how much enjoyment you get out of the miniatures. If you like DzC aesthetics much better than Planetfall's, DzC miniatures will be the better value.


In the end, I feel that price is irrelevant and the choice of a game should come down to how much you like the rules, aesthetics and fluff.