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.

Chopstick wrote:

Thunderbolt certainly isn't the "lightest" aircraft. Avenger Strike and Lightning are.

While you're right, I think it's implied that the Thunderbolt is the "lightest" imperial aircraft at launch.

Chopstick wrote:
Thunderbolt certainly isn't the "lightest" aircraft. Avenger Strike and Lightning are.

Now that you mention. I'd be super stoked to have both the Voss-pattern Lightnings and Avengers in an upcoming release.

I just hope they make the Lightnings good in some way with this release. In old AI, there was no point in taking a Lightning when for 4 points more you get a thunderbolt that was better in every way except it didn't get the two highest maneuver cards (which were of questionable utility.)

Chopstick wrote:
16 Turn? You ran out of fuel at turn 12.


Anyways, new article, all old art.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/08/28/aeronautica-imperialis-the-tacticsgw-homepage-post-4/

Thunderbolt certainly isn't the "lightest" aircraft. Avenger Strike and Lightning are.

Sorry, I forgot it was 12 instead of 16. Either way, the full number of turns the game allows.

Chopstick wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Weapons other than missiles and bomb had unlimited ammo now (they can only shoot a few time in the original game)

Oh boo. Having limited ammunition was a great idea, it made it so that shooting is not always the correct choice. Now of course you roll the dice on that long range shot needing 6s to hit, it's not like it costs you anything to do it.

Certainly make people think twice before unleashing all of their available weapons upon the target, but doesn't make sense when you think about it, especially for auto weapon, which would carry hundred to thousand of ammo round.

What difference does that make? A Spitfire Mk1 had 2,400 rounds, which was enough for ... 15 seconds firing. Or, in AI terms, it had 8 shots, with each "shot" representing a 2 -second burst from all 8 guns at once. the quad autocannon in a Thunderbolt will be similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if we'll see an AA variant of the Marauder Destroyer at some point? skystrike missiles instead of ground-attack missiles, different targeting systems on the turrets and off you go.

I'm also now considering a custom map for Bommerz over da Sulphur River.

If they did, Vigilant would be the way to go for that one.

AWACs and a ton of Go Away rockets.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I wonder if we'll see an AA variant of the Marauder Destroyer at some point?

Oh please no. This whole idea of dogfighting with bombers is terrible. Bombers are there to wreck ground targets, not to act like 40k LoW and just be bigger and more expensive versions of normal units. This is something the original game did very nicely and it needs to carry over.

Who said dogfighting? I was thinking of it as part of a bomber wing for long-range raids where Thunderbolts don’t have the range to keep up.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if we'll see an AA variant of the Marauder Destroyer at some point? skystrike missiles instead of ground-attack missiles, different targeting systems on the turrets and off you go.

I'm also now considering a custom map for Bommerz over da Sulphur River.

I made several posts about this, guess no one read them, even in the article they suggest Marauder bomber as sniper for the squadron. I even point out you get 0 Skystrike missile in the Marauder Bomber sprue, and so probably had to use them from the thunderbolt kit. (or don't becasuse skystrike missile is ugly,)

I hope they sell the bases separately.

Whelp, I was worried how to separate my hobby funds after the Nova Open reveals, but I can safely say after an extremely disappointing set of reveals I can safely just spend that money on Aeronautica. Yah!

 Crimson wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I hope they make some completely new planes for this game.

Eh, that's dangerous ground to treat when GW has a rather large portfolio of existing 40K designs for a number of races. The second you start building new stuff, you'll get endless cries (sometimes justified) of "where are the _______ that have been around for 20 years?".

*sigh*

You are right and it is still boring.

What sort of new aircraft are you thinking? I felt the Imperium was pretty well serviced, a couple of fighters, a heavy bomber, various transports and close support things. Some of the other races could use some roles filled out better, but the main ones (fighter and bomber) were well serviced with existing aircraft, so it seems odd to release something new before the existing ones.

I don't mind the idea of new aircraft, but unless they're filling out new roles I'd rather they just release the ones that already exist.

witchdoctor wrote:

Chopstick wrote:
Thunderbolt certainly isn't the "lightest" aircraft. Avenger Strike and Lightning are.

Now that you mention. I'd be super stoked to have both the Voss-pattern Lightnings and Avengers in an upcoming release.

I just hope they make the Lightnings good in some way with this release. In old AI, there was no point in taking a Lightning when for 4 points more you get a thunderbolt that was better in every way except it didn't get the two highest maneuver cards (which were of questionable utility.)

Personally I prefer the older style Lightnings, but I guess we're likely to get Voss pattern given they're a newer kit.

I think they'd go for the classic lightning just like the old game. Still not a fan of this model because I don't like guns at the wing tips

And Voss lightning suck unless they replace the pointless spike on the belly with the autocannon hard point.

Chopstick wrote:
I think they'd go for the classic lightning just like the old game. Still not a fan of this model because I don't like guns at the wing tips

And Voss lightning suck unless they replace the pointless spike on the belly with the autocannon hard point.

I don’t think they’ll be bound to the old models, they already replaced the fighta with the dakkajet.

Voss pattern just looks a bit too clunky to me, too many angles and faces such that it doesn’t look like anything coherent to me.

Was looking at some of the kit sprue pics.
Damn they look very small and fiddly. I hate assembly anyways but these look like my nightmare.

Personally I am really excited for this, the problem will be finding someone to play it with me as everyone I know just plays 40k...

 Ratius wrote:
Was looking at some of the kit sprue pics.
Damn they look very small and fiddly. I hate assembly anyways but these look like my nightmare.

Just switch to plastic glue with a brush, like Tamiya extra thin cement. GW "dropet" plastic glue bottle is bad.

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if we'll see an AA variant of the Marauder Destroyer at some point? skystrike missiles instead of ground-attack missiles, different targeting systems on the turrets and off you go.

I'm also now considering a custom map for Bommerz over da Sulphur River.

I made several posts about this, guess no one read them, even in the article they suggest Marauder bomber as sniper for the squadron. I even point out you get 0 Skystrike missile in the Marauder Bomber sprue, and so probably had to use them from the thunderbolt kit. (or don't becasuse skystrike missile is ugly,)

I know; I read all that. I still think that from a narrative point of view, a Marauder “aegis” would be an interesting addition. Using the standard bomber as any sort of air-to-air combatant makes as much sense as using TIE bombers in X-Wing. The Marauder is basically a sci fi Lancaster; having it mixing it up with fighters is daft.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


I know; I read all that. I still think that from a narrative point of view, a Marauder “aegis” would be an interesting addition. Using the standard bomber as any sort of air-to-air combatant makes as much sense as using TIE bombers in X-Wing. The Marauder is basically a sci fi Lancaster; having it mixing it up with fighters is daft.

So you think using Marauder to combat fighters is wack but propose new Marauder variant to combat fighter? I think you'd actually want a completely new Aircraft, or a new Valkirie/Vulture variant.

 Sabotage! wrote:
Whelp, I was worried how to separate my hobby funds after the Nova Open reveals, but I can safely say after an extremely disappointing set of reveals I can safely just spend that money on Aeronautica. Yah!

Sadly not the case here; I might have to bail altogether on AI due to the incoming Banshees and other inevitable Aspects and Phoenix Lords - not to mention the possibilty of a new Avatar.

And doubtless there is more Titanicus on the way...

Flashy new website live:

https://aeronautica-imperialis.com

Wow, looks great!

Is that How To Play video new? As someone who has never seen the game that was really helpful. Can't wait to try this

Chopstick wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


I know; I read all that. I still think that from a narrative point of view, a Marauder “aegis” would be an interesting addition. Using the standard bomber as any sort of air-to-air combatant makes as much sense as using TIE bombers in X-Wing. The Marauder is basically a sci fi Lancaster; having it mixing it up with fighters is daft.

So you think using Marauder to combat fighters is wack but propose new Marauder variant to combat fighter? I think you'd actually want a completely new Aircraft, or a new Valkirie/Vulture variant.

What are you talking about? I said using a Marauder to dogfight was daft, and instead suggested having one that’s part of the bomber formation provide defensive firepower. If a Marauder Bomber is an Avro Lancaster, then what I’m suggesting is something like a B-17 with increased anti-aircraft firepower at the expense of reduced (or eliminated entirely) ground attack capability.


Perhaps you’re not aware of it, but air-to-air dogfighting is not the only focus of this game (unlike X-Wing); it’s perfectly possible to have a slow-moving, lumbering bomber formation surrounded by more agile fighters.

Using Valkyries as bomber escorts is even more ridiculous; there’s a reason Hueys didn’t escort the B-52s to Hanoi.

Are you sure there is no skystrike missiles on the marauder sprue? That's disappointing, I was really hoping that you would be able to make every option from every sprue... I hate it when you have to buy extra kits just to fulfil the option which you want!

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, looks great!

Is that How To Play video new? As someone who has never seen the game that was really helpful. Can't wait to try this

Yeah it’s new with the website. Good video as they Becca Scott how to plays generally are. The game looks really cool, mechanically simple, but you have to anticipate your opponent and plan your moves around that.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


What are you talking about? I said using a Marauder to dogfight was daft, and instead suggested having one that’s part of the bomber formation provide defensive firepower. If a Marauder Bomber is an Avro Lancaster, then what I’m suggesting is something like a B-17 with increased anti-aircraft firepower at the expense of reduced (or eliminated entirely) ground attack capability.

So it's a Marauder Destroyer with Sky Strike Missile then? The only thing that could give it even more fire power is gun mount on wings, at that point I probably prefer it to be a new aircraft with better speed and maneuver.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

What sort of new aircraft are you thinking? I felt the Imperium was pretty well serviced, a couple of fighters, a heavy bomber, various transports and close support things. Some of the other races could use some roles filled out better, but the main ones (fighter and bomber) were well serviced with existing aircraft, so it seems odd to release something new before the existing ones.

I don't mind the idea of new aircraft, but unless they're filling out new roles I'd rather they just release the ones that already exist.

Rogue Trader's landing craft and atmospheric-entry-capable starfighter escorts for it, the Overlord flyer for Space Marines, perhaps some crazy giant 'helicarrier' style flying command centre for the Imperial Navy, and of course the various aliens could use all sort of new planes. In this scale it would be possible to do bigger things too, stuff that would be impractical in 40K. Though I'm not as much talking about combat roles than new visually exiting designs.

Watching the ‘How to Play’, I think this might be a realistic challenger to X-Wing in terms of system (whether 40k and butt heads with Star Wars, who knows).

The hex system is pretty straight forward. And with a manoeuvres chart, and a simple guide as to who can do what, it may help deal with the difficulty curve X-Wing has*, as a new comer will have a clearer idea of just what the opposing plane might do.

But, the speed, altitude and tailing rules add in complexity where the hexes take it away. These are factors X-Wing doesn’t offer at present. So there’s definitely a tactical challenge for peeps that are old hand stick jockeys from that to learn and enjoy.

Proof of course will be in the playing. It could turn out to play like a bag of soggy weasels.

For £55 for lots of really nice models? I’m happy to find out.

*This is of course not a Bad Thing, inherently. Player skill absolutely should play a role in any game. But I find X-Wing too steep, as an experienced player will literally fly circles round a newcomer, and that can be off putting.

X-Wing had a lot of extra rule like Unique pilot skill , upgrade or damage deck. AI keep it simple and only focus on the dogfighting.

We had to see the new book and new pilot rule before drawing the conclusion, but I doubt it'll be that much different to the current revealed game.

 Tokhuah wrote:
I hope they sell the bases separately.

I think the bases are the worst part....I think basic clear hexes would be far better (and then you can mount all your aftermarket/3D printed planes on them)

Chopstick wrote:
X-Wing had a lot of extra rule like Unique pilot skill , upgrade or damage deck. AI keep it simple and only focus on the dogfighting.

We had to see the new book and new pilot rule before drawing the conclusion, but I doubt it'll be that much different to the current revealed game.

Similarities as I see them?

Planes! Hidden manoeuvres. Damage.

Differences as I see them?
AI - Altitude counts for range. Tailing fire. Different weapons have different range ‘sweet spots’ where they’re most effective. Tailing fire.
X-Wing - individual pilot ratings, focus/target lock type stuff.

Me? I like that AI has worked in Altitude. Let’s a 2D playing field act 3D, in a way X-Wing hasn’t. Whether or not it works, remains to be seen,