Sadly not much to report for the month of January. =(
Per a previous post, I did read through the rules for Dropfleet Commander and the game looks very interesting. That prompted me to get distracted and start assembling the Scourge from the kickstarter but I have not had much time to do even that (maybe just a couple of hours a week). And since I decided to magnetize the options for the Scourge fleet, that has not resulted in actually getting many of them completed (just 4 Frigates, 3 Cruisers; still leaving me with 8 Frigates and 2 more Cruisers I believe). I have post regarding that effort prepared and it will be up in the next couple of days.
In other news, I received the remaining part of my Shadows of Brimstone kickstarter:
I really didn't realize there was this much remaining to my pledge. And I really have no idea what I am going to do with all this stuff. I also received an email from Prodos that my AvP kickstarter was in shipment! What!? I wont hold my breath though, I'm sure it will be in "shipment" status for an eternity and then probably another year for it to arrive via pony express. And I seem to not even really care anymore.
That's pretty much it. Looking forward, I'm going to try to knock out the last of the Scourge fleet this week. After that, I have an Adepticon project to address (assuming some bitz I ordered ever come in) and I should also get back to my Masons and finish them. Hmm, the question is whether or not to add the 3 new Mason models to that batch. I think I will hold off till I finish the others but who knows. I might even knock out a quick and simple paint job for my Scourge. Also hoping to get a game of something in this month. We'll see but I need to get as much done before March as I can, because hobby time will have to take a backseat to some serious yard work that needs to be done that month.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
2017 Hobby Goals
Well, a few weeks late but I have finally taken a stab at my hobby goals for 2017.
So very specific 2017 Hobby Goals:
For maximum efficiency, I'm sure that some of the unfinished painting projects will serve double duty for "Paint something for X" goals.
So very specific 2017 Hobby Goals:
- Weeks having painted/assembled/hobby'd > 30*
- Weeks having played miniature games > 12*
- Weeks having played board or role-playing games > 20
- Read more books => 12*
- Paint something for Adepticon
- Paint something for CMON Expo
- Painting something for NOVA Open
- Paint up 1 (of my many) Dungeon Crawl type games.
- Start my Super Secret Modelling/Painting project
- Stay within budget
For maximum efficiency, I'm sure that some of the unfinished painting projects will serve double duty for "Paint something for X" goals.
More general 2017 Hobby Goals:
- Reign in spending: Are you playing it? Are you painting it? Don't just "collect" it.
- Less kickstarters: Is it really "exclusive"? Can you really use it? Will it make it to the table? Don't just "collect" it.
- Paint more, including finishing some of my incomplete but started painting projects (lots to choose from: Infinity, Malifaux, Guild Ball, Mass Fantasy Battle, Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada, Dystopian Wars)
- Don't buy more miniatures than you paint. Unlikely but I should not give up on this. Hahaha, right.
- A hold over from last year since I did not paint much in 2016, (for lack of thinking of better words) find my painting "center". I need to find a speed, style and quality of painting that accomplishes what I want. Basically, I want to establish an efficient baseline to work to most of the time and at times to deviate from. Maybe later I will write something explaining my thoughts about this a little better but this post is not the place.
Just like last year, I have too many goals but hey that is just what they are. I did not call them resolutions, that just seems too absolute, too binary. Anyway, just a few weeks into the new year and I am not off to a great start. Hopefully I can get motivated soon and get rolling on these.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
2016 Hobby Audit (Final Thoughts) Part 4/4
As you may have seen, 2016 was pretty much a loss on the hobby front. Granted, there has been/was lots of, outside the hobby issues, to deal with. I hoping to get back on track this year but I fear that things will get pretty bumpy once my wife returns back to work. We are definitely going to have our hands even more full at that point, which is not something I can really comprehend being possible. We'll just have to see.
Per last year, I will wrap it up with a few of my favorite things from 2016 (random order, as they come to mind):
Per last year, I will wrap it up with a few of my favorite things from 2016 (random order, as they come to mind):
- Deadpool. I got everything, and a little more, I wanted out of this movie. I'm not to certain how a sequel will fair but I look forward to giving it a shot.
- Flash TV Show has me thoroughly hooked.
- Overwatch is a fantastic FPS that I have continued to lose many hobby hours to.
- The (2013) Tomb Raider (video game) reboot was incredible.
- The Forever War by Joe Haldeman shows there are definitely lots of old goodies out there (for me at least) when it comes to SciFi books. And so much crammed into such a short book. Amazing.
- Playing Autoduel (?) at Adepticon. I don't know why it is not there for 2017, but an incredibly thematic game, interesting mechanics and well executed. Ok, it helped that I won in an epic fashion but still.
- Meeting Seppy Yoon at Adepticon and getting to play his game End of the Line. So happy for his success. Even more amazed that I got my KS for the game months early!
- Although I haven't gotten to really take advantage of it, the local gaming group definitely seems to have expanding interest. Konflict 47 has swept onto the scene and pushed Bolt Action aside (it would seem). Frostgrave is extremely popular. Lots talk about Deadzone/Warpath.
- Guild Ball continues to be one of my favorite games despite only getting a few matches in. Wish I could have devoted time in 2016 to drum up local interest in the game.
Monday, January 9, 2017
2016 Hobby Audit (Spending Analysis) Part 3/4
Ahhh, tricky little numbers. I calculated all the stuff below and I was so excited to see that I reduced not only the % of my purchases being miniatures but also the % of my purchases being kickstarters! Win! WAIT!!! Remember last blog post? The one where I admitted I went 23% over my hobby budget. Oh no... That's right, I spent pretty much the exact same on miniatures and kickstarters as I did in 2015. Anyway, the same caveats as last years post still apply.
Anyway, the spending breakdown:
Modelling Supplies: 26%
Painting Supplies: 15%
Gaming Supplies: 11%
Terrain Supplies: 0%
General Hobby: 0%
Miniatures: 42%
Board Games: 6%
RPGs: 1%
Other views:
How much of the total spending was on kickstarters: 20%
How much at conventions: 14%
How much FLGS: 3% (I haven't had a decent FLGS in forever)
How much toward things that are getting to the table: 16%
Given the opening paragraph (that I actually still spent the same $ on minis and kickstarters as I did in 2015) I still need to cut back on miniatures, kickstarters and things that are not making it to the table. Also there has been unacceptable growth in modelling and painting supplies. Granted, part of this was due to a new hobby desk lamp that was a little expensive.
Explanation of categories, if curious:
Modelling Supplies - Includes items for assembling, miniature storage, etc
Painting Supplies - Includes paints, brushes, etc
Gaming Supplies - Need it to play the game, or it helps. Includes tokens, cards, rules, etc.
Terrain Supplies - Anything related to terrain or the making of terrain
General Hobby - Things not related specifically to a particular aspect, like gaming/hobby magazines
Miniatures - Take a guess
Board Games - No hiding miniatures here! Imperial Assault goes under Miniatures.
RPGS - Bet you can guess this one too.
Up next, final thoughts.
Modelling Supplies: 26%
Painting Supplies: 15%
Gaming Supplies: 11%
Terrain Supplies: 0%
General Hobby: 0%
Miniatures: 42%
Board Games: 6%
RPGs: 1%
Other views:
How much of the total spending was on kickstarters: 20%
How much at conventions: 14%
How much FLGS: 3% (I haven't had a decent FLGS in forever)
How much toward things that are getting to the table: 16%
Given the opening paragraph (that I actually still spent the same $ on minis and kickstarters as I did in 2015) I still need to cut back on miniatures, kickstarters and things that are not making it to the table. Also there has been unacceptable growth in modelling and painting supplies. Granted, part of this was due to a new hobby desk lamp that was a little expensive.
Explanation of categories, if curious:
Modelling Supplies - Includes items for assembling, miniature storage, etc
Painting Supplies - Includes paints, brushes, etc
Gaming Supplies - Need it to play the game, or it helps. Includes tokens, cards, rules, etc.
Terrain Supplies - Anything related to terrain or the making of terrain
General Hobby - Things not related specifically to a particular aspect, like gaming/hobby magazines
Miniatures - Take a guess
Board Games - No hiding miniatures here! Imperial Assault goes under Miniatures.
RPGS - Bet you can guess this one too.
Up next, final thoughts.
Thursday, January 5, 2017
2016 Hobby Audit (Goals Failed) Part 2/4
So, looking back at my 2016 Goals I am not sure what I was thinking. Granted, I definitely do not have a crystal ball and a baby definitely threw a wrench into some things. Also, I had some terrain goals that were basically under the assumption that I would buy a house that would allow me to have a game room. This is not exactly the case with the house I bought, at least right now...
So regarding the very specific 2016 Hobby Goals:
So regarding the very specific 2016 Hobby Goals:
- Spend more time painting and assembling models than in 2015. I only managed to get 24 weeks in where I actually did hobbying, compared to 30 the year before. I was on track to exceed this, until Alex arrived. Since then I have only recently gotten back on the hobby train.
- I have no idea how I didn't get more board or role-playing games in this year. Ok, RPG's I understand (not really looking for a group or that commitment) but board games!? We have a weekly Wednesday lunch group. How could I only get 5 games in!?
- No, I did not even touch those Malifaux models I started in 2015. Without the drive to jump into the "local" Malifaux scene, they simply feel off my radar.
- I also did not managed to get my Guild Ball Masons Team painted. =( Four of the models are done, except for basing. The rest haven't been touched in awhile.
- There was a "Special Super Secret Modelling/Painting project" that had no action on it.
- Not going to CMON Expo gave me an easy excuse to not have something painted up for it. LOL.
- Not going to the NOVA OPEN also gave me another easy excuse to not have something painted up for it.
- I didn't even open up one of my Dungeon Crawl type games, let alone paint it.
- As previously implied, all terrain projects are on hold. So I didn't build all those DUST Warfare building I intended to.
- For same reason, didn't build "Special Super Secret Terrain/table."
- Did not enter any kind of a painting competition.
- Went 23% over budget. Ugh. I suspect it was actually a little worse. There looks to be some funny math that went on with gift cards but the accountant is refusing to talk...
Concerning the more general 2016 Hobby Goals:
- For 2016 I had a goal to "reign in spending" which was a bit of misnomer. The intent was to be more focused in what I bought, ie don't just collect stuff. I would say, I wasn't horrible in this regard (ie, I improved comparatively) but ultimately failed.
- I really didn't manage to withstand the sway of kickstarters in 2016. They did take a bit of different form and didn't always result in 8 million new figures though.
- As you can maybe infer from the first section, I didn't really manage to paint more miniatures this year either. =(.
- Championing a game locally basically got thrown out the window for 2016 when I learned of my new time commitment (baby).
- Seriously, if I am not even getting to all this other stuff why would I be spending time researching my Windmills topics.
- I'd like to meet the (gamer) person that doesn't buy more than they paint. Does this fabled creature even exist? ;) I added a 157 miniatures to my shame this year. Ok, actually more like 300 given the Mythic Battles Pantheon kickstarter (figures from kickstarters get logged to the current year, even though I don't have them yet).
- Lastly, I had desired to find what I called my "painting center." By this I meant I wanted to establish an efficient standard to work to most of the time and at times to deviate from. Given how little I actually painted in 2016, I sure as hell did not find this along the way.
Yeah, that was about as bad as I thought it would be. Up next, where did I spend my money...
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
2016 Hobby Audit (Goals Achieved) Part 1/4
2016 has been a year of many upheavals that have distracted me or flat out prevented me from hobbying. From my daughter's adjustment to a new town/first grade (including sorting out some learning issues), looking for a house, buying a house, moving into a house, settling into the house, finding out a baby was on the way, arrival of said baby, etc. Oh yeah, and an Xbox One and a copy of Overwatch. Those last couple sure as hell has not helped my hobbying. lol.
A quick look back at my 2016 goals confirms this. I basically failed all of them but let's dive in anyway and continue the tradition I started a year ago. This will (maybe) help me align/calibrate myself for what I want to try to accomplish in 2017.
Given how bad I was at achieving my 2016 goals, I hereby declare that all ties count as "achieved!" Otherwise, I don't think there would be a purpose to this particular post. And that would be even more depressing.
Part 1 of 4, 2015 Goals Achieved:
A quick look back at my 2016 goals confirms this. I basically failed all of them but let's dive in anyway and continue the tradition I started a year ago. This will (maybe) help me align/calibrate myself for what I want to try to accomplish in 2017.
Given how bad I was at achieving my 2016 goals, I hereby declare that all ties count as "achieved!" Otherwise, I don't think there would be a purpose to this particular post. And that would be even more depressing.
Part 1 of 4, 2015 Goals Achieved:
- More weeks with a game of miniatures than 2015. I only managed 11 weeks of playing a miniature game as in 2016, the same as 2015. Most of them with Mike at Mini Mayhem and mostly Guild Ball. A game or two of Frostgrave and Kings of War. A game of Mike's Mini Mayhem. Plus stuff at Adepticon.
- Read more books than in 2015. Sigh, only managed to read exactly 8 compared to the same number as last year. I am half way through another but I didn't managed to get it finished.
- I also wanted to get integrated into the local gaming community better in 2016, which I think I have done. There were definitely opportunities missed and other avenues to explore, but I'm going to give myself a success here.
- I would say I spent less time on the internet looking, reading, watching the hobby and spent more time doing the hobby. Part of that may only be because I have less time in general but that is a depressing way to look at it, so I'm counting this a minor victory.
Wow, that's it. The Goals Failed post (next) is going to be long. LOL
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Rules Review - Dropfleet Commander
![]() |
| Did I really buy this much? Oh dear. |
![]() |
| Oh no, why did you do this? |
Background:
Dropfleet Commander is a capitol ship (ie, battleships, cruisers, frigates) space combat game set in the Hawk Wargames Sci-Fi universe, which is also home to the sister game Dropzone Commander. Rather than the typical space combat game though, Dropfleet focuses on the orbital combat involved in planetary conquest (or defense). This distinction leads to some very interesting characteristics to the game, described throughout this review, that help it stand out from other space combat games (in my opinion and to my knowledge).
Scale of Game:
Dropfleet Commander is intended to be played at a points value of 500-3000. This range is broken into 3 categories: Skirmish (500-999), Clash (1000-1999) and Battle (2000-3000). Ignoring most of fleet organization rules/restrictions and using pure point costs: I would guess Skirmish at 999 pts would be a combination of 13 frigates and cruisers; Clash ~25 combined ships; Battle ~36 combined ships. I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass but a quick look on the forums confirms the skirmish is in the ballpark. Tournament play is suggested at 1500 pts.
List Building:
To be honest, for me, list building is a royal mess and I can't wrap my head around it. It just makes my head hurt. And it is hard to write about something you don't understand. Luckily, The Hot LZ blog can provide some insights to you. Maybe. Good luck!
Standard Rules:
For the most part Dropfleet Commander plays as I would expect a naval warfare game to play, which seems fairly common in this genre. It also worth noting upfront, it does not make use of complex vector mechanics, mountains of book keeping or graduate level mathematics. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is matter of your perspective (for the record, it's a good thing in my eyes - why else would I have bought all that stuff up above). Rather than rehashing every aspect of the game rules, this post will already be to long, I will instead focus on what I consider unique or interesting aspects of the rules (good or bad). Also note, this what I pulled from my first pass through the rules and without having played, so I could have some things wrong. Ok, probably have at least something wrong.
A unique aspect that Dropfleet Commander seems bring to the genre, at least in regards to a more "abstracted" space combat games and to my knowledge, is the concepts of energy signature, sensors and target locks. Basically, it assumes that firing ranges are nearly infinite in exo-atmospheric flight and what drives your ability to hit another ship is achieving a proper firing solution. As such, ships have a sensor stat which gets added to the targeted ship's energy signature to result in the max distance that a target lock can be achieved. This seems to me to scale with ship size in what seems like a realistic and recursive manner: Smaller ships may lack the room to carry sophisticated sensor arrays that larger ships do, thus limiting their weapon ranges; Which also in turn represents the smaller weapons that they would be equipped with, since the ships are smaller. The energy signature of the ship is driven by a few factors: firing weapons increase it, certain maneuvers increase it (or decrease it in the case of silent running), using active scanning, being hit with active scanning, etc. The energy signature of a ship is tracked via the flight stand base so hopefully this is fairly minimal bookkeeping and hopefully not fiddly.
While the game does abstract the infinite-ness of space, and that it is 3 dimensional space, by specifying that ships do not collide with each other (unless you are trying to ram, which can only be done if your ship is already badly damaged) and do not block LOS, it does offer 3 altitudes bands (high orbit, low orbit and atmospheric) and the ability to move/interact between them in reasonable ways. While the altitude bands are nothing revolutionary to land/sea/air based combined arms games, how it's implemented and integrated into an orbital combat game seems new. The concept of orbital combat for planetary conquests leads to the scenarios based on delivering ground assets to key locations and this all appears to work nicely together.
Dropfleet Commander also makes use of battlegroups and groups. Within a battlegroup, identical ships form a group and solo ships forms there own groups. Groups must maintain a certain coherency based on it's hull value, representing that larger ships have better/more communication capability to share data and work together. Additionally, all groups within a battlegroup have to also maintain a certain coherency to represent their ability to work together. The exact composition of the battlegroup contribute to its overall value (I forget the term), which factors into the activation system. Again, nothing necessarily new to this but I like how it integrates into the activation system (coming up next).
Activation is handled in an interesting manner that might force key tactical decisions to be made in fleet composition, battlegroup composition and during the planning step. The planning step takes place at the beginning of each turn and has each player stack their set of battlegroup cards face down in an order of their choice. During activation, each player flips over their top battlegroup card. Now, remember how I said just above each battlegroup has a value? The player who has flipped the lower valued battlegroup gets to choose to activate that battlegroup first or force the other player to activate the one he revealed. I want to believe this helps represent that smaller battlegroups are more "nimble" than larger ones. Want to activate your heavily damage battleship to fire off it's weapons before it blows up? Better hope your opponent does not flip over that small battlegroup of frigates to finish you off.
I also really like how critical hits are handled. If your attack roll exceeds your target number by 2 or more, it is a critical. Unless a passive defense save is allowed, critical hits bypass the armor save to cause direct hull damage. End up with a damaged enough hull, then you start taking crippling damage which has a lot of cinematic flavor to it (reactor melt down, etc).
Lastly, if you decide to play with this option, you (and your opponent) draw activation cards at the beginning (I think) of each turn, based on your Admiral value. These cards have special triggers and effects that add bit of surprise to the flow. I wonder how these will be embraced by the community. I vaguely recall that Spartan Games Uncharted Seas (and maybe other of their games) might have had something like this but I want to say it was not particularly well received.
Things I think are fairly standard/not worth a paragraph but maybe should be pointed out:
Dropfleet Commander is intended to be played at a points value of 500-3000. This range is broken into 3 categories: Skirmish (500-999), Clash (1000-1999) and Battle (2000-3000). Ignoring most of fleet organization rules/restrictions and using pure point costs: I would guess Skirmish at 999 pts would be a combination of 13 frigates and cruisers; Clash ~25 combined ships; Battle ~36 combined ships. I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass but a quick look on the forums confirms the skirmish is in the ballpark. Tournament play is suggested at 1500 pts.
List Building:
To be honest, for me, list building is a royal mess and I can't wrap my head around it. It just makes my head hurt. And it is hard to write about something you don't understand. Luckily, The Hot LZ blog can provide some insights to you. Maybe. Good luck!
Standard Rules:
For the most part Dropfleet Commander plays as I would expect a naval warfare game to play, which seems fairly common in this genre. It also worth noting upfront, it does not make use of complex vector mechanics, mountains of book keeping or graduate level mathematics. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is matter of your perspective (for the record, it's a good thing in my eyes - why else would I have bought all that stuff up above). Rather than rehashing every aspect of the game rules, this post will already be to long, I will instead focus on what I consider unique or interesting aspects of the rules (good or bad). Also note, this what I pulled from my first pass through the rules and without having played, so I could have some things wrong. Ok, probably have at least something wrong.
A unique aspect that Dropfleet Commander seems bring to the genre, at least in regards to a more "abstracted" space combat games and to my knowledge, is the concepts of energy signature, sensors and target locks. Basically, it assumes that firing ranges are nearly infinite in exo-atmospheric flight and what drives your ability to hit another ship is achieving a proper firing solution. As such, ships have a sensor stat which gets added to the targeted ship's energy signature to result in the max distance that a target lock can be achieved. This seems to me to scale with ship size in what seems like a realistic and recursive manner: Smaller ships may lack the room to carry sophisticated sensor arrays that larger ships do, thus limiting their weapon ranges; Which also in turn represents the smaller weapons that they would be equipped with, since the ships are smaller. The energy signature of the ship is driven by a few factors: firing weapons increase it, certain maneuvers increase it (or decrease it in the case of silent running), using active scanning, being hit with active scanning, etc. The energy signature of a ship is tracked via the flight stand base so hopefully this is fairly minimal bookkeeping and hopefully not fiddly.
While the game does abstract the infinite-ness of space, and that it is 3 dimensional space, by specifying that ships do not collide with each other (unless you are trying to ram, which can only be done if your ship is already badly damaged) and do not block LOS, it does offer 3 altitudes bands (high orbit, low orbit and atmospheric) and the ability to move/interact between them in reasonable ways. While the altitude bands are nothing revolutionary to land/sea/air based combined arms games, how it's implemented and integrated into an orbital combat game seems new. The concept of orbital combat for planetary conquests leads to the scenarios based on delivering ground assets to key locations and this all appears to work nicely together.
Dropfleet Commander also makes use of battlegroups and groups. Within a battlegroup, identical ships form a group and solo ships forms there own groups. Groups must maintain a certain coherency based on it's hull value, representing that larger ships have better/more communication capability to share data and work together. Additionally, all groups within a battlegroup have to also maintain a certain coherency to represent their ability to work together. The exact composition of the battlegroup contribute to its overall value (I forget the term), which factors into the activation system. Again, nothing necessarily new to this but I like how it integrates into the activation system (coming up next).
Activation is handled in an interesting manner that might force key tactical decisions to be made in fleet composition, battlegroup composition and during the planning step. The planning step takes place at the beginning of each turn and has each player stack their set of battlegroup cards face down in an order of their choice. During activation, each player flips over their top battlegroup card. Now, remember how I said just above each battlegroup has a value? The player who has flipped the lower valued battlegroup gets to choose to activate that battlegroup first or force the other player to activate the one he revealed. I want to believe this helps represent that smaller battlegroups are more "nimble" than larger ones. Want to activate your heavily damage battleship to fire off it's weapons before it blows up? Better hope your opponent does not flip over that small battlegroup of frigates to finish you off.
I also really like how critical hits are handled. If your attack roll exceeds your target number by 2 or more, it is a critical. Unless a passive defense save is allowed, critical hits bypass the armor save to cause direct hull damage. End up with a damaged enough hull, then you start taking crippling damage which has a lot of cinematic flavor to it (reactor melt down, etc).
Lastly, if you decide to play with this option, you (and your opponent) draw activation cards at the beginning (I think) of each turn, based on your Admiral value. These cards have special triggers and effects that add bit of surprise to the flow. I wonder how these will be embraced by the community. I vaguely recall that Spartan Games Uncharted Seas (and maybe other of their games) might have had something like this but I want to say it was not particularly well received.
Things I think are fairly standard/not worth a paragraph but maybe should be pointed out:
- You have your fairly typical set of special orders: Weapons Free, Station Keeping, Course Change (additional turn), Max Thrust, Silent Running, Active Scan
- Movement is primarily handled in a naval combat game fashion. Must move at least half of your movement speed and can make one 45 degree turn at the beginning of the movement, unless you issue a special order.
- It is not a bucket of dice game like Spartan Game's core system or others. That being said, you do roll multiple dice to help offset a uniform distribution effect. Its just not a bucket of them.
- No exploding dice.
- While there are some tables, in my opinion they provide nice cinematic flavor to the game.
Scenarios:
As I mentioned several times before, this game is about the orbital combat of/during planetary conquests. Therefore, scenarios often require capturing and holding ground sectors by delivering ground troops to those locations and ground combat mechanics. The given scenarios seem to provide a nice set of variety and mostly interestingly use a wide variety of deployment types. Not just deployment zones but also things like turn staggered deployments.Other Things:
The rules, in my eyes, are well written. Even the fleet organization part appears to be very clearly stated, its just they are some complex restriction interactions that I can't process right now. The artwork is great and not a focus of this review, but I suspect the fluff is rich. I've already harped on the landscape layout but I can tell you it has been a couple of hours with the rules between righting that point above and then here; and I am even less happy about the layout now. lol
The miniature quality seems top notch. I have already started assembling the Scourge ships that I got in the kickstarter. While I got UCM x2, PHR x1 and Scourge x1, the Scourge were at the bottom of my list of desire. So I started with them in case I screwed something up (because I wanted to try magnetizing the options), I thought they would be easy to paint and because I loose motivation for anything after the first faction if I start with my primary choice. I will post these up later with more thoughts but overall they seem to be great miniatures.
I am also hopeful that Hawk Wargames can ride the wave generated by their kickstarter. There have been larger miniature wargame kickstarters (in terms of money raised) that have basically been DOA/stillborn. I suspect that a big part of this is that the momentum from the campaign has died in the 2-3 years it took before people got their product. Additionally, I believe backers start to have a lot of ill will because of delays/lack of communication and other kickstarter BS. Hawk Wargames is a little different in this regard, because from the day of funding until delivery (at least for me) was right at 1 year. Yes, it was late but that overall end-to-end time of one year is still far better than most wargaming kickstarters.
Another different aspect is that most kickstarter games, after initial deliver, spend the next few years producing and delivering (if you are lucky) the expansions or wave 2/3/4 that were part of the campaign. So lets say it took 2 years to get your base delivery and then another year (yeah right but bear with me) to get that first expansion. So, theoretically it is now maybe 3 and a half years since you "bought" into the game, before you may see something "new." Not so much for Dropfleet Commander. Battleships, which were not part of the kickstarter, are hitting retail soon (if not already) and Corvettes are already being teased (maybe those will be within 6 months of the Battleships). This is a much better business model/approach, in my opinion, than most other kickstarters.
Potential Concerns:
One concern I am left with though is the turn to turn satisfaction of playing the game. Let me try to illustrate my point. An opponent's UCM battleship could have a hull value of 18. Without causing a major energy spike to my ships, I can only fire 1 weapon system at a turn. That weapon system may only have 2-4 attack dice, has to get past the armor save and then they seem to typically only do 1 damage per hit. Given this, it seems like it could take awhile and a lot of focused fire to take that battleship down. Granted, this is how a battleship should be represented. But accurate representation does not always equal compelling game play. Only playing the game will really tell if the game feels like it gets bogged down.
Likely related to the previous concern, the rules indicate the typical tournament game (1500 pts) is expected to be 2.5-3 hours. =( I would much prefer if this was down into the 1.5-2 hour range.
I am put off a little bit by the combined group and battlegroup coherency rules. Only playing will tell but coming from a mostly skirmish game background, these are things I am typically not accustomed to. And on the occasions I have dealt with them, they have seemed to be a nuisance. Likewise, I am a little put off by the list building complexity (at least right now).
Another concern, is simply will the game be successful? Dropzone Commander (the sister game) does not really seem to have taken a strong hold in the hobby. Spartan Games also offers comparable games to Dropzone and Dropfleet, and non of there offerings seem particularly relevant in the hobby space either (maybe due more to Spartan Games than to the games themselves, but I wont get into that). Certainly in the case of Spartan Games and Dropzone Commander, there are strong pockets here and there, as certainly be the case with Dropzone Commander. They can probably all co-exist and survive in those pockets, I just hope that Hawk Wargames can grow it bigger than that.
The cost of the game also does seem a little high. The max skirmish list I took a guess at above would costs roughly $180 retail. Maybe that is why the community is coverging to 1500 pt games. The min size for a skirmish would be roughly half of that, so cost of basic entry would be about $120 ($90 for minis, $30 for rulebook and skipping the pack of activation cards). Not sure how any of these numbers compare to similar offerings though.
Lastly, there are 4 factions and these are the factions that have been established for quiet some time via Dropzone Commander (although Dropzone actually has 5 factions now, but that 5th will never get a spacefleet). I think this is good since I prescribed to the D6 generation's philosophy that 4 factions is the magic number for new games. But I don't know how or if, Hawk will add another/more factions. So the open questions is: While 4 initial factions is almost mandatory for any new game, can the game sustain with ONLY 4 factions. X-Wing is one exception to this, but then again X-Wing is an exception to almost everything. Although some people do not even consider it a valid "miniatures" game.
Conclusion:
Anyway, Dropzone Commander looks to be a good
And sorry, this was still very long winded. Once I start, I have trouble stopping. I guess. There is also a lot to cover.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




