It is so home made it looks like a DT orginal:P
'Home-brew' aircraft
That actually look really good
I bought a proper 1:48 scale Me 109. We shall see if that turns out better. I'm goin to have to kill another grenadier and that makes me sad. I might shove The beobachter into my squads to even out. I don't care for that unit.
That is too F-n cool, stevo!
A silhouette comparison between 1:72 and 1:48.
Definitely go with 1:48.
IMO those 1:48 boys will be too big for normal DT games;)
But the pilot might actually fit in the cockpit. Instead of looking like he's riding on one of those $0.25 machines outside the grocery store.
It's a question of scale. Real 1:48 chopper would IMO be too big to nicely fit into the game. Compare a normal inf 2 guy and the allied light mech "rider" the light mech pilot is either a midget or is scaled down to better fit the machine and it's looks;)
Have you noticed the aircraft decals on Dust-Models.com? IMHO the reason that they are only SSU and Allied decals there is that Paolo and co. are planning to introduce rocket troops for Axis...
Maybe the allied walker rider is small like a Horse jockey.
Wait. You got something there!
Don't make it hover by thrust but by rotors. I'll explain. If you get a Me 110/Ju88/Do17 or Do217 kit, you can chop its tail and engines off and glue them on the corresponding place in the Me 109 kit (after chopping/adapting the tail and wing tips of course). These kits will have engines big enough (specially the Ju88 and Do17/217) as to change the propeller blades for bigger ones (or you can leave the originals as they can work with the Me109 own original propeller).
The final appearance would be that of a single seat V22 Osprey like fighter. Wings can be replaced too for a sturdier look (after all a column should run into the wings connecting the wing engines and allowing them to rotate independently of the wing, which should keep its position, just like that of the Osprey). If you use a Me110 kit, you can also chop its nose and put it in place of the Me109's own. You'll lose one engine but will get an armored nose full of MGs. Adapt the bombs coming with the 110 or get some from another kit et voilà, you have a VK jabo!
The final kit will be not much wider than the incoming SSU 'copter, but longer if not excessively, but will have killer looks. For sure, it would be an expensive machine to build, both in components and materials and engineering. Its performance and weaponry could be impressive, as permitted by its VK energy source: two 20 mm. cannons and four 7.92 MGs on its nose if the Me110 one is used (speed could be at 600 kph, maybe), two nose mounted MGs and one 20 mm engine mounted cannon if the 109 nose is used (with speed going up to 800 kph?). Just speculating but the looks would be fine either way, and you'd have an almost VTOL gun platform.
Image of a V22 Osprey:
(from www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-The-Multi-Year-Program-04823/ )
Donor kits:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110
A nice collection of german VTOL video's here: www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-6SrUyNG4fYA/where_eagles_dare_the_real_german_ww2_helicopter/
I was thinking of an osprey style craft for a single seat attack craft. I'm keeping wings on the 1:48 scale but might alter them a little. Still going to make it hover capable. Mate attach the 1:72 propeller to the tail as a helicopter like stabilizer too.
I still want to build a 1-2 man derrigible Axis attack craft.
You won't need a tail rotor in an Osprey like plane. Or in a double rotor machine for that matter. That's why there isn't any in the SSU helicopter.
Another thing you can try is to get an A10 kit or a commercial twin jet engine plane and chop off its engines, then glue them to the wing tips. So you have an Osprey jet.
Darn it. I could try that. Got to give it a try...
Hmm, wing tip engines. I like that. Probably easier to convert than a mid wing operation.
According to our Skype chat today directly with Paulo himself the majority, if not all aircraft in the game will be Vertical Takeoff and Landing. He said that he doesn't want them to appear for a strafe and then disappear because it would make the game too complicated. He also said that some would be harder to hit baed on their speed, while others more fragile. He noted that there will be a totally different behavior for flying craft in Dust Warfare because it's rules naturally lend towards the complexity.
He said that the SSU transport helicopter will have 3 variants much like the walkers. He also mentioned how flying aircraft have total visibility of the battlefield because of their high altitude, but likewise can be seen by anybody. They will also be able to deploy anywhere on the battlefield given their abilities. Some will have a small amount of minimum move while others can pure hover.
When asked if Tactics will take a backburnwr after warfare comes out his reply was that both games will continue full support, and as one game gets an expansion, the other will get it too in a slightly different version to accompany each games different rules. They will remain as two separate games that just happen to use the same miniatures. Tactics will remain the less complicated and fun version, while Warfare will delve into the more experienced and in depth player.
I hope the 'total visibility of the battlefield' is a misunderstanding, as there should still be dead zones behind structures a unit could use for cover. They're there for satellites and high flying spy planes today, so I don't see how choppers could avoid them closer to the Earth.
I also worry about chopper deployment, as it would cause more problems for established and new scenarios if choppers could always deploy anywhere on the battlefield. People already complain about speed 2 infantry breaking some scenarios when they still have to move in from the table edge.
The more hints drop about DUST Warfare being very different from DUST Tactics, the less enthusiatic I get about its impending release.
The idea of the open tabletop version of a game being more complex than a board game is completely the opposite of just about every game option I've seen. Open tabletop games rarely have the option to delve into greater depths of complexity because they have more fudge factors to account for from terrain and model action. Those that try tend to be less playable on larger scales because of the problems inherent in open tabletop gaming. Players who take the stance that open tabletop games are more complex than board games and for more experienced gamers are not actually looking at the facts of how the different styles can work. TTG's look cooler than board games, though Tactics' hybrid construction using miniatures offsets some of that, but they are not usually the game of choice for the gamer looking for depth and complexity.
Tactics is simple enough Warfare has easier growth room than it might otherwise from a board game, but I'm starting to fear a fiasco instead of a cool new option for gaming.
I'll be looking through the Warfare rules before I buy now, instead of buying and hoping for a pleasant surprise.
That's fine, I'm sure some people won't like Warfare, and new players might not like tactics. It is what it is I guess.
Im sure when Paulo said that aircraft have total visibility he wasn't thinking about a 3 story building, but he didn't say that there wouldn't be cover saves against them still.
I won't belive you would be able to se them trough whole map. Using aircrafts under those circumstances against Axis, would mean suicide
I belive the warfer will be a must have for ment DT players who could gain more complex and longer, less lucky-dice based game.
When I said 'cover,' I wasn't discussing cover saves. I meant line of sight cover. Currently, DUST gives a blind spot behind buildings for models with elevated positions looking over them. Choppers need to maintain that, or they become foolish.
I'll be quite happy if Warfare is a good game. I would enjoy a higher level of tactical complexity, as Tactics is about as simple as I'm normally willing to deal with. It took time for people to convince me to give it a try because of its simplicity. Tactics worked far better than I'd expected, so I wound up pleasantly surprised. I don't dig out Squad Leader or Star Fleet Battles every time I game, but I can be very happy with complexity that works. Complexity that doesn't make sense turns me off to any game fairly quickly.
If Warfare is a completely different game, it will have to shine as a game, because I already have plenty of really good games I can play, and Tactics does a good job of scratching my alternate history WW2 itch. If I can build a force for both games, and have them play effectively with similar tactics, it would be a good start. If the game is made different just to be different, it had better be a better game to keep my interest. Complexity does not always make a game better.
We are already reaping the cost of Warfare's differences. People have complained about the new units costing more. I have suggested it could be because the initial releases are supposed to give a cheaper buy-in option for people starting the game. The increase could more simply be to offset the cost of developing what will effectively be two internally competing products that happen to use the same miniatures. Even if the original prices are for a cheaper buy-in, part of the increase is certainly due to Warfare's development costs, because FFG has to pay for them somehow.
When it comes to miniatures games, the miniatures are what pay for the games. If DUST miniatures have to pay for two completely different games development and production, they will have to cost more to pay for those games as viable market products. The more the games are different, the greater the development costs, which have to pass on to the players to make them viable products. Warfare supplementing Tactics can build their markets, but Warfare competing due to the number of differences can erode both markets.
If Warfare is as good as it could be, I'll be happy to pay more for both games. If it doesn't appeal to me for whatever reasons, I don't like the idea of paying for a different game I don't play every time I buy models for a game I do play. Currently, the model prices are still reasonable, but the cost of two games will continue to pressure the market.
The more Warfare appeals to the Tactics market, the better the chances it has. Alternate history WW2 is a niche market, so if Warfare splits the Tactics players, and does not find enough additional players to make up for it, it could kill both games chances as commercial successes.
I don't want to see that.
Definitely see where Warfare creates a more expensive cost for the models. Not just development costs, but also an expected increase in Demand for the miniatures. More retailers picking up the inventory, etc.
Get the models while you can. There will be different releases later for sure.
Why does Warfare guarantee more retailers? It's just another game from FFG. FFG is a bigger game company, but they are a small miniatures game company. Stores carrying Tactics are likely to risk Warfare due to only needing to pick up the separate rules, but new stores are not guaranteed just because we like the game. Warfare is not more saleable than Tactics, it is only different than Tactics. Because they share inventory, stores carrying Tactics might find Warfare more tempting, but other stores will not want to carry what they percieve to be (and could well be) competing products with a single, limited fan base. Some will feel they would have to choose one or the other, and dither over which to carry to the point they do neither.
Alternate history WW2 is a niche market, so there will not automatically be a major increase in players. There are only so many with interest in the genre, however cool the models might be. A really good game might shift players from other games in the genre, or bring in completely new players, but also shift players from Tactics to Warfare for no actual gain.
A larger demand would not be reason for higher prices unless there were to be limited availability. Since they are not producing limited edition models, higher demand would mean more production, which could mean lower prices because individual units would have a lower percentage of the development costs to offset before they became profitable. Since few companies mind selling with a higher profit margin on a product the public is buying, I don't expect the prices to go down, though I'd be happy if they did.
I never said guarantee more retailers. From my observation of my local region I do see more retailers carrying it, or those that do carrying more variety or duplicates of the boxes.
And increasing a production run in most cases increases the cost of operation and per unit initially. Lets say they were already producing at capacity and now need 20% more models, do you open another at double the cost of overhead just to then have both operating at 60% capacity? No, you increase the price to reduce demand, or to cover the cost of expanded operations.
Tactics is and probably always will be the preferred game version, and warfare is just an alternate ruleset. Parente himself said that we will not see units unique to one game or the other, but they may not behave they same way in both games given the inherent differences of gameplay.
I don't see Warfare specifically pushing expansion for carrying DUST, though I do see overall player demand pushing expanded store coverage. Warfare might help or hurt that expansion, depending on reaction to the new game. I misunderstood your comment on an expected increased demand while talking about Warfare's release as meaning the increased demand as being due to Warfare. Please excuse my confusion.
Expanded production does cause expense, though how much it does depends on initial investment for production. If operations were running at 50% capacity due to initial production set up, increased production would not cost nearly as much as having to expand production facilities. We don't know how FFG and DUST Models are set up to produce DUST, so we don't know how much is Warfare, how much is short term to temporarily reduce demand, or what other factors may be involved.
We know Warfare is impacting cost,because it is an obvious new expense for the line. Setting up production for the SSU and other new units would also be adding to production costs during the run up. The release of the models as models before they are released for the game is a mitigating process for us, as the model sales will have already absorbed some of the initial model production expenses before it hits the gamers. I see that as part of why the game models are so much less than the models sold separately. I don't mind that at all.
All other things being equal (continued release of new models and expansions, etc), Warfare's development expenses looms as the apparent largest contributor to the increased costs outside the possible use of low buy-in forces. Since I would expect a similar buy-in option for the SSU if that were the case, it looks more like Warfare is the major new expense. While they are releasing several SSU units at once, they are not releasing as many Axis or Allied units at the same time that we've heard of, so the SSU are taking the place of some new production Axis or Allied units for now.
Warfare is not the sole contributor to increased model prices, but it is significant. The greater the divergence of the two games, the greater that expense will be as time goes on.