I Dust Warfare expected to live a long time or just be a miniature game that attempts to get big and collapses? What I am saying is that is there any possibility that the game will be discontinued bevcause of money issues or because the player base is not big enough? Just wondering what some of your thoughts are!
Dust warfare going to live like warhammer
Tristan617 said:
I Dust Warfare expected to live a long time or just be a miniature game that attempts to get big and collapses? What I am saying is that is there any possibility that the game will be discontinued bevcause of money issues or because the player base is not big enough? Just wondering what some of your thoughts are!
Paolo Parente, the creator, has already mentioned in past interviews that he has the backing to continue well into the future. Seems he learned the lessons Rackham went through during the time he spent there.
Awesome!!! I hope it follows through tho!
One thing to ask though… Is paolo backing tactics for the most part or both? The reason I ask is if he evolves the tactics version then FFG will have to constantly change the rulebook for warfare…
Tristan617 said:
One thing to ask though… Is paolo backing tactics for the most part or both? The reason I ask is if he evolves the tactics version then FFG will have to constantly change the rulebook for warfare…
it is going to take a concerted effort by FFG to keep the Warfare side going. Paolo's flagship is Tactics, Warfare is completely designed by FFG off of the models that Paolo designs for Warfare. So far, theyve done a great job keeping pace with Paolo's designs. they have stated they will release a Warfare campaign book each quarter to mirror the Tactics campaign releases. I would think as long as the agreement stays fruitful for both sides, it should continue hand in hand. I play both, so if FFG does screw up Warfare (which I hope never happens), I can fall back on Tactics.
I personally don't want to 'fall back' on Tactics. As it stands, that game is less of a tactical challenge, and even less fun, than Warhammer 40K. In the scenarios, cover is negligible, the entire map is a dang killing field, and the winner usually has less than 20% of his force left when he utterly wipes out the attacker. As games go, it's too deadly, maneuver is too restricted, and cover too scarce. In addition, the game is heavily restricted by its map arrangements - for instance, you cannot truly play a Zverograd battle - urban Stalingrad-style conflict - without a lot of buildings, something their scenarios don't cover yet.
(I like Warfare; I was disappointed with Tactics.)
Warboss Krag said:
I personally don't want to 'fall back' on Tactics. As it stands, that game is less of a tactical challenge, and even less fun, than Warhammer 40K. In the scenarios, cover is negligible, the entire map is a dang killing field, and the winner usually has less than 20% of his force left when he utterly wipes out the attacker. As games go, it's too deadly, maneuver is too restricted, and cover too scarce. In addition, the game is heavily restricted by its map arrangements - for instance, you cannot truly play a Zverograd battle - urban Stalingrad-style conflict - without a lot of buildings, something their scenarios don't cover yet.
(I like Warfare; I was disappointed with Tactics.)
I actually prefer Tactics to Warfare, but both are great in their own right. I've played games of Tactics where the winner has more than 20% of their force left, and I don't really understand what you mean about the cover being negligible. When used appropriately, cover can provide huge benefits, just as it does in Warfare. The thing I love about Tactics is you don't run into those sticky "cover" arguments, it either is or isn't, no grey area. Tactics also has many tactical challenges, it's just different than Warfare. You have to plan your moves out differently in Tactics because of the alternating turn sequence.
Granted, I like both systems so I'm not dogging Warfare, I just think their 2 different dynamics that play differently. If you like fast, bloody, boardgame style games you'll prefer Tactics. If you like measuring move distances, shooting ranges, and arguing over 1/4" increments and cover, than you'll prefer Warfare
. I kid, I kid, Warfare is great and I hope to one day play more of it, but for now I just enjoy Tactics so much (mainly because it breaks the 40k mold) that it's hard to squeeze in a Warfare game.
Warboss Krag said:
I personally don't want to 'fall back' on Tactics. As it stands, that game is less of a tactical challenge, and even less fun, than Warhammer 40K. In the scenarios, cover is negligible, the entire map is a dang killing field, and the winner usually has less than 20% of his force left when he utterly wipes out the attacker. As games go, it's too deadly, maneuver is too restricted, and cover too scarce. In addition, the game is heavily restricted by its map arrangements - for instance, you cannot truly play a Zverograd battle - urban Stalingrad-style conflict - without a lot of buildings, something their scenarios don't cover yet.
(I like Warfare; I was disappointed with Tactics.)
tactics is very 'tactical' in a different way as was said above. The scenarios can be hit or miss, but you don't have to play the scenarios, we rarely do. It is a deadly game, and it punishes a foolish move much more than Warfare does, but that doesn't make it less fun, just different. And it will allow as much urban fighting as you want, in as thick or thin of an urban landscape as you wish.
this was from our last Tactics tourney.
blkdymnd said:
Warboss Krag said:
I personally don't want to 'fall back' on Tactics. As it stands, that game is less of a tactical challenge, and even less fun, than Warhammer 40K. In the scenarios, cover is negligible, the entire map is a dang killing field, and the winner usually has less than 20% of his force left when he utterly wipes out the attacker. As games go, it's too deadly, maneuver is too restricted, and cover too scarce. In addition, the game is heavily restricted by its map arrangements - for instance, you cannot truly play a Zverograd battle - urban Stalingrad-style conflict - without a lot of buildings, something their scenarios don't cover yet.
(I like Warfare; I was disappointed with Tactics.)
tactics is very 'tactical' in a different way as was said above. The scenarios can be hit or miss, but you don't have to play the scenarios, we rarely do. It is a deadly game, and it punishes a foolish move much more than Warfare does, but that doesn't make it less fun, just different. And it will allow as much urban fighting as you want, in as thick or thin of an urban landscape as you wish.
this was from our last Tactics tourney.
Nice setup there, loving all those buildings Blkdymnd!
One thing we've started to do with Tactics is a custom campaign and we're creating our own scenarios to go along the way. Scenarios are what you make of them, and its pretty easy to tweak things here and there to make them more enjoyable. Nothing beats a good ole' fashion tourney game though.
I played Warhammer Fantasy and still play some 40K, and I tell you, I REALLY hope that Dust grows and, maybe, someday be as big as 40K (in terms of players and armies variety). But what I hope most is that, if that happens, FFG doesn´t turn its back on their customers/fan base as Games Workshop keeps doing. Thats what I really wish for.
Just my two cents.