Why the Etna?

Home Forums Historical Victory At Sea Why the Etna?

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #182808
    Robert Henderson
    Participant

    I don’t understand the inclusion of the Etna in the new Italian fleet. Why include an obscure ship that never was completed as opposed to one of 18 actual light cruisers including 12 Condottieri types that were completed and active?

    #182809
    Bill McGill
    Participant

    And why the Aquila too? That was never completed either. The German fleet box isn’t lumbered with uncompleted ships (even though there are always people wanting German super-weapons) so why has the Italian Fleet box been padded out with one-quarter of the ships that are a waste of resin?

    #182838
    Lord Snotrag
    Participant

    Yeah, the Italian fleet box is a complete WTF moment.  The Aquila in particular.  The other fleets also have some head-scratcher pics.  But the Italians…  *facepalm*

     

    #182850
    Nat
    Participant

    my view with the Italian set up including the Aquila is the aircraft and special rules… the Italians have a rule that if you take ground based aircraft you suffer a -1 to your initiative roll so required a carrier, that then comes with a rule for aircraft with folding wings…. and only the Re2001s being carrier capable.

    Now the Etna…I guess that they just wanted something that would play differently to the other ships in the box.. the other light cruisers either have main gun turrets (so play the same as the lugi caradona) or light guns and torpedoes so play like a big destroyer.

    we do know that the Italians are getting the Sm79s (3 engined bomber /torpedo bomber) as they have painted models on the banner in the store…. so they will be using their uncoordination rule fairly soon to release

    #182962
    Shrokins
    Participant

    I’m glad they have Italy in the game, but I wish they’d stuck to historical vessels. If they traded the Aquila and Etna for the Bolzano and Giuseppe Garibaldi, I’d buy the Regia Marina Fleet set for sure.

    #182967
    Nat
    Participant

    In the facebook group one of the authors has confirmed that they’ve put the un commissioned vessals in to the game for both game balance & to enable what-ifs

    #182991
    Eumerin
    Participant

    Poor decision, imo. It’s inevitable that the “what-ifs” would show up. You’re going to have German players who want Graf Zeppelin, for instance, and are going to put her in the game one way or another. So Warlord will eventually release the models for those ships. And I won’t knock them for doing that. They’re catering to the customers in doing so, and groups have a choice whether to allow such ships in general play, or restrict them to special scenarios. But those ships have no business being in the starters for what is supposed to be an historical game. That pretty much immediately puts the game in conflict with those players that want to restrict things to the ships that were actually commissioned. With this decision, Warlord has just given those players an excuse to turn their noses up at the game.

    It also creates a contrast with the German starter fleet, which doesn’t include an aircraft carrier.

    #182997
    Shrokins
    Participant

    I’d have saved the speculative ships for Konflict 47 at Sea. The Etna would have a lava cannon, and the Aquila could slash ships with its close-range robotalons.

    #183005
    Nat
    Participant

    I’d agree with you pair except for 1 fact… this is the 2nd edition of the game, having originally been made by mongoose.

    So warlord have to cater for both returning /continuing players as well as openeing it up to those gamers who have never played a naval game.. it’s not a historical game – it’s a game based on history, the moment you put points on a ship and you allow the admiral to pick their own sqns and fleets you have entered the world of what if, so you may as well add ships that where designed if there is a place for them…and the designers have decided that yes there is

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Nat.
    #183007
    Shrokins
    Participant

    Hi Nat, as it’s a matter of taste whether or not non-historical vessels improve the game, some people would like the game more without them, and some would like the game more with them. For the first group, there’s bound to be some disappointment when half the big ships in a starter set are non-historical. If Warlord sold the ‘what if?’ ships outside of starter sets, that would help accommodate both groups.

    For a perfect example: the Terrors of the Deep for Black Seas. The monsters aren’t in the starter set, or fleet sets, or even in the rulebook, and don’t interfere with the rest of the game unless one wants them to. Any man has the right to fight a WWII fleet against the Aquila or a Romulan Warbird or Mothra, but it would be nice to have the option to buy just historical ships for a historical wargame. Happy wargaming!

    #183021
    Eumerin
    Participant

    Or to provide another example, the Mid-War Monsters for Flames of War. Battlefront wanted to cater to players who might be interested in hypothetical “what if?” armored vehicles during the Mid-War period. But the result was unpopular with the general player base, and could possibly have turned into a disaster if the models had been placed in starter army boxes.

    “this is the 2nd edition of the game, having originally been made by mongoose.”

    Players who already own the first edition of the game probably don’t need the fleet starters since they already own their own fleets. Mixing hypothetical ships that they might not own with several ships that they likely already own doesn’t seem like a particularly productive move. Better to bundle them separately so that players don’t feel like they’re wasting lots of money just to buy a ship that never was.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Eumerin.
    #183023
    invisible officer
    Participant

    It seemed very clever (from companies view)  to have that game in an unusual scale. 1/1800 is limited to very few makers.  Not like 1/3000, 1/2400 for gamers and 1/1200 and 1250   for Gamers and collectors.

    So the Warlord customers are doomed.  And the Etna causes a small uproar.  In the common scales few would care. Just buying alternatives.

    ——

    Well, for a literally old collector and gamer 1/1800 is a no go. Not another scale in my collection.  I have large fleets in 1/3000 and 1/1250. In both scales 4 Digit numbers.   I love 1/300 so that Warlord range was a great addition.

    But another one between the better playable small one and the super detailed quality larger one?  The many Continental makers in 1250  offer nearly every ship ever built. Between the old WW II time made Wiking recognition models and todays super detailed ones one has many options in Price and quality.

     

    So the new game is a “book only” option for me.

     

    I have Graf Zeppelin in both scales.    And the Carrier Seydlitz too.  😉

    #183278
    Eumerin
    Participant

    I don’t have a pre-existing ship collection.  But I do have a Portland and Myoko – both 1/1800 – that I got from Shapeways late last year (the intent was to use them in a different naval game; but nothing happened for reasons).  It seems to be a popular scale for WW2 ships on that sales platform.  Fireforge was also showing off a planned line of 1/1800 WW2 warships (in particular, Fuso).  But I haven’t seen any news on this for over a year now, so I’m not sure whether they still plan to produce them (though I haven’t checked recently).  Also, the A&A game used the scale.

     

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.