AdmiralJCJF

Warcors
  • Content count

    2,740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    1785d 7h 25m 54s

Community Reputation

2754 Excellent

7 Followers

About AdmiralJCJF

  • Rank
    Heart of the Hyperpower

ITS

  • ITS PIN B9637

Recent Profile Visitors

2,782 profile views
  1. One thing's for sure, On the other forums there are a lot less asshole seagulls swooping in to shit on things for no reason.
  2. Any chance you'll get on Podbean? That's where I pick my podcasts up from, and I'd appreciate hearing a soothing and melodic aussie accent instead of yanks and brits all the time.
  3. All those giant guns on TAGs scream out for Fatality lvl 1. And there are certainly some candidates for Full Auto lvl 1 as well (Raicho, I'm looking at you!). But I wouldn't want to see too much change with TAGs, as well run they are solid now with only minor needs for enhancement.
  4. See, it's exactly this which doesn't happen in the other forums.
  5. I'd just like to dip into this conversation to talk about how effective the Auxilia + AuxBot combo is as a backup offensive tool. Sure, you can't push them up into the midfield wholesale like you used to and they certainly aren't going to do wonders if you have to advance into a sniper with long LoF, but where they can advance into range (and most tables will have one way they can) they become a dangerous threat to basically anything in the game. The combination of BS attack on active + template produces a challenging conundrum for your opponent as they WANT to simply out-shoot the Auxilia but the Heavy Flamethrower basically demands a dodge response (which isn't solving their "I'm being shot and flamethrowered" problem). If you can force enemy units to take total cover then this is often all you need in any case, opening the way for your specialists. So while they are a ubiquitous presence in Vanilla PanOceania and NCA lists as a defensive element, when your teeth have been pulled it's hard to look past the humble Auxilia as a backup attack piece.
  6. It doesn't appear to have worked perfectly. But it does seem to have helped a bit at least. Dude, chill. Have you had that drink yet? I've certainly had a few while laughing at the responses here, I recommend it. Literally nobody has complained that PanOceania isn't mechanically powerful and effective on the tabletop. F***'s sake, we literally just won Wotan and Interplanetario. PanOceania is GOOD man, that's not the issue at all.
  7. Your faith that the higher win % is based on skill is interesting. Can you provide any evidence to support this?
  8. It's interesting to hear where the idea of "ghosting" came from. But I agree that the FAQ is pretty clear on what happens when you vault, and I don't see how you can argue for a distinction on what you are vaulting.
  9. No. I don't think so.
  10. There are zones of "no mans land" on Svalarheima which could easily be used. The initial area can expand, perhaps into PanOceania and Yu Jing territory later (phase 2-3 if that structure is used again). Or it could start with PanOceania territory for us to defend, but be open for everyone else (maybe include a Nomad trade legation as well, they ARE the largest faction after all), with perhaps expansion into Yu Jing areas later in the campaign. While the implementation could have been improved (especially for Yu Jing) the core idea of forcing some factions to defend while others can just attack is good.
  11. FAQ pg 4: "Can troopers move through obstacles that do not exceed the height of their Silhouette Template? Then is that movement considered “up and down” or does it count as if they were always at ground level? Troops can vault and they are considered to be moving up and down." So I don't think there is any argument that it's 2. It's not optional, you increase your height and risk additional AROs by vaulting.
  12. It's your proposal, the burden of proof is on you. Given the win/loss % figures we've seen for the small vs large factions in both Flamestrike and Wotan... good luck with that.
  13. Indeed, many of your criticisms have been completely baseless. But it would be better to move to a system which does not favour either small, or large factions. However win % is objectively not that system.
  14. Yeah, I'm saying we shouldn't favour any faction. And especially not in a way which is so easily to manipulate (which the current is not to the same degree at all).
  15. I 100% agree that it has massive issues in terms of the real effects on behaviour. But I also disagree that it's "mathematically sound". Win/loss rate is FAR easier to manipulate the smaller a faction is, and what this would actually do is hand victory to ALEPH or the Tohaa with zero opportunity for any of the most popular factions to escape the inevitability of their very size producing a stalemate.