Does anyone else find it a little weird that there is so little discussion of DZC on the board?

I realise that the Hawk Wargames forum probably handles the majority of that particular communities' discussion but still I would expect the game to be right up the TacComs alley and be the topic of discussion more often than once every six odd months. I mean it's not like when the GW forums still ran that the forum laid off discussing Epic Armageddon etc so what gives?

Its just something that's jumped out at me in the past week or so, especially with the repurposed DZC buildings on another thread lately.

I've thought it odd that dzc doesn't seem to get played more here too. For myself when SG got shut down I spent enough efforts to stock away enough troops to keep me busy for another 5 years so I don't feel ok to buy more stuff in top that. Perhaps I wasn't alone in that respect? Maybe we're just a bunch of epic grognards at heart and refuse to play anything else? Not sure...

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

Well I will say, many times I post pics of other 6mm sci-fi I painted up ... And in many cases I get few comments. Some guys drank the GW kool-aid and don't stray far from the pitcher. I know some have said something to the effect why are you painting/using/wasting time on other companies models, etc. ?

Exceptions to that is Onslaught and TMG. Which are great companies and have great models. I have some. But one look at those models, you can see why they are so popular.

But as I have been saying for decades with Epic, since I started in '90. Do What Works For U ... not me ...

Some guys like blondes ... some brunettes ... some redheads ... Asians ... Latinas ... etc. ... I prefer an eclectic mix.

Why go to the buffet and only get the fried chicken ?

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Amen brother!

Actually, I think you in particular should have a look into it. The game plays very much like a natural evolution of modern warfare with a nice realistic vibe to the whole thing. I think the creator really tried to integrate the concepts of the modern manoeuverist approach into the game as well.

Thanks ! It does sound pretty good. And I'm all for some realism and adding some modern maneuver warfare to rules. Some of the versions of the Epic rules just didn't even come close, IMO. With SM2 being the worst.

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I actually own a fair amount of DZC stuff but, even though it has a lot of similarities to something like Epic Armageddon, I'm not actually a fan, mainly because of the things it doesn't have.

It has alternate activations (and in fact sets an upper limit on the number each player can have, meaning it doesn't have to account for "activation spam" that can cause problems in E:A) and is specifically objective based, but lacks things like a suppression mechanic or differing orders (every unit moves then fires, there's no option to have a don't-move-but-fire-with-more-effect order, or a move-more-with-lessened-shooting order for instance). Also, although there are assaults, this only happens for infantry fighting other infantry in buildings and so E:A style assault armies don't exist in DZC.

The eponymous Dropships as well seem like a good idea, but in practice never seem to be worthwhile as dropships, except to evacuate some infantry with an objective. A standard DZC match is 6 turns but, as everything starts deployed off board, most things won't be in a position to shoot for the first two turns. Re-deploying a unit via a dropship means it can't shoot for two turns, so it's almost never worth giving up 50% of your potential shooting to do so. Shaltari can get around some of this with their gates but you're still giving up a turn of shooting for anything redeploying this way, with the exception of one specialised unit which is otherwise immobile.

All in all, I love the DZC model range (and use a fair bit of it in my LatD army), but constantly find the game itself lacking. maybe that's just because it's just close enough to E:A for me to be constantly expecting it to play one way and being disappointed when it doesn't.

We added unit activation back with SM1. I saw something like it when we played the old AH board game Tobruk. So I added it to SM1 with no problems. We had played many board war games in the '60 thru the later '70s. The IGOUGO systems is absolutely primitive. Unit activation makes it more like a "chess game", type paradigm. And makes things feel a little more simultaneous ... and in turn a bit more "realistic". If a modern/futuristic game system and rules don't come at least close to being able to do some type of maneuver warfare and combined arms ... then its' not a system I'd like to use.

But that is just me ... as I always say, Do What Works For U ... Not me !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Yep, I've only played a couple of demo games of dzc, but have to say you nailed it : it lacks the interesting mechanics - it really felt like playing an early 90s GW game despite some of its nice thematic ideas.

Plus the ridiculously high buy in (at least until they got the plastics sorted) which is even more infuriating when half the cost is for drop ships which as you say are basically there for a smash and grab raid.

I've bought in to the Dropfleet game as that sounds interesting, but for ground combat I still think EA is head and shoulders above anything else I've played. Fingers crossed for AOT and/or Polyversal though...