October 22, 2019, 09:38:40 PM

Author Topic: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?  (Read 110463 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2010, 04:54:14 AM »
So voss cruisers with 45* and a prow deflector? hmmm, I could see live for that. Pondering...

But the designers should be slapped for giving a no on prow armour for them. A clear example of overestimating the capacity of the vessels. I mean, the Defiant is (along the Hellebore) the most useless vessel ever.

Despoiler from how model is build:
prow launch bay str4
port/starboard launch bays str 2
port/starboard weapon batteries str 10 @ 60cm
dorsal lance str 3 @ 60cm lfr



Hi Horizon! I'm moving the Despoiler conversation over to the Chaos ships thread.

The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2010, 05:08:25 AM »
It's the speed and turning. If you're going to saddle IN with Speed 20 cm and 45' turning LCs as well as being more expensive than the Dauntless, the HA had better give the Voss LCs 6+ prow armor.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2010, 05:42:25 AM »
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Well, firstly, all the Voss CLs are overpriced. The Dauntless is not. Secondly, as you've noted, the Voss CLs really are just miniature line cruisers. The vast majority of their firepower is broadside oriented, like a line cruiser, their prow weaponry is torps, like a line cruiser and they only move 20cm, like a line cruiser. The Voss models look like they have a 6+ prow. Their high price says that a 6+ prow wouldn't be unreasonable at no additional cost. Their layout suggests that their role should be in a line breaker capacity, for which a 6+ prow would be appropriate.

The Dauntless, on the other hand, is cheaper, faster, and focuses more of its firepower (while having the same total firepower), making it a true CL. The focus of firepower can't be understated either. If a Dauntless has a target in its forward arc only it gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in its for arc and a side arc it still gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in all three arcs then it has the same firepower. Only if it has a target in one or more broadside arcs and no prow target does the Dauntless have less firepower than a Voss. What this says is that for a Voss to be a better choice than a Dauntless you should be using it in a line-breaker role, for which it needs 6+ armour.

The only other possibility really is to run it like a slow Dauntless around the flanks, only presenting its side to the opponent (rather than the prow like a Dauntless) in which case you get less firepower. So, in this case you're trading firepower and speed and cost for an increase in survivability. While I wouldn't make this trade, given how essential speed is to outflanking an enemy and/or chasing escorts it  is fine if some people want to make this trade. However adding a 6+ prow to the above does nothing to adjust this scenario.  Remember, the Dauntless still has superior firepower if there's a target to the fore and one side.

So, imagine that you're using the Voss as a Dauntless but going abeam, in essence trading speed, firepower and cost to get an increase in survivability. Adding 6+ prow armour doesn't alter that unless you happen to have a ship in your fore arc as well. With 5+ armour and an enemy in your prow and side arcs the Voss would be identical in survivability to the Dauntless. It is only if you can avoid a foe to your fore that your survivability increases. Therefore the 6+ prow would only serve to maintain the trade-off of firepower, speed and cost for survivability when using the Voss as a flanker. Not a cost that I'd pay, except as an excuse to take some cool models, but one that someone might pay.

What the 6+ prow does mostly, apart from maintaining the above mentioned trade-off, is allow the Voss to be used like a miniature line cruiser, which is what it looks like, and what its stats otherwise lend itself to. What's wrong with that?

On the 90°/45° issue, I think it should remain 90°, again at no change in cost. Reasoning: well, it has half the firepower and shields of a line cruiser, with two thirds the hits for two thirds the cost. Surely, in terms of balance, the offset for the loss of firepower/shields is the 90° turn rate. Secondly, even if you're going to do nothing other than make a cruiser smaller it should get some speed/turn bonus for the loss of mass.

As for the designers saying "NO" ... well, who gives a crap? Do they play the game? Do they talk to the community? If they want to make decisions like this then I say they should get on here and explain their reasoning, and open themselves up to the barrage of common sense they'd get in return. Maybe some of it will stick.

Oh, someone mentioned earlier that you could get a resin kit of the Voss. Where from? How much? ETC!?

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2010, 05:56:47 AM »
Sig, to add to what you already said, I find the endeavours to be alright as a reaction force behind the main cruiser line or squadroned with a line cruiser for protection. If you maneuver right, most enemy fire won't be able to target the light cruisers and you get a sizable boost to the firepower in teh squadron.

However, I don't think they need to cost more than a dauntless. There is a much greater cost to rewards benefit from using the dauntless than the voss cruisers.
-Vaaish

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2010, 08:35:02 AM »
Dayum, speak da truth Sig! ;)

I would still choose Dauntless over Voss patterns if they got 6+ prow free of charge.  That should say something.
At least with 6+ it gives them a unique role, something different.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2010, 10:42:38 AM »
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2010, 10:43:53 AM »
3 Dauntless are still cheaper.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2010, 12:44:51 PM »
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea

The 3 Dauntless + Emperor is a well known 750 pt fleet. Saying that giving the Voss patterns 6+ prows makes this easier because you wouldn't need to take full line ships is disingenuous. As it stands the 3 Dauntless + Emperor fleet has no need of a line cruiser. In fact, the Dauntless act like mini Chaos ships in this fleet. That is, they act like sharks, attacking the enemy opportunistically while letting the Emperor act as the corner stone of the fleet. There is no need for line cruisers in this fleet.

Anyway, as far as my recommendations for the IN are concerned, I'd like to recommend that the Oberon goes back to its original profile. No idea what they were thinking about dropping the ranges down ... makes it useless. I don't care if that means propping its cost up to 355, to keep it in line with the Emperor. This ship needs the range boost. I'd also like to recommend bringing the Armageddon back down to its original cost of 235 pts. Hell, you guys finally print a ship some ships that're balanced and then immediately go and ruin them. What's with that?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3868
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2010, 06:53:40 PM »
Armageddon, I think it is a good vessel. In the right fleet. 240 would also do the trick.

With the new FAQ2010 squadron rules (eg seperate disengage) an Armageddon-Lunar-Lunar squadron become capable.

The Oberon, you know, I was always on the verge of adding range but then I realized that the Oberon already has a lot of firepower of the IN Battleships in a broadside:
(roughly:)
Emperor 16 wb
Retribution 12 wb + 3 l = 12 + 9 = 21
Apocalypse 6wb + 6l = 6 + 18 = 24 (no hit from critical !!)
Oberon 16wb + 2l = 16 + 6 = 22

At range the Apocalypse wins. 45cm and downwards the Oberon gets better due batteries getting better once closer.

So I think if the Oberon gets a range increase it should cost the same as an Emperor Class. At least.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2010, 10:30:12 PM »
No, as AC are better than lances.

The 10 point difference when the Emperor was at 345 and Oberon at 335 (using original rules of 60 cm WBs) was fine. So since the Emperor costs 365 points, the 60 cm WB Oberon should cost 355 points.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2010, 12:15:40 AM »
No, as AC are better than lances.

The 10 point difference when the Emperor was at 345 and Oberon at 335 (using original rules of 60 cm WBs) was fine. So since the Emperor costs 365 points, the 60 cm WB Oberon should cost 355 points.

I dunno admiral, the main selling point on the Oberon for me, which is my favorite imperial battleship, is its low cost and balanced weaponry.  Longer range would be nice, but not to me if it came with a cost increase.  It pays in lack of specialization.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2010, 12:28:22 AM »
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2010, 03:03:38 AM »
Quote
Insert Quote
It's an Emperor with lances installed. If anything, it should have 45 cm lances, not 45 cm WBs.

That's a swap that I wouldn't mind if it didn't come with a cost increase.
-Vaaish

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2010, 03:46:36 AM »
6+ voss prow means cheaper access to battleships
As they function more like cheap cruisers with 6+ prow
Not a fan of the idea

The 3 Dauntless + Emperor is a well known 750 pt fleet. Saying that giving the Voss patterns 6+ prows makes this easier because you wouldn't need to take full line ships is disingenuous. As it stands the 3 Dauntless + Emperor fleet has no need of a line cruiser. In fact, the Dauntless act like mini Chaos ships in this fleet. That is, they act like sharks, attacking the enemy opportunistically while letting the Emperor act as the corner stone of the fleet. There is no need for line cruisers in this fleet.

Anyway, as far as my recommendations for the IN are concerned, I'd like to recommend that the Oberon goes back to its original profile. No idea what they were thinking about dropping the ranges down ... makes it useless. I don't care if that means propping its cost up to 355, to keep it in line with the Emperor. This ship needs the range boost. I'd also like to recommend bringing the Armageddon back down to its original cost of 235 pts. Hell, you guys finally print a ship some ships that're balanced and then immediately go and ruin them. What's with that?


Hi Sigoroth! Not all of the changes to were done with the HA's input! That being said, I am really interested in hearing why you think the Armageddon should be brought down to 235. From much of the feedback I have seen, it is MUCH better than an Overlord for the same price, even without the 60cm WB's. I'm not saying we're not going to entertain it, I just want to hear your thoughts.

Separately, I agree the Oberon should not have been dumbed down, though the logic is sound- the ship is supposed to be OLD. I can bring this up with the HA's. Ray's back so he may already be reading this as well.

I especially want to address the Voss cruisers, but I will address that separately as a reply to another one of your posts.

- Nate


Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate

Offline flybywire-E2C

  • BFG HA
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2010, 04:39:50 AM »
The HA's (all three of us now!) are discussing it, but here's my thoughts. The Voss ships are broadside-heavy like true IN cruisers, and they definitely shouldn't be in the front of the line, unlike the Dauntless, that has its primary firepower in the front. Both ships aren't that different othertwise, and the Dauntless doesn't seem to suffer for not having prow 6+ so I just don't see why this is such an issue.

I use these Voss models all the time- more of my light cruisers are Voss than Dauntless, and I simply haven't seen the kind of bad luck you're seeing.

Don't get me wrong, Horizon, I really like the idea because its themeful, and the hard trade as opposed to allowing it something to buy is a selling point in my mind. It's just that I just don't see these things as inherently broken the way you do.

- Nate

Well, firstly, all the Voss CLs are overpriced. The Dauntless is not. Secondly, as you've noted, the Voss CLs really are just miniature line cruisers. The vast majority of their firepower is broadside oriented, like a line cruiser, their prow weaponry is torps, like a line cruiser and they only move 20cm, like a line cruiser. The Voss models look like they have a 6+ prow. Their high price says that a 6+ prow wouldn't be unreasonable at no additional cost. Their layout suggests that their role should be in a line breaker capacity, for which a 6+ prow would be appropriate.



Once again you have a lot of good points here, which is why I broke open your post to reply to you line by line. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to break open a post line by line on this website AND keep your cool teal color?!? In any case, the point you make above is exactly why all the HA’s have agreed the Voss cruisers should have a 6+ prow option. Now to address their being overpriced, by intent they are not, though your argument holds some merit for obvious reasons: the Dauntless’ superior speed, and even more telling if less visible, their “free” +1D6 when AAF, a trait shared by only two other ships in the whole game (both Chaos). However, a good counterpoint to this is the Voss  weapons fit is slightly superior if you consider all fire arcs, they come with an extra turret, and they come with better boarding value.

Quote


The Dauntless, on the other hand, is cheaper, faster, and focuses more of its firepower (while having the same total firepower), making it a true CL. The focus of firepower can't be understated either. If a Dauntless has a target in its forward arc only it gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in its for arc and a side arc it still gets more firepower than a Voss in the same situation. If it has a target in all three arcs then it has the same firepower. Only if it has a target in one or more broadside arcs and no prow target does the Dauntless have less firepower than a Voss. What this says is that for a Voss to be a better choice than a Dauntless you should be using it in a line-breaker role, for which it needs 6+ armour.



In this I agree with you completely. I’ll say it again: by intent, the Dauntless is an “escort but bigger” while the Voss CL’s are “cruisers but smaller.” It was an argument I put forward the moment I held the Voss models in my hand for the first time. I don’t know if the same total firepower argument is entirely accurate, but it is admittedly very close, and your comment, “the concentration of firepower cannot be underestimated” is spot on.

I was going to upload a picture but I can’t empty my upload folder so I will post a pic in the resources site at http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q*

Quote


The only other possibility really is to run it like a slow Dauntless around the flanks, only presenting its side to the opponent (rather than the prow like a Dauntless) in which case you get less firepower. So, in this case you're trading firepower and speed and cost for an increase in survivability. While I wouldn't make this trade, given how essential speed is to outflanking an enemy and/or chasing escorts it  is fine if some people want to make this trade. However adding a 6+ prow to the above does nothing to adjust this scenario.  Remember, the Dauntless still has superior firepower if there's a target to the fore and one side.



Here I got a bit lost. Are you referring to the Dauntless or Voss? The Dauntless should no not never have a 6+ prow. The Voss cruisers on the other hand really REALLY should have 6+ prows, specifically because of the line-breaking role you speak of, where a few Voss CL’s are flanking or inside a cruiser line in line-abreast formation taking it on the prows while they set up to cross the T. The Dauntless was not designed for this role and should fare poorly if used as such.

Quote


So, imagine that you're using the Voss as a Dauntless but going abeam, in essence trading speed, firepower and cost to get an increase in survivability. Adding 6+ prow armour doesn't alter that unless you happen to have a ship in your fore arc as well. With 5+ armour and an enemy in your prow and side arcs the Voss would be identical in survivability to the Dauntless. It is only if you can avoid a foe to your fore that your survivability increases. Therefore the 6+ prow would only serve to maintain the trade-off of firepower, speed and cost for survivability when using the Voss as a flanker. Not a cost that I'd pay, except as an excuse to take some cool models, but one that someone might pay.

What the 6+ prow does mostly, apart from maintaining the above mentioned trade-off, is allow the Voss to be used like a miniature line cruiser, which is what it looks like, and what its stats otherwise lend itself to. What's wrong with that?



Nothing. I think were agreeing. (?)

Quote


On the 90°/45° issue, I think it should remain 90°, again at no change in cost. Reasoning: well, it has half the firepower and shields of a line cruiser, with two thirds the hits for two thirds the cost. Surely, in terms of balance, the offset for the loss of firepower/shields is the 90° turn rate. Secondly, even if you're going to do nothing other than make a cruiser smaller it should get some speed/turn bonus for the loss of mass.



To be honest, here’s where you and I differ. In keeping with its “cruiser but smaller” role, the consensus from the HA’s is that it should sacrifice maneuverability for toughness, not have both. I am more apt to see these things have a second shield for +10 points than let them have both 90deg turns and 6+ prows. I haven’t spoken to the HA’s about that nor have I play-tested it; I’m simply brainstorming while I reply to your post so I would definitely like thoughts on this.

Quote


As for the designers saying "NO" ... well, who gives a crap? Do they play the game? Do they talk to the community? If they want to make decisions like this then I say they should get on here and explain their reasoning, and open themselves up to the barrage of common sense they'd get in return. Maybe some of it will stick.



LOL!! Sigoroth, I kind of like being a HA, not least because I really love the game and I want it to be successful, and I have so many ideas bouncing around in my skull I would probably have an aneurysm if I didn't have some kind of outlet for it all. Besides, where else can I sit around and be railed up on and vilified for trying to make a game better and not even be paid for it? Since the designers would probably take offense to my telling them to sod off, I’ll leave that to you, Horizon and company.  :D

Quote


Oh, someone mentioned earlier that you could get a resin kit of the Voss. Where from? How much? ETC!?


I suddenly have a bad case of amnesia as to where I saw those gorgeous models! However, I’m sure Vaaish can steer you in the right direction.  ;)

-   Nate
Check out the BFG repository page for all the documents we have in work:
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
:) Smile, game on and enjoy!           - Nate