Attack craft vs. Escorts

[horizon]

I had three Gladii crippling a Slaughter in one shot. Lucky shot, but it did the job

I had three Iconoclasts on lock on crippling an Emperor with 3 shields down.

[Eldanesh]

Compared to cruisers escorts ARE more resilient in every respect EXCEPT for assault boats.

No they are not.

People simply forget how shields work. Escorts CAN be more resilent  if there are huge amounts of firepower involved (like the mentioned 10 hits around), but under the regular circumstances (so meaning something between 2 and 4 hits a round) they are usually LESS resilient.

Simply use the 5 swords vs. Lunar example

If both take 2 hits a round:
Lunar 0 damaged
swords crippled after 3 rounds, all gone after 5 rounds  ->Lunar more resilent

If both take 3 hits a round
Lunar crippled after 4 rounds, gone after 8
swords crippled after 3 rounds, all gone after 5 rounds  ->Lunar more resilent

4 hits
Lunar: crippled after 2, gone after 4
swords: crippeld after 2, gone after 3 rounds -> Lunar more resilent

5 hits 
Lunar: crippled after 2, gone after 3
swords: crippeld after 2, gone after 3 rounds -> draw

6 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw

7 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw

8 hits
Lunar: crippled after 1, gone after 2
swords: crippeld after 1, gone after 2 rounds -> draw

And so on...
For simplicity I ignored the right shift on gunnery table as well as the chance to get crits, as it is more than even out by the vulnerability to assault boats

or allocate lances which would be better served against capital ships.

Nonnense. There is no reason NOT to use Lances against Escorts. The described mechanism right shift for being an escort as well as an addiditional right shift for being abeam makes lances the prefered weapon.
Only exceptions are Escorts with 4+ Armor like cobras. But against everything with 5+ or 6+ there is absolutly no reason to not to use lances against escorts. At all they are the best choice if no assault boats are avaible.

All they need to do is time things to AAF behind the cruisers and they can then lock on while staying in the rear arc and only presenting an abeam aspect to return fire. How long do you think a lunar can stand up to the FP20 of those 5 swords when it's only getting 2 battery dice and 2 lance dice in return?

Pure theoryhammer. Or in this case theorygothic. Pracitcal it should be hard enought to get behind the fleet formation if the enemy knows what he does...

In general: after the FAQ escorts aren't that bad.
Corsair Eldar and Tyranids have exellent ones.
In Orkfleets  they are also the better part of the fleet list.
Chaos Escorts aren't THAT bad - the only problem is that their cruisers are insanly cheap, this makes a hard competition.
Even Imps have the Cobra, it's only the Frestorm that terribly sucks.

All in all there is no problem with escorts. There are just some wich are seriously wrong priced.

[Vaaish]

People simply forget how shields work. Escorts CAN be more resilent  if there are huge amounts of firepower involved (like the mentioned 10 hits around), but under the regular circumstances (so meaning something between 2 and 4 hits a round) they are usually LESS resilient.

I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower. Those combine to make them more resilient against incoming fire. Your calculations don't account for the variance in the amount of incoming fire needed to achieve the hits and just assumes the same hits are taken by both. In a vacuum where everyone take the same hits regardless of available firepower then yes, you can say cruisers are more resilient.

An escort abeam takes FP28 to achieve two hits and will have the same result all the way up to FP32, while a cruiser abeam only requires FP16 for the same thing up to FP18. That's a sizable difference in firepower for the same result. This assumes no Lock On SO and a distance of 30cm.

 

Pure theoryhammer. Or in this case theorygothic. Pracitcal it should be hard enought to get behind the fleet formation if the enemy knows what he does...

Ah, so easy to chuck out the theoryhammer excuse or that "if your opponent knows what he does". This is based on experience against multiple opponents and using them against multiple opponents not theoryhammer. It's what I've seen happen. 25cm and 90` turns with no need to move first makes it pretty easy to get where you want while the rest of your fleet hammers them and if you have nothing to reach back there the escorts will take your ship down.

[Eldanesh]

This is based on experience against multiple opponents and using them against multiple

Than you must play only against unskilled opponents if  they can't handle some escorts with a gunline.  

For example an ideal IN has three "rows": Crusiers first, Battlecruisers second and Emperors (jey, I prefer larger games) third. the fleet stays in tight Formtation, not more than 30 from the first to the last ship, so that their firing ranges overlap. So if your squadron trys to "slip trought" it'll get the fire of roughly the halv fleet. of course you can go the "long way" around the flanks, but than the ABoats (this is the reason the emperor is made for..) get them.
Only situation when this kind of tactic makes any sense if you manage to to bring the whole fleet at once into range: in this case you have a chance that the escorts are ignored in favor of more dangerous targets. But  even than there is a good chance that the opponent kills the escorts, as it is the best way to reduce the enemys firepower. But at least they protected some cruisers by their death

I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower

Yes it is true, Escorts have a greater firepower - at least the good ones. But this is not always the cause.
for example a carnage has a S16 Broadsinde on his "strong" and S10 on his "weak" sinde, everything on 45cm or more. 6 Ionoclasts have just a S18@30 cm Broadside - you don't have a real advantage in this case (and a reason why no healthy chaos player uses ionoclast...)

1. The example Lunar vs. sword isn't really representative, as the Lunar is a good part overpriced and not well suited for such 1 on 1 battles. The strenght of a Lunar lies in a fleet concep: opening formations with torpedos an then go through to have enemys in every angle.  

2. "Firepower" is at all not only the sheer amount of fire, it is also the ability how long i an use it. Lets stick at the example Lunar (I asume 1 Lance=3 FP) vs. 5 Swords over a duration of 5 turns under fire. I asume that the Lunar can bring only 1 broadsinde (FP12) to bear. The Player alwas shoots first (means: the first shoot is always undamaged)

If hit by 0 or 1 point of damage every round:
Lunar: 60  Escorts: 100 -> clear advantage escorts.  (Carnage: 80)

2 hits per round
Lunar 60  Escorts: 60 ->draw (Carnage: 80)  

3 hits per round
Lunar: 54  Escorts: 60 ->slight advantage Escorts  (Carnage: 72)  

4 hits per round
Lunar: 36 Escorts: 36 draw (Carnage: 48)

5 hits
Lunar: 30  Escort: 36: advantage Escort (Carnage: 40)

6 hits per round
Lunar 18  Escorts: 28: advantage Escort  (Carnage: 24)

You see: Your whole argument is simpley based on the most negative setup: a Lunar sucks at 1 on 1 broadside battles. Simply by exchanceing the Lunar for a carnage the whle point of "superior Firepower is gine)

3. In general Escorts have only 30cm weapons (Idolators being the example), which means that in most cases the enemy has the first round of shooting - reduces the firepower even more.

I was referencing escorts ability to reliably dictate the facing presented when they are being shot at and the reduced dice thrown compared to a cruiser at the same facing and firepower. Those combine to make them more resilient against incoming fire.

This is surly true, but there is a simple solution: don't use batterys against escorts if you are in such a situation.
There is a reason why you don't use lances against Eldar and also there is a reason why you don't shoot with batterys at escorts which are longside (Except it has only 4+ armor and/or I'm under 15 cm or such things...). Use ABoats. Use Lances. If they stick together for massed turrets use a torpedo salvo or a Nova canon. And only if these options fail use Batteries.
The game is fleet based. If you compare ships only on individual level and 1:1 situations it should be impssosible for an IN to ever win a game!

makes it pretty easy to get where you want while the rest of your fleet hammers them and if you have nothing to reach back there the escorts will take your ship down.

Sorry, but where on earth is the "advantage" in holding something back until the fleet has "hammered" the enemy? It should be usually better to simply invest these points in an additional cruiser, or "a bigger hammer" if you want call it so.

[Phthisis]

I can see how escorts are more resilient against batteries than cruisers. And the new rules for escorts and assault boats do make them more survivable.  Im going to include a squadron in my fleet to cover my rear and add some lances. However, I still see a lot of vulnerabilities that cruisers don't have.  Lances will still be a bit more effective against escorts.  Assult boats aren't as effective but now ork fightabommers will wipe them out with ease.  And they are still very vulnerable to eldar ordinance.  
On the other hand, attack craft can handle anything in big enough waves now with the turret suppression rules.   You can get lucky and cripple a bb with an escort squadron, but you can pretty reliably brick a bb with a large assault boat wave.  If it came down to it, wouldnt it be better to buy another carrier over a squadron of escorts?

[Vaaish]

but than the ABoats

And this was what I mentioned in my very first post. Aboats tend to trump escorts though it remains to be seen how helpful the 4+ change will be at making ab less of a hard counter to escorts.

You see: Your whole argument is simpley based on the most negative setup: a Lunar sucks at 1 on 1 broadside battles. Simply by exchanceing the Lunar for a carnage the whle point of "superior Firepower is gine)

Incorrect, this was about as far from my argument as you could possibly get. Re-read my post, I'm talking about how much firepower (as in battery strength on the gunnery table) is necessary to ensure hits being far greater against escorts than against cruisers. My argument has NOTHING to do with the damage output of either the escorts or the cruiser.

If it came down to it, wouldnt it be better to buy another carrier over a squadron of escorts?

Unfortunately, that would probably be the case. Especially if you are playing Chaos. As IN you could also look into light cruisers to fill the same role.

[barras1511]

In Chaos the escorts are basically filler when you can not purchase capital ships. There are situations where you will want the manueverability and speed of the escorts but I don't miss that very often.
Our other escorts are just too expensive to be viable as they simply don't have the fire power to be worth the points. Chaos does not need the speed and manueverability like IN does.
Bottomline if the maximum I can take is a Slaughter then the escorts can go back in the cupboard.

[horizon]

Chaos can need Infidels as they have a cheap torp asset. Is an unique asset to any Chaos fleet.

@Eldanesh:

In Orkfleets  they are also the better part of the fleet list.

Wrong. The Ork fleet problem is the garbage that is escorts. The winning Ork fleets tend to be Terror heavy.

[barras1511]

3 Infidels I can agree but that's just fill out points. If you had 200 points and you needed anti torp, would you take a Devastation or 5 Infidels? In most situations the versatility of the Devastation would out class the mobility and torpedoes of the Infidels.

[horizon]

Hey,
I'd take the Infidels.

My renegade fleet:
Desolator
Styx
2x Carnage
1x Slaughter
6x Infidel
3x Iconoclast

[Trasvi]

My problem with escorts is that they get worn down gradually, rather than in big leaps.

By this I mean - 2 hits on an escort squadron (incl shields) of 5 reduces its effectiveness by 20%. The next round, 2 hits takes away 25% of their firepower.
2 hits per round on a cruiser = nothing. You need at least 3 hits per round to do anything against cruisers, but 3 hits per round against escorts rapidly dwindles their strength.

[wellspring]

This post isn't about what the most game-winning plan for escorts is, it's about what the role of escorts should be.

I think the key question here is intended fleet composition. I've noticed that newbies tend to have fleet lists that look like pyramids: lots of escorts, much fewer cruisers and one battleship. But that misses the age of sail inspiration that's behind BFG, IMO. In those fleets, you have mostly ships of the line, with a few frigates for special duties and (maybe) a flagship to put the admiral on.

At least for Imperials, SM or Chaos, I am resistant to changes which make escorts into line-of-battle units. To me, they belong in niche plays: covering the flanks, exploiting opportunities, screening the fleet.