Imperial ship costs and the defiant class light cruiser

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

I could more likely go with Battle/Heavy Cruisers being charged extra for having dorsal weaponry at all, besides paying for the weapons mounted there.

Yes and no - pretty clear statement from my side 

I do actually support the general idea of extra costs for "better" weapon with the L/F/R characteristic. In the current state they are rather the same as L/R-only weapons. But that brings up 2 Problems:

1 Even basic chaos cruisers have these weapons prow mounted. Do not really think this should be extra charged although it is effectively the same advantage. Like you hinted at breth: extra costs only for dorsal mounts ...

2 In my original calc. some broadside weaponry was given for free: so L/R was effectively cheaper than L/F/R mounts. However neither did this really work out nor the proposed changes made here in the forum ...

[Sigoroth]

I could more likely go with Battle/Heavy Cruisers being charged extra for having dorsal weaponry at all, besides paying for the weapons mounted there.

Yes and no - pretty clear statement from my side 

I do actually support the general idea of extra costs for "better" weapon with the L/F/R characteristic. In the current state they are rather the same as L/R-only weapons. But that brings up 2 Problems:

1 Even basic chaos cruisers have these weapons prow mounted. Do not really think this should be extra charged although it is effectively the same advantage. Like you hinted at breth: extra costs only for dorsal mounts ...

2 In my original calc. some broadside weaponry was given for free: so L/R was effectively cheaper than L/F/R mounts. However neither did this really work out nor the proposed changes made here in the forum ...

There is a problem with your terms. You use the LFR term to mean Left, Front OR Right and yet use the LR term to mean Left AND Right. This makes it seem as if LFR weapons are better. They are not. Multi-arc weapons are better than single arc weapons. A LFR weapon is better than a LR weapon but not better than a L+R weapon.

Regarding composition restrictions and points breaks, well I think that there is generally truth that a more restricted vessel is worth more than its cost, or at least it should be. Of course, sometimes a restriction may be put into place for reasons other than external (i.e., objective) balance but rather for a reason of internal balance (e.g., we don't want IN to have access to a crapload of cheap CVLs).

Specifically regarding the dorsal lance mount that CBs get, I think it's reasonably clear that they're worth more than 30 pts. A Murder is a piece of garbage and a Hades is actually pretty good. Of course, many find the Murder reasonable for its cost, but I think that most people find the Hades better, point for point. If the Hades was a basic cruiser I suspect we'd see a lot more of them than Murders in peoples' fleets.

Similarly, even though the Armageddon is priced at the high end of its acceptable range, paying full price for compulsory and suboptimal broadside range upgrades, it's still a reasonable ship and competitive option. This is presumably due to the inherent value of the dorsal weaponry.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

@ Sigoroth

Ok I had just finished a huge wall of text but then I noticed the "hidden" point in your post:

Dorsal weapons should be more expensive but the ships containing them are cheaper due to limitations in composition. (E.g. an Armageddon gets 2 S60 Lances -> points ++ but is limited -> points --.) And it all sorta evens out at the end of the day.

Which brings up the question why you say that LR weapons are better but want to increase the points of LFR ones? I personally see those LFR weapons as better, or at least equal (see below) and the composition rules a simple mechanism to limit these "better weapons" on the battlefield. (LFR are mainly found on those ships affected by composition rules - same with better ranges, bigger broadsides ...)

There is a problem with your terms. You use the LFR term to mean Left, Front OR Right and yet use the LR term to mean Left AND Right. This makes it seem as if LFR weapons are better. They are not. Multi-arc weapons are better than single arc weapons. A LFR weapon is better than a LR weapon but not better than a L+R weapon.

1)
Out of interest: are there any L or R weapons out there? Just to clarify: when I say LR I mean L weapons and R weapons e.g. a Lunar has a S6 LR WB -> that is a S6 WB on the left side and a S6 on the right side -> capable of firing at two ships at the same time.

2)
And yes I think LFR they are better beacuse:

"LR weaponry can only be better" - if the following requirement are met:

- desired enemy ships/targets are to the left and right
- within range
- after you maneuvered your ship

Certainly a valid reasoning in bigger battles - with enough ships something worthwhile will be on the other side. LFR weapons on the other side:

- have greater range (in general)
- have a greater firing arc - firing upfront is an advantage

In short: they cover a bigger area and are easier to use in combination with other weaponry.

E.g. take the Armageddon caught in a typical situation: circling another cruiser firing one broadside. Now the dorsal lances are free to support the firing broadside, or work with the torpedoes, or can be used to support the fight of another ship. The other broadside weaponry can only hope that something will eventually show up while the ship navigates to keep the enemy within the exact opposite side.

I hardly ever need both broadsides (closing on the enemy fleet: even neither broadsides) but the two S60 lances can always *1 be applied - far more easily and much more purposeful. At the same time it is also correct that LR weapons are nice when the battle is big enough and enemy ships are present everywhere. I however mostly play 1000-1500 pt. battles - therefore my rating  !

Personal thoughts on this: on
A possible solution - I already presented to brethren - would be different base costs and different upgrade costs based on thoughts like this: LR weapons have the most guns on paper, but LFR can make the best out of range due to the firing-arc and F-only is prone to become not usable at all.

The basic R30 weapon would therefore be ranked as (from cheapest - to expensive):
F < LFR < LR
The upgrade costs however would would be sorted like this (from cheapest - to expensive):
F < LR < LFR

The whole system would be nice and better account for the different strenghts and weaknesses - but change a lot of price tags! Considering the problem to find common ground on anything I totally ignore it. So far I am not even sure if anybody here is interested in an accurate calculator that would allow for adjustments 
Personal thoughts on this: off

All in all: I would not suggest point shifts for composition (or extra weapon mounts) - especially at this point. It is just way to complicated for the moment - remember announcing it is one thing but it has to be calculated corectly at some point. Right now however even basic point shifts within similar ships are unpopular. Like you said:

Similarly, even though the Armageddon is priced at the high end of its acceptable range, paying full price for compulsory and suboptimal broadside range upgrades, it's still a reasonable ship and competitive option.

Reasonable ship and competitive: yes. But to expensive compared to all its direct competitors: Overlord, Hades, Acheron - excluding the Mercury (never calculated with this because of the special rule that has to be quessed  )


*1 within range of course

[Sigoroth]

@Mogwai

Yes there are LR only weapons (see Necrons) so when referring to broadside weaponry please use the L+R format.

On LFR vs L+R weaponry, LFR is not better. Consider: replace all IN broadsides with LFR versions at the same range. So a Lunar will have 6WB@30cmLFR and 2L@30cmLFR. These ships would not be competitive, they would fail hard. Broadside weapons get +100% firepower over single arc weaponry with certain downsides. These are:

• Cannot focus extra firepower on single target.
• Second target must be in opposite arc.

A natural consequence of which is that the second target is usually not of an appealing aspect. A good rule of thumb is that broadside weapons are worth 50% more than single arc weapons.

The advantages of LFR weaponry are:

• Easier to get a firing solution on the target.
• Can fire while presenting a defensive aspect (as opposed to F firing weaponry).
• Can be combined with more limited arc firepower.

Of these advantages we can see that the last only really applies to enhance the broadside firepower anyway, so there is no advantage in this over typical broadsides. The 2nd benefit is only a benefit over locked forward weaponry, having no extra advantage over broadsides. The 1st benefit is the only real benefit over broadsides, allowing for shooting on the way in (so an extra shot or two) and/or allowing for LO instead of having to turn. Broadsides however get that extra firepower.

So if we were to say that LFR weaponry is worth +50% more than single arc weaponry then we're saying that they're worth roughly the same as broadsides, though, to be honest I'd prefer broadsides (consider if the Carnage replaced its prow 6WB@60cmLFR with 6WB@60cmL+R).

As to the actual value of those dorsal lances we can see from the Murder/Hades example and from the Lunar/Armageddon extrapolation that they're worth 30 pts plus a composition restriction. I think that the difference between a Murder and a Hades is greater than a straight 30 pts and similarly the difference between an Armageddon and a 205 pt range upgraded Lunar is also greater than 30 pts. The fact that the Armageddon pays the full 25 pts for unnecessary range upgrades is what hurts its performance. If the Armageddon had 30cm broadsides and cost 210 pts it would be a great ship. As it is it's passable, even with the forced range purchase.

As to the cost of the Armageddon, it was originally introduced in a BFG magazine at 235 pts. When Armada was released and it was made official it got an inexplicable price bump to 245 pts. It took a long time (2010 FAQ) and a lot of badgering (mainly by me) for its price to come back down to 235 pts. Yes, 235 pts is the high point of its acceptable range, paying as it does a premium upgrade price for its range, but it is playable at that price, mainly because of the bargain that 2L@60cmLFR is.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Yes there are LR only weapons (see Necrons) so when referring to broadside weaponry please use the L+R format.

Necrons - did not think of them ... and haven't proxied them in a while  . Thx for the info.

On LFR vs L+R weaponry, LFR is not better.

Depends ... I mean I get your point and it is a valid one. But I tend to play smaller games 1000 -1500 pts. Which means there simply aren't enough targets to make it worthwhile. LFR weapons on the other hand - especially with their bigger range - prove much more useful there. Now of course If you play a 2500 points game there surely are enough designated targets on every broadside to make them worthwhile and deliver twice the punch.

To get to and end with it for now: I would like a better separation just like you - whatever that means  . For the moment however I would be happy for a common and simple basis as already started here:
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5208.msg42108#msg42108
Discussing further details seems kinda pointless right now. Surely interesting for future version but as it seems even a basic formula is not very popular. Kinda surprising to me as I think that would be quite useful  .

@ Armageddon:
Do not get me wrong! It is not the price of the Armageddon. Right now I think that would be 230, but hey 5 points more would not be worth talking about. It is in fact the price of other ships of similar/ identical classification, as they are all cheaper than they should. So while the Armageddon "wastes" a few points the rest "saves" them. Same issue with some other ships: depending on fleet size it can mean an unjustified bonus for one side - "bringing 1000 points and "a reroll for free to" a 1000 points battle so to say"  .