If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?

[Zelnik]

Eh, I suppose that's a matter of taste, Horizon.

And when it comes to a matter of 'desirable', the best fleet that the imperials have at their disposal doesn't give you a choice. You can't have everything you see on TV.

[lastspartacus]

As an avid gamer, I maintain that everything can be both competative and flavorful, and I will never accept that I can't have everything!


*Steps off soap box*

[Zelnik]

And I will retort with this:

That kind of talk leads to nova cannon escorts and straight jackets.

[lastspartacus]

Heh, by everything, I meant everything previously mentioned, not EVERYTHING.

[Sigoroth]

So what do we want from the Voss? We want a Light Cruiser of the line. A ship that stays with the cruisers (so 20cm speed), can get into the line of battle (so 6+ prow), support the cruisers on their way in (modest forward torps), fight it out when it gets there (broadside firepower), and, unlike the larger cruisers, react to changing battlefield conditions (90' turns).

This is it exactly. Exactly. Why would we make a light cruiser-of-the-line? To be able to react quickly. For this we want the 90°. Is speed useful? Yes, but it's more important for the speed to be the same as the rest of the line. To function in the line the ship should be broadside oriented, with only the incidental frontal fire (note: the str 2 torps would have been ideal to fit between the bases of more forward ships). So far the Voss checks all these boxes. So, what more would we want? Well, to be able to survive as a line ship it needs 6+ armour. This is where the Voss CLs fall down.

OK, so that's the role. What about logistics? OK, so we know that a CL can go faster and is more agile than typical line cruisers. Presumably a function of the reduced mass. The Voss CLs are more agile, but no faster. There's no reason shown as to why it's not faster. Sure, due to the role of the ship we don't want it to be faster, but we also want it to have 6+ prow armour, which it doesn't have. So that's not a reason. If we had the 6+ prow armour the ship would have increased mass, so this might be a reason why it's slower (as well as it being the desired outcome). So logistically speaking it is not only possible to have a 90°, 20cm, 6+ prow CL, but it seems necessary to include something like this to explain the loss of speed.

So, role and logistics bare out this idea, now onto balance. Everyone agrees that the Voss CLs are weak. Yes, this can possibly be fixed by lowering their cost. However, that does nothing to address the role and logistics issues. They could possibly be balanced by making them faster, but that does nothing to address the role issue. Giving 6+ prow armour fixes all these issues.

Making these ships successful in their intended role (line support) would also add a nice touch to the fleet. It would not invalidate line cruisers (because CLs really don't cut it when used on their own) and would not encroach on the role of the Dauntless variants.

[Zelnik]

your singing to the choir, Sig.

[lastspartacus]

Perfectly worded Sig.  Who cares if you lower the cost on a crappy ship until its rightly costed?  What we want is something different with a unique role, a true 'cruiser lite'.  It has still and probably will never be explained at this point what is so broken about 6+ prows and 90* turns, especially since broadside ships never struggle to draw a bead. 

[RCgothic]

The SM SC also has more armour, is faster, and still has 90' turns, which sets precedent.

So to recap, the Imperial most requested new ships/fixes are:

#1. Voss Cruisers at original price with 6+ armour and 90' turns. (possibly S4 torps, but not essential)
#2. Torps for Defiant, Lances swapped for a total FP4 F/L/R Battery.
#3. Retribution with FP18 @ 45cm, with possible price increase.

And if these profiles are going to require protracted play testing to get the costs right (note that we're not interested in different profiles), then we would rather you NOT make any changes during FAQ 2010, because that will only complicate changing the prices back again. We do NOT want quick Fixes, we would rather these not be included in FAQ 2010, but introduced with due care and attention next year.

[Zelnik]

I -really- don't think it's a good idea to bring in the strike cruiser into this argument. It really is a beast of it's own.

[fracas]

why would anyone want escorts with CL that can turn 90 and have armor 6 prow?
in fact, same for the dauntless

i think CL should be able to make 2 45 degree turns with minimum move of 10 rather than see 90 turn after 10
and yes, applies to Dauntless as well

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It is not the same for the Dauntless because the Dauntless is a very fast and maneuverable ship which can bring Str 3 lances to bear. The problem with IN Voss LC is their speed 20 ships. They won't be able to get their weapons to places as fast as the Dauntless. Also even with 6+ prow, the Voss LCs are not true line cruisers. They can try but they are just not as durable as the regular cruisers.

Escorts help the IN in the speed department and their in game cost is fair enough that one would still take escorts over the Voss LCs and maybe even the Dauntless. Having multiple targets instead of 1 will also force the opponent to dilute the amount of firepower it can bear since no one would want escorts to get to the rear of his ships.  

[lastspartacus]

Have the ironclads been completely and utterly retconned?  Or are there still examples of them floating around in drydock somewhere?

I'd be keen to look into that as an IN ship.

[commander]

Well, from the fluff (not much said about them), they would be 6+ armour all round, no shields, short ranged (30 cm) but extreemly powerful guns.

[lastspartacus]

Its been asked so many times I cant actually remember if a response was ever gleaned.

Did the HA ever explain what it found to be broken about 6+ prow armor and 90* turns on the voss patterns?

[Vaaish]

I think they mentioned it was too easy to drive in prow on and then turn to cross the t.