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.
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*
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.
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. (?)
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.
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.
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
