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

[lastspartacus]

Id like it even without the extra fighters at 130 points, I really would.  The torps give it more reason to RO as well.
When I have used the Defiant, I don't think I ever reloaded its ordnance.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The Dictator has offensive (AC) firepower? I rather doubt that. That being the case, giving the Defiant that much ordnance is equalling the Dictator.

Aside from which, this being a game where launch bay limits dictate the amount of markers on the table, you will also have to figure out which the total number of fighters and bombers you can have available on the table every turn.

I still don't buy the Defiant getting anything more than 2 squadrons total.

[RCgothic]

We're getting to an impasse then, stymied by modelling considerations and doctrine.

It can't take anything other than LBs for its broadside (leaving said broadside horribly underpowered), and if you increase the prow weaponry, it starts competing with the Dauntless.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Which it should. Right now, there is no reason why one would take any other LC other than the Dauntless. Bumping the Defiant's prow weapon up to Str 3 front arc only lances wouldn't be bad and even then the current (or any future reworded) limitations preclude one from getting it en masse anyway.

[Sigoroth]

IF the Defiant can't take anything other than 2 AC broadside (total) and IF it can't take torpedoes for its prow weaponry THEN why not just drop its points cost? Bring it down to 110 pts.

As for the Endeavour and Endurance, well bring their prow torps back down to 2 (keeping their total armament in line with a Dauntless) and just give them the free 6+ prow with 90° turns. Simple really.

This means the Dauntless will still have same total firepower as the End/End but have slightly more focusable firepower in 1 (9WBe vs 8WBe) or 2 (13WBe vs 11WBe) quadrants assuming one of those is the prow. When targets are in all 3 they're the same, when just broadside the Ends have more (14WBe vs 9WBe). This advantage to the Dauntless, combined with its increased speed and decreased cost make it the first choice for a hunter-killer role.

The End's 6+ prows, extra turrets, superior broadsides, opportunistic/CAP breaking torps and 90° turn make them the ideal light line support cruiser.

The Defiant on the other hand brings less total and focusable fire than a Dauntless and is slower to boot. However it can support the fleet via its extra launch bays (launching CAP so larger carriers don't have to) and can operate in the line having 6+ prow and 2 turrets.

[RCgothic]

IF the Defiant can't take anything other than 2 AC broadside (total) and IF it can't take torpedoes for its prow weaponry THEN why not just drop its points cost? Bring it down to 110 pts.

Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.

As for the Endeavour and Endurance, well bring their prow torps back down to 2 (keeping their total armament in line with a Dauntless) and just give them the free 6+ prow with 90° turns. Simple really.

I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.

The Defiant on the other hand brings less total and focusable fire than a Dauntless and is slower to boot. However it can support the fleet via its extra launch bays (launching CAP so larger carriers don't have to) and can operate in the line having 6+ prow and 2 turrets.
[/color]

2LBs is nothing - next to no offensive power at all. It will also struggle to protect a fleet with a mere 2 fighters. The very least it needs torps as well to encourage it to reload.

[Sigoroth]

Because it would still be rubbish for 110pts.

Perhaps.

I actually like the direction they've gone with the S4 torps and 45' turns.

I very much dislike it. It makes it seem that the only reason why the IN made these ships was so that players could get easy access to battleships. End+End+Def + Ret. Of course, people can do that with the Dauntless, but the Dauntless has an actual role. It can be used as a fleet support vessel or a patrol ship to cover space. I don't see the Endeavours be able to being used as a solitary patrol ship. With 20cm speed, 45° turns and no support I don't see them being able to even catch pirates, let alone do anything about them.

They're a straight up fleet support ship, and without the 90° turns I don't see why the IN wouldn't just make 2 CAs instead of 3 CLs. Same cost, less a couple of hits, plus a shield, same number of torps, same armour, speed, manoeuvrability, turrets (each hull is equally protected) same focusable firepower but better total firepower. Firepower loss thresholds favour the cruisers too. Sooooo why would the IN make these ships again? At least with 90° turns there is a proper trade-off for the losses stipulated and a rationale for making them.

2LBs is nothing - next to no offensive power at all. It will also struggle to protect a fleet with a mere 2 fighters. The very least it needs torps as well to encourage it to reload.

The only thing those 2 LBs would be useful against, in offensive terms, is escorts. This is fine, I wouldn't expect much more from a light carrier. In defensive terms it might just mean the difference between forcing your main CV to go on CAP or not. Say you've got 2 carriers, 1 of them launches CAP. You don't think that'll be enough, so you're forced to launch more from your other one, even though they likely won't all be needed. With the 2 bays from the Dauntless on CAP duty you can then use your Dictator offensively. In short, it just allows you to go offensive with your other carriers when you might not have otherwise done so.

[lastspartacus]

I believe someone suggested str2 l/r/f prow battery and str2 l/r/f dorsal battery along with the str4 torps.
I hope we go with that option.

I dont think it has yet been properly explained why 90* is so much better than 45* degree and thus incompatible with 6+ prow armor.  It doesn't effect what you can fire at when coming in line-abreast even.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I believe someone suggested str2 l/r/f prow battery and str2 l/r/f dorsal battery along with the str4 torps.
I hope we go with that option.

No too much firepower and ordnance on a light cruiser hull. Stick with the prow lance and 2 side launch bays. Just bump up the lances to Str 3 and it should be fine.

[RCgothic]

Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.

I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.

It would still be undergunned, but it might just carve itself enough of a role to make itself useful with that load out.

As for why 45' turns is fine - These are mini line cruisers. Their role is identical to that of a line cruiser. The Imperium builds them because it is vast and it needs to show the flag of a capital ship in more places than it would otherwise be able to with standard line cruiser. It is still effective in the line of battle, and it can head up a flotilla of escorts in standard combat missions just as well as the dauntless can (better even), and in defensive situations is also worth more than a dauntless. Its role is that of a line cruiser, and it doesn't need to be given additional roles by making it more manouevrable.

As to why the player would take them instead of a line cruiser: They're a cheap way to cover your bases (another reason why the endeavour-endurance/defiant link needs to be severed), adding more WB, lances or LBs if that's what you need. They're also an alternative to the line cruisers, if that's your preference. You may prefer to field more ships than fewer - as long as they're viable alternatives to line cruisers then this will work. It's also fluffy, which again will work as long as they're viable alternatives.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Hell NO should it get S3 Lances! Not that I think that would make it overpowered (15WBe), but it is not meant to be a super-dauntless with L/F/R Lances and AC, it is a mini-dictator.

Who said anything about LFR lances? Front only like the Dauntless.

I think lastspartacus's suggestion was eminently reasonable. It NEEDS the torps in order to give it a chance of getting a reload ordnance special order, and given 4wbs (the firepower of a sword) in addition to torps, it would have 16WB equivs (and that's counting the LBs as 6WBe despite being more like 4WBe offensively), compared to a dauntless's 17WBe, and the Endev/Endur 20Wbe - hardly overpowered.

Aside from the fact that there is no LC with dorsal weapons, it just has too many weapons. You can't have everything on one Imperial ship. The SC unfortunately is a special case. If you want torps on the Defiant, then give it Str 6 torps like the Dauntless. It will lose the guns but if that's what you want, that's what you get and no adding dorsal weaponry. Then bring down the price a bit as Sigoroth suggested.

It would still be undergunned, but it might just carve itself enough of a role to make itself useful with that load out.

It's a carrier. It's supposed to be undergunned, Emperor and Oberon notwithstanding.

[RCgothic]

It would be undergunned, INCLUDING its launch capacity. It's not too many weapons on one cruiser.

The other Voss variants would be 4-6WBe more powerful than the Defiant, INCLUDING its LBs.

You also said "Bump the Lances up to S3", and the lances are F/L/R.

[horizon]

In BFG carriers are only little undergunned compared gunnery ships if at all.

Also:
2 prow batteries lfr
2 prow torps
1 launch port/starboard (total of 2 AC that is).
2 dorsal batteries lfr

That means: prow is same as other Voss CL = nice.
port/starboard is same, ok for CL.
dorsal added to make up for total fp loss.

4 batteries is less then 3 lances by a large margin.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It would be undergunned, INCLUDING its launch capacity. It's not too many weapons on one cruiser.

The other Voss variants would be 4WBe more powerful than the Defiant, INCLUDING its LBs.

Why does everything have to have the same power? Do you really think the Emperor has equal gunnery with the Retribution? The Defiant has a role and it's not supposed to be shooting at stuff. Who cares that the other Voss variants would be more powerful as long as the ship is priced accordingly. If that is so, then everything is still balanced.

And I still am not agreeable to an LC getting dorsal weaponry. Stick to one prow weapon and make it as strong as one can instead of sticking a weapon battery and torp weapons and then not making them worth a damn by keeping them both at strength 2.

[horizon]

Just in case of the Voss CL design principle equal strength (as much as possible) is to be adviced.

In my opinion that is.

This because I don't see the Defiant with 3 lances, dropped down to 120 getting a first choice vessel. Not as bad as it is but still... meh-ish.