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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Maybe not at 120 but what happens if you then drop it to 115? 110? You now start to take notice.

[RCgothic]

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.

The Emperor and Oberon are within half a WBe of the Retribution. The Dictator has identical WBe to the Lunar and Gothic. What they lack in WB power, they make up in LB power. So your "Carriers should be undergunned" is nonsense.

Even with a dorsal S2 WB, the Defiant is 4-6WBe weaker than its cousins, and would be 10WBe weaker in direct firepower alone.

Yes, if you drop the price, it is going to start looking more attractive, but I'd far rather it be the equal of its peers, rather than the runt of the litter.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The Emperor and Oberon are within half a WBe of the Retribution.

Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs? Do they not count as well? Of course the Ret has torps. My point is they do not have the same total WB if one converts everything. In the case of battleships, the carriers potential to do damage is definitely greater than that of the Retribution.

The Dictator has identical WBe to the Lunar and Gothic. What they lack in WB power, they make up in LB power. So your "Carriers should be undergunned" is nonsense.

Carriers should not be able to outgun pure gunships is what I meant. What you are doing is trying to make them all equal in gunnery which should not be the case. You can convert all you want but the fact is your conversions are only guides. They are not hard rules that one should follow.

Even with a dorsal S2 WB, the Defiant is 4-6WBe weaker than its cousins, and would be 10WBe weaker in direct firepower alone.

Yes, if you drop the price, it is going to start looking more attractive, but I'd far rather it be the equal of its peers, rather than the runt of the litter.

That is your perspective. Personally, I feel the Defiant given Str 3 lances with Str 2 AC support fits a niche role well, esp if given at a cheap price. You cannot directly convert weapons and expect each to perform as the other. This is because each weapon system plays differently esp those between direct fire weapons and ordnance. You cannot expect AC to give out the same damage as WBs since the IN generally has fewer AC and will most likely be using fighters instead of bombers.

[RCgothic]

>>Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs?

No, within half a WBe (Weapon battery Equivalent). The Emperor has 22WBs, and LBs worth 24, for a total of 46WBe. The Retribution has 24WBs, Lances worth 9, and Torps worth 13.5 for a total of 46.5WBe.

I'm honestly baffled at how you think 4WB F/L/R and 4 Torps outguns 14WB and 4 Torps.  It's clear to everyone else here that the Defiant as proposed would still be substantially weaker than its peers.

Anyway, yes I'd completely back this profile:

Defiant, 120pts
Cruiser/6 Speed20/Turns45 Armour 6+/5+ T2

Prow Torps S4 F
Prow WB S2 30cm F/L/R
Dorsal WB S2 30cm F/L/R
Port/SB LB S2 total

[Sigoroth]

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.

Eh, I agree that it shouldn't have 3 lances due to direct competition with the Dauntless, however it isn't necessarily a mini-Dictator. It could be a mini-Mars, for example. I don't object to it getting torps, however I do object to the decision to go 6+/45° with +2 torps instead of 6+/90°. So, for that reason alone I don't want to see it get 4 torps. Apart from that, there's a stated "no dual AC policy" on it. I don't particularly care about this policy either way. The ship could be reloaded simply by putting it in a squadron with a Dictator. I don't care either way, just don't want the extra torps as a hand waving way of getting away from the problem with the design.

As for why 45' turns is fine - These are mini line cruisers. Their role is identical to that of a line cruiser.

There is zero reason to do this.

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.

It certainly can not. IN cruisers are able to defend outpost from opportunistic pirate raids due to their displacement. Light cruisers are not meant as defenders, they're meant to hunt pirates. The ability of the Endeavour series CLs to operate independently on solo patrols actively hunting pirates or defending planets or shipping lanes would be far worse than a Dauntless. The Dauntless is like a Chaos ship, good individually. IN cruisers function poorly by themselves (much better in a fleet) and a smaller version would be no better.

It's role is certainly in the line, but there would be no reason to make them if they were just identical to a cruiser but smaller. "Showing the flag" is not a reason when it would perform far worse than a (cheaper to make) Dauntless.

Therefore the reason to make it would have to be that it provides something to the line that a regular IN cruiser does not. With 6WB@30cmL+R + 4 torps + 2WB@30cmLFR weaponry, 45° turns and 2 turrets, at 120 points the ship is still worse than simply buying line cruisers.

If you bought 2 Endeavour's and 1 Endurance you would get 12 torps, 12WB@30cmL+R, 2L@30cmL+R and 6WB@30cmLFR. If you simply bought 2 Lunars instead you would get 12 torps, 12WB@30cmL+R and 4L@30cmL+R. So by focusing the prow weaponry to one side the CLs can match the firepower of Lunars. However they're still short 6WBe on their offside weaponry. Not good for a line splitter. All ships have 2 turrets each, making them identical against ordnance. The CLs have a total of +2 hits, but they have 1 less shield both in total and on each target, so they are more likely to take damage from incidental direct fire and will at least take more hull from any attempt at focused fire. This is made worse since at just 3 hull hits (4 in any one turn) the CLs lose 1/6 of total firepoiwer. For one of the cruisers to lose anything they'd have to take 4 hull hits, which is 6 in any one turn. The same damage against the CLs will result in nearly 1 destroyed CL (1/3 of total firepower).

So even with this "fix" there's still no reason to use them over typical line cruisers. Mind you, this "fix" manages to put the total firepower of the Endeavour over that of the Dauntless. And it's still not good enough. This means that this fix isn't a fix.

There should be a point of difference. These ships should be line cruisers but smaller, but there should have been a reason to make them smaller! Dauntlesses are the solo-operators, pirate hunters, shipping lane patrol boats, etc. They can go "show the flag".

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.

I think it is the opposite of fluffy. There seems no reason whatsoever why the IN would have made these ships if this is going to be the final profile. As for players, the only reason I can think they'd take them, from a play reason, is to take a BB with 2 line cruisers (ie, the CLs simulating line cruisers), rather than 3 Dauntless. This does not justify their existence. You could of course cite model reasons, personal preferences or "just coz" as reasons for people to play them, but there's no play reason to do so apart from some slight beardiness with fleet selection and there's no background reason for them to be made in the first place.

Must be 90°.

[Sigoroth]

>>Within half a WB? So what about the lances and the LBs?

No, within half a WBe (Weapon battery Equivalent). The Emperor has 22WBs, and LBs worth 24, for a total of 46WBe. The Retribution has 24WBs, Lances worth 9, and Torps worth 13.5 for a total of 46.5WBe.

Indeed. However, the Emperor can focus 16 WBs and 8 AC (24WBe) in the one arc for a total of 40WBe in one arc. The Ret can do 22.5WBe in one arc at best. The Emp can't combine to 2 disparate weapon types, but they can all go in the one direction, ie, at the enemy. The Ret has to get targets in multiple arcs before it starts to come good.

[RCgothic]

And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even. For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

I also absolutely hate the idea that a Defiant is going to be forced to be part of a squadron with another carrier just to make it worth reloading. One of the reasons for having one is because you don't HAVE another carrier. Giving it torps is such an obvious fix for this. The 45' isn't such a loss for these ships - they can still turn and fire their broadsides entirely forward or backward. It's vital on the Dauntless, because if it's facing the wrong way it's as good as useless, but the Voss have no such weakness.

Sure, against a single escort-type pirate a Dauntless is going to be better at chasing it down and destroying it, but if:

There are multiple pirate ships
And/or you've found a position the pirates have to defend (such as their base)
And/or they've got AC
And/or you're engaging in a skirmish with escorts from another power
And/or you have to defend a fixed position (such as a planet from invasion)

Then the Voss is far and away a better choice, and these are all vital roles that must be performed. The dauntless is good at one thing and one thing only - hunting down and destroying a lone, fast enemy vessel. The Voss are so much more than that.

[Sigoroth]

And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even. For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

I also absolutely hate the idea that a Defiant is going to be forced to be part of a squadron with another carrier just to make it worth reloading. One of the reasons for having one is because you don't HAVE another carrier. Giving it torps is such an obvious fix for this. The 45' isn't such a loss for these ships - they can still turn and fire their broadsides entirely forward or backward. It's vital on the Dauntless, because if it's facing the wrong way it's as good as useless, but the Voss have no such weakness.

I find it strange that you're so fired up over finding a role for the Dauntless when there is no role for the other 2. I agree that the Dauntless is pathetic for the most part, but since it's significantly different from just 2/3 of a line cruiser for 2/3 of the cost it actually has the most "role" to offer the fleet, weak as it may be.

Sure, against a single escort-type pirate a Dauntless is going to be better at chasing it down and destroying it, but if:

There are multiple pirate ships
And/or you've found a position the pirates have to defend (such as their base)
And/or they've got AC
And/or you're engaging in a skirmish with escorts from another power
And/or you have to defend a fixed position (such as a planet from invasion)

Then the Voss is far and away a better choice, and these are all vital roles that must be performed. The dauntless is good at one thing and one thing only - hunting down and destroying a lone, fast enemy vessel. The Voss are so much more than that.

If any of those things happen the Voss is just as screwed as a Dauntless. More so in fact, since the Dauntless will have a much better chance of getting the hell out of there and calling for reinforcements.

[RCgothic]

Not necessarily. That depends entirely what the threat is, but agaisnt multiple ships or where a position must be attacked or defended and fighting is the only option, the Voss is an entirely better choice than the Dauntless.

The other two are good ships, and I don't need much prodding to take them. The Defiant needs more firepower, and a reason to reload without slaving it to another ship. Both it and the Endurance need to be able to be taken by themselves.

I'd much rather have +2 torps than 90' turns.

As I've said before, the reason for making them smaller is so there can be more of them and so they can be in more places at once.

[RCgothic]

If the HAs are absolutely determined to keep the link between Endeavours and Endurances/Defiants, and won't tie it into 1 per X points as would be most sensible (srsly, why not?), how about this:

For each Defiant/Endurance after the first, an Endeavour must be taken.

Again, like 1 per X points, this doesn't stop people plugging gaps in their list with the 1 variant they desperately need, but does put restrictions on spamming them.

[Sigoroth]

Not necessarily. That depends entirely what the threat is, but agaisnt multiple ships or where a position must be attacked or defended and fighting is the only option, the Voss is an entirely better choice than the Dauntless.

So your entire argument is that there might some possible situations where a Dauntless would not be able to cut it but a cruiser would be overkill. Right. This is obviously going to be much more common than sporadic pirate activity for which a fast and manoeuvrable ship would be ideal. Whatever slight teeny tiny percentage chance increase of survival of a lone Voss against multiple ships/AC (which is either coming from escort carriers, which a Dauntless is more likely to be able to catch and deal with, or an enemy CV in which case the Voss is screwed anyway) is more than made up for by the Dauntless being a more capable pirate hunting vessel. Any authority that decided to use Voss cruisers in place of the Dauntless for this role would be somewhat cracked in the head.

The other two are good ships, and I don't need much prodding to take them. The Defiant needs more firepower, and a reason to reload without slaving it to another ship. Both it and the Endurance need to be able to be taken by themselves.

I'd much rather have +2 torps than 90' turns.

Why? Why not just take full line cruisers? Pointless ships.

As I've said before, the reason for making them smaller is so there can be more of them and so they can be in more places at once.

Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Hell, if they want numbers they can make escorts. If they want a proper presence they can make CAs. If they want a pirate hunter they can make a Dauntless. A cut down CA will do nothing on its own.

The biggest problem with these ship stats is that they are so easy to compare to a line cruiser. A comparison that, despite being so close, favours the CAs. There is no point of difference between the ships. No background necessity for making the ships. No playable utility in taking the ships. No rationale as to why the ship manages to shed mass compared to a line cruiser but gains back nothing for having done so.

[RCgothic]

No, situations for which a cruiser would be ideal, but for which one is not available. The Voss probably will be accompanied by escorts. If it's one ship, they can do the chasing down. You don't need a Dauntless for that. If it's a situation where you'd want a cruiser, such as the aforementioned situations, then you'd be glad to have a Voss rather than a Dauntless. In fact, in a duel I'd expect a Voss to thoroughly paste a Dauntless. The Dauntless would do slightly more in the first turn, but as soon as you get close you end up locked broadside to broadside, and that's a situation the Dauntless isn't getting out of, regardless of its better rate of turn and higher top speed.

[horizon]

Hey, what about my profile?

It got overlooked? Denied?

[RCgothic]

If the other Voss stay at 2T, then your profile would be the best compromise, but I really do think they should go to 4T.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

And to some extent that's why the Emperor is more expensive, and the Retribution is still considered underpowered for its cost. Obviously you have to consider the role. But in pure firepower terms, they're pretty even.

That was before the points swap. Right now, I would say the price is about right for the power the Retribution brings. In pure firepower terms, yes they're pretty even. Add the LB and the Retribution is now overmatched.

For someone to be calling the defiant undergunned, when it's both clearly overmatched by every other variant and has the most tenuous role, it's a bit mind boggling.

So try it out first. I do think it should have Str 3 forward only firing lances even if only to directly compete vs the Dauntless. Even with Str 2 though, why don't you try going one on one vs the other variants. You will pretty much see the Defiant being able to stand toe to toe with the other 2 variants. Why? Because it has the advantage of AC and can actually stay farther out, sending out bombers and whittling away at the Endeavor or Endurance and then killing them when they're crippled. This is what I mean by weapon systems performing differently and you cannot just assume 1 weapon systems is worth x of another weapon system.