August 06, 2024, 03:16:45 AM

Author Topic: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?  (Read 171252 times)

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #285 on: December 12, 2010, 07:27:55 AM »
But...you can do that with 45* turns...

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #286 on: December 12, 2010, 08:57:09 AM »
But...you can do that with 45* turns...

+1

Offline Vaaish

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 986
    • Digital Equinox
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #287 on: December 12, 2010, 03:17:39 PM »
heh. I think that's what the consensus was but apparently 90' turns let you do it in style. And that's just not befitting the IN. :)
-Vaaish

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #288 on: December 12, 2010, 08:43:25 PM »

The play-test battles were 8 against 8 CL's, as follows:

4x Dauntless (torp)
4x Dauntless (lances)
2x Cobra
1x Firestorm (I would have preferred 3x Cobras, but I wanted the points to be exactly equal for the play-tests)
vs.
4x Endeavor
2x Endurance
2x Defiant

The first play-test last weekend was with the variants getting an extra shield. What came up was Sigoroth's biggest complaint- the ships became too resilient compared to the Dauntless. 6+ armor and 90deg turns together turned into the same problem but for a completely different reason that DIDN'T come up in the play-test but came up in a game yesterday: Endeavors with 6+ prows and 90deg turns together gain the capability to come in line-abreast with the bigger ships, then quickly go abeam and use their broadsides far more effectively than the larger cruuisers. More importantly, they can present an abeam aspect to enemies far more easily than regular cruisers can, which is too much like escort behavior vs. cruiser behavior and is a potent ability in and of itself.

How did you test that in a battle between nothing but CLs?

Offline Plaxor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1106
  • Tyrant of BFG:Revised
    • BFG files
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #289 on: December 12, 2010, 09:25:58 PM »
How did you test that in a battle between nothing but CLs?

Every good scientist needs a control. He would need to do a similar experiment where he did something with cruisers at the same points, and compare with proper maths.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #290 on: December 12, 2010, 10:42:33 PM »
Yeah... Well list me as one of the "6+/45 turn" tradeoff crowd.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #291 on: December 12, 2010, 11:08:54 PM »
Oh, good.  Zelnik is more vocal than Nate.  So whats your reasoning behind that?

Offline Eldanesh

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #292 on: December 20, 2010, 03:41:20 AM »
Quote
Every good scientist needs a control.
lol
The only real test for a hypothesis is reality. And I doubt that you'll find a lot of players out there who field an IN fleet consisting only of CL's.

IF you want a proper test use an Armaggedon list as intended (meaning a list consisting mainly of CL's and BC's) an look how it performs against a regular navy fleet (meaning an emperor, Mars, a combination of Lunar/Gothic/Dominator, some dauntless' and some Cobras to fill up points). I'll doub't that the Armaggedon list will be on the winning side...

My 2 cents: If i get the designers intenion correctly the CL's should work as a kind of "half cruiser", so 2 CL's should do the work of 1 regular cruiser in another fleet. The probem is, that due to the mechanics (especially of shields) such a "half cruiser" is usually worse than 0.5 cruisers. Maybe not at 1 on 1 (or in this case 1 on 2  ;D) but surly on the fleet level. so to bring them in line I see 3 options

a) forget about the whole "Half line cruiser" Idea an make them real light crusiers. meaning beef up speed/turns and make the weaponary more front-centred or better flexible (F/L/R)
b) improve their combat stats so that they can hold a line: 2nd shield will do the job, but 2/3of a regular Crusiers armament should also do it if you want to stay with 1 shield
c) decrease their price a good bit. At ~80-90 points I would consider to use some of them (but even than not more than say 3 ships on 1500 Point and only if the opponent isn't too competitive) but not at the current price.

From a historical view the whole concept is a bit weird: CL's were usually never more than oversized escorts (or refitted civil ships) and could never stand a chance against real ships of the Line.                    
« Last Edit: December 20, 2010, 04:39:51 AM by Eldanesh »

Offline BaronIveagh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 859
    • Dark Reign
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #293 on: December 20, 2010, 04:38:52 AM »
Quote
Every good scientist needs a control.
lol
The only real test for a hypothesis is reality. And I doubt that you'll find a lot of players out there who field an IN fleet consisting only of CL's.

IF you want a proper test use an Armaggedon list as intended (meaning a list consisting mainly of CL's and BC's) an look how it performs against a regular navy fleet (meaning an emperor, Mars, a combination of Lunar/Gothic/Dominator, some dauntless' and some Cobras to fill up points). I'll doub't that the Armaggedon list will be on the winning side...

My 2 cents: If i get the designers intenion correctly the CL's should work as a kind of "half cruiser", so 2 CL's should do the work of 1 regular cruiser in another fleet. The probem is, that due to the mechanics (especially of shields) such a "half cruiser" is usually worse than 0.5 cruisers. Maybe not at 1 on 1 (or in this case 1 on 2  ;D) but surly on the fleet level. so to bring them in line I see 3 options

1) forget about the whole "Half line cruiser" Idea an make them real light crusiers. meaning beef up speed/turns and make the weaponary more front-centred or better flexible (F/L/R)
b) improve their combat stats so that they can hold a line: 2nd shield will do the job, but 2/3of a regular Crusiers armament should also do it if you want to stay with 1 shield
c) decrease their price a good bit. At ~80-90 points I would consider to use some of them (but even than not more than say 3 ships on 1500 Point and only if the opponent isn't too competitive) but not at the current price.

From a historical view the whole concept is a bit weird: CL's were usually never more than oversized escorts (or refitted civil ships) and could never stand a chance against real ships of the Line.                     

Which several members of this forum have suggested they would see me hanged first before they'd allow the Defiant to be a 25cm ship. 
non nobis domine non nobis sed nomine tua da na glorium

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #294 on: December 20, 2010, 01:57:08 PM »
That's because it wouldn't be a Voss variant any more.

We have nothing against the Enforcer class Dauntless Variant. Nobody's saying you can't have an AV5+ 1/2 Carrier with 25cm speed and a strong forward armament like the Dauntless, just that it can't be the Defiant. Such a ship would make an exceptional patrol cruiser, there is no doubt.

The Enforcer is actually a cruiser I would like to see make officialdom - it's significantly different from any of the existing cruisers/GCs/BBs, makes absolute sense as a patrol cruiser, doesn't really threaten the line carriers role, and would probably be the most unique addition to the IN we could make.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #295 on: December 20, 2010, 09:04:40 PM »
Hey folks, I just played a game with my very sexy Endeavors and endurances (3 squadroned together, 2 endeavors 1 endurance) (thank you Zac!)

To put it mildly, they rocked my opponents world.

Either way, the current point costs and restrictions finally made a dream fleet of mine possible.

2x endurances
2x endeavors
2x Mars battle cruiser
2x Avenger GC's.

wheee!

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #296 on: December 20, 2010, 09:41:42 PM »
A fun thing for you guys to look at. Now the overlord is 220 points. For it's original price of 235, it gets a left column shift.

Overlords now are even MORE badass.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #297 on: December 20, 2010, 10:40:28 PM »
Just for clarification, are the changes in the upgrade options overriding the existing upgrades in the Rulebook and Armada? Ex. does this mean the Mars has lost the targeting matrix option or is the new turret upgrade in addition to the targeting matrix?

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #298 on: December 21, 2010, 03:59:26 AM »
Additions. Mars still has taregtting matrix.

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?
« Reply #299 on: December 21, 2010, 04:22:44 AM »
Hmm, I think they should clarify it then. Wording can make one think that the FAQ is replacing the entries.