Making the Retribution function as the model appears

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

But the ship is perfect WYSWYG.  12 barrels, st 12 battery. 3 dorsal weapons, 3 dorsal lances. torpedo bays, st 9 torp. 

What more do you want!?

A stronger Weapon Battery broadside.

[Zelnik]

It's an imperial fast battleship...

If you want a stronger broadside, go admech and take the ark.


The ship is only 345 points, and a 60cm st 12 is still pretty damn respectable.  I don't really see the need to make it any better. IF you want a punchier battleship, take an Oberon or Apocalypse.

[Sigoroth]

Gah. The Ark is crap. The Apocalypse is a nice idea, but in practice it falls down due to its weak dorsal weaponry (amongst other problems). It should have 9 WBs at least. Weak dorsal WBs might be fine for Emp/Ober because they're carriers, and it might be fine for the Desolator, because it only has cruiser level firepower due to its speed, but on a gunship there's no excuse.

As for the Oberon, well, I do take them instead of the Retribution. That's how sucky the Retribution is. If I want a BB level gun ship I take a carrier ...

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

It's an imperial fast battleship...

If you want a stronger broadside, go admech and take the ark.


The ship is only 345 points, and a 60cm st 12 is still pretty damn respectable.  I don't really see the need to make it any better. IF you want a punchier battleship, take an Oberon or Apocalypse.

I don't care about having range of 60 cm. I want more broadside firepower. I don't need the range since the point of the Ret is to stay with the cruisers. Since I will be using the speed anyway, this means the 60cm broadside is wasted. This means 45 cm is enough but up the firepower to 18. The Ret is a gunship. It's sad that its almost outgunned by its carrier counterpart.

[Lord Duggie The Mad]

Now that was exactly my sentiment.  I figured that the purpose of the retribution was to lead the crusiers into the fight and blast the opponent to little itty bitty bite sized pieces.  The Emperor is all good and well, but what is the point of having 4 shields if you cower at the back of the line and cry "forward!" from relative safety?

My beef with the retibution in its current form is that it can be outpowered by a repulsive class grand cruiser for a considerably less number of points.  Yes I know it only has two shields (three if you put it on a large base) and 10 hits, and the range is less than a battleship but think of the principle - a fleet flagship (potentially) losing a duel to old warhorse.  That's like Metallica being out-rocked by the Rolling Stones.  In my book that's just wrong <grins>

[RCgothic]

Yup, it just doesn't pack enough punch. The Emperor may not have as much firepower, but by the Throne can it focus it! 16WB + 24WBe of Launch bays all to one side smacks the Retribution's 21 into the dust.

The Retribution needs more firepower to compensate for the fact it can't bring it all to bear at once. FP18@45cm would be welcome.

[Zelnik]

Well, I am going to quote one of my favorite villains from my childhood.

"Now Krang, you can't have everything you see on TV". -- The Shredder, TMNT

The Retribution, like the Desolator, are not meant to be giant super-powerful weapons platforms. They are meant to carry good firepower on a platform that does not suffer from the weaknesses of a cruiser.  They are both "fast" battleships, which means on the whole, their firepower is reduced compared to the other vessels in their class.

If you want REAL firepower, take an Apocalypse or Oberon, but recognize your suffering from a slower and less maneuverable vessel in both circumstances.  Why take the Retrib as it is now? Good firepower at great range with a punishing torpedo salvo for (as battleships go) a low price. Most importantly, it can still turn with a blast marker on it's base, something NO OTHER IMPERIAL BATTLESHIP CAN DO! (aside from the Arc Mech, but that does not count!)

So in the end... Give me an acceptible argument for increasing the strength, because so far I have not seen a good one. 

[horizon]

Because its firepower is cruiser level. Because its point is big booms on a closing course along the rest of the fleet. Its range is a waste as it does not need it.

[Zelnik]

Wait.

How does a 60cm st12 WB , st 3 dorsal lance at 60cm, and strength 9 torpedo equate to cruiser level? What cruisers are you using sir, because i would love to have some of those!

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I have a Dominator at the same broadside firepower. Doesn't have the dorsal lances and the NC can more or less hold its own against the torps. But basically I have a cruiser which can almost duplicate the firepower of the Ret within 30 cm. That's sad.

Someone has already pointed out the Repulsive. More broadside firepower slightly less one dorsal lance and 3 torps. Again, sad Retribution. The Avenger is another example of a linebreaker type ship which would excel if it only had 6+ prow.

60 cm range broadsides on a ship which is designed to pierce the enemy lines are useless. Better to cut down the range and up the firepower.

To repeat: if you're breaking the line, you're not using the 60 cm range so why have it? If you're using the range then you're not using the speed, prow armor and torps so why have them? So fix it by just lowering the range and upping the firepower of the broadsides and keeping the cost.

Then fix the Oberon by returning the range to the dorsal and prow WBs so that it is returned to what it is meant to be as a standoff shooting platform with AC support while upping the cost to 355.

Yes we can't have everything which is why one loses the range on the Ret but at least now it's a better designed ship.

[Zelnik]

Whats the difference? 30 more cm of reach. That's huge if used correctly. A st 9 torpedo wins out over a NC any day. If you feel otherwise, take an Apoc.  Why is a retrib better then a repulsive? how about +2 shields, +1 turret, 6+ prow armor, better torpedo strength and weapon range. 

Normally, I refrain from cross-comparing ships from different fleets, but i am game.

The emperor (if you ignore it's LC) has the same salvo as a carnage.

The Apoc has the same salvo as a executor

The Desolator has the same salvo as a gothic!

Your arguments are utterly invalid, because your wanting "bigger and better" without recognizing that the ship is extremely solid on it's own. 

Now, I am not against increasing the strength to say, 14, but again, i fail to see the need.

[Sigoroth]

The Ret is a lemon. The Armageddon is an overpriced ship and yet 3 of them are better than 2 Rets. Oh, and by "overpriced" I don't mean slightly either. If it came down by 10 pts it would still be in the upper band of its value.

In this comparison we're looking at same torps, same dorsal lances. Rets have more shields and turrets but that in no way makes up for the resounding 4 lance broadside of the Armageddons. If the Armageddons were dropped to 235 pts each there'd only be a 15 pt differential between them (zero differential if dropped to their true worth of 230 pts). As it stands it might be better to take the Armageddons anyway, even at the increased cost.

So, the Ret is able to compete on fairly even terms with grossly overpriced ships. Yay Ret.

[Sigoroth]

Oh, and comparing the torps of the Ret to the NC of the Apocalypse is disingenuous. There is parity of value there, for that weapon only, but the Apocalypse is a bigger piece of poo than the Ret. I have no idea why the dorsal WBs are so weak. However, let's up their strength to 9 and make the broadside lances a simple 45cm range with no special rules and price it the same as the Ret and it would be superior, even with slower speed.

It could take its time on the approach, using the NC on the way in and not having to RO. Once in broadside range its firepower would greatly exceed that of the Ret (45WBe compared to 33WBe) and the lack of 60cm range would be irrelevant, even on this 15cm speed ship.

As it stands however, you gain broadside firepower but lose dorsal firepower and speed and it costs more. Blah. Lemon.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Whats the difference? 30 more cm of reach. That's huge if used correctly.

Exactly. Used correctly. Most people here have stated that the Ret is a fast battleship that can keep pace with the IN cruisers. How does one use the IN cruisers? Why shoving them right down the enemy's fire so that they can get their short ranged weapons off. which means the Ret is better off just following the cruisers into 30 cm range and then unleashing its broadsides. Do you really need the 30 cm then? An addition of 45 cm over 30 cm with commiserate increase in FP is much better deal than having puny broadsides at 60 cm.

BTW, Str 9 torps which can be removed by 1 fighter marker makes me feel better with the NC. Also note we are not talking about defensive qualities here but rather of the offense.

As for your ship comparisons:

1. Emperor vs Carnage - yes, same. Gotta love those FP16 focused broadsides. Is the Emperor then underpowered compared to the Carnage? Or is the Carnage just too good? Then we compare them to a Ret's 12? A Carnage WBs can almost outgun the Ret at 60 cm and definitely outgun the Ret at 45 cm? Sad, sad Ret.
2. Apoc vs Executor - yes, same. I can't say the Apoc is better than the Executor though since it has that problem with the crit. If it didn't have that problem then the Apoc would be an excellent gunboat vs the Executor because remember that the lances work better at long ranges than WBs. Compared to a Ret, I would take these two definitely. I would still shoot the Apoc's guns at 60 cm and take the crit. I would take the Executor because it's priced very attractively for what it does.
3. Desolator vs Gothic - actually yes, you now have to wonder if the Desolator should have more WBs and broadside lances. But no one's complaining because its a very cheap battleship.

Your arguments are utterly invalid, because your wanting "bigger and better" without recognizing that the ship is extremely solid on it's own. 

Now, I am not against increasing the strength to say, 14, but again, i fail to see the need.

A lot of people besides me have already noted its lacking in firepower esp compared to its carrier brethren. This was especially more so when the ship was priced at 365. I already said then swapping the points is an acceptable compromise but I and many others preferred an increase in the firepower while retaining the points.

A solid ship is something like the Dominator. Not conflicted in design. Anything over 30 cm, I shoot with the NC. Anything within, I shoot with the broadsides. In that sense, the Ret is not solid. I'm paying for something which I am not using (either broadside range or speed and prow armor). That's not solid for me. It's supposed to be a gunship, so let it BE a gunship. As it is the Oberon is a better gunship with the Emperor a close second.

[Valhallan]

ok. i also agree that FP 18 at 45 is the true solution - however, i doubt that the HA's will ever change that, period.

My note on the ret sucking, is that it's weapon output is exactly 1.5 overlords - for the same cost as 1.5 overlords.

we all know the overlord sucks.

however the ret gains DEFENSIVE capability. and an admiral is much more likely to throw a ret into the fray than a precious LB toting empy.

if your buying the ret, your buying A.) a badass looking ship, B.) a bullet magnet.