Ordnance limitations

[Sigoroth]

With the discussion about new Chaos carriers going on and the inevitable spill over into discussion how the old Chaos carriers should be balanced internally and externally and how this alteration devalues INs carriers, etc, the topic of internally balancing carriers against gunships crops up.

This is because, to my mind, both the Dictator and Mars are overpriced in the IN list. But overpriced compared to what? Since these are the only CVs that the IN has below BB level (excluding that bottom boil the Defiant) then the only way they can be overpriced is by making comparisons to other fleets (a little dubious) or to other options within the fleet. Now, despite people saying things like "you can't quantify this or that" or "apples and oranges" or whatever, the fact is that this within fleet comparison can and is made on a regular basis. This is because you only have a certain amount of points to spend and you have to choose between carrier or gunship.

Part of what makes this comparison hard however is that AC have a theoretically unlimited range. It may take forever, but they could cover a 10 meter board. So an all carrier fleet has an extreme advantage over an all gun fleet when using extreme size tables. Obviously the smaller the table the smaller the advantage. However, at present, AC do have quite a tremendous reach.

I would like to suggest a slight limitation to this reach to make it a touch easier to compare gunships against carriers. To this end I propose that AC are automatically recalled at the beginning of the 4th ordnance phase from when they were launched. So they would have 3 full ordnance phases (3 of your own and 3 of your opponents) in which to move, giving a maximum possible reach of bombers 120cm, like a NC. Thoughts?

[Vaaish]

I don't see this as being a problem although with maneuvering that 120cm reach can get shortened tremendously. You've also left out the Exorcist in you list of CV's below the BB. Since it takes up a CB slot, is a CG, and is only 10 points more than a dictator I think it's a valid gauge to compare the dictator against even though the dictator takes the CA slot.

[Sigoroth]

Well the Exorcist belongs to a class of ship which a lot of people have problems with thematically (no prow/dorsal weaponry, no frontal armour, weak broadsides compared to number of hardpoints) and also logistically (hard to run with the rest of the fleet and also an expensive model for a 230 pt vessel).

I have no real problems with the logistic issues noted above, but when determining if it's balanced it is most often compared to the Dictator (rather than the other way around), given similarities in cost and armament. However, it doesn't usually compete with a Dictator, but more likely a Vengeance, given that's the alternative for the model (unless you use magnets or blue-tac or something). If the Dictator is unbalanced then I'd say that the Exorcist is too. However, given the raft of other issues involved with it I didn't want to bring it up in my previous post so as to avoid going into this much detail. I probably should have given it an off-hand remark as I did with the Defiant, but it is not so easy to dismiss as a ship, though I do feel it's equally irrelevant to this discussion.

As for the shortened reach through manoeuvring, this was a deliberate consideration. So straight line maximum reach would be 120cm from the launching ship, for which it would take 3 turns to achieve.

[lastspartacus]

How in the world would you keep track of that?

[Sigoroth]

How in the world would you keep track of that?

I don't think it would be that hard. Do you really think this would be an issue?

Edit: If the consensus is that this would be a housekeeping nightmare then I posit it as an optional house rule, instead of an official change.

[horizon]

The thing is: isn't the idea only marginal? 6 ordnance phases = 120cm for bombers. Most of the time they won't be as long on the table.

It will only crop up in a battle on a very large (BaronI) table.

[ATGSNAT]

I don't know, in my mind AC, or the ordinance phase in general seems a bit too effective in this game, but it strikes me that the overpowering part isn't the really the range. The tournament metagame, while not a scientific sample, seems to have been heavily dominated by ordinance spam lists the past several years, and any discussion of imperial fleet lists devolves into figuring out how to avoid getting pasted in the ordinance phase.

[Sigoroth]

The thing is: isn't the idea only marginal? 6 ordnance phases = 120cm for bombers. Most of the time they won't be as long on the table.

It will only crop up in a battle on a very large (BaronI) table.

Yeah, fairly marginal. This is more a conceptual limitation, and also to give gun an option other than running the gauntlet when there's someone sitting 160cm away behind terrain.

[Mazila]

Use that rule and the convoy scenario can go to junk.

[Sigoroth]

Use that rule and the convoy scenario can go to junk.

How so?

[Mazila]

Simply because you need more time than 3 ordnance phases for attacker to make a sizable force of ordnance to win. Just try it yourself by your rules and tell me what is a win\loss ratio for an Attacker.

[RCgothic]

I don't follow how this would make any difference to the quantity of Ordnance launched. You can never have more AC on board than LBs, so the attacker can't build up Ordnance anyway.

[Sigoroth]

^^ What he said. Besides, I don't see AC as even being necessary in any scenario. You could take a gunfleet.

[Mazila]

This really seams to me like a rule suggested for the sake of suggesting a rule - it has no real purpose and no real point in my oppinion. And I am always against complicating a game by extra not-needed rules.

[Sigoroth]

I quite often hear people complain about AC and the ability of carrier fleets to spam AC from a long way outside gun range. At the same time there's usually some off-hand remark about how AC have unlimited range and never run out of fuel. These complaints lead to the launch limit rule. The launch limit rules did a lot to quell these complaints, but there're still rumblings about it.

This rule is an attempt to remove a logical absurdity (unlimited range) and give gun fleets the ability to make a carrier fleet come to them, at least partly. The possibility of being completely unable to retaliate against an all AC fleet is one of the reasons people see the need to include at least one carrier. Otherwise they'd just be able to respond with their guns. Addressing these concerns (if only slightly) as well as putting a hard cap on AC reach to make AC/gun comparisons easier is the objective of the rule suggestion. If you think this is just a "rule for the sake of it" that's OK. You don't have to play it.