Retribution is supposed to be a powerful linebreaker, and it is. A far more powerful one than Invincible.
Its stronger torps allow it to bludgeon its way in, where it will use its additional FP6 to maximum effect, all the while surviving firepower that over 2 turns would cripple Invincible with barely a scratch.
The likelihood of you getting the Retribution into the midst of an enemy fleet with a well versed opponent is quite low. You'll only be able to really use an additional FP3. And if you're driving the Ret to get into the midst of an enemy fleet, you're not really using your broadside WBs aren't you? Means the Invincible is shooting all the while and getting more damage in.
The whole point of a Battlecruiser (Note to sig - would be calling this a Heavy Battlecruiser) is to project battleship-equivalent firepower on a fast platform - historical battleships weren't less powerful than battleships, and they were often more - Hood was the most powerful warship afloat for more than 2 decades. Nerfing it to FP12&3 Lances drops Invincible out of the bottom tier of battleships, and that's why I'm so fiercely trying to hang on to FP15.
Of course the Hood was the most powerful. No one was building any during those 20 years. Certainly not the Germans.
Assuming for a moment S4 lances were allowed, Admiral would be happy with S4@FP12 (slightly more potent than 3L&FP15) which shows that the objection is to the level of firepower in the broadsides, not the total firepower overall.
Yep. Again, I don't mind the dorsals to be brought down to 3 and the torp strength increased to 9.
This brings us onto the assertion that FP15@60cm is as good as FP22@45cm. You're saying WBs@60cm are worth nearly 50% more than WBs@45. This can't be the case:
- Assuming Invincible is abeam ready to recieve a closing capital ship and that the ships are randomly located to begin with, there's a 40% chance a closing chaos cruiser could clear the 45-60cm range band entirely, in which case you may as well have had the extra firepower. If Retribution is closing against enemy abeam and the ships are randomly located to start with, there's a 25% chance of clearing the 60-45cm band entirely, in which case the extra range is moot. So there's at least a 25% chance the extra range won't even come into play at all.
Likelihood. I can say that there's a 60% chance the Chaos cruiser won't clear the band while the Ret has a 75% chance of not clearing the band. See it's all about perspective. The fact therefore according to you is that there is a better chance of the band coming into effect than not.
- Then there's the fact extra range is most likely entirely wasted on the off-side because you're only likely to have targets on both sides when you're in a linebreaking position, in which case pure firepower is what's needed.
Again, the assumption is your opponent lets you get the Ret in there. Certainly I won't just let you. I don't know about your opponents though.
- Long-range firepower is also less likely to be backed up by MORE long range firepower, thus diluting its effect due to shields compared to short range fire.
Yeah but long range firepower can be backed up by short ranged firepower. Perspective.
- Finally, most battles are concluded at short range and less than 1/4 of the battle is going to occur in the 45-60cm range band, so even a moderate amount of extra dice to start with are going to be outweighed by 1 or two extra dice at shorter range over the course of a battle. If even 1/8th of the time the shorter ranged ship manages to line up a dual broadside then it will outweigh any advantage of having long range in an instant.
Yes but it doesn't mean you can't get damage in from long range fire. Really, you're discounting long range fire a lot.
Yes, longer ranges weapons batteries are worth more than short ranged ones. But 50% more? Really? If they were really worth 50% more, the overlord would be considered one of the best BCs rather than the most blatantly undergunned. It takes a targetting matrix to make it equivalent to an Armageddon, and even then it isn't better. 20% difference at most.
It's better now. Then it wasn't since the amount of dice being rolled aren't enough. Had the Overlord had FP12@60cm. no one would be complaining. I still prefer the Overlord to have FP12@45cm though to put it in line with the Armageddon. Yes it should be 50% more at lower strength if we stick to the current day ship platform. If we go by the Dominator profile where you can upgrade the broadside batteries to FP6@45 cm, you would see this precedent. It's actually a heftier change compared to my wanting the Overlord to have FP12@45cm from FP8@60cm. I would think that the Ret having a similar platform or cruiser-writ-large with the same type of weapons should have a similar ratio.
So the Ret is still undergunned in the sense that if it had FP18@60cm which it should, its broadside firepower at 45 cm should really be at FP27 when at 45cm (probably even at FP36 if we go by the Dominator but that might be too much).
Also, the Apocalypse crams 27WBe into those same three hardpoints. Lances are already far more potent than Weapons Batteries at range - denying WBs the ability to have FP6@60cm to a hardpoint just exacerbates this (and conveniently ignores that Emperor and Oberon do just that), and I'm not even asking for 6 per hardpoint here, or asking that the range upgrade be free.
Yes and the Retribution should really have FP18@60cm. So why not put that into the changes as well because really, isolating the weapons alone, the FP18@45cm of the Ret will be overshadowed by the Invincible which has FP15@60cm broadsides. If one can put FP15@60 cm broadside on what you claim is a battlecruiser, I don't see why they can't put FP18@60cm on a true blue battleship.
Of course, there are other factors in the game but first there should be an absolute comparison which is isolating and comparing the WBs only and then a relative comparison which is now comparing the ships other stats as well.
