List of flawed ships

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Armour 6+, 2 Shields and 8 hits can absorb 48 shots whilst closing.
Armour 5+, 3 Shields and 10 hits can absorb 39 hits whilst closing.

However, the Vengeance will not be approaching once it reaches the 60 cm mark. It will now turn abeam and start shooting. If the Overlord does turn to unmask, then the Vengeance is now a much better and more robust platform. You also have to look at how the ship performs and not just think it would be in the closing aspect all the way.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Avenger: FP16 R45 is as crap as FP16 R30. Vengeance and Repulsive are very near in firepower, a S1 lance difference. So why are people so shy to give the Avenger the firepower it deserves, coming from Vengeances S2 R45 lances and FP10 R60 WB a side? With an increase in pointcost offcourse if necessary.

If any increase in the current WB firepower is added, there should be no points increases whatsoever.

[commander]

Armour 6+, 2 Shields and 8 hits can absorb 48 shots whilst closing.
Armour 5+, 3 Shields and 10 hits can absorb 39 hits whilst closing.

The shields and hits only make a difference from an Abeam position, so whether a GC is more durable is debatable. I still think FP20 is far too much. Increase the Avenger's speed or give it additional range, but FP20 competes with a retribution, and a GC is not a heavy BB.

Avenger DOES NOT compete with 'new' Retribution. FP18 R45 AND S3 lances R60 = FP27 versus total FP20 R45 of Avenger.
The Vengeance is as powerful as repulsive, only the guns are placed differently, all on the side versus side and dorsal. So give the ship its rightfull firepower.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I'm not saying that FP9 is overpowered, I'm saying it competes with the Oberon and it shouldn't, because that's the only thing the Oberon really has going for it. 45cm dorsal would prevent the Apoc being as good in the abeam position, and it shouldn't be too much of an issue as it will want to line break anyway.

Sorry but the Apoc should be competing with the Oberon because the Apoc is pure gunship. So getting at most 2 additional dice for the dorsal proposed FP9 WBs vs the Oberon's FP10 WBs, even assuming that they are returned back to 60 cm, I think is fine. The Oberons should be having a tougher time getting to that much firepower as it is not a pure gunship. It's still a carrier-battleship. Priced at 355 vs the Apoc's 365, I think there will still be people who will get the Oberon. It just makes things more interesting for IN players as they now have 4 attractive battleships to choose from (should the changes happen).

[RCgothic]

Re the Avenger:

The Repulsive is a line-breaker with 30cm weaponry, and it's FP8 short of competing with the Retribution in this role.
The Vengeance is very definitely an abeam ship, and so wastes off-side firepower. It actually has half the Avenger's FP when the Avenger gets into position.
The New Retribution is also a line-beaker, but it's a battleship. It's FP8 better than the Repulsive AND has better range.
The Avenger as proposed with FP20 would be within 4WBe of the Retribution, and so better than the Repulsive.

And it IS Competing with the Retribution, because both are line breakers, and you have to count both sides. The Avenger gets FP40, 46 with Lance refit and 49! with WB refit. The Retribution gets 45. Considering it costs more than 100pts more, that's completely unacceptable.

Find a different way to make it worth its points besides giving it a FP8 boost.

The Apoc and Retribution are both line-breaking gunships. The Apoc has more effective long range power thanks to the lack of attenuation in lances, whilst the Retribution has more close-range damage potential. The Apoc should definitely compete with the Oberon in terms of direct-fire damage potential. It should annihilate it even. But the Oberon should have the long range edge, as it's vital for its support role.

The Oberon is the one you take if you want long-range abeam weapons fire with a bit of AC support. The Emperor is the one you take if you want a carrier-gunship. They all have distinct roles, and I don't want the Apoc treading over the Oberon, because it's the most conflicted of the variants, and it doesn't much harm the Apocalypse to only have 45cm dorsal weapons, but it greatly affects the Oberon to be competed with.

[commander]

Re the Avenger:

The Repulsive is a line-breaker with 30cm weaponry, and it's FP8 short of competing with the Retribution in this role.
The Vengeance is very definitely an abeam ship, and so wastes off-side firepower. It actually has half the Avenger's FP when the Avenger gets into position.
The New Retribution is also a line-beaker, but it's a battleship. It's FP8 better than the Repulsive AND has better range.
The Avenger as proposed with FP20 would be within 4WBe of the Retribution, and so better than the Repulsive.

And it IS Competing with the Retribution, because both are line breakers, and you have to count both sides. The Avenger gets FP40, 46 with Lance refit and 49! with WB refit. The Retribution gets 45. Considering it costs more than 100pts more, that's completely unacceptable.

Find a different way to make it worth its points besides giving it a FP8 boost.

The Apoc and Retribution are both line-breaking gunships. The Apoc has more effective long range power thanks to the lack of attenuation in lances, whilst the Retribution has more close-range damage potential. The Apoc should definitely compete with the Oberon in terms of direct-fire damage potential. It should annihilate it even. But the Oberon should have the long range edge, as it's vital for its support role.

The Oberon is the one you take if you want long-range abeam weapons fire with a bit of AC support. The Emperor is the one you take if you want a carrier-gunship. They all have distinct roles, and I don't want the Apoc treading over the Oberon, because it's the most conflicted of the variants, and it doesn't much harm the Apocalypse to only have 45cm dorsal weapons, but it greatly affects the Oberon to be competed with.

Repulsive has FP14 R45 and S3 lances upgradable to R45. So 4 less WB a side but practically same lance strength. NOT a big difference.
Avenger, with 3 hardpoints a side just as a BB but no dorsals, designed to be a suicidal linebreaker, would have, in total, FP2 WB a side more than Retribution, yes, but you do not count the S3 lances, equaling FP9, of the Retribution.

[commander]

I've pushed my point hard enough. Will be silent about Avenger now 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I don't understand. How would the Oberon be harmed by virtue of it's conflicted-ness (you did mean the Oberon is conflicted, right)? I don't even see anything conflicted with the Oberon. It's a carrier-battleship which uses its guns and AC to help it survive at range esp since it is a slow ship.

The Apoc is NOT a linebreaker. It's a slow ship and any BMs would slow it even further. What it would do it move up and try to get to 30cm (at the moment) which is why it needs the prow armor. Allowing it to fire up to 45 cm just means that it has to turn earlier which isn't really a problem. the FP9 dorsal WBs would be helping it by allowing it to shoot at the enemy as it is closing to 45 cm. Then it unmasks the lances. Not much conflict there.

[RCgothic]

Avenger:
But the three are line breakers, Repulsive, Avenger and Retribution.

Repulsive gets FP28 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 37WBe in a line breaking position.
Retribution gets FP36 WBs and FP9 WBe lances for 45WBe in a line breaking position.
Avenger currently gets FP32WBe in a line breaking position. OK, slightly less than a repulsive, but it's cheaper. The big difference is the Repulsive can fire forwards.
Avenger as proposed gets FP40WBs whilst line breaking, with options for WBe 46 or even WBe 49!

That's very definitely battleship level firepower, and grand cruisers are not battleships.

Oberon/Apoc:
The Oberon is conflicted because it wants to lock on and reload. It also wants to be in the middle of an enemy fleet but can't get there.
The Apoc has broadsides as powerful as the new Retribution. It does not want to be wasting the off side. It also has a nova cannon, which it can keep firing up to 30cm so long as the prow is towards the enemy. Therefore line breaker. It doesn't need WBs to support its advance, because it has a Nova Cannon. Its ability to go abeam at long range is a bonus.

The Oberon is a long-range gun platform, with AC support, as opposed to the Emperor, which is a long-range carrier platform with gun support. The Oberon is therefore more vulnerable to comparisons with the pure gunships that the Emperor, and it comes off badly except at the longest range. The only thing the Oberon has over the Apoc is an ability to fire at 60cm without restriction. When the Apoc chooses to fire at 60cm, even without WBs it can match the Oberon in damage output. The 45cm dorsal just gives the Oberon that slight extra edge, in that the Apoc must expend a SO to match it at range, rather than have the WBs naturally reach out that far.

[Plaxor]

Avenger can go to FP20@30 cm and it would still be overpriced. Right now, Smotherman puts it at 133 points. That's how badly priced it is.

Really? my math is 169pts.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

What I meant was at even at FP20 per broadside, it would be overpriced as it is costed around, yes, 169 points. 133 points if the value using the current set-up of FP16 per broadside. There's a big problem with the Avenger.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Oberon/Apoc:
The Oberon is conflicted because it wants to lock on and reload. It also wants to be in the middle of an enemy fleet but can't get there.

No more conflicted than the Emperor. With carriers, one always wants to RO instead of LO unless you think you can kill a ship by going on LO.

The Apoc has broadsides as powerful as the new Retribution. It does not want to be wasting the off side. It also has a nova cannon, which it can keep firing up to 30cm so long as the prow is towards the enemy. Therefore line breaker. It doesn't need WBs to support its advance, because it has a Nova Cannon. Its ability to go abeam at long range is a bonus.

It's not a linebreaker like the Retribution is a line breaker. It's more an artillery piece. It's slow as I mentioned. A linebreaker needs to be fast so that it can get to the line and break it before it itself gets attacked. It should also be maneuverable so that it can react to an opponent's changes to his line.

In a sense, the Apocalypse is more suited to a long range gun platform than the Retribution. The only thing preventing it performing as such is the crit when firing at more than 30 cm.

The Oberon is a long-range gun platform, with AC support, as opposed to the Emperor, which is a long-range carrier platform with gun support. The Oberon is therefore more vulnerable to comparisons with the pure gunships that the Emperor, and it comes off badly except at the longest range. The only thing the Oberon has over the Apoc is an ability to fire at 60cm without restriction. When the Apoc chooses to fire at 60cm, even without WBs it can match the Oberon in damage output. The 45cm dorsal just gives the Oberon that slight extra edge, in that the Apoc must expend a SO to match it at range, rather than have the WBs naturally reach out that far.

So again, why should the Apoc be hampered because of the Oberon? The Apocalypse is a gunship so let it be the gunship. The Oberon is a wannabee gunship so it should be "harmed" going by your definition. Battleship carriers should not have more firepower than the pure gunships, whether on focus or not. Even real life examples like the Ise and Hyuga sacrificed their aft guns to add a flight deck.

[BaronIveagh]

Even real life examples like the Ise and Hyuga sacrificed their aft guns to add a flight deck.

A better example might be the US AVP boats for purpose of comparison.  Admittedly, they were rebuilt destroyers, but the basic principal stands. 

[RCgothic]

Apocalypse:
No penalty for firing up to 45cm, shooting at 60cm is still critical hit. [Admiral d Artagnan, RCgothic, Plaxor, Commander, BaronIveagh]
Shooting over 45cm causes WB Offline critical to each side that fires over 45cm instead of Thrusters Critical [RCgothic, Sigoroth]
Dorsal WBs to FP9 [Sigoroth, RCgothic]
Reduce Dorsal WBs to 45cm [RCgothic]

Are we pretty much in agreement about 45cm lances with no penalty?
What about the different Critical hit?
FP9?
Reduced range?

Mars:
Drop by 10 points [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Commander, BaronIveagh]

Are we pretty much agreed?

Firestorms:
Drop by 5pts [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Commander, Vaaish, horizon(dependent on Idolator)], Don’t touch [Fracas], Lance to 45cm[BaronIveagh]

Again, are we pretty much agreed on -5pts?

Grand Cruiser Refits:
Frontal armour plates - +35(?)pts
Prow Torpedoes (6) - +20 pts
Prow Nova Cannon - +45(?) pts
Prow sensor array - +20 pts
Dorsal Lance battery (str 2, rng 60cm, LFR) - +45 pts
Weapon Battery (str 9, rng 45cm, LFR) - +40 pts
Bombardment Cannon (str 6, rng 30cm, LFR) - +40 pts

Firstly, points: agreed, agreed, NC 40pts, agreed, agreed, WBs 35pts.
Secondly: No BCs, and WBs at CB, not BB level. FP6.
Thirdly: Additional turret +15pts. Any other ideas?

[Vaaish]

I think enough that it would warrant testing although given the relatively low numbers of lances beyond 30cm IN fleets traditionally possess I don't think it would be too problematic unless you managed to get off both broadsides.