Huh? Again the difference is only 1 to at most 2 dice. What sacrifice? And yes, you want FP15 then cut the range to 45 cm. The Ret is supposed to be the better gunship. You're marginalizing the Ret if you give your Invincible FP15 which if translated to 45 cm would come out to around FP22 or 23.
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.
Apocalypse is supposed to be a better gunship, and it is. A far, far more powerful one than Invincible!
It has a broadside alone of 27WBe@60cm compared to Invincible's proposed 28.5WBe@60cm total focus.
Oberon, with FP16&2L@60cm, is a comparable gunship and has 4AC on top.
Emperor, with FP16, has comparable weapons battery fire and then 8AC on top.
Victory as proposed, (L4@60&FP15@60 OR L5@60&FP12@60) will have much more
firepower @60cm and be a better linebreaker by dint of its durability.
In terms of firepower @60cm, The only battleships that Invincible isn't overmatched by are the Vanquisher and Retribution. Vanquisher, which is deliberately cheap, can have a prow launch bay, in which case it's similar to the Oberon. Invincible is already on the bottom tier of battleships in terms of firepower.
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.
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.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, 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.
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.
However, having said that, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of the Invincible putting out that much firepower. I notice that you (RCG) have listed the prow torps as strength 6.
Legacy of the original profile. I've left it at 6, because it de-incentivises charging the ship in like a linebreaker. and it helps to keep the price down.
You started your price analysis from the Armageddon. For my profile, starting from the Retribution: -2 shields for -20pts, - 3 torps for -10pts, critical hit rules for -20pts, -1 turret for -10pts, +5cm speed for +25pts, +5pts "fudge factor" gives 325pts.
We already have ships that are smaller and more lightly armed than battleships. If we were to make it smaller&more lightly armed battleship/bigger more heavily armed BC, it's basically just a fast, heavily armed GC. It's not different enough to be truely interesting. A fast & fragile battleship on the other hand, is soemthing that does add a new dimenion to the game.
Your aversion to FP5 is slightly weird.
How would you feel about FP14 or FP16? (4+6+4 or 6+4+6?)
