How do you come up with 1.45? Best case scenario, closing cap ship, no BM. The BM placed by HG causes a shift to the WBs, reducing fire. Replacing HG with WBs would not cause this shift. So what those 4 HG contribute could be equalled by replacing it with 5 WBs. This makes HG worth 1.25 times as much as equivalent WB strength at 15cm. The further right on the table you go (ie, less than ideal circumstances) the worse the comparison.
How I did it was I took a random number of dice to hit from the centerish of the firepower table. In this case it was three.
I took every possible aspect that a ship could be in at 15cm, so closing, abeam, moving away. Then we can find the firepower needed to get to 3 dice for each possible scenario. This includes the shift for BMs So two columns will be incorporated.
WBs:
Closing cap ship: 3fp, 4fp with bm
Moving away cap ship: 4fp, 5fp with bm
Abeam cap ship: 5fp, 8 with bm
Guns:
Closing: 4fp, 5fp
Moving away: 5fp, 8fp
Abeam: 8fp, 13fp
Now the averages are taken of all scenarios, giving the wbs about 4.83 firepower to get 3 dice average. For the heavy guns: 7.166 dividing them we get a percentage: 67.3%, slightly different than my assumption before, but I did it more complex.
So in this math, a heavy gun is worth 2/3 of a 30cm gun
As for interference this should remain. Both for flavour, and so as to not violate a core mechanic of the game (non-simultaneity of different weapon systems/squadrons/markers). This simply leaves the cases where a BM has already been placed. Let's look at a closing cap ship, 15cm range. 4 HG = 2 dice = 4WB dice = 5WBe (5WB vs closing cap ship at close range with BM = 4d6). So we get roughly the same anyway (there are situations and combinations where this can fluctuate a little). It might perhaps be closer to say that 4HG = 5.5 WB, so 1 HG = 1.375 WB. So if we average this value with the 1.25 we get when there is no previous BM we get 1 HG = 1.3125 WB. Average this with its value at 30cm (ie, halve it) and we get its overall value against 1 30cm WB (0.65625). So saying 1 HG is worth 0.75 WBs at 30cm is already overstating its value. We should never consider it to be even worth its weight in WBs when calculating costs from a formula.
I agree, the interference should remain. It is for flavor. All assumptions are on the interference remaining. Your math here is about the same as mine, .65 vs .67, so we can assume 2/3?
I'm all for the Orks becoming more shooty. I just think this is easier achieved through more ships, since this fixes a lot of their other problems too. I'm not in favour of 1d3 turrets by the way. I think Ork ships should retain their current weaknesses.
The D3 turrets leaves the ork weakness in tact, it just reduces the number of hits a kroozer takes from bombers. The numbers before indicated that the orks would take 6.87 hits from a wave of 6 bombers compared to the IN/Chaos value of 2.78, this is almost 2.5 times the number of hits! way too much for a weakness. By making the turrets d3 the number of hits they'll take from the same wave averages at 4.42, only 1.6 times the amount as IN/Chaos cruisers. This preserves the weakness, but keeps it from being absurd. Besides having a weakness so large like that skews the orks to losing drastically against LB heavy fleets, but would force balance to make them too strong against low launch bay fleets. This is for the sake of consistency against opponents, and to make the TS not in such high demand.
Also as a note, if one were to make a ship 2.5x as vulnerable to direct fire compared to a IN ship it would have armor 3! Way too far I say. Comparably making it 1.5x as vulnerable is the equivalent of having armor 4 compared to IN ships/direct fire.
I don't know why you feel that Orks shouldn't so heavily outnumber their opponents though. Orks have always had a horde mentality and feel. In 40k they usually double a quality type opponent (Eldar, Necron, SMs, etc) and have around 33-50% on some others. I don't see why they shouldn't remain that way here.
True. However they already outnumber Necrons 2:1 on a straight class ratio, and the Eldar with proposed changes they could outnumber their escorts 2:1. Space marines are a bit different as they have CLs.
I don't see the models bearing out this increase. However, I think that all official Ork models (cap ships at least) are too small and ... well, odd looking. If I ever did make an Ork fleet it would be kit-bashed. So I don't mind this disparity.
Yes, the orks are rather small for 10 hits. However their BBS are more than twice the size, and weigh more than an imperial BB in pewter. So it is justifiable.
As for cost, well that can be kept quite low if we focus more on heavy gunz rather than longer ranged weaponry. Basically we would then have a cheap fleet with mediocre to above average speed (inefficient but automatic AAF), easy to chip away at but with good hits, and short range guns. So the opponent really wants to stop them from getting in. They'd be much like Reavers from Firefly (in fact, those ships would look much better for the Orks).
Lol, come on, you don't like the spacefish look? I think it's funny, and a somewhat clever idea for a spaceship. I however don't want to focus on heavy guns. They need long (well medium?) range weaponry to better compete with the armada races/eldar. So it's my thought to leave them pretty much alone and just do our firepower additions to ranged attacks.