Let's fix Battlefleet Bakka

[Eddie Orlock]

I'll confess to not having slogged though seventeen pages of this, but as I thought I might have had a nominally useful idea, rather than my last post, I'd put it forth.

Would it make sense in the fleet, given how it's renounced carrier capital ships to move the functionalities to auxilary vessels. Should the fleet be given no capital ship carriers, but, instead be allowed a number of escort carriers? You know the ones, normally used to replace transports in senarios, but in this case they'd probably be recosted and included in the main fleet list, maybe with a limitation like one per two capital ships?

[Zhukov]

Would it make sense in the fleet, given how it's renounced carrier capital ships, to move the functionalities to auxilary vessels? Should the fleet be given no capital ship carriers, but, instead be allowed a number of escort carriers? You know the ones, normally used to replace transports in senarios, but in this case they'd probably be recosted and included in the main fleet list, maybe with a limitation like one per two capital ships?

Escort carriers probably not. The Ld modifier kills these from being effective. The Defiant or Enforcer however is a different story. However, the HA seem resistant to this idea. Why? Some made up fear of having "Defiant only" Bakka fleets flying around. Even though a simple restriction like 1-1 with Battlecruisers or Battleships or the like would make them sparce additions to a Bakka fleet.

EVERYONE:

Why can't we introduce a Gothic class upgraded to Battlecruiser standards for this list? Fluff claims Bakka prefers lances as a supporting weapon to attack craft so it would fit perfectly for them! Take out the Gothic class as an option and only allow the Battlecruiser. Now THAT kind of vessel would set Bakka apart as a true gun fleet! And for those fearing it's transfer to other fleets as a reserve vessel, just make a note saying you can't because "it's a treasured ship class in limited number so the Bakka high command wants to keep them for themselves" or something like that.

-Zhukov

[Sigoroth]

Assuming it was priced correctly why would anyone be afraid of a lance CB leaking to other lists? It's merely a gunship, and IN use gunships.

[lastspartacus]

Well I like it.  4 lances per side and two 45cm lances on the dorsal?

[Vaaish]

Hasn't this or similar CB gothics been floated from time to time? I think the problem ends up that the natural progression for a Gothic CB is 4x lances @45cm and 2x @60 which ends up creating either a balance issue or a fluff issue with the Apocalypse. Could be both, but it's been a while since I remember seeing one come up.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Well, mine just added 2 dorsal lances at 60 cm. Priced at 220 since I didn't want it to be cheaper than IN's most expensive regular line cruiser but should really be only in the 210-215 point band.

[RCgothic]

Flat 45cm range.

No competition with the Apocalypse, and in comparison to the Armageddon it has greater firepower in the 30-45cm band, but loses out at 15cm and 45-60.

235pts, identical to the Armageddon.

[lastspartacus]

30cm broadsides, 45cm dorsal, my vote.

[commander]

S2 R60 lances on dorsal; no other 'upgrades'.

[RCgothic]

Why are you all so keen on R30 broadside? That's rubbish on a CB. R45 would make it distinct from the other gunship CBs, specifically the best from R30-R45, whilst being slightly weaker at other ranges (a perfect fit for a 235pts CB!), without having oddities like a mix of R30 and R60 lances.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Because Str 6@45cm can really wreck a cruiser's day or plink battleships for 2 turns if the BC Gothic goes Lock On which it can afford to.

Fluff-wise, an IN cruiser's power plant can most likely handle the load of the 60cm dorsal lances but will not have enough power to up the range of the broadside lances to 45 cm.

[Zhukov]

Because Str 6@45cm can really wreck a cruiser's day or plink battleships for 2 turns if the BC Gothic goes Lock On which it can afford to.

Fluff-wise, an IN cruiser's power plant can most likely handle the load of the 60cm dorsal lances but will not have enough power to up the range of the broadside lances to 45 cm.

Uh, you realize that's basically what an Armageddon is... right? 6 WB's and 4 lances at 45cm...

I noticed that Nate has already said he's not for adding additional ships to this document. Though I would argue a Gothic BC is a better addition than a Mercury. In fact, if you were to give the Gothic BC the Mercury special rule and give Bakka access to the Overlord, that would work pretty well I think...

In all honesty, the Imperial Navy may need a really upgunned fleet to compete with the new Powers of Chaos document.

-Zhukov

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Uh, you realize that's basically what an Armageddon is... right? 6 WB's and 4 lances at 45cm...

-Zhukov

WBs which suffer a right column shift for ranges above 30 cm, number of dice dependent on the facing and has to hit vs the armor facing it vs 2 additional lances with no penalties and hitting on a 4+? I know the difference.

[Zhukov]

I know the difference.

Actually I was refering to the power plant argument...

-Zhukov

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

I know the difference.

Actually I was refering to the power plant argument...

-Zhukov

Power to lances is more draining than power to WBs. Yes an Armageddon can have 45 cm to it's 4 broadside lances but I don't think it can power a total of 8 along with the 60 cm dorsal lances.