Imperial ship costs and the defiant class light cruiser

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Following up my post here:

http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=5207.0

I would like to address some issues that have caught my attention.

Now before I start my rant  some notes:

1) I like to play imperial fleets, but at the time they were discussed here I was busy writing my diploma-thesis.
And I have only just begun to catch up to you. So this is not really up to date but the best I could do to join the conversation. 

2) I really appreciate the work you are doing here but some thins don't really seem right with the imperial fleet. However everything I say here is based only on comparing point costs of imperial and chaos vessels!!!

Now on topic:

Point costs of some imperial ships are just to high. An issue known to some, denied by others and even addressed in the warprift magazine 29 page 14 - for means of entertainment and easy access:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPb21NWUdZUjF1VWs/edit
or here:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-7280556/warprift29.pdf.html


To clarify where my issue seems to be keep these two things in mind:

1)
The imperial prow armour upgrade from 5+ to 6+ - just the upgrade!!! - costs: 30 points. That is equal to adding 2 shields, or 3 hitpoints. Simply imagine the same cruiser with a 6+ prow, in comparison to a version with 4 shields, or 11 hitpoints. Now imagine broadside firing and you have a worst case scenario for the 6+ prow, but that is not the thing I want to change!

2)
To keep things shorter: I think the S6 Torpedo volley is also to expensive at 20 points but that is not the issue I want to argue about so:

What bugs me is that some ships are still just to expensive - as calculated by my excel sheet. Even if I accept the fact that some of the typical imperial equipment (e.g. 6+ prow upgrade) is expensive it turns out there is something wrong:

Lunar class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Tyrant class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Gothic class in BFG:R 180 points vs. calculated costs of 170 points.
Armageddon class in BFG:R 235 points vs. calculated costs of 220 points.

The basic issue I am having here is that 3 out 5 basic cruisers - existent in almost every
imperial fleet - are too expensive.    As far as I can tell all the other ships are within
the +/- 5 points range with the exception of the apocalypse class battleship: 365 vs. 385
makes it roughly 20 points to cheap.


The next topic I would like to address is the armament of the Defiant light cruiser. S2 torpedoes and S2 WB in combination with a broadside-bay that is only 1/4 of that of the cruiser capacity? From my point of view that is just to little for anything - even in a suqadron of two costing beyond 200 points - it does not deliver enough firepower (or toughness) to decently fight an ordinary cruiser.

So my suggestion, keep the other stats but change the weapons:

Defiant variant 1:
Port launch bays S1
Starboard launch bays s1
Dorsal weapon battery S4 R30 L/F/R
for 120 points

Defiant  variant 2:
Port launch bays S1
Starboard launch bays s1
Dorsal lance battery s2 R30 L/F/R
for 130 points

That's a lot of text - so thanks for reading and thanks for feedback! 

[Sigoroth]

Alrighty then, to start off I went to try to download your cost calculator but it wants me to download a downloader, which I'm not going to do. Seriously, screw that shit. Apart from that, if your points calculator doesn't come up with 180 pts for a Lunar then it's wrong. That is the benchmark.

Now, that accounts for the Lunar/Gothic/Tyrant disparity. If we can assume that your calculation for the Armageddon is also out by 10 pts (since the ship is a glorified Lunar after all) then that leaves 5 pts unaccounted for. Apart from it being within your own fudge margin of +/- 5 pts I think this discrepancy might be due to the range bonus. If, for example, you reverse engineered the +15cm range bonus from 30cm to 45cm on 6WB to be worth +10 pts (original Tyrant entry example) then you might have then applied this same cost to the +15cm range bonus of the lances, which are equivalent strength. However, WBs are affected by long range column shifts and lances aren't. In fact, 2 lances are worth 9~10WB at greater than 30cm range. So this range increase is worth more: 15 pts, not 10.

So the cost of an Armageddon is 180_{(Base Lunar)} + 30_{(CB/Dorsal Lances)} + 10_{(WB Range)} +15_{(Lance Range)} = 235 pts. Of course, the fact that the range upgrades are automatically taken and are not optional does make it less valuable, but while 235 pts is on the high side it is still viable.

You also have the Apocalypse as being too cheap. I doubt your calculations take into account the downside of firing over 30cm range (ie, losing a shield and speed for next turn) and I also suspect that your calculations over-value the Nova Cannon. The NC is worth no more than 9 torpedoes. The option to take NCs (such as on Lunars, Armageddons and Tyrants) is overpriced. Deliberately so.

That just leaves the Defiant. This vessel was MUCH debated over. Some of the issues that arose were: 1) identical prow to the other variants should result in identical weaponry; 2) light cruisers should not, except by unusual circumstance, be given dorsal weaponry; 3) the IN should not get a better AC/point ratio than they already have available, and; 4) consideration of the role the Defiant fulfils (line-support defensive carrier settled on).

I still hold that the most elegant solution was to simply delete the vessel. However, given the limits of role, precedent, list balance and the other class examples I'm reasonably satisfied with the result. I do have an issue with the price though. The Endeavour and Endurance should be only 120 pts and the Defiant should really be only 100 pts. I could see 110 pts if it had a 3rd turret though. Oh, and there's a typo in the current Defiant entry in the BFG:R document. It clearly should say prow WBs, not dorsal.

[afterimagedan]

Fixed, Sig. Notice anything else, let me know.

[horizon]

The Imperial prow is 25pts in my estimations.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Hey there everyone. 

First of all:

Alright then, to start off I went to try to download your cost calculator but it wants me to download a downloader, which I'm not going to do.

A download manager? I just checked it and I don't need one. Any workaround/ preferred filehoster? - I will gladly reupload it and sry for the inconvenience!

Apart from that, if your points calculator doesn't come up with 180 pts for a Lunar then it's wrong. That is the benchmark.

There are some known issues with the calculator, to shortly re-summarize them:
- Escorts - have never been considered so it only works for some and should be used with them. 
- Grand Cruiser - rather strange broadside arrays that don't always fit.
- Rounding - everything in this game is rounded so there is a chance of the +/- 5 points abbreviation.
- Weapon synergies/ good combinations - I work with raw point and do not account for good/bad feeling.
 
Apart from that: the calculator works actually quite good with the imperial ships and most chaos ships with a few exceptions: e.g. the chaos battleships seems to be off point costs - brethren argued about that based on the calculator.

The problem is the only "exclusive imperial" equipment I could change to match the points of a lunar class would be the prow. Raising it from 30 to 35 points, with the downside that this makes other ships too expensive again and the prow really arguable (it is only the upgrade from 5+ to 6+).

Furthermore the same issue applies to other point values: like the different range upgrade costs for WB and LB. I have to say a rather interesting approach that I haven't considered yet. Sadly some quick checks in the calc. only tell me that this doesn't seem to be a general rule - for some it seems ok while other ship start going berserk on their point values (from bad to worse).

Long story made short: changing point costs of one thing has an effect on a lot of other ships. Although basically I would say: yes not every ship costs exactly what is should due to Weapon synergies/ good combinations, but I still don't see a reason for some of the imperial cruisers (and in succession to the lunar the Armageddon) to be overpriced?

You also have the Apocalypse as being too cheap. I doubt your calculations take into account the downside of firing over 30cm range (ie, losing a shield and speed for next turn) and I also suspect that your calculations over-value the Nova Cannon.

@ Apocalypse: I did actually account for the downside - but as there are no comparable costs it was a guess. If you make this downside valuable enough the apocalypse is back in action. (There are three fields in the calc just for including such extra point changes - but everytime a ship has its own special rule it is guessing time.  )

@ Nova cannon: well it works perfect for the dominator & the mars, leaving the apocalypse which would be alright if the downside is priced more generous as stated above.

@ Defiant:

- I do not really care where exactly the weapons are seated or what the model looks like. That has never been in issue in Armada, FAQ2010 or the old BFG:R  - they all included the actually useful defiant variant, ignoring the look of the model.

- I do not worry about the point costs. (Yep I know it can get expensive there.) But a good ship doesn't come cheap - in the same way it makes no sense to strip it to far down.

- And for the endeavour/ endurance the weaponry works just fine in combination with their broadsides. The defiant however seems to be auto-crippled. It can do a bit of everything - that's nice - but does everything pretty bad. A simple S4 R30 WB would do the trick (no torpedoes). Right now however a single dictator (I won't even mention the devastation) is better than two defiants (if you include the point costs that is).

Just like you said: either remove them, or try to reconfigure the old one (I would prefer that), or for that matter: could somebody explain me where a defiant is expected to work right now? 

[horizon]

The Armada (original) defiant was a big piece of crap.

The BFG:R version (your friend can point you) makes it useable.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

   
My bad - I stand corrected: the old BFG:R already used this new layout.
 
Was a shot in the dark as I haven't really used it when we went for the BFG:R rule-set. Although I could have sworn I drooped it out of my lists for another reason ... 
 
Well back on topic: my problem is I just don't see its performance anymore. I am really happy with the endeavour and was happy with the "old defiant" but this one ...
 
- 2 bays is nothing special for these costs
- 2 WB - if it is alone it can't even kill a single escort with that
- 2 Torpdeos - that is only a 1/3 of the cruiser types + if there is one weapon the imperial fleet has more than enough of it would be torpedoes 
- even a squadron of two has a hard time standing its ground against a (cheaper) cruiser that says "business"
 
All in all - nice all around - but not really good at any of this.
 
So why not spend some more points and make it really usefull again in giving it more focus on just one or two weapon categories?
 
Take the dauntless with it's excellent 3 prow lances, good in one particular thing and totally worth it even if it was more expensive.

[AndrewChristlieb]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4QlpaWnUxemxjRDQ/edit?usp=sharing

Try this one, you have to be careful with that other download site as it has a lot of spam "download" buttons.

Im not a fan of giving the base weapons 0 cost (6 30cm batteries and 2 30cm lances, its also odd that if I select 3 30cm lances the price drops 5 pts.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xHYdOJkJU4QlpaWnUxemxjRDQ/edit?usp=sharing

Try this one, you have to be careful with that other download site as it has a lot of spam "download" buttons.

Thx for the feedback - If the complains keep coming I will resettle the downloads 

Im not a fan of giving the base weapons 0 cost (6 30cm batteries and 2 30cm lances, its also odd that if I select 3 30cm lances the price drops 5 pts.

Next up: the base weapon costs - or "slots" like I call them - are a bit tricky. Imagine I had to figure it all out. The feeling I had while doing so must be like stepping on a lego while dropping a soap in a prison shower  .

Here is the thing: a "slot" includes: some form of basic firepower and the prices for them (2 things!). So when you select the number of "slots" it will automatically add the points for the weapons and already implies some form of armament is present.

Small example:
Lets take a Cruiser - basically 2 slots:
-> Step 1: select the option for 2 slots -> the points change
-> Step 2: select the firepower of a S12 R30 WB (2x times WB slots)  -> the points stay the same

Why? Simply: because the selection of 2 slots (in step 1) already included the price for some form of basic armament. All you did in step 2 is specifying what exactly but not adding more guns.

In other words: selecting the precise number of weapons is actually not always needed!

Where it is needed however is the situation when a battery it is underloaded/ (overloaded)*, has more range, or a combination of both.

E.g. You select a single slot but then only enter a S4 R30 WB -> means the "slot" is underloaded -> you regain some of the points that were spend while selecting the number of slots.

The problem you encountered with the 3 lances is basically the same: it is assumed that you use 2 slots and one slot is underloaded and therefore you regain some points.

Now I know what you are thinking next: but how do I see if a slot is under- / overloaded? - the answer is quite simple: I don't, but normally it is always a underloaded slot *. It is a basic rule of construction ever ship follows (chaos and imperium), with the exception of some grand cruisers and other strange vessels like the planet killer.

So if you wish to create a totally new ship from scratch with the calculator: stick to vessels of the same type for orientation and always add enough "slots" to make them underloaded*.

In hindsight I guess I should have pointed that out somewhere* 

[horizon]

Weird approach 

On the Defiant, BFG:R:
On the plus side:
-15pts
+ armoured prow
+ 45 -> 90 degrees

On the negative:
-> 2 lances => 2 weapon batteries is essentially -4 batteries.

I opted for 4 prow batteries though.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Weird approach 

Ja I know - I was hoping for something more simple too but I just dismantled it and thats what I found . Anyhow decided to merge "slot costs" in a future version for better usability.

I also though about the rest of the changes you just mentioned. Not really sure if it should stay that good (6+ Prow and 90° trun). And - ja - I would also choose the 4WB version - 2 lances always seemed to be a bit too good.

Just gave it a "quick check" (it is past midnight here so I will better double check tomorrow  ):
Fully calculated + all the values as writen in the pdf. + S4 R30 WB L/F/R + 2x1 bay - I get 120 points.

Any opinions on that?

[AndrewChristlieb]

Yup, the Defiants a turd . With 4 weapons and 2 launch its a turd. With 2 lances and 2 launch its a turd. With 2 weapons and 2 torps and 2 launch its a turd. Give it 4 weapons and 2 torps and 2 launch and 6+ armor and 90* turns and make it 120pts, then it might compare to the Dictator, maybe, if you squint, and munch on some funky mushrooms.

Edit: nope still a turd.

[Sigoroth]

A download manager? I just checked it and I don't need one. Any workaround/ preferred filehoster? - I will gladly reupload it and sry for the inconvenience!

Throw it up on a google doc site and I'll check it out.

There are some known issues with the calculator, to shortly re-summarize them:
- Escorts - have never been considered so it only works for some and should be used with them. 
- Grand Cruiser - rather strange broadside arrays that don't always fit.
- Rounding - everything in this game is rounded so there is a chance of the +/- 5 points abbreviation.
- Weapon synergies/ good combinations - I work with raw point and do not account for good/bad feeling.

First and foremost, make sure any points-calculation method you attempt comes up with a 180pt Lunar. If that puts other ships out of whack, then those ships and/or your method should be scrutinised, not the Lunar. The Lunar is the benchmark.

Regarding the Apocalypse, I'll have to have a look at your calcs.

@ Defiant:

- I do not really care where exactly the weapons are seated or what the model looks like. That has never been in issue in Armada, FAQ2010 or the old BFG:R  - they all included the actually useful defiant variant, ignoring the look of the model.

- I do not worry about the point costs. (Yep I know it can get expensive there.) But a good ship doesn't come cheap - in the same way it makes no sense to strip it to far down.

- And for the endeavour/ endurance the weaponry works just fine in combination with their broadsides. The defiant however seems to be auto-crippled. It can do a bit of everything - that's nice - but does everything pretty bad. A simple S4 R30 WB would do the trick (no torpedoes). Right now however a single dictator (I won't even mention the devastation) is better than two defiants (if you include the point costs that is).

Just like you said: either remove them, or try to reconfigure the old one (I would prefer that), or for that matter: could somebody explain me where a defiant is expected to work right now? 

Ok, back into this one. As I said, this ship had a LOT of discussion. In a 102 page thread it probably took up like 10 pages worth. There are several key issues. Its fluff says it has sod all guns. So throwing more guns on it isn't all that appropriate anyway. Mind you, its fluff says it has decent carrying capacity, but we run into problems if we try to give it more capacity. At 4 AC the IN AC/point ratio gets too good. We can't give it 3 AC because it has to be an even number so it can be divided between port and starboard launch bays (dorsal launch bays are unprecedented and unrepresented in this class vessel). So it's stuck on 2 launch bays.

The obvious fix then is to up the prow weaponry. However, it has an identical prow to the other 2 variants and its fluff doesn't support either lances or a large weapon battery armament. So this seems to fix the prow to be the same as the other 2 ships (more on this later). A suggestions was a dorsal mounted gun (lance) but again, more guns doesn't fit the fluff for this ship, and it's a bad precedent to give an IN CL a dorsal mount (if a light cruiser can get it, why can't an attack cruiser?).

One of the concerns brought up at the time of the discussion, and raised again by you, was that this ship really couldn't do much on its own. By themselves 2WBs are fairly useless. Two torpedoes aren't all that fantastic either and 2AC is really only any good for defensive purposes. So it's fairly clear it can't do much by itself. However, this raised the issue of its role. This ship is a light carrier of the line. It's not meant to be used by itself. It's purely a support ship. Consider it in a squadron with a Dictator. It can add its WBs to those of the Dictator for a bit more punch, it can add its torps and AC for more punch also or it can use them to clear enemy torps/AC to allow the Dictator to go on the offensive. This is the role for this ship. If you wanted a carrier to chase down escorts then you'd build it based on the Dauntless hull, with it's greater speed and prow guns/torps that sort of ship would be much more formidable in that role. However, with only a soft 5+ nose such a ship would not fair so well in the line.

Therefore it's not necessary for the Defiant to actually be a good solo ship, we can safely leave it weak. Then all that would remain would be to get the cost right. To do that let's compare it to the Dictator. Let's assume that a ships defensive qualities make up 50% of its cost and that it's offensive qualities make up the other half. So the Defiant has 75% hits, 50% shields, 67% turrets of the Dictator. Let's round this being two thirds value, though it is actually slightly less than this (+8% hits is not worth -17% shields). So 2/3 of 105 (half a Dictator) gives us 70 pts. Ok, now looking at the weaponry we see that the Defiant has 33% of the total firepower of the Dictator. Which is 35 pts worth (33% of 105) which gives us 105 pts in total. The Defiant has a better turn rate of course, but without that it's not actually worth its 105 pts so let's leave it at 105.

However, even with its extra turn rate it's still a lemon at 105 pts. I would've dropped it down to 100. Again we run into problems. At 100 pts it gives a better AC/point ratio than the Dictator (same at 105 pts) and it gives a cheaper option to the IN for satisfying CB and BB requirements. I, myself, am fine with both of these and would happily see it at 100 pts.

Alternatively we could do something else to make the ship a bit better and therefore justify a slightly higher price tag. You could, for one, give it another turret. This would allow it to use its ordnance is a more offensive manner, or at least allow it to be used to defend other ships more freely.

Another option that I recommended was that, since it has only half strength launch bays, the extra room in them could have been used for storage of extra marines (regular, not SM) and craft to allow this ship to launch a-boats. I felt this to be a reasonable compromise and give a decent point of difference and reason to take the craft. However it was pointed out by others that it is unprecedented for the IN to get a-boats at a sub-BB level and that to do so would be to encroach somewhat on Chaos's territory. Both of which are true.

I said I'd get back to the prow weapons and here is my idea. I suggested that the Defiant should get 4 torps instead of 2 torps and 2WBs. Modelling the difference is easy enough, all you'd need do is drill a couple more holes in the prow and clip off the top gun. This makes the ship slightly more powerful and much more focused and hence, usable. But there are still a couple of problems. One, if the Defiant can, why wouldn't the Endeavour or Endurance? Surely they'd benefit just as much from the extra firepower. Of course, maybe they want the extra WBs because they're primarily gunships and the loss of firepower is simply an effect of trying to put LFR guns on an armoured prow (so only 2WB instead of 3WB, which is the equivalent value of the 2 lost torps). This isn't a very convincing argument though. The extra 2 torps would simply be better than the extra 2WBs.

The other problem is that, though the Defiant wouldn't mind the loss of the guns from a fluff standpoint, it's also pretty clear that it's primarily a carrier. With this version half its firepower would be in the torps. That means it's not "primarily" a carrier.

So my opinion on the matter is that it should be either:

2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt @ 100 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 2trt & a-boats @ 105 pts
2WB+2T+2AC & 3trt & a-boats @ 110 pts
(any one of these as basic profile, or the top one with the turret/a-boats as options)


OR

4T + 2AC & 2trt @ 110 pts

I think the 1st option is the best as far as breaking the least number of precedents. I am fine with any of the above though.

[Mogwai_with_Mohawk]

Just a short update - kinda in a hurry here:

I uploaded the calc on google docs - have fun  :

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6RMqQCAwCfPOG1YMDB5X1NIVTA/edit?pli=1

[AndrewChristlieb]

So long as the AC-point ratio stays below the Emperor it should be fine in an IN list and 100 points wouldnt be bad at all but the problem we ran into with the voting was that it had the 6+ prow and 90* turns which drove the price up to 120-125 for the Endurance/Endeavour and 110-115 for the Defiant (from what I recall from those votes) and we opted to price higher. These still need to be play tested tho!!! especially the Defiant.