Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: wargame_insomniac on October 04, 2011, 07:04:29 PM
-
Hi
I have just found my way over here from Tactical Command Forums. I have played BFG sporadically since the game was was first released. Played primarily IN with a occasional games using Chaos.
I am sorting through my IN/SM ships. I am looking to create a 3,000 points Armageddon fleet (which should give me plenty of options to choose 1,500-2,000 points games).
I have a Apocalypse BB's (unbuilt), 6 part built cruisers/BC's and 9 Falchions.
So far I am thinking of building the following:
1 Apocalypse BB
1 Oberon BB
1 Mars BC
1 Armageddon BC
1 Lunar
1 tyrant
1 Gothic
1 Dictator
9 Falchions
That lot would come to 2,295 points before taking Admirals, re-rolls and ship upgrades.
Ideally i would like to add couple of Endeavours and I have some SM ships to choose from)
I have some questions that I hope you can help me with:
1) Would you agree with my choice of BB's?
2) Can you think of a better mix of 6 cruiser/BC's hulls? I have to include 1 Dictator as that is already buily but the rest I am flexible. I know Armageddon fleet can take 1 BC for every Cruiser. Should i get a 2nd Armageddon BC? I gather these are good in squadron pairs.
3) What is best way to convert Endeavour Light Cruisers? I have some Voss prows. Was thinking whether it would be easy to convert either Dauntless or SM Strike Cruisers.
4) Should i get some more Falchions to have 2 full squadrons of 6?
5) What would be the best Space marine ships to add to the above? I have a good selection of Battlebarges, strikecruisers, Rapid Strike vessels and SM Escorts to choose from? Obviously subject to keeping it to 3,000 points.
If I choose an Adimral with 2 re-rolls, add pair Endeavours, then I am going to have 300 points to spend on SM vessels. So maybe 1 Strike Cruiser and 3 SM Escorts?
That would actually fit with what I had in mind for this Armageddon fleet- my SM Chapter will be Blood Angels (to match my Epic army) and I know they only had 1 Company present for 3rd Armageddon War so would fit if I did nt have any BattleBarges.
What do you think?
Thanks
James
-
Both the Apocalypse and the Oberon are fluffy choices, but not terribly good. If you're willing to use some house rules then both become reasonable. I would recommend upgrading the Oberon to have 60cm on all its guns for 355 pts and extend the base range of the Apocalypse to 60cm (so you don't need to LO to shoot at long range). I, personally, would also change the consequences for firing at long range too. I would make it that you simply place a BM in base contact with the Apocalypse (directly behind) for firing over 30cm.
As for your cruiser hulls, if you intend to have at least 2 Endeavours and a Dictator then I'd probably add another Dictator and then grab 4 Armageddons. Now that it has come down to 235 pts it is a reasonable choice and it is the namesake of the battlefleet after all. If you want Endeavour CLs I would see if I could 'acquire' some Zeus CLs from Mangozac and use them instead.
As for the Falchions, I'd run them in 3 squadrons of 3. Odd squadron sizes are better than even due to VP and BFI rules and 3 is generally better than 5 since bracing has a less detrimental effect.
If you follow all this advice you'll have 270 pts left over to spend elsewhere (Admiral +1RR). With this you could buy a Strike Cruiser, 3 Hunters and a-boats for the Oberon.
-
My suggestion to get the lances out to 60 is halve the current shield value of the ship until the next turn. Shield drain to power the lances. I'm fond of the blast marker idea, but it can have inverse effects beyond what is intended, and can actually help the apocalypse.
-
My suggestion to get the lances out to 60 is halve the current shield value of the ship until the next turn. Shield drain to power the lances. I'm fond of the blast marker idea, but it can have inverse effects beyond what is intended, and can actually help the apocalypse.
It can't help it. I can't see any unintended consequences either. It suffers a movement, leadership and shield penalty, but nothing more than what it would get for being under direct fire. The BM being behind it will cause very little interference to enemy shooting. Besides, a 2 shield BB is craptastic.
-
Hi guys- thanks for feedback.
Foe battleships, I would prefer to stick to the book stats for the time being. If you are underwhelmed by the Oberon- I might have a look at converting the other Apocalypse hull to an Emperor- all suggestions gratefull received!!
On 6 Voss Cruiser hulls- I think I would find 4 Armageddon BC's and 2 'sDictator a bit boring. I would be happy enough with 2 Armageddon- as you say they are the signature ships of the fleet, and I gather good squadronned as a pair.
No love for Lunar/Tyrant/Gothic? Would a mixed squadron of these work in Battlefleet Armageddon, with my ships above?
Thanks for the comments on the falchions- I like the suggestion of 3 squadrons on 3- saves me having to buy another blister!!
One SM Strike Cruiser and 3 Hunters sounds good.
Thanks
James
-
Do you use houserules Sig? BM is considered to surround the ship completely. Gives it a column shift that could be more beneficial than a shield to high rates of fire from a squadron coming at it. Also 1/6 chance of blowing attacking ordnance waves.
-
Do you use houserules Sig? BM is considered to surround the ship completely.
That's a retarded rule. I tend to avoid the HAs more deranged brain farts. As should everyone.
-
Was that a purely HA thing? I thought it was in a GW faq.
-
Was that a purely HA thing? I thought it was in a GW faq.
I don't recall which faq it was, but either way, the HA would've been in on it. It's just that back then the HA consisted of 5 people instead of 3.
-
HA wrote every FAQ. In the past it was Andy, Matt & Gav. At one point it started to merge and then replaced with Bob, Nate & Ray.
I agree with Sigoroth on the blastmarker matter. The surrounding base daftness has been in place from FAQ1.5 and is written in the current rulebook 1.5 iirc.
-
Magnatize everything. Then if you don't like something change it. I would take the emp over the base oberon, you shouldn't have to mod anything on your current bb hull to make this but once again magnatize! this way you can make both :D. Apoc is meh with the base rules, you'll probably only field the emp :/.
Tyrant/ Armageddon combo is powerful midrange for Imps 16fp and 4 lances on a broad side @45 (counting the geddons dorsal) is nice.
If your going to take a mars you almost have to take a dominator (or something with a nova cannon as one nova tends to... blow, pun intended :D) I tend to prefer the dictator for smaller games, 750 or less, and the dictator+ emp should be fine for games to about 2k.
Dominator/ gothic or lunar/ lunar is a mainstay but remember single novas are eh. Endevours are ok, if you have torp dauntless available play it as a stand in.
+1 to 3 groups of 3 falchions
So Emp+ ab 370
Geggons (2) 490
Tyrant+45cm 195
Dictator 220
Lunar (2) 360
Endeavour (2) 240
Falchion(3x3) 315
2190
If you take a sa (150) and 3 rr (150) you still have 510 for sm so 3x3 hunters and a strike cruiser.
Blast marker rules are stupid if you are smart enough to maneuver your ships into a position that they will not put bm in each others way you shouldn't be punished for it. That rule cam about from problems with (if the bm is at the rear of the ship does it have -5 cm speed still) or (do bombers attacking a ship with bm in base contact have to roll D6 and be removed on a roll of 6) etc...
-
Blast marker rules are stupid if you are smart enough to maneuver your ships into a position that they will not put bm in each others way you shouldn't be punished for it. That rule cam about from problems with (if the bm is at the rear of the ship does it have -5 cm speed still) or (do bombers attacking a ship with bm in base contact have to roll D6 and be removed on a roll of 6) etc...
Blue: I always found that a silly reason. In contact is in contact be it front rear up down left right. In contact is -5cm.
Red: Same. If you fly past it nothing happens.
-
Than ks for replies- trying to weigh up the various advice offered. I am happy with Apocalpyse and Emperor and 9 Falchions. Space Marines would be 1 Strike Cruiser and 3 Hunters. Money is tight at the moment so I will have to start the army without CL's. So that means no more than 3 BC's from my 6 Voss cruisers.
So that means 2 Amageddon, 1 Mars, 1 Dictator. So all I have left to decide is the final 2 hulls.
If I went for a Lunar/Gothic, then I think would have to go for a pair.
I have always liked Tyrant with weapon battery upgrade. What about the last one? Another Tyrant could be interesting. That would give me quite a long ranged fleet compared to most IN fleets. Would help the Armageddon Sector fleet play differently to my standard Gothic sector fleet.
So 2 Amageddon, 1 Mars, 1 Dictator. 2 Tyrant- how does that sound?
Thanks
James
-
That is a pretty lr fleet your right. It sounds good my only concern is with the single nova but that's really a non issue it should work well for you. The Tyrants backed up with the geddons will put out a boatload of fire plus you have good ac coverage and your bb will complement either with ordnance or lances.
-
Thanks
I did nt want to go overboard on Nova Cannon's, as i did nt want to spam them.
I could upgrade the Tyrant or either of the Armageddon's (as per FAQ2010). But 20 points does sound expensive.
Cheers
James
-
Indeed the Emperor is a good perennial choice for a BB. Alas, as the official rules stand it is the only good IN BB. This is why I recommend house rules for the Apoc and the Oberon. I also recommend house rules for the Retribution too, but didn't mention it or the Emperor because you didn't bring either up. I have the outlook that to play BFG using completely official rules is excruciating, so I'm all for house rules and don't see why someone shouldn't be able to take fluffy choices like the Apocalypse and Oberon in an Armageddon fleet.
It should be noted that the Oberon originally had 60cm guns at its present cost of 335 pts. At the time the Emperor was only 345 pts (and the Retribution was 365 pts). With continual complaints that the Retribution was rubbish (still is) and the Emperor was fantastic (still is) the HA elected to swap their points values as a final solution, making the Emperor 20 pts more expensive and the Retribution 20 pts cheaper. Before these changes the Oberon was balanced compared to the Emperor, not as good but cheaper and definitely playable. Instead of simply adding 20 pts to the cost of the Oberon just like the Emperor the HA decided to drop back its range to 45cm instead. This came completely from left field. No one complained about the Oberon, there was nothing wrong with the Oberon and it functioned in the same manner as the Emperor. The HA broke it.
At the same time the HA increased the cost of the Armageddon from 235 pts to 245 pts, again, a complete surprise to the community, as it was just feasible at 235 pts. It took considerable campaigning to and argument to get it reduced back to a tolerable points cost.
Also, the original Blast Marker rules stipulated that only fire that traced a line through the actual BM was subjected to a right column shift. After the massed turret rules came out there was an introduction of a shared shield rule (designed to balance the massed turret rules) which allowed for the movement of BMs off their direct line. This made it possible for beardy players to take advantage of the fact and move BMs out of the way of subsequent fire, therefore gaining more efficent firepower. In response to this the HA ruled that a BM in base contact counts as being in contact all around the base, therefore all incoming fire would be effected, regardless of whether it passed through an actual BM. This change reduced the effectiveness of WBs (which were balanced just fine) as well as reduced strategic play (using a flanking force to drop shields away from subsequent lines of fire used to be viable). This change was retarded.
The upshot of all this is that if I were you I'd use house rules. Reading these forums will give you an idea of where imbalances lie and what fixes should be used. Fan files such as BFG: Revised are also a good guide (though I will admit that these seem to go beyond their original remit).
-
Thanks for the eplanations. I don't get to play BFG regularly. When I do I will be playing against someone using the BFG rulebook, maybe Armada. So house rules would be right out for me.
Unless i can produce a a Fanatic Online or GW PDF then I won't be able to use it.
Am happy to go for the Emperor as I have always liked that ship, and think it is still worthwhile at 365 points. My 2nd BB would then be Apocalypse just because I can take one in an Armageddon sector fleet, and also because it looks cool.
But I take your point and if I am only fielding one BB then it will be the Emperor.
I take it that you are ok with my cruiser choices??
Cheers
James
-
On 6 Voss Cruiser hulls- I think I would find 4 Armageddon BC's and 2 'sDictator a bit boring. I would be happy enough with 2 Armageddon- as you say they are the signature ships of the fleet, and I gather good squadronned as a pair.
Fair nuff.
No love for Lunar/Tyrant/Gothic? Would a mixed squadron of these work in Battlefleet Armageddon, with my ships above?
The Lunar is the ubiquitous line cruiser of almost all IN fleets. A good deal of other ship classes are actual refit Lunars. However, they're not my favourite. I prefer my versatility at a fleet level, not at a ship level. I would prefer a Dominator/Gothic rather than Lunar/Lunar, differences in prow weaponry notwithstanding. I find both the Gothic and the Dominator to be good line cruisers. The Gothic is a great support ship and the Dominator initially a great artillery ship and eventually a good knife fighter. Alas the latter can only be taken as a reserve in the Armageddon fleet.
Typically I find the Tyrant to be craptastic. It costs more than a Lunar/Gothic and sacrifices firepower to gain range, which is completely worthless without at least having the upgrade (making it even more expensive than a Dominator, which at least has a NC upgrade). And this range is not only inefficient for the type of weaponry (+15cm is worth more on a Gothic than it is for a Dominator) but range is not a great upgrade for IN line ships. This is because they pay a lot for their prow armour and their prow weapon does not combine with their broadside. Therefore they should generally be pointed directly at their opponent. They also do not have as much direct focusable firepower as their cheaper Chaos analogues. This means that to get their points value you need to get targets in both broadsides. This requirement, along with maximising the use of the prow armour and weaponry means that IN line cruisers tend to charge the enemy and split their lines. In this role there is no need for range beyond 30cm. Also, few IN ships have much in the way of range. The Tyrant is the only cruiser with greater than 30cm range in the IN fleet and as such it will usually be ineffectual, doing no more than dropping shields. This is unlike, say, Chaos, which has only 1 30cm cruiser. Chaos does a lot more at range.
So the Tyrant is crap because it is expensive, it is weak, and its range is ineffectual. This is for 3 reasons: because it is on the wrong weapon system; because range contradicts the ships role and because range is unsupported by other IN cruisers.
In the Armageddon fleet list there is the possibility of a much greater proportion of battlecruisers, all of which have at least 45cm range. This opens the possibility of constructing a medium range IN fleet. So you could use Tyrants in conjunction with Armageddons. This will negate the last objection to the value of range, support from the rest of the fleet. All the other objections to the Tyrant stand and I would not use it.
-
Thanks for the feedback.
My main IN Gothic sector fleet has 1 Mars, 1 Overlord, 1 Dictator, 1 Dominator/Tyrant, 2 Lunar, 2 Gothic and 2 Dauntless.
So it would be nice to have this Armageddon fleet to play differently-hence my likiking of the medium range IN idea. So I think 2 Armageddon, 1 Mars, 2 Tyrant, 1 Dictator gives me something different,as a fleet, and also 4 different cruiser classes for variety.
Thanks
James
-
Hum I have always favored a tyrant/ bc pair flanking while my line cruisers ram it down their throats. They do suck if that's all you have going for you tho. Building an IN range fleet is making it Chaos with weaker weapons :/.
Imperial bb's are... a joke. Apoc should have 20cm move, retribution... oh boy really just needs more guns I guess, and the oberon was rocking when they released it... then they nerfed it.
-
Hum I have always favored a tyrant/ bc pair flanking while my line cruisers ram it down their throats. They do suck if that's all you have going for you tho. Building an IN range fleet is making it Chaos with weaker weapons :/.
Well I have 6 hulls, 1 of which is a Dictator. If I go for 3 BC's to maximise the Armageddon sector fleet special rule, then I have 2 slots left. That means I can pick any 2 out of Tyrant/Lunar/Gothic.
If I go for 2 Lunar/Gothic they would go together well as a squadron. But how well would they work with other 4?
Thanks
James
-
The lunar is a lower range cheaper geddon and the gothic is awesome on a stick covered in awesome sauce... so long as its not out by its self. The lunar/ gothic combo will work well but you would be better served by a lunar/lunar as even with 6 lances you might have problems bringing the damage. Dominator/ Gothic is a classic and for good reason the dom can knock out shields then the gothic can gut them with no need for squadrons to keep one from being affected by the others shooting. Plus if your running a mars the dominator gives you the much needed (imo) second nova. The dictator / Lunar/ gothic can play off of each other well with the lunar attacking then the dictator throwing its 2 cents in and then the gothic finishing things off.
-
The lunar is a lower range cheaper geddon and the gothic is awesome on a stick covered in awesome sauce... so long as its not out by its self. The lunar/ gothic combo will work well but you would be better served by a lunar/lunar as even with 6 lances you might have problems bringing the damage. Dominator/ Gothic is a classic and for good reason the dom can knock out shields then the gothic can gut them with no need for squadrons to keep one from being affected by the others shooting. Plus if your running a mars the dominator gives you the much needed (imo) second nova. The dictator / Lunar/ gothic can play off of each other well with the lunar attacking then the dictator throwing its 2 cents in and then the gothic finishing things off.
Hi Yes but I cant take a Dominator in Armageddon Sector fleet list.
So that takes me back to 2 out Tyrant/Lunar/Gothic. If we discount the Gothic/Gothic and Gothic Lunar combinations that leaves me either Tyrant/Tyrant or Lunar/Lunar. Which of these would work better with my other 4 ships?
Thanks
James
-
Hi Yes but I cant take a Dominator in Armageddon Sector fleet list.
Yes you can.
Reserve Rules (is in armada, so official etc etc etc).
For every 3 cruisers from your Armageddon fleet list you can take 1 cruiser (not available to Armageddon) from another Imperial Navy list.
So that takes me back to 2 out Tyrant/Lunar/Gothic. If we discount the Gothic/Gothic and Gothic Lunar combinations that leaves me either Tyrant/Tyrant or Lunar/Lunar. Which of these would work better with my other 4 ships?
Gothic/Dominator ;)
or
Lunar/Lunar
-
Hi Yes but I cant take a Dominator in Armageddon Sector fleet list.
Yes you can.
Reserve Rules (is in armada, so official etc etc etc).
For every 3 cruisers from your Armageddon fleet list you can take 1 cruiser (not available to Armageddon) from another Imperial Navy list.
So that takes me back to 2 out Tyrant/Lunar/Gothic. If we discount the Gothic/Gothic and Gothic Lunar combinations that leaves me either Tyrant/Tyrant or Lunar/Lunar. Which of these would work better with my other 4 ships?
Gothic/Dominator ;)
or
Lunar/Lunar
Thanks- do Cruisers taken via Reserve rule count towards the number of BC's you can take?
i.e. can I take 3 BC's, 2 normal cruisers and 1 reserve cruiser?
Thanks
James
-
Yes, but the wording has to be different for it to be "legal". You can take two cruisers+ two bc which gives you more than enough to bring in a reserve ship and the reserve ship allows you to bring in another bc.
-
The thing is that I have never been that keen on Dominator. It feels too contracdicatory to me- a long ranged prow weapon and then short ranged broadsides. It is neither a sniper or a pure knifefighter.
For me having a Tyrant with NC and Dominator with torps would make much more sense.
Hence my reluctance to do Dominator/Gothic. My Gothic sector fleet has a pair of Lunars. I was just trying to do something different.
Thanks
James
-
The Dominator is awesome. 12 weapon batteries is great.
Dominator + Gothic.
NC+30cm wb is actually quite okay. As under 30cm the NC doesn't work.
The Tyrant needs to choose at the 45cm range what it wants to do.
i. use 10 wb or NC
or wait to 30cm and have less wb then a Dominator.
-
The Dominator is awesome. 12 weapon batteries is great.
Dominator + Gothic.
NC+30cm wb is actually quite okay. As under 30cm the NC doesn't work.
The Tyrant needs to choose at the 45cm range what it wants to do.
i. use 10 wb or NC
or wait to 30cm and have less wb then a Dominator.
Dominator is 190 points. I can get 2 upgraded Tyrants with 45cm range for 195 points each.
If my 2 Armageddons, 1 Mars and 1 Dicator are also looking to keep their distance, then 45cm WB range fits in nicely?
Thanks
James
-
Thanks- do Cruisers taken via Reserve rule count towards the number of BC's you can take?
i.e. can I take 3 BC's, 2 normal cruisers and 1 reserve cruiser?
Yes. In fact you can take 1 Dominator, 1 other (non-reserve) cruiser and 2 battlecruisers. For example, if you take a Dominator, a Gothic, an Armageddon and a Mars you will have 3 non-reserve cruisers (Gothic, Armageddon, Mars) which makes the Dominator legal and you will have 1 cruiser (Dominator, Gothic) for each battlecruiser (Armageddon, Mars), which is also legal for the Armageddon fleet list.
Fleet composition requirements have to be observed, but not sequentially. You don't have to observe them 'on the fly' as you construct your fleet, they simply have to be satisfied before you finalise your list. When playing a campaign your full roster must adhere to your fleet restrictions but the fleet that you select from your roster to play games doesn't have to. So if you had a 2000 pt fleet roster and wanted to have 2 Emperors you'd need at least 6 cruisers and/or battlecruisers in your roster. If you were to play, say, a 750 pt game you could select both Emperors without any escorting cruisers at all.
-
I think for my Armageddon fleet I am going to pass on the Dominator. My dislike of it may be irrational given the love it seems to be getting from many people, guys who who probably know the game better than me. But I am not a fan.
But if I change my mind i already have the option of using my painted Dominator from my Gothic sector fleet. I don't mind the fact that reserve ships would be different colours- and if anything think would look good.
So as a target for painting this fleet, the consensus seems to be Lunar/Lunar over Tyrant/Tyrant.
Thanks
James
-
The thing is that I have never been that keen on Dominator. It feels too contracdicatory to me- a long ranged prow weapon and then short ranged broadsides. It is neither a sniper or a pure knifefighter.
For me having a Tyrant with NC and Dominator with torps would make much more sense.
Hence my reluctance to do Dominator/Gothic. My Gothic sector fleet has a pair of Lunars. I was just trying to do something different.
The Dominator's weaponry is actually very well optimised. Consider: you're playing against a Chaos fleet and his ships are presenting their beam to you. You, as an IN player are presenting your armoured prow. The NC actually gives you the advantage of range initially, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that you will close with the enemy shooting the NC on the way in, until you get to within 30cm and the NC cuts out. At this point your broadsides kick in. Since you're moving towards his line and he's moving across your line you're actually going to break his line, which will give you 12WB against a 5+ closing cap ship on the one side and 12WB against a 5+ moving away capital ship on the other. Given a 20cm maximum movement and a 30cm starting distance it's fairly likely that you'll even be able to move straight into close range. Given you won't be hampered by any Reload orders you'll likely even be on LO. In which case you go straight from being an artillery ship to being the premier knife fighting IN cruiser. Not bad at all for just 190 pts.
The Dominator is the cheapest NC ship in both absolute and relative terms. It has no inefficiencies at all. It's firepower is maximised, it wastes no points on range, its role is clear and it has no need to RO or even AAF. As an artillery vessel it passes the advantage of range, and therefore initiative, to the IN player and also furnishes the IN player with a psychological weapon in the form of the NC.
On the other hand a Tyrant equipped with a NC costs a minimum of 205 pts, which is 15 pts more than a Dominator. It has less firepower and the same effective broadside range (4WB isn't going to do much in the 45cm range bracket). This makes the Tyrant completely outclassed by the Dominator. With the range upgrade and NC the Tyrant costs 215pts, 25 pts more than the Dominator and it still has less firepower.
The only advantage is the 10WB in the 30-45cm range band (which is only worth ~7 non-range shifted WB). However, to use this range you must turn to present your broadside. There are 2 ways to do this. Go completely parallel in order to maintain your range advantage (forcing them to come to you) or to approach obliquely. In the first case you get no value from your prow armour and will have no target for your prow weaponry. This will maximise the value of range, but you'll be getting very very little for your points and will have completely wasted the 20 pts for the NC upgrade. If however you approach obliquely you'll be able to fire your prow weapon at one target and your broadsides at another. However, this will reduce the efficacy of the extra range, by virtue of the fact that you'll only get one turns fire in the 30-45cm range bracket. Since you'll be approaching slower than with a direct-on Dominator it will also likely mean that you won't get to the 15cm range bracket as fast, and not break the enemy line as fast, if at all and even then will likely require course corrections. So you'll get one shot at 45cm (abeam target) and one shot at 30cm (abeam target) compared to one shot at 15cm to two targets (closing/moving away) on LO, with more firepower.
The difference in efficacy between these two (fairly standard) scenarios is huge. The Dominator is so clearly the winner that it's not funny. Cost, firepower, role and efficiency are all in the Dominator's favour.
Dominator is 190 points. I can get 2 upgraded Tyrants with 45cm range for 195 points each.
Yes, and if you really want torps and WBs then this is probably the best option. If the Tyrant had an option to replace its 4WB@45cm with 6WB@30cm then this would be a reasonable ship. It'd be 5 pts overpriced, but it would at least allow someone to take a torp/WB ship without losing too much.
If my 2 Armageddons, 1 Mars and 1 Dicator are also looking to keep their distance, then 45cm WB range fits in nicely?
Not 'nicely'. I listed 3 main problems with the Tyrant in my earlier post. It is 1) expensive, 2) weak, and 3) the range is ineffectual. This last reason has itself 3 causes. They are 1) WBs don't do so well at range (~30% efficiency decrease), 2) range conflicts with role, and 3) there is no support for range from the other cruisers.
Having a large proportion of battlecruisers with 45cm only obviates the last of these. Tyrants still suck because they're still too expensive, still too weak and still unsuited to extra range due to inefficiency and role conflicts.
-
I like tyrants but there's no reason to take them in your fleet. The tyrants are best used to flank while another force brakes the line and then only in larger games. You already have 3 ships with 45cm range you can use for this. If you want something different take a pair of gothics. Now that's an effective psychological weapon right there :D.
-
Sigoroth
Thanks for explaining in such detail- I know you have touched upon these points in earlier posts but it helped me undertsand by the way you expalined it. Thanks very much
James
-
Thinking about all of the replies has convinced me to drop the Tyrant+Tyrant idea. Instead i will go for the other suggestion of Lunar + Lunar.
That will give me 2 pairs each of Armageddon + Lunar (Big bro, little bro) plus Mars + Dictator..
Screened by Flachions, supported by Emperor/Apocalypse, with a couple of SM vessels for variety.
Thanks
James
-
Sigoroth
Thanks for explaining in such detail- I know you have touched upon these points in earlier posts but it helped me undertsand by the way you expalined it. Thanks very much
No worries.
-
Thinking about all of the replies has convinced me to drop the Tyrant+Tyrant idea. Instead i will go for the other suggestion of Lunar + Lunar.
That will give me 2 pairs each of Armageddon + Lunar (Big bro, little bro) plus Mars + Dictator..
Screened by Flachions, supported by Emperor/Apocalypse, with a couple of SM vessels for variety.
Forming squadrons of Armageddon/Lunar would be fine if you're going to use the Lunar as a meat shield for the Armageddon, but otherwise the range disparities make it a suboptimal choice. Having one squadron with 12WB@45cm and one with 12WB@30cm is better than two with 6WB@45cm + 6WB@30cm. The same is true for the broadside lances, but to a lesser degree.
-
Thinking about all of the replies has convinced me to drop the Tyrant+Tyrant idea. Instead i will go for the other suggestion of Lunar + Lunar.
That will give me 2 pairs each of Armageddon + Lunar (Big bro, little bro) plus Mars + Dictator..
Screened by Flachions, supported by Emperor/Apocalypse, with a couple of SM vessels for variety.
Forming squadrons of Armageddon/Lunar would be fine if you're going to use the Lunar as a meat shield for the Armageddon, but otherwise the range disparities make it a suboptimal choice. Having one squadron with 12WB@45cm and one with 12WB@30cm is better than two with 6WB@45cm + 6WB@30cm. The same is true for the broadside lances, but to a lesser degree.
Understood- thznks for the feeback- it has been a big help in finalising selection of my fleet. Now I have worked out what I want to do with the complete fleet, I cab start painting a couple of cruisers to test the Armageddon sector paint scheme.
Thanks very much
James