Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Discussion => Topic started by: BaronIveagh on March 08, 2013, 05:16:34 PM
-
The matter has been motioned and seconded that the current (FAQ 2010) Bakka list be scrapped in it's entirety and redone from the ground up. The matter will now be put to a vote.
-
I say no. Bakka, with the work we have put into it, has been going the right direction and will be a great fleet when we are finished with it. No need to scrap it. If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that. No, we should not scrap the current Bakka that we have been working on.
-
No need to scrap, only to refine. (and in the end the result of scrapping and non scrapping will be almost identical :P ).
-
No need to scrap, only to refine. (and in the end the result of scrapping and non scrapping will be almost identical :P ).
Sorry, some of us are optimistic that the reality of the last few years poor fleet performance and lack of use might out weigh the rampant politics that surrounded the first try and that education and people taking the time to play the original fleet list might lead to a more balanced fleet that is closer to the original than FAQ 2010.
If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that.
The fact that this can be said, in all seriousness, is a major part of the problem. To indulge in a little hyperbole, it's reached the point of being so different that it'd be like adding 'Living Metal' as an optional upgrade to any Chaos ship (though, perhaps, less broken in balance). The current list was shaped, largely, by a group of people who never actually used this list. As we saw earlier in the other thread, even Horizon, otherwise guru in all things BFG, had no idea where to even find the original list (though, in his defense, he did know where the ship stats were, and has played the original fleet once (that we know of) with proxies). Many of the posters were even less informed at the time.
The current list is very nice, but it's like Casino Royal. On it's own, it's good. But it's not James Bond. This list is nice, but it's too radically different from the original bakka.
-
If there are elements of the original Bakka that people want to incorporate, let's talk about that.
The fact that this can be said, in all seriousness, is a major part of the problem.
Saying that someone encouraging more discussion is part of the problem is a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Most people here are familiar with the 2010 Bakka list. We have been working on that. If you want to demonstrate why the older Bakka list is better, please do. I am perfectly content with where the Bakka discussion has been going so far and see no need to stop it. If you come in and say you want to scrap the whole thing, please give some good arguments for it using the original list.
-
It seems to me that what your wanting to see is a few more ships added. If there is something else your looking for could you explain? Seeing how the IN is about a half dozen ships away from looking like the Nids (pick hull, pick weapons, rinse and repeat) i dont know that there is really much reason to add anymore.
-
Saying that someone encouraging more discussion is part of the problem is a little bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Most people here are familiar with the 2010 Bakka list. We have been working on that. If you want to demonstrate why the older Bakka list is better, please do. I am perfectly content with where the Bakka discussion has been going so far and see no need to stop it. If you come in and say you want to scrap the whole thing, please give some good arguments for it using the original list.
'Better' is the wrong word. Different.
The previous list had 3 viable 25cm light cruiser options. Current has 1. The previous list had 1 25cm battleship option. The current list has 0. The previous had lance escorts, the current does not. The previous list had access to all 3 Grand Cruisers as normal selections. The current list has none.
7 Ship classes in common (4 of them being the near universal Lunar, Dominator, Tyrant and Gothic)
19 are different.
-
'Better' is the correct word because you have to show why the older 'different' list is 'better' for BFG:R.
-
'Better' is the correct word because you have to show why the older 'different' list is 'better' for BFG:R.
Ok, since you put it that way:
Changing it back
1) gives IN more flavor and expands on existing play styles.
2) Deals with the issue of the Jovian, which seems to be something a lot of players here grouse about.
3) Does away with the Admech rule, allowing ships to directly take FDTs again.
It also brings the fleet a little closer to being current with canon, as this edition stands the Garerox Prerogative on it's head, the 'Big Gun Lobby' would have been among those backing the Heretic Cardinal Bucharis (see Plague of Unbelief) and if they were not killed by the Space Wolves, purged by the Inquisition, regardless of the outcome of their throw down with the 'young school'.
(as well as explaining how certain Chaos battleships can be taken as VBBs by SM chapters)
As far as making IN like 'nids... Personal opinion. that's not a bad idea. A lot of current fluff actually leans that way, thanks to FFG.
-
Oh, I voted yes to scrap the 2010 Bakka list, but my intent was not to support the original Bakka list. Rather, I think that all things Bakka should be scrapped. Failing that, under no circumstances should we return to the original travesty.
-
Oh, I voted yes to scrap the 2010 Bakka list, but my intent was not to support the original Bakka list. Rather, I think that all things Bakka should be scrapped. Failing that, under no circumstances should we return to the original travesty.
Yes, yes, you hate Bakka (mostly I suspect because I like it). We've been over that before.
I had been tactfully leaving out the fact that in addition to the usual problems certain players also set out to directly and deliberately sabotage the list in FAQ 2010 as well (for a variety of reasons), and when that didn't get past the HA settled for demanding it be made as vanilla as possible.
But since you brought it up...
-
Well if Sig doesnt like it there must be something right about it. ;)
I voted no. Not because I like or dislike either but because I think that theres the option to meet in the middle with this.
I totally agree that some Grandcruisers should be allowed in this, Exorcist is just no tho.
More light cruisers sounds fine to me and giving the Endurance/Endeavour an option to boost their speed +5cm or +5c, and +1d6aaf seems pretty reasonable and true to the fluff.
Fast battleship... I dont know about this one, with the Mercury I dont really see the point unless were talking an undergunned ship like the Vengance.
-
Well if Sig doesnt like it there must be something right about it. ;)
By Horizon's request I won't touch that with a ten foot pole. I am not to antagonize Sig, no matter how many people agree or how much fan mail I get for it. :D
I totally agree that some Grandcruisers should be allowed in this, Exorcist is just no tho.
Exorcist was what it had before it was saddled with Jovian. Personally I think it makes more sense, from a fluff perspective, as grand cruisers are all older ships, possibly that predate current trends in a given fleets preferences.
More light cruisers sounds fine to me and giving the Endurance/Endeavour an option to boost their speed +5cm or +5c, and +1d6aaf seems pretty reasonable and true to the fluff.
Fast battleship... I dont know about this one, with the Mercury I dont really see the point unless were talking an undergunned ship like the Vengance.
The Invincible was the one that it had before.
For those without the stats:
290pts 8hp 25cm 2 shields 4 turrets +6/+5 str 12 60 cm wb p/s and str 4 60cm dorsal lance. str 6 prow torps.
I usually screened it with a squadron or two of swords all loaded with FDTs.
-
Ya Im not a fan of the invincible or its special rules, its really more of a screwed up grand cruiser. The idea of a fast battleship is fine but a glass jaw Retribution just seems horrible. A fast battleship to me would retain the 12 hits and exchange firepower/range for speed/durability.
-
Um, minor detail but fast battleships in history have always exchanged speed for durability as opposed to firepower. In fact, the Iowa class fast battleship had comparable firepower to larger and better armored ships.
-
The Iowa is a really bad example. On paper its easy to dismiss the Iowa as being under armored (and South Dakota which had a nearly identical belt protection scheme) but thats simply untrue. The Iowas penetration range was actually over 1000 yards lower then the next best ship of its time (Yamato) with almost 4" less thickness :o. The Yamato was also the only battleship to displace more than the Iowa and that was mostly in its inferior armor. The Iowa was actually the fastest because of a combination of factors but the highlights are its hull design which was based off contemporary racing yachts, advanced propulsion designs, and that they used lighter and stronger steel alloys throughout its construction instead of just using that for the important bits and relying on slabs of weaker (and cheaper) metals.
Or simplified, in true American fashion they approached the problem by throwing money at it :D.
-
Brace for Wild Tangent:
Iowa class battleships are under armored. Not because they actually lack armor, but because they are not armored to withstand fire from their own guns (they are instead armored against the 16"/45).
It's actually not range the 40cm/45 Type 94 outdoes the Mark 7 16"/50, it's penetration at close range. This is because of the greater shell weight, but relatively lower velocity of the shell compared to the mark 8 super heavy fired by a 16"/50.
The shorter range numbers come from using the Mark 5 shell, which was (AFAIK) never used in the field by an Iowa.
-
The only study Im familiar with used the German 15" gun as the standard.
The particular excerpt for belt penetration:
Using Nathan Okun's article on battleship protective schemes, I quantified their total vulnerability zone range (using the Navy Ballistic Limit as the benchmark for penetration). For instance, Bismarck could put a shell through her own belt from any range under 29,000 yards (the weakest score), whereas she would have to close to within 16,400 yards to punch through Iowa's (which had the best). [Note: for the purposes of this computation, I am rating Iowa's side protection as equivalent to South Dakota's, which is the ship Nathan actually shoots at in his article. Iowa's belt scheme was practically identical to South Dakota's, and both had STS shell plates outboard which serve to de-cap incoming AP projectiles, which is why (stunningly) South Dakota's belt is slightly more effective than Yamato's!] Here are the ratings:
Raw Armor Rating Yamato Iowa Bismarck Richelieu King George V Vittorio Veneto South Dakota
Vulnerability zone ('000's of yards) 17.7 16.4 29 20.8 21.5 17.5 16.4
Remember, in the above table, smaller means better, because the opposing ship has to get closer to you to get through your belt.
Suffice it to say that I am surprised as you that Iowa has the most effective belt armor of the lot; I would have bet on Yamato any day. But Iowa's combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) tips the score in her favor. Richelieu also had this same design, and very good protection as a result. Bismarck, despite the reputation of her side armor, fares very poorly in this category. From a deck armor perspective, Yamato comes out on top, followed closely again by Richelieu and Iowa. Vittorio Veneto is very vulnerable to high-angle fire, and Bismarck is as well. Yamato thus emerges as the best armored of the lot, followed closely by Iowa and Richelieu. This makes perfect sense to me, as Yamato also had the distinction of carrying the only armor plates which were completely impervious to any battleship weapon ever mounted afloat -- her 660mm turret faceplates. She was, indeed, an awesome beast. It makes the American and French feats of achieving protection within a hair as good, on much smaller displacements (particularly the South Dakota, which has the second smallest displacement of the seven warships detailed here), a very impressive feat as well. On the bottom of the heap, Vittorio Veneto and Bismarck were both penalized for their inability to cope with a long-range gun duel. Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.
Now using a heavier shell Im sure the Yamato could have penetrated the Iowas belt from a greater distance but thats not really the point as the Yamato would be able to penetrate its own armor from an even greater distance. With exception to the Yamato the Ohios were the largest battleships and the fastest and the best armored (design and materials vs sheer mass), with smaller guns....
Im not trying to devolve this into a my ships better than yours here! ;D This is sort of like comparing apples to oranges, maybe potatoes even... The battleships we saw being created just before and during WW2 were subject to the massive amounts of increased technology and general knowledge about them available, meaning we were able to make them better in every way: speed, durability, weapons, armor, AA, etc. The battleships of the far flung future dont have those options tho so yes your absolutly right that its likely the Imperials would have stripped as much mass from the vessel as they could in order to acheive the desired result. Still it would be nice to give an existing ship design a real purpose as opposed to dragging in an entirely different ship and it cant really be argued that by pulling power from the weapons systems they wouldnt be able to acheive similar results. Ok well ya it can I guess but then so can anything, just tell sig the sky is blue ::).
-
I might be thinking of a different paper by him, but he cut off his research at the Mark 8 Mod 8 shell. The final evolutions of the 16"/50 didn't take place until after that. During the war they were a bit conservative with the Mk 7 guns.
Further there were numerous issues with test plates being of a uniform quality during the war. At some point I remember reading a book on the amount of variation that occurred in armor plate and the different results that were caused by the different techniques involved. The US used a flat plate, for example, the Germans placed the plate at a 30 degree angle.
Test plate for the Iowa on display at Washington Naval Yard (IIRC) (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/battleships-board/26110d1314542719-shock-testing-16_inch_hole_dsc03177.jpg)
Indian Head did numerous tests on the 16"/50 which led to a series of munitions upgrades during Korea and again in the 1980's.
That said, then, how about light cruisers and grand cruises have the option of taking a +5cm upgrade for this fleet?
-
The Grand cruisers can already get +1d6 AAF (plaxors work) and the GC's have gotten some flak for how many options they have now :/.
I totally think the Voss Cl's should have the option to get an extra 5cm and +1d6AAF. Actually I think they should maintain a lower price (90* turns) with the option to switch to 6+ armor (45* turns) or purchase the speed+ but thats been shot down in the past.