List of flawed ships

[Plaxor]

Strike cruisers should have 2 shields... good catch.

And no. Only one VBB is allowed.

[Taggerung]

I am not saying more than one VBB, but give them access to regular old cruisers (Not Battlecruisers, or anything more than like a lunar)

[Phthisis]

Gah!  Are you sure Plaxor?  I thought Strike Cruisers were always 1 shield before.

I don't have an issue with Marines on board IN ships.  Tag, beyond the +1 LD, what's the utility?

[Taggerung]

It's not really even the +1 leadership to be honest. There really is no game balance behind other than the fact I think strike cruisers are useless. I think this way would at the very least bring some interest into the fleet.

This is more me being selfish and want to have a dual purpose for my Imperial fleet because I really do like the Imperial vessels, and love the models, but would like to incorporate them into a space marine fleet, and since I have been reading a lot of space wolf fluff lately, I would love to have a reason to paint my imperials in space wolf colors.

@Plaxor

How about I play test it and let ya know how it goes? If it's stupid broken, or not even worth it ill just forget it.

[horizon]

In FAQ2010 Marine Strike Cruisers can take +1 shield for 15pts..

[Plaxor]

Regarding 2 shield strike cruisers,

Remember a while back guys, when BaronIveagh hated the idea? Well that's when we voted it in. Exchanging 1 shield for a launch bay.

Basically, marine strike cruisers have 2 shields and 1 launch bay.

Tag, if you want to take a smallish VBB then take an Armageddon BC. Why such need for a lunar?

The fleet has 2 cruisers, and 1 swappable cruiser. Sorry, marines are boring, quite well represented.... They've been expanded as much as is reasonable for now, and I can't visit everyone's whimsy.

[Taggerung]

It was just an idea I had. Perhaps we will just house rule it and see how it goes.

[RCgothic]

Stuff...

I don't like the Armageddon and Defiant example, Why not try it out using a Lunar and a Strike Cruiser with the added shield. Should be a much better comparison. The Defiant as everyone agrees is basically a bad ship.

Or how about a Retribution vs 3 Dauntless'? Another good matchup to see.

The Armageddon is the best battle cruiser, which is why it was chosen. The Defiant has only 2WB fewer firepower than an Endurance to one side (which is all that matters vs a single retribution, it will never fire both broadsides.  In addition, it has enough AC to provide CAP for both vessels, completely eliminating any threat from the Retribution's torps. The Endurance is a reasonable ship, and in this particular situation the Defiant's ability to focus brings it up to par. In addition, I pointed it at 120, not 130.

3 Dauntless vs Retribution:

Hits: 18 hits vs 12 hits.

Minimum hits required to damage: 1 vs 4

Ordnance: 9T vs 0.
9 torps stand a reasonable chance of crippling a Dauntless in one go.

Primary Weapons:
@60cm 3L vs 0
@45cm 3L&18WB vs 0
@60cm 3L&18WB vs 9L.
The Dauntless gains no advantage by using its broadsides instead of its lances, and so makes itself vulnerable to capital ship closing on the gunnery chart. The Dauntless can expect 0.5 hits past shields, or 2.75 on lock on. The Retribution can expect to nearly destroy a Dauntless before they even get in range (2.7 past shields from weapons, 2.8 from torps), and once in range and bearing in mind the dauntless' attacking aspect will do enough hits past shields to destroy a Dauntless in a single turn (7.2).

So this is probably how it would go down:
The Dauntlesses have to lock on to do significant damage past shields. Therefore they cannot use AAF to boost past the 30cm zone where the Retribution can fire and they can't. One Dauntless will then end up braced, because otherwise it stands a substantial risk of being destroyed. With one Dauntless braced and two on Lock On, they can expect 1.25 hits past shields, which isn't enough to force the Retribution to brace. The return fire even without lock on will probably destroy the Dauntless which previously braced, after which point even locked on two Dauntlesses will struggle to do the Retribution any harm whatsoever.

[RCgothic]

I'd also like people to consider D3 per 20mm torp marker. This standardises to 20mm bases (which I still hate, but which i'd concede eventually) without much adjusting the spread of the torps, which really doesn't need adjusting. (and which I will continue to fight).

[horizon]

Hi RcG,

you miss one vital point. The torpedo Dauntless can squadron, can do AAF and then release a combined str18 torpedo salvo. If they manage a shot at the sides/rear even 4 turrets won't stop that salvo.

At best turret roll it would still be 14 dice at 5+.


If the Retribution gets first shot 'the Dauntless be toast.

[RCgothic]

Even that salvo into the side/rear wouldn't (usually!) be crippling to a Retribution. 16 would get past turrets, followed by 16/3 hits, or 5.33.

In addition, good luck getting off a side/rear shot! You cannot turn whilst on AAF, so you would have to start out in the side/rear already pointing in the right direction. The chances of pulling that off against a ship with a 60cm reach which knows that must not happen are pretty slim. The Retribution would feel perfectly happy to take that salvo on the prow and then dish out some of its namesake.

[Taggerung]

Question...

How many torps would you value 1 attack craft at?

[horizon]

RcG,
hmm, Retribution has 3 60cm lances (revised). Dauntless can ditch that for a turn.

Dauntless are fast enough to do a flanking at range.

5 hits = 12 - 5 = 7
give a dice more and you'll end up with a crippled battleship. Not unlikely.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

The Armageddon is the best battle cruiser, which is why it was chosen. The Defiant has only 2WB fewer firepower than an Endurance to one side (which is all that matters vs a single retribution, it will never fire both broadsides.  In addition, it has enough AC to provide CAP for both vessels, completely eliminating any threat from the Retribution's torps. The Endurance is a reasonable ship, and in this particular situation the Defiant's ability to focus brings it up to par. In addition, I pointed it at 120, not 130.

While the Armageddon is the best battlecruiser, I don't see why it should be the vessel chosen. As I said, a Lunar and a Strike Cruiser would offer a more challenging target with the Lunar and Strike Cruiser coming to 345 points. The problem with picking the Armageddon at 245 means the second ship will suck since you want to test if the Retribution comes out ok at 345 points. This is the point of your exercise right?

I would think offering 2 effective ships even if they are not the best in their class would be much better than having 1 ship which may be the best but would not be able to handle the threat esp if supported by another sub-optimal ship.

3 Dauntless vs Retribution:

Hits: 18 hits vs 12 hits.

Minimum hits required to damage: 1 vs 4

Ordnance: 9T vs 0.
9 torps stand a reasonable chance of crippling a Dauntless in one go.

And the Dauntless player would let this happen because...?

Primary Weapons:
@60cm 3L vs 0
@45cm 3L&18WB vs 0
@60cm 3L&18WB vs 9L.
The Dauntless gains no advantage by using its broadsides instead of its lances, and so makes itself vulnerable to capital ship closing on the gunnery chart. The Dauntless can expect 0.5 hits past shields, or 2.75 on lock on. The Retribution can expect to nearly destroy a Dauntless before they even get in range (2.7 past shields from weapons, 2.8 from torps), and once in range and bearing in mind the dauntless' attacking aspect will do enough hits past shields to destroy a Dauntless in a single turn (7.2).

So this is probably how it would go down:
The Dauntlesses have to lock on to do significant damage past shields. Therefore they cannot use AAF to boost past the 30cm zone where the Retribution can fire and they can't. One Dauntless will then end up braced, because otherwise it stands a substantial risk of being destroyed. With one Dauntless braced and two on Lock On, they can expect 1.25 hits past shields, which isn't enough to force the Retribution to brace. The return fire even without lock on will probably destroy the Dauntless which previously braced, after which point even locked on two Dauntlesses will struggle to do the Retribution any harm whatsoever.
[/quote]

And again, the smart Dauntless player would attack head on because? the Smart Dauntless player would swing around to the rear and to make use of the fact that a battleship needs to move 15 cm forward before turning.  Yes next turn, a Dauntless might be crippled. 9 lances on Lock on would result in 3 points of damage to the Retribution at least if it does not decide to brace.

That's not insignificant. Then there's the torp Dauntless' as Horizon mentioned. I don't think it's that clearcut as you are theorizing it to be. I suggest playing it out.

[RCgothic]

The Dauntlesses don't have much choice in the matter. The attached shows possible moves and counter moves for the Retribution and Dauntless.
At the top of the image is a dashed line of starting locations for the Dauntlesses, beginning no closer than 45cm to the Retribution, and going as far away as is interesting. Around this line is a solid line denoting a 25cm move in any direction, and another line denoting a 42.5cm typical AAF move in any direction. An extremely good roll will be twice this distance.

In the middle is a plot of possible moves for the Retribution. Surrounding this are two squiqqly circles which denote where the retribution can bring its 60cm and 45cm guns to bear. The diagonal dashed lines show where the Retribution can point its prow (the lowermost diagonals require CTNH, and also shows where the side arc starts before the Retribution Moves).

So given that the goal is to get a shot off at the let's go through the options:

A: The Dauntlesses move to remain outside weapons range of the Retribution. Even with a very good AAF roll the Retribution can easily turn to totally negate their move.
B: The Dauntlesses move to 45-60cm of the Retribution. Without AAF, the Retribution can easily turn to negate their move. With a good AAF roll, they can just about exceed the Retribution's turn rate, even on CTNH. However, due to the random extra distance, they are at risk of not rolling far enough and ending up either at the mercy of the Retribution's guns or severely out of position. Either way, they'll not end up facing the right way to fire a salvo, and when they're forced to course correct next turn the Retribution will be able to recoup the angle they gained this turn. As we'll see later, slightly past directly in front of the Retribution won't be enough.
C: They move to within 45cm of where the Retribution will be. They can exceed the Retribution's turn rate, but so what? They still can't get a shot off at the side/rear and they're totally at the mercy of the Retribution's guns.

So where do they need to start to get off a side/rear view?

The outer solid line is where they need to be to get a shot off. The inner solid line is where they need to end up to get a shot off. The dashed circles are the Retribution's weapon ranges, whilst the dashed lines show the borders of the aspects. 2 options:

A: For most of the outer solid circle, they need to get a reasonable AAF and be pointing nearly directly at the Retribution. This doesn't work from directly in front, so they need a significant offset. As shown earlier, getting both an offset and facing the right direction is impossible on clear terrain.
B: For starting right in front of the Retribution, they either need to be within 45cm (in which case the Retribution will already have turned and broadsided them), or have a slight offest and be pointing in exactly the right direction. As noted earlier, getting an offest and pointing in right direction is pretty much impossible on open terrain.

So the best option for the Dauntlesses to flank? Split up. However, this leads to significantly increased attrition of the torpedo salvoes, and if the Retribution ever gets to fire both broadsides the battle will be over pretty much instantly.