Yeah, because having no counter at all to a certain tactic as one faction is incredibly fun. God forbid the devs slightly going against the stats in a tabletop game thet's been practically dead for several years in their RTS to solve major balance issues. It's not like we want people to enjoy playing the game, that stuff is for dorks.
Also, currently we have 1 completely inferior screen on a barge against 4 squadrons from another battleships with carrier capacity. Does this seem equal to 3 vs 8 or 2 vs 4 to you? Can you even count?
1 squadron effectively counters 2 enemy bomber squadrons, so the screen is not inferior at all.You also seem to forget about the 3 superior squadrons the battle barge sends in return. [ 10% bigger chance to hit enemy ordnance, 3 more shoots per squadron than defensive squadrons, -10 to enemy troop value if boarding, 1 boarding more than enemy assault boats squadron.]
We also have 9 upgrade slots on a battle-barge so it should be possible to fit 3 extra turrets to its already buffed turret array. If you put an support vessel next to the barge with another squadron then you would have neutralized an enemy specialized carrier ship and now can proceed to deal 100+ guaranteed damage to it at 12000 units, and that is not counting the thunder hawks which are the best ordnance in the game atm and will rip through the enemies 4 cover squadrons in one attack run
Battle barge is not a carrier and ordnance is not the way of the astartes, if you stopped for a second and considered the balance of what you are proposing you would perhaps realize that giving it a full fighter screen would create a totally overpowered ship with, what you have put as "no counter at all to a certain tactic as one faction is incredibly fun".
Also, ""Can you even count?"
Take this 12 years old behaviour elsewhere, we are exchanging arguments here.
Stormhawks are inferior because they are just a fighter squardron with nothing fancy about them, but they are not affected by refueling system upgrade and also hog 1 skill slot. Barge may be fine with that, but SCs have just 2.
So, it you are fielding a battle barge it's 3-4 wasted slots on a fleet that doesn't have many to beguin with to get 3-4 fighter squardons which are actually worse than any other fighters in-game.
Can you read? Or count? Or listen to any arguments? Because you are wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
Each thunderhawk squadron contains 3 thinderhawks, each one takes 3 shots at an enemy ordnance. That's 9 attacks in total. Total HP pool is 6.
Now, chaos assault boat squardon has 2 actual boats and 4 fighters that shoot 2 times. That's 8 attacks in total. Total HP pool is also 6.
Not a huge difference, is it? Hardly any difference at all, actually. Thunderhawks do have better chances to get through, but only by a small amount, so RNG can still often negate the benefits.
Now to getting through fighter screens. This one is even easier. Let's say Despoiler has 3 launch bays just for balance's sake, even though it's not true. So it has 3 fighter squardons 6 crafts each 2 attacks per craft. That's 12 attacks per squadron against thuderhawks' 9. With the same HP pool of 6.
Now, i'm not really sure how attacks are applied because I don't think all the squadrons of 1 wave reach their destination simultaneously and I don't feel like digging through the whole Codex Sages topic, but we are looking at at least 27 attacks made by thunderhawks and 36 attacks made by fighters. Each has a 35% chance to hit, so approximately one third. That's 12 HP off thunderhawks which is 2 out of 3 squadrons disregarding the turrets and 9 off the fighters which is 1.5 of 3 squadrons.
SM on the other hand have a whopping 1 fighter wing per ship, so 12 attacks and 6 HP versus 24 attacks and 18 HP on chaos assault boats. Stormhawks get obliterated no matter what, while taking 3 HP off the assault boats disregarding the turrets only 1 of which statistically applies to an actual boat and not a fighter.
So, in the end of the day, there are 3 thunderhawks left to get through the ship's defence and attempt to deal a maximum of 3 crits, while chaos has 5 assault boats to deal a maximum of 5 crits.
Sure, SM have better chances of succeeding, but it is still 3 vs 5.
Do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't get more basic than this.
A single Styx has the capacity to almost completely pulverise 2 fighter squadrons with 1 wave of it's assault boats. And what if chaos player decides to take *gasp* 2 carriers? Or even 3? Crazy, right. Never happens in game. But in the case such extremely unlikely situation happens, what should SM player do? Should he rejoice at a sight of his strike crusiers geting torn apart by masses of attack crast in the first engagement, because "ordnance is not the way of astartes" so it's fine for them to suck ass against certain fleets with no way of defending themselves? Should he be happy because everything should be as close to the tabletop as possible, beyond any point and reason, even though that game was turn based and had drastically different mechanics?
Oh, and by the way, scince you've glossed over this point like the rest of my argument I'll say it again - you can't even deploy your precious thunderhawks if you don't have any visible targets because marines can't seem to be bothered to just shoot incoming enemy attack craft. But I guess it's fine - it's not like we have running silent, disruptor skills, tzeentch clouds and fllets built entirely around stealth that you won't have any way of detecting, scince those stormhawks take up a skill slot on your every bloody ship.
I also find it hilarious how you are totally fine with 3 launch bays on the barge and therefore 3 squadrons of assault craft/bombers, but fighters are a no-no. I guees it's fine to break canon, but only when you feel like it, am I right?