Imperial Half-Navy

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
User avatar
Cryhavok
Posts: 292
Joined: 03 June 2016, 16:02
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby Cryhavok » 29 June 2016, 20:04

Drakki wrote:Mars pattern class battle-cruiser: Change its battery range to the proper 9000 units (as it is suppose to be) and seriously make an option to remove the nova cannon in favour or torp launcher for a point price reduction.

Tell me what you think of this bellow, cheers.


I am in favor of this simply because making the game closer to the Lore is better in my opinion. I don't remember about the switching of nova and torpedoes in the table top, but I do like having more options to customize a fleet, so I do kind of like the idea.

I am indifferent about everything else in your post.
Do you hear the voices too?!?

User avatar
Cryhavok
Posts: 292
Joined: 03 June 2016, 16:02
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby Cryhavok » 29 June 2016, 20:40

I'll add that I think the IN should remain the jack of all trades fleet. This would mean they should be capable of making carrier fleets, but they shouldn't be as good as a faction that has carriers as one of their strengths.

The reason I said I am indifferent to that part of your post is: I am not sure how that should be balanced in the game as far as the IN goes. I don't use them enough to make informed decisions, so I don't really have an opinion about what they should or should not get in that regard. I certainly wouldn't mind them getting more carriers, but I also don't really care if they don't.

Then there is: more canon ships being added is good, but adding in more factions and their canon ships is a lot better, and as the Tau are one of my top three favorite factions, I heartily approve of their current allotment of resources towards developing them.
Do you hear the voices too?!?

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby Imperator5 » 29 June 2016, 23:06

Drakki wrote:
Cryhavok wrote:
I am in favor of this simply because making the game closer to the Lore is better in my opinion. I don't remember about the switching of nova and torpedoes in the table top, but I do like having more options to customize a fleet, so I do kind of like the idea.

I am indifferent about everything else in your post.


Indeed in a lot of BFG TT books there were available upgrades for the ships, some could have extra turret defences very similar to the upgrade in game. Others could have their macro ranges extended to 45cm (9000 units) for a very small price, also represented in the game. Since we don't even have 1/3* of the ships available here for the IN from the TT, I thought we could at least get the option to switch the torp launchers for nova and vice versa like a lot of ships in TT could.

*( there are at least 7 imperial battleships apart from Emperor and Retribution, and at least 3 or 4 light cruisers apart from Dauntless class, not counting grand cruisers and other classes of Battle Cruisers, even the ones numbering in dozens like the Armageddon class, and they are NOT re-skins)


PistonMiner and I are getting that covered! Though we got no model for the Defiant line, we put in the Enforcer cruiser which is basically a Dauntless with Hangars.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

User avatar
GreySeer
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 191
Joined: 01 January 2016, 20:55
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby GreySeer » 30 June 2016, 00:56

When generally I agree with OP IMO in present state of the game more ships to IN and chaos is the last but one thing we need now. So, IN has 7 BS in TT? But do we really need them, such Oberon or Nemesis, for example? We have all ships +1 form here https://www.scribd.com/doc/34809491/Bat ... eet-Gothic . And these grand cruisers too, some fleets don't have such class of ships and what about them? Some don't have even BC, adding more ship classes will only complicate the situation and we have a limited number of ships in our fleet anyway. Unfortunately BFG was not a fully developed system and we shouldn't expect its full fleet representation in the game, is enough for now I think . Balance is the main problem, not lack of ships.

And Mars have fix NC, no torps option unfortunately.
Praise the Machine God
Bless His construct-creations
And death to those who are not part of His grand design

User avatar
Bludfist
Posts: 997
Joined: 14 March 2016, 22:46
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby Bludfist » 30 June 2016, 01:13

if Dominator and Mars are ever given "MK2" varients with torps

then why would you eve take NC ships?

furthermore wouldn't that make the tyrant irrelevant if you get a ship that is only 2 points more for stronger broadsides with torps?
Chaos walking into Aldorf be like
Spoiler : :
Image

wowu5
Posts: 9
Joined: 13 March 2016, 07:03
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby wowu5 » 30 June 2016, 03:00

IMO the choice of in-game ships for the IN has the intention to prevent including optimal specialized ships.
Most IN ships are not equipment-wise 100% dedicated to their role.

For example,
Optimal long range support cruiser = Gothic with Nova / Tyrant with 4 plasma battery and nova
instead we get gothic with torp and Tryant with torp and just half plasma

Optimal brawler cruiser = Dominator with torp
instead we have dominator with nova

In this sense, every imp ships is a sort of swiss knife of its own and are always multi-function (on the other hand not the best in a specific aspect). Other races have less of this type of design, Carnage is a 100% marco brawler and Archaon is pure lance boat (discounting the frontal marco turret).

Maybe this is not just the principle of Tindalos, but of the original designers of BFG in GW as well, as even in TT we don't have ships like Gothic with nova or 4 hangar IN cruisers.

wowu5
Posts: 9
Joined: 13 March 2016, 07:03
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby wowu5 » 30 June 2016, 13:30

Drakki wrote:
Both Dictator and Mars had 4 hangars. Emperor class had 8.


I meant in-game value, Dictator and Mars are counted as having only 2 ordnance bays, in addition to 2 marco batteries.
The '4 hangar cruiser' I was talking about refers to a type of pure carrier cruiser with only hangar and no marco.

Drakki wrote:Carnage was anything but a brawler, its significant fire-power was used for shield collapsing at 45cm(9000) range but it couldn't take the IN or Orks at ranges of 30 cm due to armour vulnerable to macro fire.



My word might be a bit misleading, but the point is that it's 100% dedicated to its role (med-long range marco).

Drakki wrote:Acheron had strength 6, front left right batteries in addition to long range and strong lances so it was more universal since it had a good chance of collapsing shields on its own, and was often lending lance turrets to other shield-less targets. Good firepower backbone.
[/quote]

I am not so certain about things in TT as I've never played it. But I do think that at least in this game the marco on Acheron is anything but minor supportive for the main lance armament, and that it's still primarily a specialized lance boat, although not specialized to the same degree as Carnage (which has 100% marco).

Cyke
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 May 2016, 11:28
Contact:

Re: Imperial Half-Navy

Postby Cyke » 30 June 2016, 13:45

Drakki wrote:Both Dictator and Mars had 4 hangars. Emperor class had 8.
Drakki, I think it's quite clear that wowu5 was referring to the "Launch Bays" bitz components when you build the ship model, rather than counting the actual hangar doors or squadrons launched. The Dictator and the Mars have 2 "Launch Bays" pieces, while the Emperor has 4.
Just helping out to clarify here :D

On the other hand, it's incorrect that the TT did not have a 4-Launch Bay cruiser. Unless it's a statement that strictly ignores battle cruisers, the Jovian-class battle cruiser had 4 Launch Bays.
Then again, it's an actual unique ship. In the background info, there is only one Jovian ship in existence; it's a Mars-class ship from Battlefleet Bakka that had its forward section heavily damaged in battle, and to speed up the time taken to get it back into the field, it just had more launch bays put into the fore section.


Considering the Mars has a mixture of Launch Bays, Weapons Batteries and Lances, I would not say it has specialized armament. It is a swiss-army knife. However, it is a good ship in TT.

The issue is that, in the computer game, overly-specialized ships (one type of armament) are better, because with a mixed lance/macro ship, you cannot aim different weapon types at different targets, or have different guns fire at different times to ensure one deals with shields while the other deals with hull, etc.


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron