Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Discuss the Space Marine fleet. There is only the Emperor, and he is our shield and protector.
Auzor
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 April 2016, 16:50
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction

Postby Auzor » 19 May 2016, 21:13

Bludfist wrote:They could do for them like the did for eldar and give them a special attribute like reduced taunt duration

We already know that they will get +10 base troop value and +1 assault actions just like orks


So strike cruiser is a LC? What about vanguards? I'm trying to figure out which all ship slots the devs will fill with unimplemented IN ships


The vanguards will be the LC, all but confirmed by devs;
that means the strike cruisers will fill the normal cruiser role.. leaving the issues: armor matters less in this game; only 4 cruiser slots, so really outnumbering opponent with cruisers seems.. unlikely. And, SM having cheaper cruisers than the other factions seems wrong, thematically. Hence why, I suspect, the strike cruiser will receive upgunned broadsides; from 4 to 8 dps macro cannons. And "normal" cruiser level shields & HP.

As "rapid strike force" I hope they get the +1 lightning strike by default. It would seem weird to me to have IN get a SM favor, get the "terminator strike".. and SM.. not.
However, with the extra teleportarium, triple lightning strike is possible. I would then not give a favor granting a bonus teleport attack; quadrupple attack seems too much.

I hope we won't see unimplemented IN ships as SM ships..
Clearly, they will have to invent at least a battlecruiser..

Overall: short-ish ranged fleet, reliant on boarding actions.. just call it gg going up vs Nurgle?

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Kadaeux » 20 May 2016, 12:22

Beernchips wrote:It is logical because almost all missiles/torpedoes in real life have a bit of piercing head because exploding on the surface of the target is useless. S


Ah no. Almost no Air to Air or Surface to Air Missile has an armour piercing head.
Torpedoes also do not use 'piercing heads' because they are not designed to detonate inside a ship, but close against it, Preferably BENEATH the ships keel where a detonation will sever the 'spine' of a ship. (Note lightweight anti-submarine missiles are somewhat "armour piercing" due to the use of shape charges to punch through the relatively thin hull.)

In fact, armour piercing missiles are also NOT the most common. Because very few targets require them.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es ... w_wpns.htm

Etellerandet
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 April 2016, 21:28
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Etellerandet » 21 May 2016, 17:02

Auzor wrote:
Etellerandet wrote:The TT space marine fleet where kind of a weird animal because of the strike cruisers. To properly explain it, let me first explain something importent about the TT version of the game. The TT version was first build with a string focus on movement and concentrating fire. Two cruisers moving along side each other and firing would be able to take out each others shield each turn, so you had to either concentrate fire from several cruisers or fire at them from the front or rear to actuelly do damagde.

The other really importent thing is that turrets could fire several times each turn, but you had to either fire at torpedoes or at airplanes. So if you choose to fire at the first airplanes that hits you, then you could fire at all the airplanes that came, but you would be open to torpedoes.

The last really importent thing was leadership and special orders. You needed them to make a leadership test to for example reload ordenance, lock on, brace for impact etc. If you failed a test for special orders, then you could make no more special orders that turn. A leadership test was done by rolling two dices and then trying to get equal to or under your leadership score, that ranged from 5 to 10 depending on fleet admirals etc. You could get re-rolls in different ways and they where costly and importent.

Lightnings strikes where called hit-and-run and worked by you rolling on a table. 1 did nothing, while 2-6 took out different sub-systems until they where repaired. A 6 would also deal a small amount of damagde. Space marines would add 1 to this value when they use hit-and-run and subtract 1 when hit-and-runwhere used against them.

Now with these rules the battle barage was a monster of epic proportion protected against the most common ways to take down battleships. It had the higest armor in the game all around, high shield and turret value, lots of hit points, big weapon batteries, bombardment cannons, torpedoes and launchbays. Now having all this stuff was cool and all. You could fire of a salvo of torpedoes at an enemy cruiser and if he used his turrets to defend himself, then your airplanes would hit him straight after. It was also kind of a problem though. If you wanted to maximize your weapon batteries and bombardment cannon, then you wanted to lock on, but to use your ordenance, you would need to reload ordenance. This was not that big a problem for the battle barrage, but it was for the Strike Cruiser.

See the Strike Cruiser, just like the battle barrage had a little bit of everything, but on the body of a light cruiser, which meant that it wasn't what you expected at all.

It was not hard as a rock, because it had only 1 shield and 6 hit points, compared to 2 shields and 8 hitpoints of a cruiser. That meant that an attack that would deal 1 damagde to an imperial cruiser, would almost cripple a strike cruiser.

It was rather horrible as an aircraft carrier as the small strenght of its launchbays meant that 25% of the time the average cruiser would be able to shot them all down before getting hit.

It was bad at boarding actions. Space marines get +2 in boarding action, but chaos for example got +1 and because the strike cruiser had fewer hitpoint, the chaosplayer would get +1 more, leaving them on equal fighting ground. But because the defending player could add turrets to his hitpoints, then a strike cruiser only needed to take 1 point of damagde and then he would be outnumbered 1 to 2, which meant that the chaos player would have the upperhand.

The strike cruiser where bad at actuelly hurting other cruisers. Because of the low weapon battery and bombardment cannon values you could expect no more than to take down 2 shields if you where in a good or perfect firing position. You had to lock on to actuelly be able to expect to damagde the enemy ship.

It was bad at hit-and-run atttacks. Space marines might get +1 on hit-and-run attacks, but you could only make a teleport attack if you had equal or more hitpoint than the ship you wanted to attack, which the strike cruiser rarely had. Also you couldn't make a teleport attack the same turn you used a special order and you already want to lock on and reload ordenance.

So to actuelly get anything out of your strike cruisers, they would either have to run with in pairs (One exhanging launchbays to get torpedoes) or with a small escort. Torpedo escorts where lovely for it. They could take down a shield or two with their firepower, thus enabling your strike cruiser to actuelly hit with its crit heavy cannon, while at the same time forcing your opponent to either use his turrets at torpedoes or aircrafts. Space marine escorts where very good. They where faster and the torpedo escorts where also hevaier armored than their imperial counter parts.

So that often left space marines with less and weaker cruisers and slightly more and better escorts than their enemies. The equaliser here was the strong leadership of the space marines. Where a an imperial navy ship would have betwen 6 and 9 in leadership. The space marines had betwen 8 and 10. Their admirals where cheap and so where their rerolls. Ramming where really hard for other fleets, because you first had to succede an all-ahead special order and then another leadership test to hit, but pretty easy for space marines because of their high leadership and for a lone strike cruiser without escort, it might have been the only way to get through the enemies shield. A space marine player could send his ships through astroid fields and hit from unexpected direction, because he could actuelly be sure that his ships would be able to steer it safely.

I doubt the devs will include anything that shows the good leadership from the game. It would be cool if they did, but as long as they are fast and have bombardment cannons, then I guess I am happy.


An important tidbit in comparing the strike cruiser to an imperial cruiser: the /drumrolls..
Point cost.
The lunar & gothic were 180 points; the dictator with launch bays .. 220 points.
The dauntless was 110 points, regardless of version.
the strike cruiser was.. 145 points.

Take a dauntless, lance version.
1)Exchange the front-only lance with a 270° arc bombardment cannon; lose some accuracy, gain triple the crit chance, much better odds of hitting eldar, and of course, broadside ability: side weapons battery + bombardment cannon focused on a single target.
2) Add a launchbay, with durable assault-boat fighters; launch and decide if you want to use them as assault boat or fighter. oh, and as space marine, a bonus to boarding.
3) Better leadership.
4) Better armor, because the dauntless did NOT have the armored prow.
5) twice the turrets; okay, from 1 to 2 is not hugely impressive.

Compared to the TT dauntless, the strike cruiser is a steal IMO.

Those assault boats may be crap due to small numbers vs a BB, but they can murder escorts pretty handily I think.

Strike cruiser also turns *twice* as fast as an IN cruiser; unlike the IN, the SM are actually pretty good about moving and focusing all fire into a single ship.

-> Overall, with a battlebarge, the strike cruiser I think is pretty fine.

The problem is implementing that into a computer game, where armor doesn't matter nearly as much.

Edit: had to go elsewhere.
Another way to look at the strike cruiser, as you did, is to compare it to an actual cruiser.
The Dominator is clearly a *very* different beast, with 12 dps, and nova cannon.
Compared to the lunar:
180->145 points: 35 points cheaper.
Same turrets, -1 shield, -2 HP; but faster and also faster turning. Also: I think in TT, shields did benefit from armor, meaning against normal macro fire, the shields would average out to be the same, except from the front...
Lose 2 dps of macro, for 1 dps of bombardment.
6 torpedoes traded for 2 (=1 in BFG:A) launch bays.
and then of course, SM boarding, leadership etc.
Now, 35 points is not enough for a SM escort.

However, consider the fleet:
a dominator, a dictator, a lunar, a gothic, and a dauntless. Total 880 points. (blood for the bloo..!). Total 5 ships, 4 launch bays (2 in BFG:A).
Or, 6 strike cruisers, for 870 points. 1 extra cruiser, despite bringing a Dauntless. 12 (BFG:A: 6) launch bays.. and those are "resilient" strike craft, acting as both fighters & assault boat. So yes, a normal cruiser may have 25% chance of destroying both squadrons in a wave. When there are 6 waves hitting that cruiser, the average is still 6 assault boats making it through.
4 bomber squads hit a strike cruiser (so no thunderhawk-fighter cover..): 1 killed by the turrets.
3 x (D6-2): average of 5 attacks, going vs the armor. We'll say, on average, 1 point of hull damage.
Which is better: 6 assault actions, or 100 damage? I think I'd take the 6 assault actions..


I am not actuelly trying to make the strike cruiser look weak, but explain why it made the space marine fleet kind of weird. The strike cruiser is a model that tries be both the fleets light, line and heavy cruiser, while also trying to be both a gunship and a carrier. Space marines general rules make it seem like the strike cruiser was good in boarding, but because of its low hit points it where not. It was odd and often meant that you had to use tactics that was more or less only avaible to you because of your high leadership, great escorts and cheap re-rolls.

I honestly don't understand your comparison betwen the dominator and the strike cruisers weapon batteries. The dominator have 12 points on each side and the strikecraft have 4 points on each side. That is 16 pts of weapon batteries traded of for 3 pts of bombardment cannon.

It is true that armour also counted on shields, so 1 shield on the strike cruiser should be as good as 2 shields on the dominator, except for when your closing up on them, they are using lances or a nova cannon, which would be most of the time your trying to close in on an opponents fleet. Now because your space marine, the you can do stupid stuff like sending your strike cruisers through astroidfields to keep out of line of sight expecting high leaderships and cheap re-rolls to carry the day.

Compared to the dauntless the strike cruiser looks good, but I don't think that it is a good comparison. First of you would rarely bring only dauntless cruiser and a battleship(maybe except if you go emperor + dauntless ordenance overload) and the dauntless have a clear battlefield role. Two dauntless with torpedoes working together had a good chance of cripling a cruiser in one hit. After that you reload ordenance and repeat. You could do something kind of like that with two strike cruisers, but in my experience it is just better to pair the strike cruiser up with torpedo escorts, because it forces them to choose betwen torpedoes or thunderhawks.

Now in your fleet example, the space marine fleet would have the advantage in arial domination, but they are horrible undergunned. They bring 6x3 firepower bombardment cannon batteries and 6x2x4 weapon batteries. The dominator alone brings 2x12 weapon batteries or half of the weapon battery fire power of the entire space marine fleet. On top of that the imperial navy is fielding torpedoes, a nova cannon, lances etc. and they have clear battlefield roles. The dictator will try to keep the damagde of your gunships to a minimum, so it will try to reload ordenance, while the other cruisers will try to lock on for maximum weapon damagde. On the other hand the strike cruisers always have to choose. Do you want to reload ordenance so you have strike crafts or do you want to lock on, so you can put out some damagde?

That is because one fleet is made up of cruisers, supported by a light cruiser and each having their own battlefield role, where the other is made up of only one type of lightcruiser that tries to do everything at once. Which goes very nice with the background honestly.

Auzor
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 April 2016, 16:50
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Auzor » 21 May 2016, 22:17

Etellerandet wrote:
Auzor wrote:
Etellerandet wrote:


An important tidbit in comparing the strike cruiser to an imperial cruiser: the /drumrolls..
Point cost.
The lunar & gothic were 180 points; the dictator with launch bays .. 220 points.
The dauntless was 110 points, regardless of version.
the strike cruiser was.. 145 points.

Take a dauntless, lance version.
1)Exchange the front-only lance with a 270° arc bombardment cannon; lose some accuracy, gain triple the crit chance, much better odds of hitting eldar, and of course, broadside ability: side weapons battery + bombardment cannon focused on a single target.
2) Add a launchbay, with durable assault-boat fighters; launch and decide if you want to use them as assault boat or fighter. oh, and as space marine, a bonus to boarding.
3) Better leadership.
4) Better armor, because the dauntless did NOT have the armored prow.
5) twice the turrets; okay, from 1 to 2 is not hugely impressive.

Compared to the TT dauntless, the strike cruiser is a steal IMO.

Those assault boats may be crap due to small numbers vs a BB, but they can murder escorts pretty handily I think.

Strike cruiser also turns *twice* as fast as an IN cruiser; unlike the IN, the SM are actually pretty good about moving and focusing all fire into a single ship.

-> Overall, with a battlebarge, the strike cruiser I think is pretty fine.

The problem is implementing that into a computer game, where armor doesn't matter nearly as much.

Edit: had to go elsewhere.
Another way to look at the strike cruiser, as you did, is to compare it to an actual cruiser.
The Dominator is clearly a *very* different beast, with 12 dps, and nova cannon.
Compared to the lunar:
180->145 points: 35 points cheaper.
Same turrets, -1 shield, -2 HP; but faster and also faster turning. Also: I think in TT, shields did benefit from armor, meaning against normal macro fire, the shields would average out to be the same, except from the front...
Lose 2 dps of macro, for 1 dps of bombardment.
6 torpedoes traded for 2 (=1 in BFG:A) launch bays.
and then of course, SM boarding, leadership etc.
Now, 35 points is not enough for a SM escort.

However, consider the fleet:
a dominator, a dictator, a lunar, a gothic, and a dauntless. Total 880 points. (blood for the bloo..!). Total 5 ships, 4 launch bays (2 in BFG:A).
Or, 6 strike cruisers, for 870 points. 1 extra cruiser, despite bringing a Dauntless. 12 (BFG:A: 6) launch bays.. and those are "resilient" strike craft, acting as both fighters & assault boat. So yes, a normal cruiser may have 25% chance of destroying both squadrons in a wave. When there are 6 waves hitting that cruiser, the average is still 6 assault boats making it through.
4 bomber squads hit a strike cruiser (so no thunderhawk-fighter cover..): 1 killed by the turrets.
3 x (D6-2): average of 5 attacks, going vs the armor. We'll say, on average, 1 point of hull damage.
Which is better: 6 assault actions, or 100 damage? I think I'd take the 6 assault actions..


I am not actuelly trying to make the strike cruiser look weak, but explain why it made the space marine fleet kind of weird. The strike cruiser is a model that tries be both the fleets light, line and heavy cruiser, while also trying to be both a gunship and a carrier. Space marines general rules make it seem like the strike cruiser was good in boarding, but because of its low hit points it where not. It was odd and often meant that you had to use tactics that was more or less only avaible to you because of your high leadership, great escorts and cheap re-rolls.

I honestly don't understand your comparison betwen the dominator and the strike cruisers weapon batteries. The dominator have 12 points on each side and the strikecraft have 4 points on each side. That is 16 pts of weapon batteries traded of for 3 pts of bombardment cannon.

It is true that armour also counted on shields, so 1 shield on the strike cruiser should be as good as 2 shields on the dominator, except for when your closing up on them, they are using lances or a nova cannon, which would be most of the time your trying to close in on an opponents fleet. Now because your space marine, the you can do stupid stuff like sending your strike cruisers through astroidfields to keep out of line of sight expecting high leaderships and cheap re-rolls to carry the day.

Compared to the dauntless the strike cruiser looks good, but I don't think that it is a good comparison. First of you would rarely bring only dauntless cruiser and a battleship(maybe except if you go emperor + dauntless ordenance overload) and the dauntless have a clear battlefield role. Two dauntless with torpedoes working together had a good chance of cripling a cruiser in one hit. After that you reload ordenance and repeat. You could do something kind of like that with two strike cruisers, but in my experience it is just better to pair the strike cruiser up with torpedo escorts, because it forces them to choose betwen torpedoes or thunderhawks.

Now in your fleet example, the space marine fleet would have the advantage in arial domination, but they are horrible undergunned. They bring 6x3 firepower bombardment cannon batteries and 6x2x4 weapon batteries. The dominator alone brings 2x12 weapon batteries or half of the weapon battery fire power of the entire space marine fleet. On top of that the imperial navy is fielding torpedoes, a nova cannon, lances etc. and they have clear battlefield roles. The dictator will try to keep the damagde of your gunships to a minimum, so it will try to reload ordenance, while the other cruisers will try to lock on for maximum weapon damagde. On the other hand the strike cruisers always have to choose. Do you want to reload ordenance so you have strike crafts or do you want to lock on, so you can put out some damagde?

That is because one fleet is made up of cruisers, supported by a light cruiser and each having their own battlefield role, where the other is made up of only one type of lightcruiser that tries to do everything at once. Which goes very nice with the background honestly.


I do acknowledge the dominator as being a quite different beast.
"Another way to look at the strike cruiser, as you did, is to compare it to an actual cruiser.
The Dominator is clearly a *very* different beast, with 12 dps, and nova cannon. " And then I compare to the Lunar.
I would be hesitant to count both broadsides however, it is not always that you can lockon and have something to shoot at on both arcs I'd think.
And stating the dominator brings half the weapon battery firepower of the Marine fleet is a misrepresentation IMO, because those bombardment cannons are an important part of the SM firepower. More so than lances in that fleet for IN.

Both fleets, flying in each others broadside arc:
12 macro from dominator, 6 from the dictator, 6 from the lunar, 4 from the dauntless.
2 lances lunar, 4 lances gothic.
Total: 28 "dps" macro, 6 lances.

vs:
6 x 4= 24 macro dps
6 x 3 = 18 bombardment cannon.

Double broadside for everyone? Okay.
56 "macro", 12 "lance", vs 48 "macro", 18 "bombardment".
Now, the bombardment cannons are affected by the firepower table "accuracy", but on the other hand, they do crit much more..
And remember, all that IN macro firepower is going up vs 6+/75% armor.

You say the dictator will just reload, the rest will lockon. ok.
What if the dictator has low leadership? etc.

Now, I do consider the battlebarge as "carrying" the fleet,
torpedo escort and strike cruisers: doesn't that make you even more reliant on special orders (reload ordnance) though?

Overall, IN does have advantages over SM, that is true. most noticeably, SM crumble when an opponent brings a bunch of lances and can "lock-on"; the gothic, should it manage to get both broadsides running during lock-on, dishes out on average 3 hullpoints on each side.
vs Space Marines, I actually think I'd take that over the Dominator;

My worry is that in-game, the armor of the strike cruiser matters even less, with it being ignored also by plasma bombs, short range AP macro, bombers, torpedoes,..
We'll see what the devs implement. I have already repeatedly posted that I would expect the strike cruiser broadside macros to be doubled, relative to TT.. OR, they're gonna need some AMAZING thunderhawks.

Etellerandet
Posts: 6
Joined: 28 April 2016, 21:28
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Etellerandet » 21 May 2016, 23:48

28 macros and 6 lances are brutally more powerfull than 24 macros and 18 bombardment cannons, when one side is shooting on targets with one shield and the other side is shooting against targets wih 2. To penetrate the IN cruisers shield, on average, you either need more than 2 strike cruisers, 2 cruisers and a very good position or two cruisers and a lock-on order. Space marines might be faster and better at turning, so they have an easier time concentrating their firepower, but they also represent more targets giving the imperial fleet a bigger opportunity to fire both their broadsides.

Yes, you are right that it is a problem for the imperial fleet that they could have bad leadership, which is why I said that the high leadership was such as an importent part of the space marine fleet. That said, they have the ability to reload ordenance and lock on at the same time, the space marines simply have not.

Combining escorts and strike cruisers doesn't make you relie more on special orders, it is about the same, but the escorts only need one type of special order. Reload ordenance if it is torpedo escorts and lock on if you bring lance escorts, where the strike cruiser really wants do both at the same time. Also escorts are more reliable when you want to fly through astroid and stuff like that, saving you re-rolls.

Kayvaan
Posts: 18
Joined: 08 May 2016, 01:27
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Kayvaan » 22 June 2016, 00:06

I tried ramming.

Not recommended lol.

Unless you're reaaaaaly sure he's gonna lose. Or it needs a ram to win the game NOT kill WIN.

Halstead
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 April 2016, 22:20
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby Halstead » 22 June 2016, 00:28

Kayvaan wrote:I tried ramming.

Not recommended lol.

Unless you're reaaaaaly sure he's gonna lose. Or it needs a ram to win the game NOT kill WIN.

Try it with brace for impact against ship of same size or smaller :P

FieserMoep
Posts: 52
Joined: 27 April 2016, 02:10
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby FieserMoep » 22 June 2016, 01:06

Ramming? With such few HP? Maybe even into AP rounds?
Nope.

aprg
Posts: 150
Joined: 20 March 2016, 23:26
Contact:

Re: Will Space Marines be a ramming focused faction?

Postby aprg » 22 June 2016, 04:26

You can ram as Space Marines, but with so few HP you can't make it the mainstay of your strategy.

Against Orks and Imperials? Head-on, they have the same Armour as you. It's only worth ramming them from the side/behind or when they don't have Brace for Impact active but you do.

Against Chaos? Sure, if you can catch 'em.

Against Eldar? Well, yes... :D

Against other Space Marines? Only if they don't use Brace for Impact, but even then it's not a huge decider.


Return to “Adeptus Astartes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests