Jump to content



Photo

Secutor class monitor cruiser build - what would you do?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 htsmithium

htsmithium

    Member

  • Members
  • 202 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:05 AM

Well there has to have been a reason the Imperial navy has squadrons of torpedo armed cobras :D, but back to the topic don't forget that the whole idea of a LC was to fill in the void that was left when there are not enough cruisers to spread around or to act as a support role to a larger ship...to that end it depends on which of the roles you want it to be, being the first ship I would guess that this  will form the backbone of the fleet to come then I would focus more on endeavors and commanding other ships.

 

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.


  • Erathia and Sebastian Yorke like this

 ding dong mala mortuus est,

quem veteres strigam

impii strigam

ding dong impiorum strigam mortuus est.


#42 Tenebrae

Tenebrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 03:53 PM

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.

How fast?
I have an Explorator who'd love to make torps during travel-time.



#43 htsmithium

htsmithium

    Member

  • Members
  • 202 posts

Posted 16 December 2013 - 05:38 PM

one per month I believe.

 

If I recall right it took a -30 tech use test and there was always a chance the plasma siphoned off the engine to arm these could explode if the test was failed enough.


Edited by htsmithium, 16 December 2013 - 05:41 PM.

 ding dong mala mortuus est,

quem veteres strigam

impii strigam

ding dong impiorum strigam mortuus est.


#44 Chopper Greg

Chopper Greg

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 02:57 PM

Hey all, sorry I haven't been around, I came down with a nasty little abscess, and am only now getting over a mouth full of hurt. 

 

 

Your question really can't be answered by just hand-waving away these assumptions as unimportant.

 

Your basic question as I understand it is "Should I put a torpedo launcher in my Prow slot, or something else?". Before we can answer this, how much power/space is available for "something else", because Torpedo launchers are the only weapon to take up space predominately, and power as an afterthought. If we're putting something else in, what are the limits on what can go there?

 

As for firing, the Secutor has a Dorsal weapon as well, so what should we assume is supporting this hypothetical weapon? Is it a macrocannon designed to take out void shields, a Las-burner designed for short-range burnination of the enemy, a Disruption cannon for salvage? Are you planning on fighting in concert with the prow weapon, or using it as support? Should we assume that the Port/Starboard weapons will also somehow get in on this damage?

 

What is the Crew Rating of your vessel? For low Crew Rating ships torpedoes have an advantage because of their inherent bonuses to hit, but then at high-levels they suffer because you can't boost the Ballistic Skill of the person firing. What about the Ballistic skill of the supporting weapon? How many extended actions are we going to allow for Macrocannon/Lance shots?

 

What are the statistics of the enemy vessel? Does it have one or two void shields? Does it have one or two turret ratings? What is its armour? What is its range from you? These questions matter because they determine if there's a bonus/penalty to firing for the hypothetical weapons.

 

Ultimately void combat is (despite my complaints about the default system) quite strategically deep. If you build a ship with torpedo launchers, then you can engage people at vast, vast distances and get a number of shots away before they close in on you. If you have close-range weapons then you try to focus on boosting speed/sneaking up to unleash a devastating salvo on them from up close. If you have mid-range weapons then you can do a little bit of everything, and gain adaptability on the battlefield which helps.

 

My GENERAL statement is that if you're not going to allow Light Cruisers to have a 90-degree turning arc, then I find torpedoes should be reserved for Frigates and below. The best strategy with them is their ability to bomb the Hell out of things from 40 VU away, turn, retreat, then once you're reloaded and at a safe distance, turn and fire again. The Secutor really is incredibly versatile, but the loadout of your ship will affect what tactics you use.

 

 

You raise valid legitimate issues, but short of taking every ship and comparing it every other ship, what is the alternative?

 

 

As Erathia had pointed there're a lot of assumptions to made.

Bearing this and a fact that I'm, at best, medicore at maths I'd like to point that no matter how much damage you'll score by shooting torps you'll have to pay for every single one of them. And you can miss or torps can get destroyed by turret fire or enemy small craft - or, if you house ruled it, even macrocannons ( http://community.fan...showtopic=44371 ). Secondly a ship can carry only a limited stock of torps.

I guess what I'n trying to say is that I don't try to compare damage output point-per-point and don't need to be proven that torps provide versality, diffrent strategic options and can wreck things up - it's just those two things: (imo to high) unpredictability and stock limits.

That's also why I suggested torp-bombers: there're the same (well, almost the same) drawback, but without need to invest ships space and weapon slot solely for torps.

 

Tenebrae, I don't think your players have too much luck or there's something wrong with your expierences GMing - for a matter of fact I haven't really took a torpedo shooting raider into consideration (thinking about this: it must have been a hell of suprise for players enemies to be torped by a raider :) ). Possibility of destroying ships with torps isn't something I'd even remotly try to negate. Torps just (imho) aren't cost effective.

 

And admittedly when looking for - let's say 4th or 5th ship - to complet a warfleet a torpedo shooter will be better option than yet another macrobattery/lance gunship, but this is something beyond scope of putting up a starting light cruiser.

 

 

You are correct, a rather limited supply of torps on ship, was ( still is ) a concern of mine - that being said, they do have range advantage that only the Nova Cannon can come close to.   Torpedo Bombers have the same problem, in that they require their own weapon slot - granted they might be a little more versatile, but they also add their own complications.

 

 

Well there has to have been a reason the Imperial navy has squadrons of torpedo armed cobras :D, but back to the topic don't forget that the whole idea of a LC was to fill in the void that was left when there are not enough cruisers to spread around or to act as a support role to a larger ship...to that end it depends on which of the roles you want it to be, being the first ship I would guess that this  will form the backbone of the fleet to come then I would focus more on endeavors and commanding other ships.

 

as for torpedos, I once had a gm that allowed us to make standard plasma torpedo's as long as the munitarium and manufactorium were installed.

 

While outfitting for command and endeavors makes a lot of sense ( and to some degree what we would like ), once we have a more capable ship the command and endeavor stuff will be moved to it, the idea is the make the Secutor, more of a pocket battlecruiser - essentially relatively fast and unexpectedly hard hitting for it's size. 

 

 

 

All of that aside, we actually looked at the Lunar class ( by shifting a couple of points we could have just been able to get one ), but we just didn't care for the weapon layout.   Now drop one weapon slot from both sides, and replace them with a dorsal and keel weapon slot and that would have been ( in a word ) real nice



#45 Erathia

Erathia

    Member

  • Members
  • 786 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 07:50 PM

EVERYONE wants a Keel weapon slot, and there is exactly one (Imperial) hull in the game that gets it. Given how the Imperium builds its ships, I can't really see anything bigger than a Raider deserving to have a Keel weapon anyway.The Cruiser Layout of Prow/double Broadsides may seem underwhelming at first, but once you start soaking up damage to split an enemy fleet, and broadside two enemies at once you'll be quite pleased with it.

 

Kind of an aside, but a long time ago someone made a xenos vessel that has a Keel/Aft layout because it's meant to attack while running. It was indeed pretty nice, so check it out


Citizens of Grace! We have defeated both the Dark Eldar and Ork menaces that threatened your system! We need no thanks nor payments, so long as you do not leave the atmosphere during our salvage operations under pain of death! - Jequin Hos of The Hos Dynasty


#46 Chopper Greg

Chopper Greg

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 27 December 2013 - 02:26 PM

I don't seriously mind not having a keel weapon slot - but even more so, if there was a stern weapon slot ( as per prow, but covering the aft half / quarter depending on weapon ) :P . 

 

But we were thinking more along the lines that the keel slot would be useful for carrying a single landing bay, that would not then leave you with an asymmetrical weapon layout that a single landing bay would frequently give, if taken in a broadside slot.    For that matter, it would even make perfect sense that such a "keel" landing bay, is a non-removable item, that way it would not even give the same coverage that a standard keel weapon slot would normally give.   

 

Now think about using a Lunar, as I mentioned, with one of the port broadside slots moved to the dorsal position and one of the starboard weapon slots moved to the keel and filled with a non-removable landing bay ( that doesn't allow for aft coverage that a standard keel weapon would give ).   Can you really say doing something like that would make it OP?   If so, what advantage would the layout give over any other single landing bay, other than eliminate the asymmetrical weapons issue?

 

 

 

Being able to get a double broadside might make sense with multiple friendly ships are around, where you have allies that can cover or help you, but a lot less desirable in a ship that is less likely to see "fleet" actions and more likely to see single ships ( or at best dual raiders ).   As such, it would be a much better choice for a second or even third ship, than a first ship.  

 

For a first ship, having weapon slots that are not limited to firing in one direction like keel, prow, and dorsal ( depending on the weapon ), gives the ability to focus fire that having a double broadside can not give ( without the penalty I list below ), in single ship combat that is more likely to be found when starting out.   You see, in single ship combat, with double broadsides, half of your broadsides are useless at any given moment anyway - taking up ship space, SP, and power, that might be better spent, when not in combat.    This was probably the biggest deciding factor for our group deciding that the Lunar Class, had a poor weapon layout.   Such a penalty is less of an issue, after the RT group has progressed enough to own a ship that has enough power, SP, and ship space to spare - not to mention enough skill to fight a fleet battle.  

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS