A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
1 ap per turn, but the refit can take more than 1 turn depending on cost
Edit: I assume so anyway
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
yes. but that takes time. At least one turn, even for escorts, even for fairly trivial refits. So if it takes you 1 turn to build a 'blank' hull, then another turn to refit it... you have just spent 2 turns to make something that probably would have taken only 1 to just make from scratch. And it only gets worse for larger ships with more things, because they you can be talking about two, three, even four turns to refit them, depending on how extreme the refit is, and a higher time cost for the actual hull too.
So if you want to make a single class that's got XY weapons built in, and then a Z as a quick refit so you can give every third hull a hanger instead, then yeah, that's not a big hit.
but if you're turning out a 'blank' hull and then fitting it to spec with refit actions, then you're probably going to be paying more time and AP for the privilege. Not to mention the additional AP invested in making such a blank hull design and any refits.
- Location
- Space between realms
- Pronouns
- He
A very... well-fed one to be sure.
- Location
- Utrecht
nah, not what i want to do at all.
I just didn't think it's likely that leaving las lances on a carrack refit, rather than replacing them with a better weapon, will meaningfully shorten the duration of the refit.
We're using at least 6k Starcrystals on the Sword of Vaul class Relic Warship we're getting from Arach-Qin since it's got at least 6 Special weapon slots going by the numbers from the initial Faction Creation vote
Next up we've got 16 Combat Brigs with an empty Special Weapon slot each for another 6.4k Starcrystals if we swap out the regular Starlances, more if we don't or go with my suggestion of refitting it with 3 Starcasters instead of 2.Sword of Vaul said:
Overall we've got 12.4k Starcrystals earmarked at an ultra-low end and probably 30k at a higher end (but not the highest end estimates which can go past 38k).
That 49300 is going to look very sparse once all those costs and whatever else we use Starcrystals for gets factored in.
As for Psy-Scopes, your math is completely wrong and since somehow you took my strikecraft count number and twisted it into PD gun numbers.
That 288 number is for how many strikecraft we have in our fleet right now based on the fact that we have 16 Brigs which each have 1 hangar that carries 3 squadrons of 6 strikecraft (16*3*6=288).
That 588 (which is a typo as it should be 578) is for how many Psy-Scopes we would need to refit all 288 of our strikecraft with a Fatesever cannon.
Your own design calls for a "Fatesever Point Defense Weapon Battery" and PD is vehicle scale weapons while the Fatesheer CIWB that our current Carrack uses is superheavy scale weapons.
The QM has outright stated that PD at the escort scale uses 60 guns while CIWB uses 10
Your own quote says that each Fatesever costs 2 Psy-Scopes so even just using escort PD numbers would make a Fatesever PD cost nearly twice (2*60=120 Psy Scopes) as much as the Fatesheer CIWB it's currently using.
Since we know the Carrack's Fatesheer CIWB costs 64 Psy-Scopes that gives us 16 guns (64/4=16) which is a 60% increase from the 10 guns that an escort has.
Assuming PD scales similarly, that's an extra 60% from 60 which would be 96 (60*1.6=96) which means 192 Psy-Scopes (96*2=192) for a single cruiser scale Fatesever PD battery.
It no longer looks like a white van with "free candy" spray painted on the side.
And the pilot no longer looks about as protected as a Toyota Hilux Special driver.
And it looks like someone thought about enemy fire and/or debris coming into the vicinity of the engines.
Seeing as those six special weapons were its tertiary weapon battery, presumably it has primary and secondary ones as well.
It looks like a very well fed star wars novelty door stop
I love it, it's still feels like Toyota with a 50 cal when we arm it, except someone welded a ram to the front now!
Alectai
Speaks Words of Wisdom... On occasion
It's still a bit silly but actually doesn't look ridiculous.
I am super excited to see what our new chassis design actually looks like. Simply because it's actually built with solid engineering principles in mind instead of "Lol nothing will ever go wrong so our vehicles should have huge, glaring weak points because who could possibly exploit them?"
I am super excited to see what our new chassis design actually looks like. Simply because it's actually built with solid engineering principles in mind instead of "Lol nothing will ever go wrong so our vehicles should have huge, glaring weak points because who could possibly exploit them?"
- Pronouns
- Reader
I don't think voters are going to be in favor of going from 2 of to none and simply assuming fighters will be sufficient to cover them, especially when we only have 93 squadrons of fighters with only mobility for a defense.
We can, you know, just have gunners for those vessels. You swapping starlances we are set to gain over 61k of over the next 20 turns between current refits plans but holding onto most of the rarer fatebender psyscopes while leaving them with inferior fighter defense?
The only part of your design I agree on, but it should be paired with some manner of Lance for long ranged combat not fatetwister cannons.
I mean, the carrack needs something of an overhaul anyway between half it's WB unused and needing at least one more slot for holo-field and Grav shield.
We are using a lot more than that. I still don't see how we can't spare 8.1k of the more than 85k we'd have have with just ketch & bright eagle + per turn gain by turn 20 towards a slightly better carrack. At the most extreme expenditure of starcrystals we are looking at around 50k spent if we went heavy on the sword of Vaul Class, combat brigs, and Carracks.
Fair enough. I'll trade a standard weapon slot and keep the close in.
- Location
- Germany
Having taken a look at the IoM artillery used in 40k.
The earthshaker seems to commonly have a range of 15-16 km, doesn't seem super sized.
Ground based Macrocannons either superheavy/naval ones have a range of ~40km.
Speed wise for the vehicles have mostly details IoM vehicles there, which won't be a concern for a long time.
Orks is naturally a ???
Because how the fuck knows, only thing for certain is that the accuracy is likely shit.
I am really looking forward to building some mobile artillery when we get around to that and seeing what we can do there.
And yes I like to out-range our enemies, have them be hit by highly accurate fire and all that while being stealthed/them not knowing we were even there until the first shells land.
Something that i myself kind of tend to forget is that while we are seemingly free from many logistical pains.
Most of our enemies are not, they actually have to care about not running out of ammo when fighting and maintenance/repair is a much bigger thing for them then for us.
The earthshaker seems to commonly have a range of 15-16 km, doesn't seem super sized.
Ground based Macrocannons either superheavy/naval ones have a range of ~40km.
Speed wise for the vehicles have mostly details IoM vehicles there, which won't be a concern for a long time.
Orks is naturally a ???
Because how the fuck knows, only thing for certain is that the accuracy is likely shit.
I am really looking forward to building some mobile artillery when we get around to that and seeing what we can do there.
And yes I like to out-range our enemies, have them be hit by highly accurate fire and all that while being stealthed/them not knowing we were even there until the first shells land.
Something that i myself kind of tend to forget is that while we are seemingly free from many logistical pains.
Most of our enemies are not, they actually have to care about not running out of ammo when fighting and maintenance/repair is a much bigger thing for them then for us.
Where are you getting 93 squadrons from? We have 16 Brigs and each has a single hangar with 3 squadrons of 6 for a total of 48.
We also just designed a new chassis for our fighter and are almost certainly refitting them next turn with active defenses and a Fatesever.
All our escorts have PD, if becomes an issue I could just drop a Aethersail for a PD battery since it would still have more engines than the current design afterwards.
As for Starlances, a high end Starcaster investment for our Combat Brig refit (3 Starcasters) will cost us 2.4k per hull for a grand total of 38.4k. Any future Battleship we design will probably have similar levels of investment just due to how powerful Starcasters are and we'll probably have that available by turn 20 or be building a variation the refitted Brigs for 3k apiece.
3 Starcasters on battleship should basically turns it into a battleship sized Turbolaser Destructor that can melt small fleets on it's lonesome or delete other battleships in moments.
With our current weapons were very logistics light, but that may change if we start investing in things like grenades and missile launchers.
Of our current enemies, orks generally only have to pay lip service to logistics and chaos daemons also ignores it.
It's just humans and minor xenos who have to care.
Right, but an empty hull would have so much lower an NEP cost that you could presumably batch build many more "ships" in parallel than you could build of the actual kitted-out ships at once, and ships take a lot longer than one turn to build while so far all our refits have capped at one.
If the "cost" of the refit made no difference to the time taken, then you would spend one more turn to get several times the output for the more expensive ships, which clearly makes no sense when they're supposed to take multiple turns each.
That's why I quoted someone saying the cost of the refit didn't make any difference, and responded that it has to at some point to prevent that clearly nonsensical situation. Which you just confirmed here
So thanks for clarifying.
While I agree we should keep a lot of exotics ready to slap on it if we can, we actually have no idea what Arach-Qin's Sword of Vaul (Serpent that Strikes from the Shadows with no Warning) has on it and how much it will cost us in refits, since we can't just go off what the one available to us in creation (Killing Blow of the Murdiously Shining Sword) was stated to have:
Arach-Qin's Sword of Vaul could have just about anything. Obviously, this makes budgeting harder.
Sucks to suck.
Last edited:
I'll note we are currently using grenade launchers in our Warhosts, though admittedly they haven't had to actually do any fighting yet.
No indication of any logistics penalty, but that might be because no-one has been looking.
(If we're really organized as much like pre-state tribes as we seem to be, the militia with grenade launchers might be responsible for procuring their own grenades. That's not a big deal now, but...)
- Pronouns
- Reader
Starfall Carracks
Equipment
-Swap 2 weapon slot for 2 system slot
Weapon 5 naval slots & 2 heavy naval slots, all used
- 4 × Starlance weapon Batteries
- 1 × Emperor Heavy Macro Amplifier Bombard
- 1 × Heavy Macro Imploder
Systems 10/10
- 3 × Æthersails
- 1 × Plasma Drive
- 1 × Fatesheer Close In Weapon Battery
- 1 × Holo Field
- 1 × Grav Shield
exotics cost : 400 Starcrystals(50 for refit) 64 Fatebender psyscopes(gain of 150)
total Starcrystal cost for refits 2700(likely to be covered by per turn gain before we've refit 5 of these.) We have more than eight times this in storage already, with another 37.8k due from War ketch refits, 11.52k from bright eagle. The extra Fatebender psyscopes will come in handy later when we refit the sword of vaul class.
with Starlances firing minimum four times as fast as regular las and with 3 fold the power, 8 starlance from 4 weapon batteries does the work of 96 Las weapons concentrated into a third as many beams. this would give us significant saturation fire bonus to limit enemy odds of avoiding damage and increase likelihood of a lucky disabling shot. currently we are limited in our ability to provide this by only having 16 combat brigs with a 14 Starlances each.
54 Starfall Carracks would nearly triple naval starlance total. we could make up for lowering our available heavy starlance by using heavy weapon slots and unused special weapon slots to put four heavy starlances on combat brig refit, if we felt the need to do so. war ketch would still provide 98 heavy starlance.
meanwhile the heavy slots give us an amplifier Imploder combo mid for mid to close range kill or cripple shots to sturdier vessels. long-term depend on how long perfect hybridization takes we may by able to switch well ahead of making significant progress on refits given how far more vulnerable to being killed escorts and far more ineffectively armed caravels will receive refit priority.
Equipment
-Swap 2 weapon slot for 2 system slot
Weapon 5 naval slots & 2 heavy naval slots, all used
- 4 × Starlance weapon Batteries
- 1 × Emperor Heavy Macro Amplifier Bombard
- 1 × Heavy Macro Imploder
Systems 10/10
- 3 × Æthersails
- 1 × Plasma Drive
- 1 × Fatesheer Close In Weapon Battery
- 1 × Holo Field
- 1 × Grav Shield
exotics cost : 400 Starcrystals(50 for refit) 64 Fatebender psyscopes(gain of 150)
total Starcrystal cost for refits 2700(likely to be covered by per turn gain before we've refit 5 of these.) We have more than eight times this in storage already, with another 37.8k due from War ketch refits, 11.52k from bright eagle. The extra Fatebender psyscopes will come in handy later when we refit the sword of vaul class.
with Starlances firing minimum four times as fast as regular las and with 3 fold the power, 8 starlance from 4 weapon batteries does the work of 96 Las weapons concentrated into a third as many beams. this would give us significant saturation fire bonus to limit enemy odds of avoiding damage and increase likelihood of a lucky disabling shot. currently we are limited in our ability to provide this by only having 16 combat brigs with a 14 Starlances each.
54 Starfall Carracks would nearly triple naval starlance total. we could make up for lowering our available heavy starlance by using heavy weapon slots and unused special weapon slots to put four heavy starlances on combat brig refit, if we felt the need to do so. war ketch would still provide 98 heavy starlance.
meanwhile the heavy slots give us an amplifier Imploder combo mid for mid to close range kill or cripple shots to sturdier vessels. long-term depend on how long perfect hybridization takes we may by able to switch well ahead of making significant progress on refits given how far more vulnerable to being killed escorts and far more ineffectively armed caravels will receive refit priority.
I believe squadrons are made up of 6 strike craft? We have 288 bright eagles, which would be enough for 93 squadrons at those rates.
Yeah. I have the numbers right. We currently have 30 fighters and at their ep cost and delay in building a factory while we wait for the iterate chassis and design we won't be able to cover both our caravels and combat brigs for over century.
the design seems incredibly unlikely to pass given most discussions. Going heavy isn't the same as going all in on Starlance battleships. Honestly a pair of fatetwister cannons would be good for some short range defense or replacing the 300 starcrystals worth of Lance in the heavy batteries with an amplifier+Imploder combo. Your kind of stretching the feasibility of voter willingness to invest in combat brigs with what we've seen of militarization options, as well as the likelihood of it being a pure lance boat.
They participated in station boarding in turn 4, we just had overwhelming numbers and faced a vastly inferior enemy.
Last edited:
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Definitely a lower-end light armored vehicle given its highly exposed engines from all sides. Really think the plasma engine would be preferable for something to provide all-around protection to small arms (other than dedicated anti-armor weaponry) and machine guns. And to have as the basis for actual main battle tanks and heavily armored personnel carriers.
But if this is economical enough, we could equip entire divisions with these, and fully mechanize our applicable forces.
But if this is economical enough, we could equip entire divisions with these, and fully mechanize our applicable forces.
Starlances and Fatetwisters are supposed to be the tertiary weapons of the Dominion so even if Arach-Qin's design is radically different there should still be plenty of slots for Fatetwisters and Starlances.
The Sword of Vaul we could have picked during Faction Creation had a bunch of unspecified Primary and Secondary batteries aside from it's known tertiary batteries of Fatetwisters and Starlance variants which suggests that the Fatetwister and Starlance armaments are probably a bit more consistent compared to the other weapons.
Sword of Vaul said:
Your math is still wrong, 288/6 is 48 not 93.
Let's break our strikecraft numbers math step by step.
- We have 16 Brigs.
- Each Brig has one hangar which can carry 3 squadrons
- Each squadron is 6 strikecraft
- That means that each Brig carries 3*6=18 strikecraft
- We have 16 Brigs so 16*18=288 strikecraft
Your also very inconsistent with insisting that your Carrack design which costs more Starcrystals that it refunds would get support but my Brig design which does the same wouldn't.
The design I criticized had 5 Starlance batteries which would mean paying an extra 150 Starcrystals per hull for a total of 8.1k Starcrystals over 54 refits while my low end Starcaster proposal only costs 6.4k Starcrystals over the 16 Brigs we have.
Even if you downgraded to the 4 Starlance batteries like that last design you posted Starcasters are fundamentally superior to Starlances since their greater size should give them much great range than Starlances.
Given our current doctrine is primarily focused on long range fire and picking off high value targets the Starcaster is the superior choice if we want to spend Starcrystals on our ships.
In addition, a Starcaster Brig only needs to drop it's 2 Heavy batteries for a Special Battery if you want to have 3 Special Weapon slots, the 3 regular weapon batteries are untounched so you could feasibly fit those 3 batteries with Fatetwisters.
I'd say this would be motorised infantry rather than mechanised infantry.
For mechanised infantry we'd probably want to iterate on our new design to produce a transport optimised variant, or make a tailored assault transport design with heavy armour and super-heavy armour for the crew compartment and passengers.
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
Not necessarily. The Morgana Chassis has 7 free system slots. By dropping the 2 vehicle weapon slots, you get 8 system slots, bringing the vehicle to 1 heavy mount and 15 system slots, allowing for an attached transport design with 1 heavy, 2 rifle, and 13 enclosed transport slots
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Basically, with the LGV you have upgraded from your equivalent of this:
to this:
It's still not really a proper tank yet, but has at least become somewhat tank-adjacent.
My view is that what I quote below suggests that there's something else happening under the hood. A design with the weapon slots the Fata Morgana has is optimised to do a specific job. I suspect it will be very good at that job and less good if pushed outside its comfort zone.
As a result, if we want a good APC, I'd probably want to design it as an APC from the start, as a generalist design, something like Candesce's Assault Transport design.
Last edited:
SaltyWaffles
I am dissapoint, son
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Our logistical pains are population and industry. Orks don't really have to reckon with either; their people grow out of the barren dirt at an impossible rate, eat nothing, and mature stupidly fast.
The stuff they build doesn't even have to actually work at all. Even their ammo logistics only given a token consideration.
Kolar
Is Not A Robot
We can just iterate the hull to remove the vehicle slots. Its not like that would stop us from still making the tank version.