Remove ads

Blood, Sweat, and Tears (WH40k Design Bureau)

Reader mode
To be fair, the Frigate's perfectly workable. A speed debuff and one less utility slot (when we only have one non-cargo utility part anyway) would have done nothing to prevent packing it full of lances if the lances were worth using.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Yeah, really does suck that the Frigate AND Lance turned out so abysmal. A good high damage sniper ship would've been just the thing we need in our current lineup.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have a working Imperial Navy lance that we can put on a ship but the cost of that would push is above 40M on the Hawk Frigate adding a turn to its build time so it might be better to build a sable class ship with it.
 
Happerry said:
To be fair, the Frigate's perfectly workable. A speed debuff and one less utility slot (when we only have one non-cargo utility part anyway) would have done nothing to prevent packing it full of lances if the lances were worth using.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hence why I put emphasis on the 'and'. Because the War Hawk was usable, if underwhelming, but when the Lances turned out so poorly, there wasn't much to it. They're not worth the effort to mount on anything in their current state.
 
Happerry said:
To be fair, the Frigate's perfectly workable. A speed debuff and one less utility slot (when we only have one non-cargo utility part anyway) would have done nothing to prevent packing it full of lances if the lances were worth using.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can i convince you to build a Spatha class ships with 2x IN Macrocannons (Damage 3 with available shells, Medium Range)(4M,1A) instead of a Hawk class with 3x Standard Macrocannon Battery MkI: Damage 2, Short Ranged. 2M
It would do the same damage but at Medium instead of Short range and as the Sable hull cost 4M less so the design is 2M cheaper.
 
For the record the Torpedoes of the Duet do not count against the ship Build Limit, because they aren't part of the ship.

sunrise said:
It would do the same damage but at Medium instead of Short range and as the Sable hull cost 4M less so the design is 2M cheaper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Weapon mount ratings are tracked separately while Defenses are cumulative.
 
Last edited:
sunrise said:
Can i convince you to build a Spatha class ships with 2x IN Macrocannons (Damage 3 with available shells, Medium Range)(4M,1A) instead of a Hawk class with 3x Standard Macrocannon Battery MkI: Damage 2, Short Ranged. 2M
It would do the same damage but at Medium instead of Short range and as the Sable hull cost 4M less so the design is 2M cheaper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I could maybe be convinced to do this, though my inclination is to either split them up between two ships for spreading the range advantage around or waiting until we can do a, call it the Imperial Hawk model, of 2x IN Cannons and 1x IN Lance.

Even beyond that, at this point I'm unwilling to change a plan that a lot of people have already voted for in a way that would use up consumables without getting buy-in/permission from the majority of the voters so its not a bait and switch. So if you can convince them, or at least a majority of them, that it's a good idea I'll do it. Considering the vote will probably be called soon it's probably too late for such a switch though.
 
If there is a reasonable chance of people changing votes it would be poor form for me to close the vote.

That being said extending the vote has historically done little to change the result so...
 
Plan Batteries is not quite 2-to-1 ahead of Heavy Industry, so I'll give it... Eh, eighteen hours ish? Might as well, seeing as there seems to be a higher activity later in my day.

sunrise said:
Are 3 guns doing 2 damage each better then 2 guns doing 3 damage each?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends, obviously. More guns will do more against unarmored targets, while heavier guns are better against those who have armor. On the flipside more guns also do more component damage from having more chances to hit something of worth on the hull of the target even when outmatched by the target's armor, as seen against the Carmine over Bailafax.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan Batteries, Fighters, and Spatha
-[X] Repair all damaged vessels and reload ordinance. (49M and 9M)
-[X] Refit CVL-2 Due Excise and CVL-3 Fugax Cymba with 1x Starhawk Bomber Squadron and 1x Fury Interceptor Squadron each (24M)
-[X] Begin construction of Industrial Platform with all remaining capacity - 2M
-[X] Build 1x Spatha class (37M) (Second Naval Squadron)
- Hull: War Spatha-class Hull (5M)
- 2x IN Macrocannons (Damage 3 with available shells, Medium Range)(8M,2A)
- Defense: Haptrix-Pattern Rapid Shields (Shield 2, .5 Armor.) (4M)
- Defense: Scaffold Armor (Armor 1.5) (2M)
- Utility: Repair Deck (2M)
- Engine: Militarized Engine (Acceleration 2, Maneuver 2, Fuel Efficient) (3M)
- Bridge: Groupsight Combat Bridge (4M)
- Sensors: T-100 Auspex (2M)
- Warp: Merchant (4M)
- LS: Essential (2M)
- Housing: Barracks (1M)
-[X] 1x Airstrip-B Class Terrestrial Defense (14M) (Bailafax)
- Hull: Terrestrial Battery (4M)
- Weapon: Cove-pattern Hanger (4M) + Starhawk Bomber Squadron (6M)
-[X] 1x Airstrip-F Class Terrestrial Defense (14M) (Bailafax)
- Hull: Terrestrial Battery (4M)
- Weapon: Cove-pattern Hanger (4M) + Fury Interceptor Squadron (6M)
-[X] 1x Sunstrike Class Terrestrial Defense (6M) (Bailafax)
- Hull: Terrestrial Battery (4M)
- Weapon: Atomic Warheads (2M)
-[X] Use the two new Castigation class ships to form the Second Torpedo Squadron
 
[Opens research into primitive Disruptor weapons and thermal lances.]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Looking back at this result if my searches are right, we've unlocked the possibility for a couple of interesting weapons/tech-trees.
When the stream impacted a bare hull there was a level of energy transfer that resulted in an electric charge building on the target. In the current amounts it amounted to very little as the charge evened out across the hull, but if the rate of energy transfer could be increased…
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This description plus the disruptor title makes me think Haywire weapons. AKA the 40k equivalent of the SW ion cannons. Hit something and the technology either shuts down, malfunctions or simply fries.

Meanwhile the thermal lances are canon melta weapons. AKA less range then lascannons but a lot more damaging to whatever it shoots at (particularly vehicles).
 
jwolfe_beta said:
Meanwhile the thermal lances are canon melta weapons. AKA less range then lascannons but a lot more damaging to whatever it shoots at (particularly vehicles).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are many ways to get "Melta" weapons. But yes, that when developed is basically a short range carver weapon that can really put the hurt on an enemy ship. Doubly because the plasma can "wash" over a hull and boil away protruding bits, or once it penetrates it does Bad Things to machinery spaces, ready ammunition on gun decks, and given a bit of time life support systems.
Downside is, well, it does rely on using principles from xenotech. But if no one can ever prove it and it helps now...
 
jwolfe_beta said:
Meanwhile the thermal lances are canon melta weapons. AKA less range then lascannons but a lot more damaging to whatever it shoots at (particularly vehicles).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It just occurred to me that if we can get Melta weapons, we could probably use that and some bigger engines and armour and maybe void shields to turn the Harbinger into a Shark Assault Boat-analogue.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
It just occurred to me that if we can get Melta weapons, we could probably use that and some bigger engines and armour and maybe void shields to turn the Harbinger into a Shark Assault Boat-analogue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Carving into a hull with plasma cutters doesn't need Melta weapons, you could do it next turn. Granted, sometimes you want that "wall explodes, soldiers pour in" moment, but still.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
Carving into a hull with plasma cutters doesn't need Melta weapons, you could do it next turn. Granted, sometimes you want that "wall explodes, soldiers pour in" moment, but still.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, we don't necessarily need them, but they're the standard tool for Imperium boarding craft for a reason.

Honestly, it would be great if we could get separate design actions for ground forces, because ships are so much more important for the campaign that they really can't merit using them in place of new ship components.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Honestly, it would be great if we could get separate design actions for ground forces, because ships are so much more important for the campaign that they really can't merit using them in place of new ship components.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If I do give you a specific ground Design action, it's scope will be reduced slightly. Specific vehicle types/lines rather than entirely new Armies, for example.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
It just occurred to me that if we can get Melta weapons, we could probably use that and some bigger engines and armour and maybe void shields to turn the Harbinger into a Shark Assault Boat-analogue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly I was more looking at the idea of a melta lance. Less range then normal lances but craves up ships like a hot knife through butter.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
If I do give you a specific ground Design action, it's scope will be reduced slightly. Specific vehicle types/lines rather than entirely new Armies, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That'd be perfect. Really, I'm happy with anything that helps our action economy. And it makes sense, we've been playing the Admiralty Board for now, it would be sensible to have a design board for the Armies.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top