Space Marine Strike Cruisers |
|
Admiral d'Artagnan
|
Post subject: Space Marine Strike Cruisers  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:52 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238
|
|
They won't differ much from what Ray and I made. The Assault would be an all AC vessel. The question really is how many the side launch bays can carry. Since one hardpoint normally carries 2 squadrons in an IN ship, naturally I followed the same precedent and had only one TH squadron per hardpoint. As for the Devastator or Siege variant, again a question of how many BCs. Lances are iffy at best on the SC even though I did put in the Destroyer variant.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
blackhorizon
|
Post subject: Space Marine Strike Cruisers Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:54 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands
|
|
Indeed, lances should be very very minimal.
_________________
Light at the Horizon.
Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS
GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Xisor
|
Post subject: Space Marine Strike Cruisers Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
|
|
But the variation isn't frowned upon by the IN!
Like battlebarges, strike cruisers do not represent a single class of vessel, or specific configurations of weapons and systems, but rather represent a broad range of different Space Marine vessels used for largely similar tasks.
Tactical, Assault and Devastator are thus 'presenting specific configurations of weapons and systems'. Modular is what is aleady described(in a sense, it's an abstraction really).
It's not as if the system I'm proposing lets you do anything intrinsically better than the three 'best' variants, but it allows the options and outfittings specific to however folks want to do them. Thats what marines are all about it'd seem. The variation from chapter to chapter is best represented by certain 'forms', and thus any given chapter will easily be represented(in part) by limiting how variable they can be.
Surely that makes sense? I think the same should, in part, apply to BBs too(accomodating for the different eras of form, varied VBBs, varied 'Astartes Patern BBs'[ie what we have just now] and variation on simply converted Imperial Hulls(which should be different to the VBB slightly).
Xisor
_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Admiral d'Artagnan
|
Post subject: Space Marine Strike Cruisers Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:45 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238
|
|
"...with the larger battlebarges and strike cruisers remaining predominantly as aids to invasion, ensuring the Space Marines would never present a threat to the Imperial Navy proper. Inevitable, the wrangling over the interpretation of a ship's 'primary role' leads to some chapters possessing rather more versatile fleets than the Imperial Navy is entirely comfortable with."
So yes, IN do frown upon it because variation leads to versatility. One can have some variation from Chapter to Chapter but it should not be too much. Hence, you see why I suggest that there are only 3 BB variants and blackhorizon has also suggested to limit SC variants to 3. Those 3 are more than enough especially since the SC can swap prow weaponry for prow torps effectively making 6 variants. If lances had been included there would be 4 base variants. We didn't because we didn't see the need for lances in an SM capital ship because the IN would now be agitating.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
maximus40k
|
Post subject: Space Marine Strike Cruisers Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Central Texas U.S.A.
|
|
There are THREE BB variants? Oooooh, Aaaaah! I'm all prickly! Gotta go find me some BB models to convert!
I like the modular way of thinking (nod to Xisor)but I agree 3 versions of SC seems more than enough. I couldn't see allowing all 3 variants in EVERY engagement tho', I could see the need for a restriction that outside a specific scenario or task for which that ship was outfitted, you couldn't use it--most honest players will restrict themselves inherently--but... example; it would be tempting to use more SM lance heavy ships simply because my SM fleet's short on lances--is that realy a designed task as opposed to a scenario/role where lances may make more sense? That was a horribly awkward sentence, sheesh!
Better Example. SM player may want lance heavy cruiser to play "lookout" while Devastator version engages in Planetary assault/bombardment. OR he could choose an t'hawk heavy varient to play "lookout" instead but NOT both. Each version has specific role they play better with no overlap between the variants.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
