Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Barracuda naffness
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=17107		 Page 1 of 7
Author:  Dobbsy [ Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Would giving Barracudas back an AP rating on their burst cannons be broken? Having a solitary AP ground attack weapon seems to make the plane very blah and doesn't seem very "strafey" to me when you have essentially machine guns on the aircraft as well.

Even the humble Thunderbolt is better inside a 15cm range than a Barracuda nowadays and they cost the same and they don't require you to have a ML near your target to use all their weapons. Also the AA ability of this Air superiority fighter is weaker than a Thunderbolt - can that be upped to a 5+ burst cannon?

Can we maybe have a bit of parity for cost?
Author:  GlynG [ Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
No comment on the Barracuda but a Thundebolt isn't really that humble; the epic one has been under-powered and stated - a Thunderbolt actually has quad autocannons and two twin lascannons.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:38 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Quote: 

a Thundebolt isn't really that humble; the epic one has been under-powered

It is what it is in epic. If we had to change everytime GW changed something in the fluff etc this game would be ridiculous. The TB's not likely to change anytime soon. My point is the Barracuda pales in comparison to the TB for the same points value. It's supposed to be a Superiority Fighter but it isn't superior.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:54 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
I'll do a proper reply in a bit but two general points.

All fighters are called superiority fighters. Even the BAE Hawk I believe. It is not a description of ability but rather intent. In 'reality' the Barracuda is a slower plane than a thunderbolt which would put it at a big disadvantage in aerial combat where many dogfights are turning battles where the speed you enter at is all important.

And the thunderbolt has its Epic stats because planes don't work in Epic. Epic weapons are supposed to represent 15 minutes of fire and movement. Whereas a planes weapons would be used in one firing pass lasting a few seconds, with differing moral effects etc. But the Epic convention of one name one stat messes things up here a bit. If you went by a modern air to ground war like Bosnia you would be looking at maybe one tank kill for a dozen sorties, with some analysts putting the total lost armour by the Serbs at a handful as these chaps used all their soviet counter measures and decoy training.

So what's all important is relative strengths. A barracuda should be slightly worse against unmarked and slightly better against marked targets if it aims for the same points cost as a thunderbolt under the current Tau system.
Author:  Honda [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:12 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
The point I think that Dobbsy is trying to get to is that if we rely on the fluff to guide us  :) , then the TBolt is a much more powerful aircraft as far as brute strength goes, but the Tau are better pilots and the Barracuda as a weapon system is nothing to sneeze at.

Over the course of the Taros campaign, they achieved a relative parity in abilities that the Tau addressed by doing things like, going after grounded aircraft in night missions, to ensure that they maintained air superiority.

So, although the Barracuda does not and should not necessarily have the same stats as the Tbolt, it should be as effective as it's opponent in air-to-air combat.

The original cut at the Barracuda was purposely overcosted versus abilities, with some of the weaknesses offset by the 360 degrees of firing, which is not insignificant, but may not be reflective enough of an advantage given that air combat is greatly simplified as a mechanism.

I am open to suggestions. Gentlemen?
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:24 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Quote: 

So what's all important is relative strengths. A barracuda should be slightly worse against unmarked and slightly better against marked targets if it aims for the same points cost as a thunderbolt under the current Tau system

So how do we cost a plane that only uses half its payload sometimes, and a full load others? I am starting to wonder can the Aircraft be designed to just have non-guided missiles? Planes need to operate far in advance of ground forces at times.  They can still utilise ML to hit but not need it to still be useful. I know it's not as fluffy as some would like but it would be simpler to cost them fairly and make them a little more useful in comparison to TBs at least.
Author:  frogbear [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:25 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
for those of us at work, can you please place up the barracuda and TB stats?
Author:  Angel_of_Caliban [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:41 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Quote: (frogbear @ Nov. 09 2009, 21:25 )

for those of us at work, can you please place up the barracuda and TB stats?

LOL....shouldn't you be working?
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:29 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Thunderbolt
StormBolters 15cm AP4+/AA5+, FFa
Multilaser 30cm AP5+/AT6+/AA5+, FFa
Underwing rockets 30cm AT4+, FFa

Barracuda
Ion cannon 30cm AP4+/AT5+/AA5+, FFa
Twin burst cannons 15cm AA6+  
Aircraft Seeker Missiles 45cm AT6+ Guided Missile, FFa - (good range provided you have a ML on target but worse AT stat even with a ML on target.)

I'd be completely happy to have Barras mirror a TB right now.

Why do burst cannons not have an AP component anymore? They already have a worse to hit AA stat so it's not as if the weapon is superior to stormbolters, even if they have a 360 arc, most aircraft avoid that with some form of 30cm AA weapon so can easily avoid the defensive flak and if they don't well they have to worry about a 6+ roll lol.
Author:  Blish [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:44 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
They seem pretty good as is to me.

:ooooo:
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:54 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Quote: 

They seem pretty good as is to me

Try using them then...  :laugh:

Seriously, without a ML on target they usually put 1 BM on a formation without doing damage. They don't intercept that great either - again, worse than a TB. Even stormbolters hit AP targets on the ground.

If we keep the stats as is, I'm willing to entertain a 100 point squadron though :sign1:   :laugh:
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:08 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Ah-ha! They are indeed. Nice spot Hena. That's something I've not noticed before!

I wonder though, does it truly matter if a TB has F-B on intercept? Does it make it that much harder to intercept/CAP? Obviously, you have to plan more but in the end, don't you essentially end up where you want to and hit that much better?

Does the 150 point cost for a Fighter with crapper weapons, match that of a F-B with better?

Shouldn't a fighter be better at AA than a F-B too?

So then, if the Barra is a fighter then should we perhaps make it more of an interceptor rather than a f-b that it sort of resembles now? If a Tb can interecept better than a Barracuda something is amiss I think.

Basically in my experience the Barra just doesn't do either job well in it's current form. It's stuck in between.
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Barracuda naffness
Quote: 

But I think the main cost for Barracudas comes from fact that it has AA to rear as well, which is not common

But not that flash at AA 6+ either, right? Also orks get AA5+ all round and they have bigger skwadrons

Also I edited my last post above for more questions.. doing my bit for bandwidth reduction  :yay:
Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/