Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 7 posts ] 

Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I've scoured the boards and it seems no discussion has taken place in the last few months on these units.

Leaving aside external balance, especially with +1 to hit, these two formations do not compare favourably.

Further does anyone know if GW have decided if its a bomber, or fighter bomber (Aero and IA respectively) or is everyone waiting for forgeworld apocalypse to find out? :)

So to recap the past thread proposals

Internal balance - Fighters, the Barracuda vs the Tigershark

3 Barracudas 250 points
Survivability
1 hit - 5/6 dead
2 hits - 25/36 of knocking two out (two chances at 5/6), on average 1 2/3 kills
3 hits - 125/216 (about 60%) of knocking all 3 out, on average 2 1/2 kills
Average Damage
Ground firepower
45cm - 1/2AT unguided, 1AT guided
30cm - 1 1/2 AT or 1 1/2AP
15cm - 1 1/2AP
Air firepower
30cm - 1 1/2
15cm - 1/2
With +1 rule
30cm - 2 1/2
15cm - 1
Is a fighter so more manoverable when ground attacking on approach move
50 points cheaper than two Tiger Sharks

2 Tiger Sharks 300 points
Survivability - the only jinking bomber!
Has WE squadron ability to 'minimise' damage (put a hit on an undamaged plane)
From 1 attack
1 hit - 1/9 dead
2 hits - 5/9 dead (the effect of criticals when two hits sustained somewhat overdone, but don't matter two much)
3 hits - 5/81 chance of knocking both out (5/9 for first and 1/9 for second)
Average Damage
Ground firepower
45cm - 2/6MW unguided, 2/3MW guided
30cm - 2AT or 2/3AT and 1 1/3AP
15cm - 1AP
Air firepower
30cm - 1 1/3
15cm - 1/3
With +1 rule
30cm - 2
15cm - 2/3
Can risk getting within 15cm more
Can transport drones for tactical flexibility
Needs on average 2-3 hits to lose 50% of firepower
With +1 to hit the new 'best' fighter in game in terms of firepower
Jinking less effective, but with 2 DC who cares? Stray shot has 1/12 chance of downing an undamaged bird.
Highly manoverable movement after ground attack.

Tiger sharks have better at ground attacks unless target completely undefended and barracudas can close to within 15cm, better at sustained operations due to survivability.Indeed no competition survivability wise. Barracudas better at AA if undamaged, loose a plane and Tiger Sharks have edge.... Unless the target has 15cm AA, here a barracuda shouldn't approach whereas the Tigershark can and the squadron then gets the AA edge. Tiger Sharks provide tactical options and the ability to attack defended targets due to survivability.
Given choice I would go for TigerSharks for the drone option, better survivability by far and normally better attack values.

Solution? 1-2
I would consider lower save to 6+.
The planes still the the WE assign damage boost and the ability to mostly ignore one hit, but where you take 2-3 hits in one go it becomes more dangerous - the ability to jink though makes it damn tough when leaving battlefield bomber wise. Values then become
From 1 attack
1 hit - 5/36 dead
2 hits - 5/6 dead (5/36 of critical, 25/36 of two failed saves)
3 hits - 25/216 (about 10%) chance of knocking both out (5/6 for first and 5/36 for second)
The difference in armour with the A-10? Either make them both 6+ and fiddle with the A-10 point value or say more armour and guns, less manoverability so A-10 a bomber.

And/Or
Make heavy interceptor missiles seeker missiles instead - ground firepower not effected (given up cert of 5+ to hit for extra range and GM means 5+ still possible), but squadron AA down from 1 2/3 hits unmodified to 1 hit - a 1/2 to 2/3s of a barracuda squadron.

Balance with other lists? Issue of being the powerful fighter background wise. Slightly improved survivability compared to before as bomber. Can't say without playing.

Of course you could just make it a bomber again - perhaps with the altered Heavy interceptor missile anyway for a stronger ground role definition (and fitting with AI apparently). In some ways it doesn't make sense that its just as good as a barracuda as thats a far lighter craft (1/3 of the armour and structure and less weaponsin our list) - if they are both fighters perhaps a F-14/F-15 comparision is called for?



(baronpiero @ Mar. 01 2007,03:15)
QUOTE
The main balance issue is resilience.

3 Barracudas - 250 pts - 3.6 hits to down them if they don't jink.
2 Tigersharks - 300 pts - 6 hits to down them if they don't jink.

That's about twice the resilience for rather similar attack prowess and cost. Either reduce armor save to 6+, or up cost a bit (+25 pts per craft?). Difficult to say which option is better but 40K stats would pledge for armor 6+ (both crafts have armor 10 10 10 in 40K).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dobbsy
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
3 Barracudas - 250 pts - 3.6 hits to down them if they don't jink.
2 Tigersharks - 300 pts - 6 hits to down them if they don't jink


So do those 6 vs 3.6 hits mean the Tigersharks are worth almost double? I'm guessing you won't see many Tigersharks in game if you make them 400 - 450 points.
Of course the issue in my mind is how do you determine the value of 50 points in this game? No one seems to have a mathematical equation to say just what 50 points means. That's the problem I see with trying to balance units in Epic.
There has to be a little abstraction in design/costing of units in this game IMO because you need to take a few liberties to make things useable.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:50 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Nah I don't think they should get more expensive for the reasons you put out - regardless if it is 'balanced' internally, that amount of points is too much for one air formation.

I'd go for armour save 6+ to bring them more into line with each other. The A-10 either gets another change or a line of fluff about being more heavily armoured (why its a bomber, more dangerous task etc etc).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Shadowsword
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:51 am
Posts: 61
In thinking about my Forgeworld order, I've seen that the Barracudas are sold in pairs of two.

So why not taking them as 4 strong formation (for 300 or 325 points)?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
CyberShadow
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:46 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9350
Location: Singapore
Hi Chris (and others).

There have been no changes to these units recently. Partly this is because I am not overly convinced that there is a serious problem there.

Regarding the status of these units, I am pretty happy with their current specification of fighter and fighter bomber.

Your points seem to indicate that the Tigershark is the one for ground missions, and the Barracuda is taken for intercept... which seems about right.

If there is a requirement to address these kites, which I will need a bit more consideration/convincing about, I dont want to change the Tigershard back to a bomber. This classification just caused too many problems regarding the weapons fit for it.

Switching the heavy interceptors for seekers may also create a new problem, giving it another, longer ranged strike.

If I had to pick, I would favour dropping the save to a 6+ for the TS. I guess that this would require a similar change for the AX-1-0?

At this point, I am cautious about swinging too far with the aircraft. When I first started with the Tau, the Air Caste screamed to me as the aspect of the list needing most work. I do think that things are starting to balance now, and I dont want to make changes just through momentum.

Changing the Barracuda to a wing of four may push things too far in the other direction. Large groups of aircraft increase in potential greater than the sum of their parts.

Overall, I think that the stats reflect the aircraft pretty well at this point. If there is a need, would an increased cost of 175 per Tigershark redress the balance (assuming that there is a need for this!)?

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Tooninki
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:58 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:19 pm
Posts: 180
Location: Nokia Finland
Change Barracudas 2 for 175pts, so you can manage with 1 pack from FW (Damn them for selling them in packs of 2 instead of 3)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Internal Balance - Barracuda and TigerShark
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(Tooninki @ Jan. 16 2008,10:58)
QUOTE
Change Barracudas 2 for 175pts, so you can manage with 1 pack from FW (Damn them for selling them in packs of 2 instead of 3)

That is a very good point! Are we aiming to make squadron sizes match the packaging still CS?


(CyberShadow @ Jan. 15 2008,21:46)
QUOTE
Your points seem to indicate that the Tigershark is the one for ground missions, and the Barracuda is taken for intercept... which seems about right.

No, the firepower is slightly better for air (squadron three baracuda) but the survivability is so different there really is no choice. I get better ground firepower, almost as good air firepower and vastly more survivability.

Air firepower is less important anyway as it backs up your flak, wheras ground attack firepower stands alone.

I know we have seen people saying there isn't any difference survivability, but frankly thats nuts and must reflect flying planes into flak areas.

If there is a requirement to address these kites, which I will need a bit more consideration/convincing about, I dont want to change the Tigershard back to a bomber. This classification just caused too many problems regarding the weapons fit for it.


One thing that should be born in mind if you are going all classificationy is that the Tigershark is currently the best fighter in the game individually (same firepower as Eldar, plus 360 defence instead of lance and more survivable). I really haven't seen much saying this is the master of the sky.

Plus you have to change the fluff description in the list as currenlty it is bomber all the way.

Switching the heavy interceptors for seekers may also create a new problem, giving it another, longer ranged strike.

Maybe, but it would definatively tie its effectiveness more closely to the presence of ground forces (markerlights) which is I think a good thing. It would also definatively give a split in roles. Currently 'slightly worse' firepower is more than compensated by survivability. If the planes face flak in the game the TS will be a lot more effective over the course of the battle.

If I had to pick, I would favour dropping the save to a 6+ for the TS. I guess that this would require a similar change for the AX-1-0?

Maybe. Maybe not. You could do it on both or just say the experimental plane has more armour - would also account for not being a fighter bomber as well.

I do think that things are starting to balance now, and I dont want to make changes just through momentum.

Does Epic have much momentum currently? :)

Changing the Barracuda to a wing of four may push things too far in the other direction. Large groups of aircraft increase in potential greater than the sum of their parts.

Plus it would be expensive, see below

If there is a need, would an increased cost of 175 per Tigershark redress the balance (assuming that there is a need for this!)?

I am generally more in favour of points going down on 'auxillary' formations as they shouldn't be mainstays of the force but adjuncts. The higher the points (and therefore abilities) the more central they are. Air for everything that has been said before is not a central plank of Epic and makes the game worse when it is.

Overall, I think that the stats reflect the aircraft pretty well at this point.

It is supposed to be the best fighter, excellent ground attack, have great survivability, transport stuff etc? Currently its only flaw is an inability to land and take objectives.

And my last day in London is tomorrow - at least for a while, so any chance of a game so I can demo some tau stuff to you? :)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net