Quote:
@Signal: I developed a system where almost all of this numbers makes sence. There i have listed reasons WHY a Battle Cannon hast AT4+ but a Lascannon only AT5+.
But this system you developed is entirely descriptive, not prescriptive. It's an analysis of how past designers have interpreted the transition between the two games, in the current incarnation of both games, but that doesn't mean it is a reliable means of auto-converting from fluff to game.
Quote:
Quote:
No one's talking about putting two "Battle Cannons" on an aircraft, though.
AoC was asking about why there was no AP, if hellstrikes were BC equivalants.
Gotcha, I missed that. Totally agree there's no reason for AP.
Quote:
Dropping the AP/AT on the autocannon doesn't make sense to me. The weapon's capable of hitting ground units. The plane might be designated as an interceptor but that shouldn't stop a commander from redirecting it to a ground attack role if it's needed. If an opponent doesn't take AC and uses them for ground attack the pilot wouldn't hold back from shooting the autocannon when strafing.
To provide a justification, the autocannon wouldn't really be doing an appreciable amount of damage when strafing. Each individual round might do some damage, but the plane will be flying past quickly enough that there won't be the saturation of fire needed to do damage at the Epic scale.
Quote:
So are we agreed on the compromise weapon stats as:
Long Barreled Autocannon 45cm AA6+
Twin Lascanons 30cm AT4+/AA5+
Underwing Rockets 30cm AT4+
I'm assuming you mean:
Lightning Attack
Twin Lascannons 30cm AT4+/AA5+
Long Barreled Autocannon 45cm AA6+
Lightning Strike
Twin Lascannons 30cm AT4+/AA5+
Underwing Rockets 30cm AT4+
This doesn't really seem like a good loadout for role-specialized craft to me.
For a two-craft attack flight, the results are:
Code:
Thunderbolt L.Attack L.Strike
vs AP 1.66 0 0
vs AT 1.33 1 2
vs Mix 2.67 1 2
vs AA<15 2 1.67 1
vs AA<30 1 1.67 1
vs AA<45 0 0.67 0
Looking at these numbers, the Lightnings are superior to the Thunderbolts in only a few narrow situations: Attack Fighters conducting interception missions at 30cm or 45cm ranges, and Strike Fighters targetting armor-only formations. That's good, those are the things they should be superior at. Unfortunately, it's a narrow margin of superiority, and insignificant compared to the Thunderbolts flexibility. With the current stats, there is essentially no reason to ever take the Lightning Strikes, as their slight superiority against armor is nothing when you realize they are worthless against infantry targets, ineffective when used on CAP, inferior against mixed enemy formations, and people are saying they should cost 33% more than the Thunderbolts.
Thunderbolts are really, really good generalists. If a list is sacrificing the massive amount of flexibility that the Thunderbolts offer, the Lightnings need to be better enough at their specialization to make the tradeoff worth it. With the currently proposed stats they're a waste of points, even if they were priced at parity. Increasing their cost to 225, as some have suggested, means you get only 4 Lightnings for the same cost as
6 Thunderbolts. That's ridiculous.
