I'd like to address a stat that has been present since the closed betas, and the source of much debate, with good reason.

Initially, we saw that 'lock on' gave defense turrets a 100% hit chance against ordinances. This made lock-on the go to stance, not only did it give great offensive bonuses but the turret buff almost literally shoots down every ordnance that flies into range of the turrets.
Throughout the closed beta there appears to have been a majority push to have this bonus removed due to it being OP.

We've seen the move of this stat to the 'Brace' stance. I can understand this change, it still must be wondered why this turret buff hasn't just been removed completely. Lock on may not be an OP stance now, however the issue still stands that the turret bonus is too strong and honestly not necessary at all in the game.

Why should this stat be removed/why is it unnecessary?

• The turret accuracy buff doesn't just mean that a single ship is almost entirely immune to ordnance, it also means a single ship can destroy any ordnance that happens to fly past it. There is no justifiable reason to give any single ship immunity to ordnances purely through a stance.
• Currently there is plenty of effective counter play to ordnance use, firstly you can blob up your fleet for overlapping turret, fire which is very effective in itself. Secondly: FIGHTERS EXIST, use them to protect your ships! I struggle to understand why the turret buff exists when counterplay is already in place.
• Thirdly (correct me here if I'm wrong) but defence turrets appear to be better than in BFG 1 as they appear to get multiple attack chances over time, as opposed to previously only getting a single chance to destroy enemy ordnances.

Just generally, this one stance allows a player to completely shut down any carriers an opponent uses, without requiring any strategy or thought. If your opponent is playing a carrier themed fleet, setting all ships to this stance will undoubtedly win you the match.
If players want to protect themselves from ordnances, they should have to rely on grouped ships with overlapping turret coverage, or their own fighter support. The ability to click a stance to turn off enemy ordnance is detrimental to balance.

If this bonus must remain, perhaps we could see it re-located to an upgrade slot, however it's a stat that for the better of balance should probably be removed.

Ordnances are nearly there in terms of being well balanced. Fighters now being able to attack a ships defence turrets opens up new play options for ordnance users, and the fact that ordnances regain charges if they survive their attack seems to be a positive change, encouraging thoughtful use of these units. This is most likely the final big change required.

while i do agree a slight correction to point number 3
turrets work very different from BFG1
-where in 1 they would roll for each squad when it got into range not they can only target one at a time
-not sure how that works if there are spare rolls and a second squad is in range, i assume the unused rolls move on to the next squad
-they reroll every 3 seconds
-their range is also much greater then the 1.25k from BFG1, being able to shoot at ordnance reaching 4.5k

so better is arguable, you can overwhelm turrets now which is a neat feature

i also think it is still far from being well balanced
for example imperial navy storage technology surpasses that of any other faction
even the mechanicus that parks their fighters with mathematical perfection and keeps no personal space for its pilots can only store 2/3 as much... for some ridiculous reason
similarly the tyranids who have the benefit of storing their ordnance in a far more compact fetal position is similarly limited to how many it can hold
the number or charges desperately needs adjusting, its ridiculous one of the most unorganized factions that wastes the most space in their hangar bays holds more then any other faction
and on a similar note, the returning charges is an amazing feature, but this further widens the gap between the pathetically weak nid launch bays and the interdimensional storage space of the imperial navy
because assault boats can never get back so even when successful nids can never get their offensive ordnance back of which they already have far too few to begin with

also why where the tooltips about interceptor stats and ordnance speed removed?
how are people suppose to know bombers are slower then interceptors?
that was valuable info, why was this done?

Ok spoken as someone who only has a few hours of gameplay under their belt...

You can actually do something against ordnance? Ive massed 6 ships, 1 of which is a battleship and still get fucked over by ordnance. Mostly nid and (I think) Necron assault boats. Massing turrets does fucking diddly squat if you are attacked by more then 1 ordnance squadron.

Secondly fighters have (for me at least) the nasty habbit of flat out IGNORING enemy ordnance. Sometimes so badly that they fly THROUGH them and still not attack them. And when they do intercept them it seems the interception circle is really bloody tiny. So not very viable as a defence unless you 100% predict where the enemy ordnance is going to be when the fighters intercept them as currently they have 0 margin for error with regards to interception. Oh and im not sure if this is a feature or not but ive had my IN fighters lose every single bloody dogfight that I send them off. Even losing to Orks who to my knowledge should have weaker fighters, not stronger?

What does brace exactly do because I have yet to see it have any meaningfull impact on whatever or not ordnance gets through or not. The massed ships that I spoke off earlier had half of them (the closest ones) braced and still they get damaged from ordnance....

I think the stance bonus is good, maybe give fighter squads some higher dodge, if you want some ordnance buff. the gameplay to use fighters to strip turrets before sending in bombers/assault craft is extremly good. imo a bigger issue is that fighter squads keep lingering in an area after they stripped all turrets from their target, which makes it too easy to wipe them out.

I fully agree on OP.
I came here for the same reason.

Turrets are accurate, bombers are sluggish & they have to stay near the ship for ages to drop their payloads. Plus, their movement is blocked by any incoming enemy interceptors.

Ordinances have 3 limits and their survival rate is just pitiful(especially bomber & torpedo). Bombers are way too easy to counter, you don't even 'need' interceptors to counter bomber. brace for impact -> turn your ship -> full ahead -> enjoy hunting ducks! They are slower than battleships for christ sake.

Of course, you can send interceptors to an enemy ship, I suspect this whole change encourages you to play like this. But there are two major flaws in this.

1. Fleets having a huge concentrated launch bay(esp: Custodian class BS) are punished by this hard. On 2 vs. 2, you have one Custodian and you can't split them into interceptors and bombers. You must send six of them in fighter or bombers, not in between. Please, this system needs to be changed.

2. You can't call back interceptors.
   Really tindalos? I can't even order them to come back?
   This is ridiculous. Everyone knows you will send bomber after fighter. There is no other reason to do that. Turn the ship, overlap turrets, Boom you just lost two squadrons single-handedly.

Ordinance once dominated BFG1, but BFG2 have gone too far and made it tactically unsound.

Very soon, everyone will know how to defeat torps and bombers and see what's happening next.

Just want to point out that wooly is a very strong player and knows what he's talking about here. Taking damage from ordinance right now is a choice. If you don't feel like it, move the targeted ship as fast as possible away from the ordinance, putting other ships in the way. You can effectively kite ordinance this way. You don't even need brace's +100% turret accuracy to completely evade damage unless it's a whole fleet's worth of ordinance properly stacked up.

But the fact that +100% turret accuracy on a stance exists means that you can ALSO just set the targeted ship and maybe 1 or 2 others next to it to brace and continue moving forward. This is fine, you probably want brace on your front ships anyway. Bonus points if you all ahead full at a bit of an angle and dodge the ordinance, giving you longer to kite it. And if your opponent is the best carrier player in the world and somehow able to damage you despite fleet blobbing and kiting, turning on brace on everything will guarantee you take no damage.

Fighters killing defense turrets is a neat feature that should stay in the game (although I agree with @Fosil that they should return when defense turrets are all gone to make sure you don't lose the charge), but it's not effective except against completely isolated ships. Because again even if it works and destroys all turrets, the ship can hide behind allies who turn on brace.

+100% defense turret buff is a hard counter to something that already has three types of interesting soft counters (fighters, kiting, and allied ships getting in the way). It should be removed from the game entirely.

One more thing. Pathfinding is horrid.
Bombers are dumber than air to air missiles.

They should take the fastest route to the target. not 'after' them.

not sure i agree with the returning after all turrets are gone idea
you are not always fighting orks
if you strip a deldar of turrets you want those fighters to stick and keep the target spotted until the bombers arrive

also counter to @SeekerDolls bigger squads is bigger survival chance
if one interceptor of those six squads is able to get back you get your charge back for all six squads
you trade in versatility for survival
when hunting small targets with a custodians bombers you could almost guarantee a returned charge if brace turret buff wasnt a thing

dont even think brace turret buff needs to go completely, i like the turret removal system so some way to counter it is useful
but +100 is faaaaaaar to much, if it was +15 or at most +20 it would still be worth it but wouldnt make it impossible to bomb even isolated ships

I was hoping previously that moving it to another Stance would force people to choose between this and the powerful abilities other stance could offer, but clearly doubling your turret value is just too strong.

At the very most there should be +50% for Brace. Preferably less, something like 30% or 25%, it cuts out an entire element of the game currently.

@Ashardalon
Sorry, but I can't find a value in that.

1 fighter + 5 bombers are more survivable than 6 bombers
2 fighters + 4 bombers are more survivable than 1 fighter + 5 bombers.
.
.
.

I think you get the idea.

This kind of stiffness can be easily exploited

If I send six bombers and enemy send just 'two' fighters what happens next?
Six bombers are blocked by two fighters and turrets will obliterate bombers.

@seekerdolls
they dont have same speed so they would get separated and shot down
true its not what i thought you meant but the answer still applies
usual interceptor is 600 speed usual bomber 400
what i really meant was that single many ordnance ships do have an advantage over many small carriers that would let you send fighters and bombers simultaneously
sorry for the confusion i guess

do agree fully with your critisim of bomber behavior, they dont seem to put bombing the target as piority number one
getting into long pointles dogfights instead of going for their goal
am going to do testing today and ten make a bugreport/suggestion tread in the hopes that that is changed so that bombers try to rush past interceptors
with only a litle slowdown for dodging

I'll leave some humble suggestions here

1. Ability to recall bombers and fighters
   If you don't have targets for fighters, Every time out there is a waste.
   If they were spendable like BFG1, I won't care about it. Now there are 3 limited squadrons. If I send out bombers and it seems they are definitely going to die, I should bring them to safety. The penalty will be the cooldown itself.
   Disappeared(stealth) ships shouldn't send bombers back instantly. Bombers will follow the last known location and can wait for detection of a targeted ship for some time(hence taking risks) or like mentioned above, be called back to the hanger. It is much more 'realistic', will give another tactical depth and players will have good reason to send fighters to voids(not target the ship itself).

2. 'Dynamic cooldown' for squadrons.
   What it means is, cooldown timer for squadron varies.
   For example, Cooldown is increased 1 to 3 seconds per lost bomber/fighter(repair cost).
   Plus you could put rearming cost(put a distinction between used ammunition)

3. Mixed squadrons.
   For example, If the ship has 4 launch bays, give an option to send out 2 fighters and 2 bombers.
   Like I said above, Fleets having a huge concentrated launch bay is a disadvantage itself.
   I don't exactly know how turrets work. If turrets shoot twice more bullets if there are two 'chunk' of squadrons from two different ships in range(sounds a bit odd) then having concentrated launch bay is actually beneficial. But if not, having a concentrated launch bay is a downright disadvantage.
   I know this suggestion is contradicting the current system, but ALL or NONE system sounds silly to me.

4. Like @Ashardalon said, Bombers should not dogfight with fighters, they have damn turrets for that. Making them slower while being intercepted is a pretty good suggestion.

5. Increased speed of Naval fighter and bomber across the board.
   Don't you think at least they should be faster than battleships? Real physics say nay for they 'swim' in the same medium, but I see this game follows the logic of earth naval battles.

6. Reduce or removal turret hit bonus
   It is well explained in OP so it will be a waste to explain again.

@caliger_reborn braced was always good though

@Ashardalon a recall button would be the royal road. but if I have to choose, I would want them not to linger.

@jamodon: I started to play with a carrier chaos fleet today and I was thrashing through players in a extremly loopsided fashion regardless of seeing a lot of braced ships, so my initial reaction is like don't buff this fleet any further. but carrier gameplay should not be behind a very specific build that probably excludes 90% of all ships with hangars and it should have a low enough skill floor for new players to have fun with. I believe the current turret hit bonus fails in that regard and I was wrong.

@fosil Never even nearly as good as Lock On.

@Fosil can we do some skirmish 1v1s so I can see? Do people not kite away from your bombers through braced allies?

@jamodon I am trying to contest all cap points as much as I possible. if somebody stays in a very defensive position, he is threatened to lose on points. the carrier list has problems to deal with large amounts of escorts, similar to the eldar in BFG1. if you can counter-pressure, it does not hold up well.

add me on steam and we can play some rounds.

showmatch time

Well, a lot of fleets have issues with escort capping if they don't bring enough. But assuming roughly equal investment, I'm curious as to how the main fleet conflict goes. I'll actually be really happy if a well played carrier fleet can deal with a braced fleet, I just haven't experienced it so far.

I sent a steam request to the first fosil, but there seem to be a lot, so if I got the wrong one you should add me.

So I played 3 matches against Fosil today, one with 4 ork BBs 1 mega rok 1 escort, and two with 5 archeron 5 escort. Fosil played 7 hellbringer carriers and 6? escorts.

I was wrong - he's correct that a LC carrier fleet CAN overwhelm even braced BBs with fighters and wipe all their defense turrets. By spreading out and capping, a heavy enemy brawling fleet like orks has to split up too and can get focused by ordinance. I was able to win by catching LCs with traktor and holding 3 points, but it was a pretty close match. My ships weren't in much danger even when alone, but I came close to losing on cap points. I suspect I would have had a tougher time in a rematch where he would be more careful about my admiral traktoring.

The other two matches, he gave up on the cap game very early when I started lancing his scanned ships. He then tried to outbrawl my lance chaos. I put them on brace, ignored his ordinance, and won overwhelmingly by having more HP for rams.

I don't think I would have needed brace's turret defense bonus to win if he had tried to play to caps against lance chaos. I don't think it actually had a huge effect in the ork game, where whether a ship got bombed was mostly determined by whether it was alone or by a friendly ship that had turrets. I think it can be removed to buff more conventional carrier builds without significantly buffing the (I suspect very unpopular among opponents) full LC carrier fleet. @Fosil thoughts?

Just played against a full carrier nid as lance chaos. Brace was the difference between me being untouched (which is how the match played out) and probably a lot of assault actions, since I just barely cleared the fighters while losing maybe 1/4 of my defense turrets before the 2nd wave of assault craft arrived. Ended up taking 0 crew loss / damage from them, while carving them into mincemeat with lances.