That is precisely the case, and it's pretty straightforward. Whatever is visible, can be critted.
However you can crit generator from the front as it is considered to be on top, but it's relatively rare, sides and back are obviously preferable for that.
The same case with deck, except it's easier to crit from the front. Engine is the opposite, it pretty much can't be critted from the front (I may have seen it once or twice, but I can't vouch for that) but can be critted from the sides and if you're at the back it's the most favorable target.
Other than that, it's pretty straightforward really. Whichever weapons are visible from the sides you can attack, can be critted. So if you're on one side of enemy ship, you can't crit batteries on the other side.
Overall if you want to crit the engines, shooting at the back will increase your chances significantly, but other than that, it's mostly a matter of RNG and setting up crit priority on the target (probably).
The first game had quite a different system of how the ordnance worked in the first place. The ordnance/turret meetings were decided via hit and roll for all craft at the same time, and fighters were restricted to its own mothership.
I actually like the second game's system better on a fundamental level, but the details are handled indeed very poorly compared to the first.
Ordnance is too slow and most of the time it can't even outrun the ships, which is stupid and works massively against any ordnance given the damage-over-time rather than hit-and-roll system and worst of all, they implemented this incredibly, ridiculously dumb system with ordnance locked until the previous squadron returns or is destroyed.
The potential fixes are numerous and incredibly easy. Increasing the squadron speed, dodge chance, number of ordnance per squadron, damage and so on, is as difficult as changing the number in an ordnance stats file.
But Tindalos got a massive boner for macros in this game, and they have so far culled anything and everything that could be even half as potent, and they made them not only unviable as the damage source, but reduced their utility all across the board.
It may actually be a reasonable idea to lower the crit chances all across the board for weapons only.
Half the crit chance for every weapon, quartering could be too much.
Or the prices for BBs and GCs could also see some increase to discourage from picking BB/GC only fleets.
To that end, I believe someone has already given this idea somewhere (no idea who or where though) that the ship prices could increase for every next ship of the same class. As in: second cruiser or battleship or whatever would cost some additional points, third even more etc.
BB/GC could have a significantly higher penalty for every ship after the first or second, while lighter vessels (cruisers/ light cruisers) would only get such penalty after 4th or 5th ship, or even not at all.
I believe such solution would keep the heavies viable and very much sought after, while discouraging players from making rosters composed solely of them, as they would be losing overall fleet effectiveness compared to more balanced enemy fleets.
Respectfully, I disagree that it hurts the game.
Without this system, the meta would shift back to mass LC's/escorts spam, as GCs/BBs will be quite easy to take out of the game, both literally and metaphorically. This is why the crit resistance system was introduced in the first place, heavy warships were completely, utterly useless prior to that, with a single notable exception of Drucharii battleships.
Having to choose between light spams and focusing on bigger, heavier (more "core") warships, I believe the latter is more preferable.
Besides, it makes sense, heavier ships tend to have stronger armor.
Take Chaos fleet, use Desolator and Executor and reach the top 10 in the next tournament using mostly them.
Then we will talk about them being actually competetitve.
You rejected my experiences with faction as non viable arguments. Said that they were not "facts".
But you yourself claim you can use them competetively.
Isn't that what you call double standards?
Again, you're a hypocrite who thinks himself more knowledgable than everyone else and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's arguments, while insulting them and accusing of the very same things that you commit. As is traditional, one does not even realize their own folly.
I have already wasted enough time trying to go through that "holier than thou" attitude of yours.
That is a silly argument. Situations like match-ups you gave are a typical quirk associated with a multiplayer.
But when a game is fundamentally rooted in a certain setting (unlike Starcraft for example, where setting is adjusted to the game), then the playable factions should very much follow its characteristics presented in a lore.
Of course, it doesn't mean that something should be outright broken because it was overpowered in the lore.
But the case with ordnance currently, is the exact opposite. The ordnance is overall weak right now, there is literally no balance reason to keep the ordnance as weak as it is, so if anything, it should be made more viable.
Balance is as important as ever, but only when it makes sense in conjuction with the lore. You can't play a 40k game and just not take lore into account for convenience sake.