I agree it's stupid that bombers and even boats engage fighter squadrons, and assault boats accidentally dog-fighting assault boats when both run into each other takes absolute cake for the silliest AI behaviour currently exhibited in the game.
However, proceed with caution. Those suggestions may turn one carrier holding off several enemy carriers into defensive carriers being nearly useless (or that is: more useless than they used to be until very recently).
I like the idea of bomber/assault squadrons getting slowed down while engaged by fighters as it's logical they would be wasting time and momentum dodging incoming fire.
And of course, I'm stil utterly against a dumb idea of one squadron max, but that is off-topic by now.
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 as ships have no weapons at the back, meaning less potential crit targets other than engine/generator.
In other cases, it's 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.
Apologies Beern. I'll cease this thing since our friend wannabe batman is too much detached from the realities of the situation he tries to discuss.
Just a few last pointers and I'm off.
Why do you think so? This is the same strength as the Imperial Navy, no more, no less. I remind you that the Empire has exactly the same strength in aviation as Chaos, the conditions of aviation are equal.
Because in lore during the Gothic war Chaos literally swarmed the Imperial Navy with ordnance, to the point they had massive problems with it and had to rapidly convert existing ships to accomodate more launch bays.
So you want more damage? I gave you math (which you do not understand because of my stupidity), Lants have a DPS more by 4.6k+ range.
This only proves how little you understand the topic.
Reload, have you heard of it? It increases macro dps by 66%, throw it in to your calculations. For that matter, lock-on also increases dps of macros, since the accuracy gets increased as well.
I don't wish to litter this thread anymore, so I'll leave it up to you to correct your own maths. You'll see that when stances are included, lances are beaten quite badly at all but the highest ranges, and those are very difficult to maintain, as I've already shown you with the speed/turning calculations, which you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.
First, if you do not know, personal experience cannot serve as evidence. Besides, judging by what you write, I very much doubt your competence. Without facts, these are just your words that mean nothing.
You are the second, where did you get the idea that I have no personal experience of playing for Chaos? You have a memory problem, because I wrote it more than once. I repeat again, I have the experience of playing for Chaos, I had an Epic Rank before the wipe, which means I won more often than I lost. But unlike you, I do not just declare "I have personal experience, because my statements are already a proven fact," I rely primarily on calculations and comparisons.
Yes, it can not. But it makes me see what are the issues, and then I back it up with maths.
You are the second, where did you get the idea that I have no personal experience of playing for Chaos? You have a memory problem, because I wrote it more than once. I repeat again, I have the experience of playing for Chaos, I had an Epic Rank before the wipe, which means I won more often than I lost.
I may very well be wrong here, but due the way you reacted to my points about Slaughter/Carnage/Repulsive I have a feeling you attained your rank using the much more viable brawling side of Chaos fleet.
Feel free to correct, just please, do not lie on the matter. My respect if you used predominantly a long ranged fleet afterall.
No, you have not proven anything, do not flatter yourself). You simply make statements saying “I have this experience” which can serve as proof of your skill and no more. But write "proof on paper is not proof" - and I ignore the facts?)
On the contrary, I have, actually. 40 speed difference is completely negated by the need to keep the ship at an angle that allows the broadsides to fire. The only way for Chaos ship to keep distance, is for it o just run away in the straight line, which not only is counter-productive because it can not fire, but it even doesn't work in hte long run (map, cornering etc.). It is my experience on the matter that allowed me to notice this issue, and then I applied mathematical calculations to explain the problem. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge those simple facts.
Why did you decide that these are “objective facts”?) If your unfounded opinion you call “objective facts” from this, they will not become objective facts. All the facts that you brought, this is the speed of the Battleship Chaos during the attack and the turn time, no more. Everything else is your unfounded opinion.
Which facts make it so Chaos has no chance of effectively keeping the distance. This opinion is very much founded, and other players on this forum apparently happen to agree with me.
Are you completely blind?? "We compare guns against guns"
which aviation? We compared the ships of damage, you yourself suggested to compare the Chaos and Empire Battleships, and now you are writing about aviation, which is a completely different topic. Are you completely madman? Or do you simply have no arguments about our cannons topic, and you are trying to shift the topic from the inconvenient to you, where you have made yourself a fool?
Aviation is one of the strengths of Chaos faction. But since they are very weak all across the board it takes away one of Chaos supposed strengths. Which is not made up for in any other way, and was only there as an argument to point out how f.cked overall Chaos as a faction is at this point. Since you keep claiming that Chaos is just fine.
It did not pertain to the example scenario of battleship duel, whose sole purpose was to show how the slight advantage in speed is negated by the angle required to attack, and simply doesn't work.
Someone is apparently blind here indeed. But it's not me.
So the facts on paper mean nothing? But your unfounded and "authoritative" statement is irrefutable proof)
They do not mean nothing. But they need to considered carefully, in conjuction with othert facts instead of just taken at face value.
It is not enough for you personally, it was enough for me. And how much do you think the necessary speed? Maybe 240 speeds? I can tell you that 240 speeds are in the Eldar Battleships. These ships do not have a range, the Drukhari have a 9k max range without the possibility of "Lock On". Their weapons are on the nose, because they cannot attack and run at a speed of 140 as the battleship of Chaos, moreover, that the Eldar shields would work, you need to go to the enemy.
But you continue as a capricious child, and as it turned out a stupid child and declare: “200 speeds are not enough for Chaos, you need 240 speeds”.
And now tell me again that you do not want an imba))
Never have I claimed that Chaos should have 240 speed or something like that. The problem is that Chaos simply can not deal enough damage lance before they are caught, and they will. Which brings us to the initial point of this whole talk.
Imagine this is possible. As I said, everything is relative. For example, playing for Eldar, especially Drukhari and Asuryan, I rammed in situations where the damage done is more than the damage I take or my ship is not very healthy and will die anyway or need to kill the injured flagship.
And would you make an Eldar fleet that relies on ramming by default? You confuse situational actions with go-to strategy.
For Orcs it is possible to run against the Empire or the Necrons, or even kite playing for an aviation fleet.
I'm sure it would turn out great against fleets not focused solely on battleships. "It is possible" is not the same as "one of the basic strategies of the faction".
Tyranids from this patch can cause decent damage, I have an assembly for damage.
With this one I can agree
You know, now I understand your level of skill and why you are hard to play). Everything became clear.
Yes yes, I forgot whom I was talking to. Please pardon me your majesty for trying to insult your undoubtedly unrivaled knowledge, experience and insight of this game, and correcting your absolutely irrefutable "facts" that Chaos can stay in its comfortable range and outshot opposition with lances with even moderate efficiency.
We are unworthy of treading the same forum soil as the ultimate expert of dps charts and linear speeds sir yaBATMAN.
Chaos just so happens to have absolutely no skilled players, only Tau has.
See, there's a difference between us. I have a practical experience with the subject (Chaos lance/carrier fleets) that I can back up with practical application of maths.
You have a theoretical maths derived from basic ship stats, with clearly no practical grasp of the issue.
You still claim that Chaos is weaker than the Empire, despite objective facts refuting this.
There are objective facts yes, but the "refuting this" part is your postulate only. Postulate that you desperately try to force through, despite numerous points against.
We compare guns against guns. Or, besides Lance's buff for Chaos and increasing speed for Chaos, do you want the strongest aviation exclusively for Chaos?
I will tell you, if you do not know, in Chaos aviation is exactly the same in strength as in the Empire). "Does Chaos have the same aviation as the Empire? Chaos is weak again, Chaos has to have aviation stronger, otherwise it's not fair !!"
Here goes your thickheadedness again.
No, I never said Chaos should have a stronger aviation. They should have stronger carrier capabilities. Which they do. But it doesn't matter since the aviation overall sucks at this point, whether it be IN, Chaos, Tau Eldar or anyone else. And since it is so useless all across the board, it naturally takes away one of the Chaos' natural strong points.
Too complex to understand, eh?
And so, the speed of Chaos is 200 against 160, the damage of Lance was also considered good, the range is large, the same damage at any range, but you still haven’t found such a thing). And you also asked why I write that you ignore the facts?) Yes, any idiot would understand after such an explanation, only you don’t understand)
Because what you present here is what it looks like on paper. I'm not going to explain it yet again. Play long ranged Chaos fleet. You will see that 40 speed of difference is not enough to do jack' sh't, since it only works in perfectly radial-away speed case, without considering the map limits, the combustion gauge and front firing arc advantages the IN has.
And who said it should be easy? It all depends on your skill and the ability of the enemy. Do you think it is easy for the Empire to catch up with an experienced player for Chaos?
No one said it should be easy. But it should be reasonably doable, and viable tactic. Which it simply isn't, and rankings only prove that.
Are you seriously?? How long have we taken into account the movement, calculated, even you gave examples, and you write "with no movements taken into account"? You do not only show your stupidity, but still have problems with memory.
And so, we take into account the damage, range as well as the advantage in speed, which gives a technical opportunity to keep a distance. In order to put this into practice, you need skills, unexpectedly? But there is such an opportunity and this is taken into account when the power of the ships is compared.
There are still such parameters as health, shields, morale, the number of crew, but all these parameters in our example were the same, so no one had the advantage. There was no point in mentioning them, we stopped at the decisive and distinguishing on the example of 2 ships - range, damage, speed.
I took into account movement. You only took into account raw dps, and later a straight line speed, when it was pointed out. You constantly ignore that Chaos is completely unable to keep distance while firing at the same time, and if they just run away without firing, then they lose anyway.
And they can't even do that, because again, map restrictions, combustion gauge, cornering, bombs etc.
Wrong. The strategy is determined by the player, based on their characteristics as well as his preferences, skills and situation. The most skilled players are able to adapt and adapt to the conditions, using non-trivial strategies and timely respond to threats.
Although savvy is not about you.
So would you like to try a brawling/ramming strategy using Eldar? Running and gunning with Orks? Or long ranged sniping fleet composed of Tyranids? How about boarding AdMech?
No? That is because factions naturally lean towards certain strategies more than others. Just like Tyranids are a natural boarding faction by both design and lore, so is Chaos a long ranged faction by default.
Sure they can adapt and use something more brawly for example.
But if the faction's default playstyle is simply not viable to the point where no sane player (regardless of skill) would want ot use it, there is where the problem starts.
True? The only math you provided is the Desolator's speed at the angle of attack and the turn time from the angle of attack of 45 degrees to 0 degrees, a straight line. I did not miss anything? So I took your math into account and even cited it as an example not once.
It turns out that you now either intentionally lied, or do not remember what he says about the problems with your memory. Which of these 2 options is truthful?
I proved that the 40 speed advantage on paper does not translate to being able to run away in practice. And you outright deny it with the same argument from the beginning, "200 speed vs 160".
It turns out that you now either intentionally lied, or do not remember what he says about the problems with your memory. Which of these 2 options is truthful?
See point above. You can't see the truth when it's almost literally spelled out to you. Not surprising that you start seing lies.
If mathematically the odds are about equal, then in reality the outcome of the battle depends on the skills of the players and microcontrol. But you are trying to highlight this fact, as if it affects negatively on your faction. What nonsense?) This shows only the skill of the players and nothing more. What you do is demagoguery.
This whole paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, it does not pertain to anything I wrote.
I see that you are compensating for the failure of your opinion with over-conceit. Considering how often you repeat this, you obviously have an inferiority complex. Please behave yourself.
No inferiority complex. Just a simple fact that idiocy does not realize its own folly. As you keep showing.
If you mean a board game, then we are not playing a board game with turn-based battles, this is RTS. We have discussed the comparison of weapons Macro against Lance as well as the ships of the Empire and Chaos, but not aircraft. Do not change the topic.
Aviation is a completely different topic, it should be considered not in a separate faction, but in a comprehensive manner in all factions.
In other words you wish for the faction and its void warfare lore to be completely remade in this game, because why? You say so?
Why not have strong points? As we found out, Chaos has damage over a long distance, has great speed. You again ignore the facts and make unsubstantiated statements.
No one found out such thing, anyone who tried playing a Chaos lance/carrier fleet will tell you that what you're stating here, is frankly BS.
Yes, you continue to ignore the facts again and again, for example, that Chaos has an advantage in range and speed.
Again, I repeat, the fact of the matter is that if the characteristics are equal in math, it all depends on the skill of the players. We found out that according to calculations Chaos has advantages, but you still continue to assert, even now, that Chaos is weak. How can he be weak, not inferior in the characteristics of the Empire, and even surpass him, and the circumstances in battle depends only on the skill of the players? This is absurd.
This is actually what you keep doing. The only calculations you bring up, are your dps charts. You fail to see how difficult it is for Chaos fleet to maintain its range, which I even proved to you mathematically. But you keep thick-headedly ignoring it, all the while accusing me of ignoring the facts. That is called hipocrisy.
The ships of Chaos are weak
With exception of brawl oriented ones, yes.
Ok, let's count. As we see, Chaos is even the better than Empire
No it isn't, you are literally the only one who gets such conclusion.
Mathematics is good, but the result of the battle depends on the conditions.
If you still don't understand my point about maths, then I can only conclude that you are simply stupid. I will tell this the very last time.
Maths results are good when you have properly taken into account enough conditions that your mathematical model illustrates the practical situation on the battlefield with enough accuracy. 2 stationary ships firing away at each other with no movements taken into account is good for an initial estimates of power, but include movement and the result changes. You can not comprehend this simple fact, therefore I will not be addressing this point further down.
Yes, the conditions depend on the skills of the players, so we found out that the ships of Chaos are not weaker, but in something stronger than the Empire, and the outcome of the battle depends only on the skills?
No. Conditions are mandated by strategy native to the given faction. Skill level of both players is always assumed to be equal in such discussions and I honestly have no idea why you're even bringing it up.
Not! Although the characteristics of the fleet of Chaos are strong, and the outcome of the battle depends on the player’s skill, therefore Chaos is still weak.
Never stated something like this. If anything it's the opposite. Currently even a skilled player will be handicapped when playing as Chaos.
Are you trying to insult me? You know, it does not offend me. Because when you write this nonsense, you insult yourself. If so rude you behave in life, I think you have no friends.
If you retrace this argument, you will find out that I was the one who wanted to keep this civil, it was you who were rude.
Both to me and Bosie. You refuse to acknowledge others' arguments, you outright reject the maths that someone else is presenting and you present a clear attitude of "I know better better than you, why should I bother considering your points".
Worst of all, you accuse others of the very things you are guilty of.
I read that you are making an unfounded statement, simply because you want to think so. You write "Math is good, BUT..." after your "BUT" you can say anything unreasonable. It looks like this: "The facts point to this, BUT I will think differently ignoring the facts"
The part after BUT was there to explain that maths represents whatever conditions you assume prior to making calculations, but the real practical situations are a lot more complex, and simplified maths does not always account for that. Certainly your maths doesn't.
Again, you fail at the basic skill of reading with comprehension.
Who is supposed to be? Are you supposed to? Are you a developer? Or did the developers tell you that nobody else knows?)
If, as you said, the creator assumed, then all the other ships simply did not exist or there would be a restriction on use, as with corvettes. The developers gave you the ships, and you can assemble any fleet that you want, this is only the player who decides. So any restrictions you have come up with yourself.
For the first part how about: Games Workshop?
For the second part, you say a player can assemble any fleet they want, but if they want to a assemble a typical long ranged focused Chaos fleet, how are they supposed to do so if those simply do not work at this point? There are no restrictions yeah. But every faction should have its strong and weak points, obviously encouraging the players to play to the faction's strong points, in this case (sigh...) long range, manoeuvrability and ordnance. But they are not strong points right now. Chaos is literally like a worse version of Imperial Navy atm.
This argument is moot if I've ever seen one.
You yourself just named another disadvantage of Macro in front of Lance)) So in reality, the frequency of hitting Macro will be less than what is indicated.
As for accuracy, and what do you want to say? Does the random give Macro any advantages over Lance? It does not give any advantages. If we assume that in one battle it was 70% on average, then in the next battle it will be 50%. And if you add up all the battles you are conducting, then the "Law of Large Numbers" will be used. This once again proves how you want to distort the facts, that would prove your opinion, which is not true.
And your point here? We don't know how exactly the "accuracy" parameter translates into the frequency of hits/misses. It may translate from accuracy straight into the frequency or not.
How is that me trying to distort the facts or prove my opinion, let alone it being a "disadvantage" of macros?
You're trying to change my questioning of how the macro accuracy works in the game into me somehow trying to enforce my opinion on lances. A question that was perfectly neutral and independent on our argument on lances.
I even explicitly included it in a separate post and just as explicitly stated I might be wrong with my observations.
And you dare accuse me of making meaningless, unsubstantiated statements? Ignoring the facts?
And where have I said that “matimatika does not mean anything”? It does. If it is applied correctly. And you always have to take into account that the relevancy of calculations is limited by your initial conditions, and how they pertain to practice.
Yet another case of you being incapable of understanding what is written right in front of your eyes. this is really getting ridiculous. You might want to consider going back to primary school.
I feel like I'm beating head against the wall.
So Desolator needs to turn and maneuver, but Retribution is not needed, very interesting. Maybe Retribution needs to turn off the guns and wait for you to attack him?)
I have already explained it. Clearly reading with comprehension is a skill you should work on.
You know, you act like a child who doesn't want to understand the other side.
This here is a part that sums up yourself pretty well. Think about it.
Why say not to use these ships? What is the artificial limitation? Is it not part of the Chaos fleet? Can you even say to play only destroyers and frigates? You whine that the ships of Chaos are weak, but tell me not to play for strong ships, you are again brilliant)
Because if one wants to play a macro brawling fleet, they might as well pick IN.
I will explain it for the last time. Chaos is supposed to be a long ranged, fast fleet with high focus on carriers supported by lances. It is how they were in the original Battlefleet Gothic, that is how they were in the first game, and that is how they're supposed to work according to the lore.
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the ships above, or even making whole fleets focused on them, there IS something wrong if they are the only viable ships on the roster.
And what percentage of hit should be? Do you think that it is more than the stated? Maybe the developers are lying?) I'm curious how you need to strongly want to prove that Macro imba, that you have already doubted the percentage of hits?) Well, according to your logic, suddenly the number of hits in reality is less?
Not according to "my logic", but according to simple logic.
If you dared to put just a little bit of thought into this, you'd find out that we're not playing a browser game and shots with their accuracy are not just RNG hit or not, and they are VERY unlikely to fall under the law of large numbers.
The in-game macros fire projectiles that have to actually fly and hit first before the damage is applied, they are not exactly pre-determined upon firing whether they hit or not. Because the ship can change trajectory for instance.
And if it doesn't, how is the target's geometry accounted for? Ships are not round targets, their cut-away is an ellipse, so the projectiles' accuracy will vary depending on the axis of their spread.
So how exactly the "accuracy" parameter translates into the frequency or hit/miss? Is it the starting parameter? Or is the starting parameter something else, non-linear and meticulously adjusted so that the given accuracy is actually the frequency of hits landed.
That's what I wanted to know. And I never said that the given accuracy does not translate into the frequency. That was my theory and my personal experience that I would love to get more information about.
But apparently I was foolish to think that your insight transcends simple multiplication and division, not to mention my wanting knowledge on the matter is a reason to laugh.
Anyway, I have no interest in curing your blindness, wasted enough time already. You can live in your imaginary world were lances in BFGA2 are overpowered. Numerous players out here agree that Chaos simply can not be played in its intended playstyle, it can not effectively kite its weapons damage output is insufficient to effectively deal with most other factions right now and carriers are overall on the weak side as of now.