Transferring thread - please don't post here (Temeraire)

Originally posted by admiral_tee

More British Turtle than British Bulldog?

Originally posted by admiral_tee

I gotta admit guys, it's disheartening to see that this is the result of ~6 weeks of work from the committee, even acknowledging that there are many other cards to work on.

I know that this card is (was?) the subject of a lot of debate. Has a straight SA swap plus 3-4 points settled the debate?

Has the committee settled for this being an improvement over the first iteration and their end vision of what is likely to be the apex of British battleship technology in War At Sea?

It's more British Settler than British "Churchill-esque" Bulldog Sad

Tee
<edited a couple times, sorry>

Originally posted by Solomiranthius

Ship Comparison Tables



Top chart has all the ship info.
Bottom chart has identical information removed and SAs extrapolated into the stats.
E.g., Excellent Spotting boosts damage across all attacks (high likelihood of happening even if not 100% of time); Near Miss made into a .5 additional HP (probably underestimate as Near Miss may block a LL or a vital); Damage Control into a .5 additional HP (probably about average for number of rolls likely able to be made in a game); BWG shown as a third attack even though it must target a different ship than seconds.

Alabama is thrown in for consideration although is not discussed below. Near Miss > Damage Control.

Figuring out the cost of a general increase from 5 to 6 hull points

For starters, it is universally acknowledged that Richelieu is the best bang for your buck battleship and probably undercost by a point or two. Assuming 56 points, that is a 10 point difference between the two ships. The across the range 1 dice main increase is probably 2 points, the AA increase to 8 is 1-2 points, and Flag 2 is probably 1-2 points. Low end is a 4 point increase for non-hull differences; high end is a 6 point increase for non-hull differences. Meaning the added hull point is probably between 4 and 6 points of increase.

You get similar "hull math" between 56 point Massachusetts and 68 point Iowa (note point increases for stat differences tend to grow a bit when you get into really large AA and Gunnery values).



Comparing Lion's cost to similar units

Lion comes in at 60 points which tends to feel a little high unless compared only to UK ships. Regardless, it is what we have as the most direct comparison for Temeraire.

i) Lion's mains are slightly better than Richelieu (w/ ES) and slightly worse than Alsace (w/ ES) - +1 pts v. Richelieu (rounded up b/c ES must be used); -.5 pts v. Alsace (rounded down b/c ES must be used)
ii) Lion's seconds are significantly worse than the range 3 seconds of Richelieu and Alsace (w/ or w/o ES). -1 point v. Richelieu and Alsace
iii) Lion's thirds are Bristling, so while the same die amount as Richelieu and Alsace (w/ ES), they are more limited. I will call this a wash b/c thirds are often used w/o the ES advantage. However, it could easily be argued that true thirds, regardless of dice value, are worth 0.5 or more points. Still, for now, +/- 0
iv) Richelieu and Alsace have ER5 rather than ER4. -.5 pts v. Aslace and Richelieu
v) Lion shares Alsace's Flag 2. +1-2 pts v. Richelieu; +/- 0 v. Alsace.
vi) Lion has AA8. +1-2 pts v. Richelieu; +/- 0 v. Alsace
vii) I am not considering Alsace hull yet--see below

Assuming Flag 2 and AA 8 are each worth 2 points, that balances out to Lion being about a 3.5 point better ship than Richelieu. With Richelieu at 56 points, that's about right. It may be in the ballpark.

Compared to Alsace (w/o considering hull) using the points above, Lion should cost about 2 points less than a 5-hull Alsace. Meaning, again, the extra hull Alsace has is about a 4 point boost (2+4=6, 6 being the cost difference between Alsace and Lion).

So far looking ok for Lion.

No Damage Control Temeraire cost analysis

Temeraire comes in. It is Lion except it loses Flag 2 and gains Damage Control.

Let us ignore Damage Control for now. Taking the above assumptions, this base Temeraire would be 58 points (maybe 59--this is Lion minus Flag 2; i.e. 60 points minus 1-2 points, probably 2).

The team is somehow assuming that Damage Control is a 5 point SA (maybe 4). (63-58=5)

Damage Control value

Again, the Team assumes Damage Control is a 5 point SA.

Now I will not dispute that Damage Control is probably more valuable on a battleship than a carrier. But for a quick analysis:



But it is certainly not worth the same cost as an entire hull point from 5 to 6 hull.

6 hull does:

a) give you a guaranteed 6 hull points (duh), and
b) mean you can have 5 points of hull damage at the end of a turn and still float (duh).

Damage Control does not:

a) guarantee you 6 hull points, or
b) allow the ship to have 5 points of hull damage at the end of a turn and not sink.

Turning to (a), Shinnetai gave the percentages I previously posted.

1 roll : 33%
2 rolls: 55%
3 rolls: 70%
4 rolls: 80%

But this does not correlate to Turn 1, Turn 2, Turn 3, etc. Each roll can happen at the end of a turn in which Temeraire has hull damage but has not incurred 5 total hull damage. Unless facing an air build targeting Temeraire, you are probably looking at not having damage until at least Turn 2. Assuming Temeraire makes it to the end of Turn 3 still floating, that gives you a 55% chance of repairing damage.

In my experience, good players (who are not trying for hail mary vitals) pick off battleships one by one (rather than spreading the damage) and, if targeting Temeraire, will certainly want to concentrate attacks thereon. Getting 3 or 4 rolls in is going to occasionally happen, but rarely--especially against 1943 IJN battleship guns and longlances (although KM sub torps and Italian air/surface/sub torps are quite good too). Again, to get 3 or 4 rolls, this probably means Temeraire has not taken 5 HP of damage by the end of turns 4 or 5 respectively. As a prime target, Temeraire surviving that long (and the game not otherwise ending) is going to be rare.

So, most often Damage Control will probably have a 55-70% chance of kicking in during a game. (Assuming damage on turn 2, and still afloat at end of turn 3 and 4).

Debunking the red herring ER4 argument

Shin argues that Damage Control may give you back ER4--but for this to matter, Temeraire can only take 1 HP of damage and then, the following turn, be in a position where having ER4 actually matters.

The chance of both of these events happening (only 1 HP of damage at the end of a turn; ER4 to come into play the next turn) are quite small in typical objective rush matches. Most often this may be from Turn 1 damage moving into Turn 2, so even there, under ideal circumstances, you are looking at a maximum 33% chance of this happening. Circumstances are rarely ideal. Usually you are looking at having two or more damage on a key battleship by the end of turn 2, and ER4 not even close to mattering on Turn 3.

So the argument you can get back ER4 and that should factor into the cost by any measurable amount is a red herring.

Cost of the Team's Damage Control versus the cost of gaining a full hull point

So what does this mean for cost? Again:

1) The Team is costing Damage Control as about a 5 point SA, and,
2) Most measurable increases from 5 hull to 6 hull are about 4-6 points.

In other words, the Team is costing Damage Control equal to or, most likely in comparison to the closest ships, greater than the cost of an actual 1 point hull increase!

This is where they are "out of their flipping minds."

True cost of Temeraire

At best, assuming 55-70% chance, one could argue the SA should cost 55-70% of a full hull point increase. But that again ignores (b) from way above--that a natural 6 hull can end a turn with 5 HP of damage--Temeraire cannot. With the random chances and risk, Damage Control should be about half the cost of a full 1 hull point increase.

That is, at most, 2-3 points for Damage Control (assuming the 4-6 point cost increase demonstrated above).

Assuming the base cost of 58 (from above) this is putting Temeraire at 60-61 points max.

63 is indefensibly punishing the UK based upon who knows what reasoning going on in the team (clearly a strong dislike of anything interesting).

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

ER4, Torpedo Defense, Bristle and Damage Control? Those are pretty good SA's in my opinion, especially the last two. If the cost is high, and I'm not saying it is, it isn't off by much.

That .5 additional Hull point is worth more than a point or two, especially on this ship. The more I think about it, I agree with the cost of 63, not lower than 62.

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

My concern isn't that it may not be used, but it be given a cost that is fair as possible. I hate seeing posts like this that seem to look for a cost that may make the unit more usable. That should be avoided.

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

Well, all I can say is you did say:



It's obvious that you don't think this unit should cost more than Lion, I get that, but I just cringe when I read that a unit will not be used as a reason to consider for its cost. Whether a unit is used or not is irrelevant, but I get your point.

I agree with Shin's statement, this one is hard to cost with Damage Control. My opinion is, I agree with the team on this one, the good probability of adding 1 Hull point on a unit like this is worth more than Flag 2.

Btw, my copy of the spreadsheet lists the Alsace Main Guns as 16-16-15-13. Is there an error in my copy?