Costing is tricky when adding such a useful survival SA to an already high value unit.
Hull 5 + Damage Control does have the advantage of potentially maintaining ER4 for another turn over Hull 6.
However it does otherwise fall short of an actual additional hull point of course. While sustaining a hit early will maximise your chances of a successful Damage Control, you could easily only get a couple of chances to roll, or none at all if you get hit repeatedly in a single turn. Here's the odds of a successful Damage Control :
I think this shows some of the British Tenacity very well... think about it, you hit this with an early shot causing it a point of damage that removes the ER... only to have it repaired and hit you next round from ER4. If that's not a definition of stubborn, I don't know what is.
Now before you get all up in arms, I realize that you only have a 30% chance on the first turn to get the ER4 (and hull point) back... but it's the ONLY battleship in the game to have it (so far). That also becomes a rather big feather in the British fleets cap.
I do agree that it is a point higher than it should be, compare to HMS Lion (T:L) Flag0<Flag2, DC>nothing
In all honesty, I think the point cost should be 62. Look at the cost comparisons on Cruisers/Carriers that have DC compared to others in the class... most are only a point higher. Granted, they are also typically a third to a quarter of the points of this unit (thus my rationale of 2 points higher than the Lion).
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).
12 point difference between the two ships. Here I am acknowledging that Mass is a brutal ship at 56 but I am not changing the cost. Across the board 1 dice main increase is probably 2-2.5 points, the AA increase to 9 is 1-2 points, Flag 2 is 1-2 points, the vital armor increase from 14 to 15 is probably 2 points). That's a 6 point low end, 8.5 point high end increase in non hull stats between Mass and Iowa. Making the added hull about a 4 point low end, 6 point high end increase again.
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:
(Hornet card not loading; it is the same stats as Yorktown w/ only EB2, and Embark B-25, at 22 points)
The Expert SAs are probably about equal between Enterprise and Yorktown (ED2 + EB1 = ED1 + EB2). 8 AA and Flag 2 > 7 AA and no Flag. So WotC may be saying DC is about equal to Survivor.
If you take Expert Bomber from Yorktown, you probably drop the cost to 22, the same as Hornet. It seems then that Embark (an SA that cannot be more than 1 point) and Damage Control are given about the same cost. ~1 point.
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.
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).
That post above is all the long analysis, for those not willing to read it here is the short:
If you look only at this table:
it is crazy to imagine, argue, or defend that Temeraire, lacking the Flag 2 of both Lion and Alsace, lacking the range 3 seconds and true thirds of Alsace, lacking ER5 of Alsace, lacking the main boost of Alsace (due to ES granted) and having maybe 5.5 hull is somehow exactly between the two ships in cost. It is far closer to Lion than to Alsace--again 60-61 points.
Edit--and again--the chance to both gain back ER4 (Temeraire having only 1 hp of damage at the end of a turn) and being able to use ER4 rather than having a main target at range 3 or less is so small the argument is a red herring. (See the long argument for that analysis.)
I would not argue with a 61 point cost max, although I still feel this is probably high. I disagree that even 62 is warranted (which goes into my analysis). 63 is ludicrous.
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.
If a unit is cost fair, then it will be used. If a unit is overpriced, it will not be used. I have never argued for undervaluing a unit to get it on the table. I always push for as fair and accurate a cost as possible considering game impact and existing unit cost.
So I am not sure what you hate about my post(s), because nothing in it (them) suggests that I am trying to undervalue the unit.
The post quoted above is accurate--the team has demonstrably overreacted to Damage Control and priced Temeraire out of play-ability.
The Team's initial proposal with Stalwart had Temeraire at 59-60 points. It's probably fair to assume that meant the team was valuing Stalwart as a 1-2 point SA, which supports Flag 2 on Lion being about 2 points.
So let's take Flag 2 off of Lion and Alsace, recost them accordingly, and compare to Temeraire.
that we're going to have a unit that costs more than Lion and is not used...
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?
What I was saying is I doubted DC was really worth more than Lion. Nevertheless, as I said, I could see 61 points max.
Whether a unit is used or not is irrelevant, but I get your point.
So, it does not matter if we overcost a unit so it is not playable? That makes no sense. We are making a deck of cards that will be used. This is not a scenario piece or something with a unique benefit in certain situations. It is a pretty straightforward battleship that will be used like all the other pretty straightforward battleships. It should be cost accurately.
As stated above, the 17/17/16/14 mains in the abbreviated spreadsheets are extrapolations based upon SAs so we can remove much of the clutter (just like BWG is not true thirds, but is included in the statline for tertiary gunnery). Most of the time Excellent Spotting is going to be in play. Sometimes it is not. But in analyzing cost comparisons, I took into account that those scores are a result of ES, and rounded down in my estimate of cost comparisons.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it certainly rankles me when people's opinions are not supported by any evidence or argument. I posted my analysis of the cost. Just look at the spreadsheet without Flag 2 and answer this question:
Are the following improvements over Temeraire worth only one point difference: better mains at range 1 and 2, big range 2 seconds, true thirds, Extended Range 5, and a true 6th hull point?