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

Originally posted by war at sea 4

Just a couple of thoughts from me;

For the few units this Teams leadership decided to allow the Forums input;; and the input on this unit was not outrageous or bogus, it was fair minded and substantial;; they can't seem to get over the fact maybe they don't get it.
Damage Control; the remarks by Shin bewildered me "Costing is tricky when adding such a useful SA to an already high Value unit"
It never seem to affect all the other units with Damage Control to their peers. All types of units are needed to make a balanced and playable game; wether done by number values or unit value to the build this effect should be across the board.
True they went into a new area but so have other Teams.
Losing Flag 2 and adding DC is like a 5 point swing; where this number comes from compared to its usage with other units is ridiculous. There are 6 point hulls in this game some people have to get over it.
Personally I think both proposals have failed to do game wise what most want to see in the last attempt at a UK BB that can compete with the German 6 pt Hulls.
It looks to me you've took the closest thing to Lion; Alsace and split the difference.

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

I confess I haven't researched this ship, but I don't know if a super BB is warranted. Is that the goal here, like the Montana or the Tsushima?

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

No I'm not trying to needle you or get under your skin. If I am, my apology. Where we are disagreeing is where there are no statistics to use for comparison. But, I don't think it matters if a unit is playable or not, just get the cost right is all I ask. With this SA, it is difficult.

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer



Not trying to belabor the point here, but case in point is the Shinano. The cost is 31 and there is debate that it should be as low as 28 points. Okay, even at 28 points it is hard to bring a 3 CAP CV with Replenish Aircraft, Poor Facilities 3 and lacking any boost to its attack aircraft in a CV battle. That is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to point fingers as I think Solo believes (perhaps you) and I'm not claiming an attempt to nerf a unit.

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

I just read the other thread on this unit. I guess my question is, just what exactly did you guys expect with this unit? I'm not sure this is about a point or two. It seems you guys were expecting something else with this unit. As I asked earlier, were you expecting the Montana or the Tsushima? What gives?

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

Hey look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, it was offered as an honest question. I should clarify, I didn't read every post and study them in detail from the other thread. I did a quick scan. However, you said you thought it was more a British Turtle than British Bulldog. It appears you were looking for something better. What did you have in mind? If you made your case in the other thread, I don't want you to rehash it here if you don't want to, but it does appear you are very dissatisfied by reading your comments. It appears you are objecting to just a change in SA's and desire something more.

Originally posted by Solomiranthius



For the record, I am saying it is overcost by 2-3 points.

----

As tee said, I am not going to rehash the "this is not going to be nor sought as a counter to hull 6s" comments I have made. I wanted Damage Control + Stalwart. I still believe that is not as overblown as the team thinks it is--(and I can see why the team seems to erroneously think it is if they believe Damage Control is a 5 point SA, especially as compared to the cost of adding an extra hull which is between 4-6 points). I would prefer Tee's suggestion but I am discussing what we have been given.

So, between the two proposals the team has offered, I prefer just Damage Control to just Stalwart. However, the cost has to accurately reflect what Damage Control means. I can see 60 or 61 points argued fairly. No more. If the Team is worried that people will take Temeraire more often than Lion at 60, then cost it at 61.

Again, the ER4 argument is a red herring. It will rarely happen in a way actually advantageous to using ER4. Opponents worried about this will target a different battleship with Turn 1 air, surface or sub shots. However, in a very small percentage of games it may work out that one point of damage is restored, ER4 is regained, and ER4 is used. This, however, is not going to be enough times to have any impact on the cost--the benefit is negligible.

Again, unlike an automatic SA like survivor, near miss, tenacity, determination, etc., Damage Control may never have a chance to come into play. One battleship hit and two long lances will sink an undamaged Temeraire (whereas only crippled a 6-hull).

It seems like the team is expecting Temeraire to always take no more than one damage a turn starting on turn 1, so it ends up having at least 4 DC rolls a game. That's unlikely to happen (and, frankly, shouldn't if playing smart).

Again, Alabama with Near Miss. That SA also "gives back ER4" (by never letting it be removed, but the difference is a matter of semantics--so we've seen this before, many times). I have not seen that ship ruining games--it just presents different strategies. That was a 2 point SA and it allows Alabama to be anything from a 5 hull to a 10 hull (blocks a vital shot; blocks a multiple LL hit; etc.). You don't have to wait until the end of a turn to try to use it--it is automatic the first time. The chance of success is always 50%, but, as just stated, the impact can be far greater.

Damage Control < Near Miss.