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

Originally posted by Solomiranthius

Just another post about the value of increase from 5 hull to 6 hull.

Take Lion (60) v. Soyuz (67)

Lion to get it to Soyuz level.

Soyuz has:
similar main gunnery (only difference is range 0) (+/- 0)
better, range 3 seconds (+1 = 61)
no thirds (-1 = 60)
10 armor (+2 = 62)
16 vital (+2 = 64)
Bad Weather Fighter (consistently valued the same as Flag 2 so this is a wash) (+/- 0 = 64)
Flag 1 (not worth a point) (+/- 0 = 64)
ER 4 (same) (+/- 0 = 64)

What is left? Extra hull point. 67-64 = 3 points for the extra hull point.

Even if you disagree with some of the assigning of points above (should be +1 rather than +2, and that's hard to argue each should be that), you are looking at a 3-5 point cost for the extra hull point. Damage Control should not be equal to or greater in cost than an extra hull point. At best it should be around half the cost.

EDIT: Or take Nagato to Musashi



I think the big issue is that people feel that the increase from hull 5 to hull 6 should be a lot of points. Therefore they feel that Damage Control should also be a lot of points. The problem is, what people feel is not consistent with how the game has been designed by WotC or followed by us with our new hull 6 ships.

Granted, Hull 6s are undercost. WotC undercost almost all of their hull 6s. The cost has been set. So, we have to follow the precedent or else we screw over nations getting new Hull 6s. And we have followed the precedent for other hull 6s.

What we should not do is somehow make the United Kingdom pay for the way things are by making a Hull 5.5 ship cost as much or more than a Hull 6 just because someone feels it should be more. The data says cost from similarly situated hull 5 to similarly situated hull 6 is 3-6 points.

Damage Control should be about half of that. 1.5 on the low end and 3 points on the high. Again, that makes Damage Control Temeraire a 60-61 point unit.

It is, again, why Alabama seems to work so well on the cost scale to have it be only a 2 point jump over Massachusetts, even if people may feel it should not have been made. It ends up not being an issue for the price.

Originally posted by Solomiranthius

Not true. And yes, I will dispute any erroneous cost.

One point or two points makes a difference in this game.

Rodney 58 v. Nelson 59
Vittorio 49 v. Roma or Littorio 50
Washington 56 v. North Carolina 58
King George 51 v. Duke of York 52
Bismarck 53 v. Tirpitz 55
Arkhangelsk 40 v. Royal Oak 41

Not many of the former are taken over the latter. An incorrect cost of a point even on the upper end can make the difference between using a ship and not. Because no matter where on the cost spectrum a unit falls, a unit that does not carry the weight for its cost will not be used.

Now, when all we had was Set 1, and all we had was a couple options for battleships with wildly differing costs/abilities, one incorrect point may not make a difference. But that is no longer the case--we have plenty of units with which to weigh taking a new unit. Units that are incorrectly cost are not used except by people playing with homespun rules about class limits, or using one of each ship before repeats, or scenarios.

And Temeraire is not a scenario piece. It is a fantasy ship designed to be used, because the people who are using it are playing the game, not recreating the war.

Also, I am not sure why 60 is being thrown out? You have yet to dispute any of the factual evidence here about the cost of the extra hull for a hull 6 versus the benefits/disadvantages of Damage Control. DC = hull 6. The cost of DC should not equal the cost of hull 6. Hull 6 cost is 3-6 points. To get even to 61 points you have to assume the hull 6 cost is always 6 points or close to 6 points, or damage control will always have an 80% chance of success. Neither is true.

61 is by all measurable means the "compromise" value rather than necessarily the true value. 62 is as silly as 63.

Originally posted by Solomiranthius

I am passionate about evidence based costing.

Which is why I dismiss unsupported thoughts and feelings.

Also, a lot of people care about getting it right.

Originally posted by Flakstruk

I think people are looking for unuts ti get excited about, in that context 1 point is a big deal, i turns a good unit, into a hot exciting ine. Even if it makes little difference in the grand scheme of things

Originally posted by admiral_tee



There are many BB's, disregarding comparative values to a Lion BB, that have 2 flavour SA's.

OFFICIAL
Haruna – Ev Bombs, Bombard
POW – Op Salvo, Jammed Mount (neg SA)
Okt Rev – Shore Support, Unmask Guns
Schl Holstein – Early Deploy, Shore Support
Moltke – Sprint, Hvy Raider

FORUMINI SHIPS
South Dakota – BWG, Covering Fire, Power Failure (neg SA)
Roberts – Coastal Deploy, Batt Silencer
Tanigawa – LL Torps, AA Barrage
Soerabaia – Coastal Deploy, Installation Guard, Reinforcements 2
Duke of York – BWG, Jammed Mount (neg SA), Crippling Salvo
Op Catapult Hood – Chase, BB Leader
Bretagne – ES, Remember
Kilkis – Guard Ship, Inactivity

We're not really breaking new ground here.
I mean, we're not asking the team to remake past mistakes like the "Franken-AugScharn" or the "I can't believe you let this through-abama".

A couple discussion points:
1) How much would a Stalwart and Damage Control Temeraire cost?
2) SA idea, first draft:
British Bulldog: This unit does not suffer the effects of being crippled.

Identifies with the unrivaled fighting tradition of the Royal Navy, British Bulldog style, rather than settling for a British Settler...

Tee

Originally posted by Flakstruk

A combination of SA is not going to get support on the team. Sorry, thats the way it is.

So thing is now to make sure the single SA we are going to use is the right one. For me thats not DC however, id rather an ability which has a narrow, but significant utility.

Going rogue,
As i suggested previously Chase the Salvos might be worthy of consideration, in selective circumstances more powerful than DC but meaningless outside of them. Draws on the same conjectural justification as DC with regards the royal navys experience and spirit.

There are probably others, or a modifications of others that would suit

Originally posted by admiral_tee



Flak - thanks for completely disregarding the second discussion point whilst not humouring a conjecture on the first. The two can be considered separate... perhaps that wasn't clear.
SA idea bolded in case it was missed, hey?