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

Originally posted by 12-7-gamer

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?



Just guessing for the team here. There is no historical context for this SA.

EDIT: Having trouble getting the "quote" right for Tee's post.

Originally posted by admiral_tee



A quote from Flak, previous thread on Temeraire :roll: :wink: :?:


Ergo:


Tee

Originally posted by Solomiranthius



I had a nice response to your post acknowledging my bluntness but begging pardon and hoping that the team can look beyond the few emotional comments to the significant substantive comments and analysis I have provided. It was brilliantly written. Then I was summarizing my statements about the cost difference. Then I hit the back button and lost everything. I'll retype the second, because, again, it is substantive and I hope can drive conversation. For the first, I'll summarize:



(that actually made me a little sick)

And "copy and paste," and moving on to type the substantive again!

I want to summarize the analysis a bit.

1) Flag 2 is routinely a 2 point SA on larger ships, comparing accurately priced units and based upon my experience in developing and playtesting units for past teams.

2) The team views Lion and Alsace as the closest comparisons for Damage Control.

3) Lion and Alsace are appropriately cost in comparison to similar units.

4) Lion without Flag 2 would be 58 points (60-2), Alsace without Flag 2 would be 64 points (66-2).

5) Temeraire is the same as Lion except for lacking Flag 2 and adding Damage Control.

6) The cost difference between a base Lion of 58 and Temeraire as proposed is 5 points (63-58).

7) Consequently, the team valued Damage Control at 5 points.

8) With or without Flag 2, the difference in cost between Lion and Alsace is 6 points.

9) Assuming all technical specifications between Lion and Alsace are equal (they are not), the cost of one hull point is 6 points.

10) Technical specifications between the ships are not equal.

11) Compared to Lion, Alsace has:
a) Mains which are:
i) Naturally equal at ranges 2 and 3; 1 dice worse at ranges 0 and 4;
ii) With Excellent Spotting, 1 dice better at ranges 2 and 3; 1 dice worse at ranges 0 and 4;
b) Seconds which are:
i) Range 3 compared to Range 2;
ii) Naturally, 1 dice better at ranges 0-2 and 5 dice better at range 3 (than 0);
iii) With Excellent Spotting, 2 dice better at ranges 0-2, and 6 dice better at range 3 (than 0);
c) Thirds which are:
i) True thirds capable of targeting the same ship as seconds (i.e., not BWG);
ii) Naturally, 1 dice worse at all ranges;
iii) With Excellent Spotting, equal at all ranges;
d) Extended Range 5 versus Extended Range 4;
e) Excellent Spotting (incorporated into analysis above)

12) The added benefit of Excellent Spotting boosts, range 3 seconds, true thirds, and ER5 is worth some type of cost increase.

13) This cost increase is likely between 1.5 and 3 points depending on how one views each item.

14) For the sake of argument, a 2 point cost increase is about average for these boosts combined.

15) The difference between Lion and Alsace attributable to hull is consequently 4 points (6-2=4).

16) Based upon my previous analysis, the general cost to add 1 hull point to a 5 hull ship (making it 6 hull) is about 3-6 points.

17) We feel hull 6 units in the game should cost more, but they do not. WotC set the precedent, we followed.

18) A 4 point difference between Lion and Alsace falls within the range of 3-6 for that 6th hull point.

19) Damage Control as assigned by the team is 5 points, which is greater than the 4 points actually seen between Alsace and Lion for the 6th hull point.

20) Damage Control the following chances of success based upon the number of rolls allowed:

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

21) Damage Control is only rolled at the end of a turn after all damage received that turn has been applied, and only to a ship with at least 1 hull point remaining.

22) Damage Control can only going to be attempted on turn 1 if Temeraire is attacked and damaged on turn 1.

23) Turn 1 damage is rare to battleships unless facing air, advanced deploying subs (or IJN subs), or ER6 shots from Gneisenau.

24) Assuming Temeraire is first damaged turn 2 (probably average), the game will have to last 5 turns--without Temeraire sinking during any of those rounds--to reach an 80% chance of success.

25) It is unusual for damage to be distributed by tactical players in a way that allows a battleship targeted for prime damage to remain in play four rounds. (In other words, targets are picked off one by one to eliminate ships--and returning damage--as fast as possible).

26) A typical battleship will be damaged and not sunk on average 2-3 turns in a game, equating to a 55-70% success rate for Damage Control. (E.g., 1 damage turn 2, 2 damage turn 3, 2 damage turn 4 = 5 damage and 2 rolls allowed; 2 damage turn 2, 1 damage turn 3, 1 damage turn 4 = 4 damage, and 3 rolls.)

27) A 55-70% success rate means Temeraire will act as a 6 hull in 55-70% of games, or is a 5.55-5.7 hull.

28) This is not a guaranteed extra hull as it relies on chance--it is uncertain.

29) Uncertainty carries risk and is often a discouraging factor in unit choice (think any Negative Special Ability).

30) Regardless, the cost of an extra hull point between Lion and Alsace is 4 points.

31) 55% of 4 points is 2.2 points. 70% of 4 points is 2.8 points. The average is 2.5 points.

32) Assuming the upper average of hull 6 cost (3-6, meaning a cost of 5) which is unsupported by comparison of Lion to Alsace, 55% of 5 points is 2.75 points. 70% of 5 points is 3.5 points. The average is 3.125 points.

33) ER4 usually has the greatest impact on turn 2, but may in certain circumstances be used turn 1 or turn 3 or later.

34) Damage received by Temeraire during the air attack phase will not be repaired until after the surface attack phase, so ER4 lost to air on turn 1 is lost for all of turn 1.

35) If Temeraire takes 2 damage the first turn it is damaged or before Damage Control is successfully rolled, it cannot recover ER 4. (Temeraire will still be damaged by at least 1 hull point).

36) The chance of any single roll for Damage Control succeeding is 33%.

37) To lose ER4 and gain it back at a useful time, Temeraire must:
a) lose only 1 hull point to damage at the time of the roll (end of turn);
b) make a 33% success roll at the end of a turn;
c) not take air damage during the next turn sea movement (mines) or air attack step; and,
d) be in a position to advantageously use ER4 the next turn during the surface attack phase (this requires both players moving ships in a manner allowing known ER4 coming into effect, and can be impacted by initiative, smoke, islands, or other SAs).

38) Any one of the above four conditions not being met prohibits a use of ER4.

39) It is unlikely all four conditions will be met.

40) Exact probabilities unknown, we know it is a less than 33% chance (the chance of the DC dice roll).

41) Assuming the chance of each other event is a high 70% average, the chance of all four conditions being met is 11%. If the chances of each other event drop to an average of 50%, the chance of all four conditions being met are 4%.

42) These events are not significant enough to factor into a cost increase.

43) A cost of 3 points for the SA Damage Control is on the upper end of averages from #31-32 above.

44) 58+3=61

45) Temeraire should cost 61 points.

-------

If anyone finds substantial flaws with any of the statements above, please share and factually why they are inaccurate.

Originally posted by Raevski

(in response to Solomiranthius) can I have a go over the weekend. Their are several points I wish to point out. Your analysis is solid but very limited to 2 ships, I usually use around 6 and ships that we stated by Wotc not our cards. Our cards have moved the goal posts.

Originally posted by Solomiranthius

I think the main point we need to acknowledge is despite our feelings on the subject of hull 6, WotC did not assign much of an increase in cost to the hull point. So we should not be assigning an equal or greater increase in cost to an SA that is not nearly as good as an additional hull point.

Originally posted by Brigman

There's such a desperate desire to make this a "wow" unit. Lion herself was the "wow" unit. Not enough? Then build the N3 or G3. This unit was, IMO, an excuse to bump the class limit on Lion to 2. I don't support buffing her up over Lion *and* making her only 1 point more expensive.

Some disagree, but a Flag-0 BB has great utility with Smoke, and is almost equal in utility to a Flag-2 BB in that sense.

Originally posted by Toronado3800

"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. "

This got my attention.

I have a couple almost random points.

-I don't know exactly how many points this unit should be.

-Don't repeat past mistakes in this or any other unit out of reverence to me or anyone.

-Is there is a possibility the costing of hull 6 units was done intentionally or with a smaller average point value game and some random night rules in mind?