[Playtesting & Feedback] USCGC Taney

Solo we will have to agree to disagree. I see the Taney at being a solid 7pt convoy escort, that's its role and how I playtested it. At 6 points it obsoletes other convoy escorts and the added +1 A/V is equivalent to Close Escort in my mind (especially since there are other units with CE, like the 7 point Arunta).

I agree that there are better ways of getting air placement and protecting your ships, but it changes your build completely and boxes you into a certain play style. The first of which would be to not use an auxiliary at all thus invalidating the entire discussion. In a standard 200 point battle, I whole heartedly agree that this (and many other units) would be a waste at either 6 or 7 points. However there are people that want convoy scenarios, this unit will help with those scenarios and at 7 points give them a choice of which unit to use without obsoleting other 5 or 6 point choices.

You are 100% right, there is no way that the Taney would complete with the Electra... THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES!

Elektra is great if the Auxiliary is already Crippled... the Taney's purpose is to take the first hit so it can't be crippled. It's like trying to compare Apples and Oranges here, they are both fruits (or Destroyers) but have two separate purposes. I've never had an Orange Pie before.

There is no Allied destroyer in the 7 point range with Guard the Convoy and this unit fills that niche and will out last the Ledbury and Vampire(at least in the playtests that I've done) which gives it the 1 point edge.

Keep in mind that against a Strength 6 attack the Taney has a 10% less chance to be hit and only a 3.5% chance to be vitaled (7% less than the Ledbury), so it will be around longer to absorb a second hit thus protecting the Auxilary it is with. Against a strength 8 attack the Ledbury will be vitaled 45% of the time compared to the Taney's 28%. This increase in survivability is worth the 1 point (.5/1%) of your build total in a 200/100 point game.

Here's the thing on Flag. In my experience... and yeah I've got a bit... you either want a VERY HIGH flag rating (Flotilla Leader, Carrier Leader or somesuch plus Flag 2... the higher the better)... OR you want a very LOW initiative (so you can use Smoke).

Flag-1 is a tweener. Is it useless? No. But often it can be a handicap. I got to believe RB gave all the "Bad Weather Fighter" cruisers "Flag 1" as a handicap/compensation for their benefit in smoke...

So you're taking a 7 point unit to guard a 3-4 point Auxiliary? Why not take 2 additional Auxs?

Pantera is perfect precedent for 6 points.

I can assure you that there is no pet nation or pet unit bias in this deck. I gotta say that I think this deck is taking as long as it is because we've had voices in opposition on pretty much every single unit and no one has demanded any sort of foolishness.

Really;; Br 810; Cam 141; Joffere; Painleve; Alsace; Clemenceau; Gascogne; the liberty with Bretagne;
       and all with a nation that lasted like a fart in a gale storm in WW2;
Not to mention Red vs Blue with French carriers, who has the advantage??? Especially with a switch hitter like France.
       I'll give you something i noticed about my recent thread with the P-38 cost; nobody that was on that team has ever said anything in
support of that unit; so what does that tell you?? maybe some squeaky wheels or people with a following get their way; thats never come up in Forum discussions??
       You can say all you want i wasn't born yesterday, so don't tell that this shit hasn't or doesn't go on.
For the most part this is not a big deal and with the people leading the way a lot of units have been done really well.
       I'm at at the age and state of mind were i can waddle though bullshit; no-one is going to tell me when a guy comes up with a unit like Hamp its not
his baby, let him run with it; never will everyone agree.

I can state very categorically that the P-38 was not the result of favoritism. (I personally was not a fan of including it in the first deck.) In fact, it was over costed (in most people's opinion anyway) because of extreme conservatism over its perceived power and ability. The first two decks were especially conservative with costing because we were much more afraid of making a game breaker than a bookmark. With some experience we finally eased up on that. I think we have done pretty well overall since deck 3. Not perfect, but much better. Not that we did horribly with the first two either.

Do individual devs have favorite units? Of course! We are human. And we have in fact tried very hard to include units that have been frequently requested or were a special unit to someone on the board or teams. But maintaining set unit balance has meant we can only do so many of those. The requests greatly exceed the number of cards we are making. Public nominations for this last deck included over 400 individual units. Impossible!

I will say that everyone that has participated in these card decks - including the whole board on choosing and feedback - has pushed for their unit/nations/style/cost/ability with the success of the overall project and game in mind. I have never seen anyone push for something that they thought would harm the game. We all just have many different opinions and experiences about what we would like to be in the game - and especially what we don't want in the game. I have seen that passion since the first WotC set units were revealed. Especially the "I won't play with that unit in the game" mentality. A lot of people quit the game when 1) miniature sculpts were repeated in the second set (the traditional metal wargaming crowd), 2) Graf Zeppelin was included in Set 2 (no fantasy units crowd), and then 3) when the Soviet's, Greeks, and Finland were introduced resulting in "wasted slots" (anti-minors crowd). Some want to add more complex (diversity) rules while others was KISS (admittedly my "crowd.")

I have never seen anyone that didn't have a genuine passion for their perspective and believe it would be good for the game. There is just no way to reconcile them all. Too many are direct opposites. We make compromises or exceptions and then they are cited as "precedents" later. It's amazing to me we have made it through this many decks. But through it all, I have never known anyone to intentionally try to make a pet unit or nation "the best in the game." Usually they just believed their favorite was below par and needed help. (Well, maybe the German crowd. ) Still, it is hard for any of us to be perfectly unbiased. That is why we have teams that are comprised of people with different points-of-view. And that is why there are compromises in some cases, and occasional deviations or drifting "over the line." (Depending on where you draw the boundary lines. And everyone has a different place they draw them.) It's very, very hard work. And it is guaranteed to leave everyone somewhat unsatisfied about something.

We have had dev team members accuse other members of trying to destroy the game or playing favorites when passions got too hot. (Can you imagine us getting too hot?) That is always the point where we have to stop and take a deep breath. Because we know nobody is intentionally trying to ruin the game. We just truly have different viewpoints and goals.