My idea for new FSA units from KS Admiral of the fleet.

[tank0625]

31 minutes ago, Erloas said:

I think the real life plan had them trained to disable the mines safely. Although I suppose a d6 roll when attempting can let you know how well they did, does it clear without effect and the dolphins are free to try some more, or does it explode taking the dolphins with it.

There are probably several reasonable options for a unit like that. Loaded with mines, clear mines, block torpedoes, counter to aquatic boarders (big boost to cc in effect).

Probably don't want them to do all of that but options to think about. Maybe pick what type at deployment, have to be trained for a specific task so can't do it all.

 

At least with clearing mines and blocking torpedos, you can just give them CC.  

[tank0625]

32 minutes ago, hyde1352 said:

If the unit in question is a medium, then you can still design a small, or another medium to compliment the first.  So a medium support cruiser designed around, let's say, above average AA/CC with combat coordinator (FSA, 12", sustained fire AA+CC[1]) and guardian generator (2, 8", 1) with two volley gun turrets like the Augusta, in a squad of 1-2.  The next unit could be a medium sub-tender like the Australian unit, with a single heavy volley (rules in 2.0 say they can link) and a squadron support (turtle, 4), with attachment one and another combat coordinator (FSA, 8", hunter[surface, secondary, +1]).  Make one a submarine, I wouldn't, but up to you.  Now you have two support units, with a pretty scary synergy.

 

FYI-don't do this, it's not kosher.

 

Copy

[hyde1352]

And paste.

[tank0625]

21 minutes ago, tank0625 said:

At least with clearing mines and blocking torpedos, you can just give them CC.  

 

How about a medium class sub squadron with torpedos and dolphin tender.  The dolphins can be sent out to attack subs or mine fields. 
 

[tank0625]

4 hours ago, tank0625 said:

 

How about a medium class sub squadron with torpedos and dolphin tender.  The dolphins can be sent out to attack subs or mine fields. 
 

 

Or how about Dolphin robots.

[Reacher]

Alright let's see what I can chime in here.  

 

Unless the "heavy volley guns" are pretty weak individually. They would have to be expensive cruisers to mount 3 of them. As a squad of 3 would potentially have 6. Best bet would just mount one heavy turret with a small sustained value.  

Give it a slightly AA/CC bump. Your attachment (1, Naval). 

Dont like the idea of a guardian on a medium. But it could just simply have a shield/kinetic.  

As far as what else give it combat coordinator ideas are pretty numerous 

boost primary guns

boost secondary guns

boost rockets

boost boarding

boost defensive stats as/cc

 

 

I like the torp heavy sub. FSA has very few torp capable units and could use the option.  

 

[hyde1352]

Does the FSA need an ordinance boost, when they have high AD across the board, sustained fire, and Punishing Gunnery?  

As for torpedo sub, okay, something new to the FSA as only one unit has torps.  But there are only three diving hunters, and one of them is the torpedo SAS.  It sounds like an FSA torpedo sub is a repurposed vanguard.  It's new, but how does it add to the nations wartime flavor?

This isn't to say I'm against, I'm asking so this idea can be worked out.

[tank0625]

I'm getting the feeling that most think FSA doesn't need more units? 

 

 

[hyde1352]

The core nations really don't need new units.  Now it's just upgrading old units, making replacements, or making custom units to add flavor.  Ignore the naysayers and have some fun.  After all has been said and ideas posted, it's going to be the pledgers design anyway.  I have stated what I'd like to see, so has everyone else on this thread.

Dream big, have fun, relax, and don't be afraid to steal other nations equipment.

[tank0625]

5 hours ago, hyde1352 said:

The core nations really don't need new units.  Now it's just upgrading old units, making replacements, or making custom units to add flavor.  Ignore the naysayers and have some fun.  After all has been said and ideas posted, it's going to be the pledgers design anyway.  I have stated what I'd like to see, so has everyone else on this thread.

Dream big, have fun, relax, and don't be afraid to steal other nations equipment.

Thanks

[Erloas]

16 hours ago, tank0625 said:

I'm getting the feeling that most think FSA doesn't need more units?

I think the general consensus overall is that the core nations are pretty well set.  There might be a few things here and there that people are wish-listing, but even with that there aren't any real big gaps.

To me, the point of that pledge level isn't to give a nation another "normal" model.  If they were missing anything obvious there is a good chance Spartan would be doing it sooner or later anyway.  So this is to push some attention on some minor group that you happen to love and want it to get more attention, and/or to do something new, something different, something that Spartan isn't likely to do on their own.  To nudge focus or a specific idea in the direction you would like to see things go.  If you love the FSA, rather than giving them something normal, find something different and cool, but still fitting in with their style, and do that.

[roadkizzle]

The FSA were lacking at least a medium naval model.

They received an Aerial battle group when other nations got a flexible naval box.

Unless you convince your opponent to play an Air Core this is largely useless because the 40% non-Core limits them.

 

Until the Kickstarter the naval mediums all are just sliding along a scale. They are the same ship just the guns are slightly more powerful for slightly more points.

 

That's why I want a new cruiser type. Something to allow a fleet to have actual options.

[Reacher]

In the end I don't have a problem with any nation getting more models.  Because I play. 

If you play FSA and want your model to be FSA. Then by all means do it. I'd welcome it as I play them too. 

Don't change your mind just cause what someone else said on the internet. It's big and full of bullies in some places. 

The alliance nation will get love.  Eventually. 

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa]

It's why I suggested amphibious medium/small tanks. It fills a "gap" in the fleet by providing a theme. Everyone wants either a ship (most people play Naval) or an aircraft (because they want something that works in both Armoured and Naval games). The current "uselessness" of the Washington makes players forget that there is an extra option. Also, background-wise, why wouldn't they have different sized amphibious tanks? If they have a battleship-sized one already, they would have started small and worked their way up.

[roadkizzle]

Well it's much harder to have smaller vessels being seaworthy. Massive ships have a lot of bouancy and inertia so they aren't affected as much by waves and current. 

In WW2 they were able to make amphibious tanks to navigate calm lakes but they just sank trying to cross the rough English channel.

 

They may struggle to get tanks smaller than the Washington to float.

But the bigger problem is the design difference between the armored and naval theatres. The Armored models are significantly more costly than their stats suggest.

 

Take a comparison between the Annapolis and Landslip. The Annapolis has more firepower, and is almost as tough for 30 fewer points then the Philadelphia. 

 

If Reno's were amphibious would you use them in Naval games? Princeton's cost 5 more points. Have the same turrets but Sustained Fire, 1 higher CR, 1 more HP, Rockets, Kinetic or Shield Generator, and higher Auxiliary stats.

Will the medium amphibious models be balanced for the Armored game? They'll be underpowered for Naval games and unused.

Will they be balanced for Naval games? They'll be overpowered for Armoured games and the Trenton and Jackson will be unused. 

[Sebenko]

Hopefuly 2.5 will address the balance between theatres.

[hyde1352]

That's if they don't do changes for 2.5.  We don't know for sure what "will" happen to the stats.  Until then, its a game, based in a steam punk alternative reality of the 1870s, with strange otherworldly junk....so why not?  And if the multipurpose(that's the rule, not amphibious) small unit is a path chosen, can still make another unit.

Thought from awhile back:  Why does multipurpose have to be an armoured/land model anyway?  Why not a non-skimmer cruiser that uses the covenant like screws to work on land?

[roadkizzle]

I don't think it really matters whether a multipurpose model would be a ship with land propulsion or a watertight tank with water propulsion.

 

Both of them move between water and land. Both would depend on the theater they are balanced for. If they costed the Washington 100 points it may be worthwhile in a naval battle.

A cruiser with wheels or a floating tank would have the same rules created for them. The difference is purely aesthetic and fluffy.

I think it would make more sense for the FSA to go the same route as they did with the Washington... But actually well designed and balanced.

[tank0625]

What do you think about a heavy battleship skimmer? Basing it on the WWII USS Wisconsin.

[Veldrain]

1 minute ago, tank0625 said:

What do you think about a heavy battleship skimmer? Basing it on the WWII USS Wisconsin.

The current battleships and dread are just carbon copies of each other, with more AD  for the extra cost.  Even with the new heavy volleygun Mississippi nothing major separates them from each other.

Is your idea for a skimmer going to be more of the same? Will it have something else that makes it standout other than being to stand on islands?

I'm not criticizing yet, just curious about your complete idea for the ship.

[roadkizzle]

Would the Enterprise be based on the Iowa class battleships? 

They were just battleships with 2 Fore and 1 Aft primary turrets and secondary weapon systems.

What would you take from the Iowa class battleship that would make for a unique FSA battleship?

Also why skimming? That doesn't seem to fit with anything else the FSA have. Every other FSA ship is based on ACW ironclads or the Hunley submarine adding a random skimmer doesn't make sense to me. 

[hyde1352]

Why skimming you ask?  Because they can.  Doesn't need to make sense, especially at this point.

[tank0625]

Now I'm just throwing out ideas. How about a skimmer sub or a medium, small class robot dolphins or diving small class flyer?

[Erloas]

What about a diving tank?  Rocket/torpedo turret.  Can't surface at all.  Drives on the bottom of the ocean, can drive up onto land.  They load rockets into into the turret when on land and torpedoes when they submerge.  Would have to have Reinforced Bulkheads MAR, always considered deep diving when in the water.  Maybe even can't be boarded or board, although with only aquatic assaults being able to get them and those being fairly rare it would work.

[Reacher]

When thinking of model ideas while planning on which pledge I was gonna end up doing. I came across an idea. 

 

All of the fsa flyers rely on bombs broadsides and rockets as their primary AD. What if we were to make either a medium flyer with a Princeton turret. Or a large flyer with 2-3 of them like the Enterprise.  

Why?

It's somthing the fsa don't have. The heavy firepower in limited to the surface.  

Heck it could even be low level to fit in with most of the other fsa flyers.