Units that need adjustment

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,813]

This thread is so that @Spartan Mike has a list of models that spend their time as "doorstops" for some reason or other.

Please be specific in the reasons why, and also provide a suitable solution, without going overboard.

Please use the following format, for ease of reference-

Nation:

Model:

Problem:

Suggestions:

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,813]

Nation: FSA

Model: Washington

Problems:

*internal competition with Philadelphia

*turrets cannot link

Suggestions:

*remove "bombard" designation from turrets, and replace it with Sustained Fire (2) to match the physical model

*replace both bombard turrets on the Washington with a single, 360°, bombard battery

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,813]

Nation: Prussia

Model: Stoltz

Problem: soon to be obsolete, with the new destroyer being released

Suggestion: change fixed fore gun to a tesla bombard

[Sebenko 978]

I'll keep these as one post to avoid clogging up the thread...

Nation: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Model: Rarog Landship & Grunwald Dreadnought

Problem: Overcosted and ill-fitting for the PLC orbat

Suggestions: Reduce points cost by 10 & 15 points, respectively. Give models a role as either fire support or some way to keep pace with PLC mediums

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Drones

Problem: Drone feedback rule is unreliable and unsatisfying

Suggestions: Have a non-dice roll based solution, such as X in every Y drones is removed, add radius of reduced feedback effect to CoA carriers

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Diophantus Assault Carrier

Problem: Expensive brick, dreadnought classification unnecessary

Suggestions: Reduce cost to ~220 , reduce DR to 11, remove Dreadnought from designation, remove Drone Launcher (9) upgrade option to simplify and emphasis Pericles as the CoA 'fleet carrier', reduce SV significantly

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Aristotle Battleship (Main Turret version only)

Problem: Too vulnerable to boarding for the price, E-turret version does not suffer due to not generally getting up close and personal

Suggestions: Add Specialised Defences (2) to Main Turret Aristotle

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Pericles Fleet Carrier

Problem: Too squishy for a massive model

Suggestions: Increase DR/CR by 1

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Euclid

Problem: Massively overcosted, needlessly complicated upgrades section

Suggestions: Balance: Reduce cost to 240/250, make Drone Launcher (9) the default, reduce SV (to 75, maybe?). Reduce cost of generator and Combat Coordinator options by 5-10 pts each. Streamlining: Remove 'one of' and 'if this then' from non generator options (No-one is going to take CC(Robots) without the discount Colossus squadron anyway, and if someone wants to load up a Euclid with all the marginal upgrades they can, let them- diminishing returns and a comical prize value will balance that out). Reclassify as a Command Flyer, it's not damaging or tough enough to be a dreadnought.

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Epicurus Sky Fortress

Problem: Drone turret does nothing, Slightly overcosted

Suggestions: One of: Allow Drone Turret to be used as a rocket launcher with 2x current Drone Launcher points. Allow Epicurus to launch drones without an activation marker. Add a Launch Turret weapon akin to the 1.1 version. Re-add 8" launch range. In addition: Depending on the previous option added, reduce cost by 10 points.

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Daedalus-Beta Large Flyer

Problem: Overcosted and undergunned, no distinct role over Epicurus. Currently only slightly better shooting than a Hippasus, with none of the cool options or generators.

Suggestions: Reduce cost to 120 points, add Mine Controller generator upgrade option

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Icarus Medium Flyer

Problem: Indistinct from Cleomedes, non-core in naval games makes it the inferior choice

Suggestions: Drop price to 70/75 points, provide some differentiation from Cleo (faster movement?)

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Capek

Problem:  Slightly overcosted

Suggestions: Drop price back to 65

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Arronax Assault Robot

Problem: Useless in naval games without diving

Suggestions: Add diving to designation

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Skorpios Bombard

Problem: Overcosted

Suggestions: Reduce cost by 10-15 points

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,813]

My own suggestion for that hood ornament on the Epicurus is to make it a disruption generator with a node launcher.

[Green 40]

Nation: KoB

Model: Monarch

Problem: Always by a very far margin the worst alltime heavy battleship. Now internal balance issues with Magnate. Same Role as Magnate, but miles worse and much more expensive.

Suggestion: Finding a new role for the ship. Heavy Turret with a 10/8/6/4 split with devastating. Giving it similar issues as the new mk2 magnate, whether to link all weapons and lose devastating or risk something for linking only heavy turrets but get boni. 

With the upcoming terrifying mars a combat coordinator die hard 8" is also a viable option. To bring it more in line with other heavy battleships, increase the CR to 11. 

To be honest, with the current mars and gens, it is really hard to make this work.

[Green 40]

Nation: KoB

Model: Vengeance

Problem: poor shooting, suffers from similar problems as the Ika. Ramming is too easy to deny.

Suggestion: Combat coordinator 8" torpedos RBI (It is a very nice addition to make the ship unique and enable different list designs with a RBI  shooting; the fixed arc still makes it difficult to function like a rocket battery so....). Vengeance commanders are reckless and are known for very dangerous maneuvres. Besides its movement cannot be blocked by small ships. The smalls make way in panic when a giant chainsaw comes close. Swift Maneuvre +1.

Another alternative would be hunter surface.

[Grand-Stone 153]

Nation: EoBS

Model: IKA

Problem: It does limited amount of damage in the first rounds and nothing if you want to exploit it being a submarine. Then it is slightly to little scary once it pops up. If you wait for 3 turns for something to come into action, it should be worth it. The probability of it doing a critical damage on a boarding action on a large model is slightly to low. Also, I would love for the IKA to be able to better exploit the fact that it is a submarine.

Suggestion: increase the AP slightly. If necessary beef up it's cost. Also, it would be fun to give it aquatic assault, and or a special making it capable of diving after a boarding action.

 

Nation: EoBS

Models: most larges: broadsides weapons.

Problem: There is nothing wrong with the power of EoBS's large units. However a weapon system which adds so little to the units are problematic. The problem is the combination of very difficult to pull of and limited power. If something is difficult to pull of, it should at least be worth it.

Solution: Make it a RB1 and RB2 weapon and drop RB3 and RB4. Then we will not be ass frustrated to see stats for guns that never get used. Also, beef up the firepower for it. The new BB for EoBS is a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

[Lifegiver 84]

Nation: EoBS

 

Ika

Problems: late and low damage output, vulnerable against sub hunters, vulnerable against all when surfaced, Zariganis are far better and make the Ika redundant

Solution: make it cheaper, increase AP a little bit, maybe give it back CR 10

 

Kiyohime

Problems: bad as a carrier (Tenkei is way better and less vulnerable), assault carrier only in name, gives away many VPs very easily

Solution: make it a fleet carrier (carrier 9) or a real assault unit (for example 10 AP aggressive crew), decrease SV to 25

 

Nakatsu

Problems: gets shot down before it arrives at the enemy, too slow to hunt smalls that are faster, difficult and contradictive weapon arcs, too slow to adjust its FC broadsides, useless FC torpedoes that are not worth positioning the model to fire them

Solution: +1 speed, Torpedoes stronger or 90° fire arc

 

Mizuchi

Problem: too slow

Solution: +1 speed

 

Yurei

Problem: too expensive for very low damage output, the price increase was not justified

Solution: Give it back its old price (i.d. 150 points)

 

Arashi

Problems: unflexible and hard to position because of mediocre FC fore rockets

Solution: make rockets 90° fire arc

 

Raijin

Problems: too vulnerable, cannot use node projector when obscured, command unit only in name, gives many VPs for no reason, too expensive for what it does (1 Raijin is more expensive than 2 Honshu Mk3 that do the same)

Solution: +1 HP, can use node projector when obscured, MAR die hard (EoBS models in 8"), delete SV

 

Yurgi

Problems: too vulerable and low firepower for expensive 40 points

Solution: DR4 and stronger fore guns OR decrease points cost to 35

 

DFA-170

Problems: hard to maneuver, crappy fire arc for fore rockets (not worth changing position to use them), heavy bomber is way better

Solution: sharp turn, fore rockets 90° fire arc

 

Onryo

Problem: slightly overpriced

Solution: give it a small boost (increase bombs by +1 or decrease points cost by 5)

 

Yokei:

see http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/topic/19939-yokai-class-battleship/&page=4

 

EoBS aircraft:

Give sharp turn to ALL their air units. It is really confusing that some have it, wile others do not.

 

EoBS fortifications:

Problem: too weak in comparison to mobile units, simply not worth taking

Solution: maybe make them cheaper

[Bratr 175]

Nation: RC

Model: Myshkin bomber

Problem/s: Fragile one trick pony, and the trick is quite weak. Usualy can´t bomb / board anything till turn 3 and the bombing is quite weak, compared to two turns of waiting. Also it´s very fragile

Solution/s: Eighter boost its bombing role - increase speed to 12", remove limited amunition MAR and add area bombardment MAR or terryfing MAR or boost its boarding role - change crew to reckless, or add it a new support role - add telescopic zoom AA 12-16"  or pack tactics AA +1 (giving it a new role as SAS hunter), 

 

Nation: RC

Model: Saransk Airship

Problem/s: Low damage output (with same boarding threat and toughness) compared to other of its class airships (Pflicht, Hawk, Furieux)

Solution/s: Increase damage output - remove mines and add bombs (6-7AD), or add toughness - make the main gun redouptable, or increase ablative to +2 or add support generator like mortar or Primary gunery target painter 16" (or chage generator so it could be used after movement and then range 8")

 

Nation: RC

Model: Pesets Submarine

Problem/s: Low damage output, need to surface to shoot changing it basicaly to weak cruiser, short range of mandatory generator (I never get close enough to use it)

Solution/s: Increase damage output f the guns to 8/8/5/5, or remove need to surface giving it torps instead (as in 1.1.) with the same spread and surface hunter, or increase range of target painter generator to 16" (or chage generator so it could be used after movement)

 

Nation: RC

Model: Nikel Heavy frigate

Problem/s: Can´t do its supposed main role (submarine hunter) properly

Solution/s: Give the mortars sub-killer MAR and/or give it telescopig zoom AA 16" MAR

 

Nation: RC

Model: Belgorod Landship

Problem/s: Where to start. Slow, can´t link its weapons, short range, low damage output, easy to board / bomb, mimic generator don´t have anything to mimic

Solution/s: Change the fore guns to primary, increase speed to 7" and reduce turn limit to 1", change mimic generator to target painter generator 16" primary or mortar gunnery (or chage generator so it could be used after movement and then range 8")

[Bratr 175]

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Aristotle Battleship (Main Turret version only)

Problem: Too vulnerable to boarding for the price, Low damage output for its price.

Suggestions: Add Specialised Defences (2) or change the turret spread to 10/8/5/3

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Pericles Fleet Carrier

Problem: Too squishy for a massive model, To expensive compared to other fleet carriers

Suggestions: Increase DR/CR by 1 or give it a new support role with combat coordinator rule or new not so often used generator

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Euclid

Problem: Low damage output compared to other dreads, slow and very short ranged support MARs

Suggestions: Reduce cost of generator and Combat Coordinator options by 5-10 pts each or increase their range. Add third rocket battery and add Hunter aerial +1, Change the particle spread to 12/12/6 as on Diophantus

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Epicurus Sky Fortress

Problem: Drone turret does nothing,

Suggestions: Allow Epicurus to launch drones without an activation marker or change it to teleporter generator (Small and/or tiny aerial models) or node projector generator - Disruption or time flow generator

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Daedalus-Beta Large Flyer

Problem: Overcosted and undergunned, Too slow, Gunnery turrets are much worse than energy. Currently only slightly better shooting than a Hippasus, with none of the cool options or generators.

Suggestions: Increase speed to 8" (as Tunguska which is basically the same hull), change spread on gunnery turrets to 10/8/5/3 add Mine Controller generator upgrade option

 

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Capek

Problem:  Rockets are unable to pose threat to squadron of medium or large flyers

Suggestions: Change squadron size to 2-4, and or make specialised squadron of Hyperbios and 1 or 2 Capek

[Bratr 175]

Nation: FSA

Model: Liberty heavy battleship

Problem: Rocket option is not worth taking.

Suggestions: Specialised squadron with Guilford destroyer (or attachment Guilford 1)

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Independence

Problem: Missisipy MK I does basicaly the same thing and better for the same points, No distintive role.

Suggestions: Specialised squadron with revere corvete (French have simillar squadron) to enhance its boarding role, increase speed to 7"

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Lexington

Problem: Low damage output compared to other light cruisers (Marseille or Plato), slow

Suggestions: Team it with Independence or increase speed to 9" or increase the spread of voley guns to 5/4/-/-

 

Nation: FSA

Model: A 17 Bomber

Problem: Too slow to actualy bomb  anything,

Suggestions: Increase speed to 10" or hunter Surface and Diving +1 to the Torps as well as bombs

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Avion strike bomber

Problem: Too slow to actualy bomb anything - they are the slowest small bombers in game.

Suggestions: Increase its speed to 14" or increse its bombs to 4AD, or add pack tactic +1 bombs, AA

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Freedom MK 2 robot

Problem: useless unless it´s attachment and even then it´s too undergunned for its points

Suggestions: Telescopic zoom 16" AA perhaps (to boost its attachment role), or change squadron size 2-5 and make them AP 2 (to make it a boarding threat), or change their gunery spread to 5/4/-/-

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Washington Landship

Problem: Overpriced, undergunned, overshadowed by Annapolis and Philadelphia

Suggestions: Give it a distinct role - Air hunter - Remove bombard from turrets, give air hunter +1 MAR, change turret spread to 12/10/8/6 , Support Landship - node projector with disruption generator, sonic generator or target painter generator rockets/volley guns, or Boarding Landship - remove turn limit, increse movement to 8", change broadsides to volley gun broadsides and add attachment pioneer 1-2

[Lifegiver 84]

RoF

 

Frelon

Problems: pillow fisted, nearly useless

Solution: 20 points or better bombs (for example corrosive)

 

Alma

Problems: massively overpriced

Solution: 25 points, +1 speed

 

Lyon

Problems: brawler that never reaches the enemy, FC torpedos that are not worth using

Solution: DR4, make torpedoes stronger

 

Bayonne

Problems: useless, massively overpriced

Solution: decrease points cost

 

Chevalier

Problems: pillow fisted for many points, easy to board

Solution: stoic crew, add a short ranged secondary weapon system (for example torpedos)

 

Marseille

Problems: too expensive for being vaporized so fast

Solution: 5 points cheaper, maybe +1 speed

 

Ecuyer

Problems: much worse than Dieppe that ist only 5 points more

Solution: 5 points cheaper

 

Voltaire

Problems: pillow fisted, easy to destroy

Solution: make it cheaper

 

Gascony Mk1 +MK2 Problems:

see http://community.spartangames.co.uk/index.php?/topic/20322-expansion-box-and-modular-battleship/

 

RoF fortifications

Problem: too weak in comparison to mobile units, simply not worth taking

Solution: maybe make them cheaper

[Lifegiver 84]

KoB

 

Bastion

Problems: simply not worth taking, KoB has crappy CC

Solution: give it back CC3!

 

Orion

Problem: too expensive

Solution: 5 points cheaper

 

Doncaster

Problems: not worth taking, the heavy bomber is much better

Solution: stronger weapons or cheaper

 

Eagle

Problems: expensive, pillow fisted, no real task in the army

Solution: improve the guardian generator to give 2 shield dice instead of 1, making it the same as the dreadnought (i.e. 2, 12", protective =2).

 

Illustrious

Problem: too expensive

Solution: 15 points cheaper

 

Monarch

Problem: a brawler that cannot brawl (slow, little firepower, easy to board)

Solution: advanced engines (+1), heavy turrets 11 8 6 0; 10 AP stoic crew

 

Avenger

Problems: expensive, gives away many VPs

Solution: 10 points cheaper, decrease SV to 50

 

Vengeance

Problems: vulnerable, gets critcal damage when ramming, very easy to board, gives away many VPs to Prussians fast and easy

Solution: CR9, 8 AP, evasive maneuvers +1, remove silly SV (Prussians)

 

KoB fortifications:

Problem: too weak in comparison to mobile units, simply not worth taking

Solution: maybe make them cheaper

[ethicalengineer 29]

As for my factions:

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Nakatsu

Problem: Week light cruiser

Suggestions: Make squadron size 2-4 again

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Ika

Problem: Low speed, low damage output at last turns

Suggestions: Make it aquatic assault, to allow boarding from submerged level or increase move to 10"

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Arashi

Problem: Overpriced

Suggestions: Discount of 5-10 points will help

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Kiyohime

Problem: Not an "assault" carrier. Low survivability, low damage output, low carrier value

Suggestions: 2 ways to fix it: make it 6/10 and Rugged (2) and 8" movement, or Carrier (9) and change its type from assault carrier to fleet carrier

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Sui, Yurgi

Problem: Useless

Suggestions: Limited amout of weapons and low damage output. No special mars. Make them Pack tactics (2) maybe?

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Raigin

Problem: Low survivability. Useless squadron support.

Suggestions: Make it Combat deployment (EoBS, Zarigani 5) for 80 points, give him Rugged (1), give him Combat Coordinator (Zarigani, Terror tactics (1), increase points to 180

 

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Tsukuyomi

Problem: Useless generators

Suggestions: Increase cost to 155 give him option to take Generator with Node launcher for sonic or for disruption at +5/+10 pts cost.

 

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Onryo

Problem: Overpriced, Useless

Suggestions: Generator is too weak. Overpriced for one turrent and 5 bomb (increase it to 7 for example will solve problem)

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: DFA-170

Problem: Overpriced

Suggestions: Discount of 5-10 points will help

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Restitution Dreadnought Robot

Problem: Imbalanced. Gun variant is too powerfull, Hammer variant is too weak.

Suggestions: Decrease 2AD from Colt Cannons at all levels. Increase range of Assault for Hammer variant to +4 inches. Increase movement of Hammer variant.

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Lexington

Problem: Overpriced, give him Sharpshooters back

Suggestions: All such light cruisers must be 2-4 squadrons.

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Washington

Problem: Turrets cannot link

Suggestions: Make their arcs 270" instead of 180

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Reno

Problem: Overpriced, useless tank

Suggestions: Give him back ability to attach one to Trentons, give him back Devastating ordnance. It was normal in the past, but now it is broken to sh*t.

 

Nation: FSA

Model: Avion

Problem: Low survivability

Suggestions: Increase their speed, make them difficult target, increase pack tactics (one of this solutions)

[Benchpresser 268]

My main fleet is Blazing Sun so I'll comment on those-

Naval-
Arashi- LOVE the model but slightly over-priced for it's numbers- drop it 5-10 points to balance out it's near uselessness in RB 1 (especially since it can be attached to Mediums which will be up close and personal)  OR alternatively.. give it a Rocket attack in RB 1- maybe 2-3 strength?

Nakatsu- Definitely needs to be bumped to 2-4.

Sui-  This needs a complete rethink.  This is supposed to be our Heavy Destroyer, yet it has less teeth than the Yurgi.  The torpedoes just aren't a threat.  They need to either extend to RB 3 OR have their numbers bumped to 8/7.  The boarding threat also isn't that great as well, since they will get shot up going in and even 1 HP damage reduces their effective attack considerable.  I'd suggest giving it "Attachment Medium/Large 1 or 2" to get the most out of the CC3.

Aerial-

Raijin- Again, great model just not worth bringing right now.  The Node Projector is it's only purpose.  Plus the Zarigani attachment only makes sense in a Combined force- pure aerial it's utterly useless.  Give the Gyro Squadron Support (EotBS SAW Fighters 3) for aerial battles and Combat Coordinator (SAS, 8", Heavy Ack-Ack or Vertical Dive).  It's called a Command Gyro- give it a reason to be called that.

Onryo- Same issue, not worth bringing apart from variety.  I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see if the Sonic Gen is changed like it's been hinted at.  However if it's not- give them the option for Fury Gens... that would fit perfect with EotBS's firebug tendencies.  Fiery death diving out of the sun works better that "annoying headache maybe diving out of the sun".

Armored- Surprisingly I can't find that much wrong with our land forces, except maybe make the Kagoshima Carrier (9)? 

[Lifegiver 84]

12 hours ago, ethicalengineer said:

Nation: EoBS

Model: Nakatsu

Problem: Week light cruiser

Suggestions: Make squadron size 2-4 again

What does a bigger squadron change? Do you really want to waste 220 points on 4 sub par models you cannot hide from enemy shooting? These points are better spent elsewhere.

[Benchpresser 268]

3 hours ago, Lifegiver said:

What does a bigger squadron change? Do you really want to waste 220 points on 4 sub par models you cannot hide from enemy shooting? These points are better spent elsewhere.

Depends on how you define sub par.  If you look at the 4 Light Cruisers, it comes in 2nd only to the Riever.  They are more maneuverable, and you can hide them, or at least partially.  Run them behind a Honshu squadron or behind a tough Large like a Sokotsu or a Kaiju.  Even if they take a couple hits you still should get within boarding range with the majority of the squadron intact.  With 3 in a squadron you'll average around 11-2 AP on the low end.  Adding a 4th and you'll likely be adding a full 5 to that low end. 

Even if your opponent concentrates on taking out the squadron, it's still effective.  Right now taking out 3 light cruisers- or damaging them to the point of ineffective boarding- is fairly cost-equal.  A squadron of Cruisers, a BB, or even a pack of Destroyers can do it and still come out on points.  Adding a 4th target and they now need to commit more than the Nakatsus' 220 points to take them out, meaning that much isn't shooting at your important ships..  Ignore them and they are a serious boarding threat.  Treat them as a medium sized Detroyer or Frigate Pack...

 

You want to be more frustrating.. attach a Arashi to take hits on the way in...

[Lifegiver 84]

Well, I rather take 3 Honshus with aggressive crew than 4 Nakatsus for the same prize. Honshu does the work it is supposed to do, while Nakatsu does not.

[Grand-Stone 153]

I have analysed the EoBS units in the EoBS thread. And a few comments.

The SUI isn't all bad. I'm not saying it necessarily is the best unit, but it's not totaly bad either. It has 3HP is significantly stronger than 2HP, and you have 12+4 AP for boarding.  The down-side of the SUI is that it is expensive & slightly slow for a small. Embracing it's submarine hunting skills kun be fun though.

The Nakatsu: Remember, it is perfect at one role, that is hunting smalls, both at RB4 and at RB1. Improving the power of smalls (which I'm in favor of) automaticly improves the Nakatsu in addition. Sending a Nakatsu inbetween two smalls at point blank range and kill them both is so much fun. Maybe an increase in broadside firepower would be good.

 

I'm not saying that these does not deserve some attention. Maybe they do, but they don't need a total remake.

 

The Onryo is directly linked to the power of the sonic & disruption generators. Thus, improving the offensive generators & especially the sonic generator will improve this unit. For the disruption, why I think I would perfer a node launcher anyway. But for the sonic, the Onryo might be fun as is, with only making that generator worth while. But as is, I do agree that the sonic generator is not worth using.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bratr 175]

I must say that Nakatsu with terror tactic 2 is quite brutal light cruiser. So are Sui that have better boarding potential of squadron of corvets plus have good torpedoes and damage exept for AP loss does nothing to them. In our meta Suis are seen quite often. Onoryo and Inari need minor buff (like spees increase or some MAR, and change in generators) Ika is quite powerfull not because it actualy deal great damage but until it surface its almost unkillabe cheap large ship that has great tactial value in deployment (cheap large ship that you can spam and force opponent to deploy his large battleships before you deploy  your Kaiju)  and in denying opponet fullfiling his mission goal (kill all large?  when you do not surface and do not go forward?)  Arashi squadron is brutal, ignoring all damage but one crit effect and definetly not overpriced. With 21 AD in RB 4 they statisticaly inflict double crit on cruiser or crit on battleship. Even through AA and defensive MARs. And it´s not so difficult to stay in RB 4 or 3. Kiohime fits well in its category and is very simillar to Saratoga or Regent assault carriers both in damage output, point cost and carrier points and defensive MARs. Also as opponents of EoBS I found any complatint about capabilities of Raijin loughable for its points it´s exelent airship especialy due its node projector.

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Ika

Problem: Low damage output in boarding

Suggestions: Increase the hull breaker to +2 or + 1D3

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Tsukuyomi

Problem: Short-ranged generators, Area bombardment has low damage output

Suggestions: Improve generators, Increase AD on bombs.

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: Onryo

Problem: Short-ranged generators, low damage output

Suggestions: Improve generators, give them range, give them Atachment MAR

 

Nation: EoBS

Model: DFA-170

Problem: Overpriced

Suggestions: Discount of 5 points or Hunter MAR Bombs Surface + Diving +1

[Nazduruk_Bugzappa 1,813]

Note that the Nakatsu actually has two roles in this game: hunting smalls, and they are also an excellent boarding squadron. 3AP + TT2

Edit: Batr beat me to it.

[Abakus 32]

Nation: Covenant of Antarctica

Model: Epicurus Sky Fortress

Problem: Drone turret does nothing, Slightly overcosted

Suggestions: One of: Allow Drone Turret to be used as a rocket launcher with 2x current Drone Launcher points. Allow Epicurus to launch drones without an activation marker. Add a Launch Turret weapon akin to the 1.1 version. Re-add 8" launch range. [I think all of Seb's ideas are good ones, and I'd be happy to see any of them. I personally think keeping it as a Drone Launcher, as opposed to a Disruption Generator or something, is extremely important to the model. Otherwise, the magazines of drones on the underside just look out of place. This was the model that personally sold me on Spartan Games once I had it in my hands, with it's connection between rules and looks.]

[Merlin 549]

Here are some units that haven't been mentioned yet.

 

Name: All of the Dreadbots.  

Problem: Just way too powerful

Solution: No idea, but they need rebalanced and their setting taken down from 11.

 

@Spartan Mike it would be cool if you could give us some insight into how the team is going to tackle these guys if they are being worked on, on a robot by robot basis preferably. 

[S.Mike 1,108]

First off, thanks for taking the time to compile your thoughts and concerns for these models gang. Only way we can ensure that we put the best effort into making everything as satisfactory as possible is with well thought out and passionate feedback. Thanks!

@Merlin While I don't think I can ever truely give you the insight you might want from my madness addled mind, I can try to elaborate a bit on my thoughts on the DreadBots...

Some are WAY too powerful. Some are downright wet cardboard. 

I love the models personally. And I hate to think that any model might not be playable in a game due to how overpowered it might be. So the goal is to bring them all in line, so that in a friendly or tournament game, they would be thrilling to play with and against. Is that possible? I dunno yet! But that is the goal for sure. They are amazing modes and deserve to be used, and I suspect they will go through a heinous amount of changes to get to a place where they are well received across the board.

As far as robot by robot basis? The American one is bonkers busted. Lady liberty for me is at the bottom of the heap. Everyone else sits in the middle band somewhere. When the time comes to get to work on them, I plan on making a sub section to dialogue with the community about them and illustrate the renovation project.

Back to the list building!  

-Mike