Jump to content
Sky_Admiral

Official Kurak Alliance Thread: Hawker Industries

Recommended Posts

Have any of us gamed with Hawker proxied (stand-in) models?

If so, what did you use?

Sorry forgot to add I just used a older model Razorhorn.

I proxied the BB. I liked it better than the Razorhorn. DR6/CR12 with SH2 is just amazing with great RB4 firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CJ, how did V2 gimp the cruisers? I am sincerely asking this question as I dont know what you are refering to.

I don't have the books with me. But I believe that the Hawker cruisers stats and and/or points where changed from V1 to V2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they had to nerf it down a bit. The old ships cost less than the Sentinel but would end up outgunning it significantly in a broadside-to-broadside engagement. Sentinels win in distance firepower, PD, and torpedo flexibility, but for sheer firepower the Resolute at optimum range is rather disgusting for 60 pts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Hawker squadron could pump out 17 dice at RB2 out of its port/starboard with 3 ships at 180 points and still reach out and touch you in RB3 with 8 dice and 9 torps. "Intergalactic flying space cheddar monkeys" is the term I'd use for them. Which is to say that I don't believe they were properly balanced.

Course the new one is kinda bland. Not horrible but certainly great either.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update for the Spartan Games Community to let you guys know what’s coming up for Firestorm Armada. We plan to roll out the remaining unreleased alliance ships in two waves, after which all models featured in the Firestorm Armada Hardback Edition Master Rulebook will be available.

[information not pertaining to your question]

You can expect to see them soon after the release of the Campaign Guide.

Hawker will be part of Wave 2, according to the document Spartan released in the same post. http://www.spartangames.co.uk/wp/wp/wp-content/spartanimg/alliance-warships.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Hawker squadron could pump out 17 dice at RB2 out of its port/starboard with 3 ships at 180 points and still reach out and touch you in RB3 with 8 dice and 9 torps. "Intergalactic flying space cheddar monkeys" is the term I'd use for them. Which is to say that I don't believe they were properly balanced.

I beg to differ. It may have had a single serious broadside possible, but when doing so it correspondingly has no fore guns at all, is weak on it's opposite broadside (AD like a frigate), and unlike the Sentinel you could not also fire torpedoes at the same target, then there's the serious issue of it's weak point defense, and on top of that it suffers from the same increased AD loss from damage of having turrets and broadside linkage that the Razorthorn does (that 8 dice at RB3, gets knocked down to 5 with a single point of damage). It was a more than fair trade off. Besides, at least it pointed out proper to it's build stats and wasn't overpriced and under-gunned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. It may have had a single serious broadside possible, but when doing so it correspondingly has no fore guns at all, is weak on it's opposite broadside (AD like a frigate), and unlike the Sentinel you could not also fire torpedoes at the same target, then there's the serious issue of it's weak point defense, and on top of that it suffers from the same increased AD loss from damage of having turrets and broadside linkage that the Razorthorn does (that 8 dice at RB3, gets knocked down to 5 with a single point of damage). It was a more than fair trade off. Besides, at least it pointed out proper to it's build stats and wasn't overpriced and under-gunned.

I think it's false to point to the V1 building rules and say 'it pointed out to proper". By that standard the Storm is a balanced cruiser. It's not, it's over costed and weak. That's one of the reasons I think the V1 model creation rules were bunk. They don't take into account the real value of a ship that's built to be min/maxed vs. a ship that designed more poorly (such as having a handful of rear gun dice, not enough to damage anything realistically but enough to cost points).

By your logic, the Storm is just as good a cruiser as the original Hawker, right (because the points work out on both to 60)?

I'm not saying the new one isn't weaker (and probably a bit too weak), but I don't think it's useless and I do think the old one was overpowered. Yes, it loses attack dice quickly but it was cheap enough that fielding two squadrons of 3 was easily doable.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i think when spartan reviewed their preliminary stats for the Alliance models, they panicked when some of them were a bit over powered (remember the arc field ships) now the Hawker XXXX class cruiser wasnt terribly unbalanced but i also dont think it was fair (especially so with it being cheaper than a Sentinel), so i guess it was hastily nerfed but perhaps too far, its gone from a ship i would definately take, to one i definately wouldnt (i'm happy with my Sentinels and i spent quite a while painting them). Perhaps even a 5 point increase to the XXXX version would have done it maybe along with a reduced Mv value or something to show its age.

Oh well at least we have, imho, the fantastic... 'EXCELSIOR' ...see! It even sounds awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's false to point to the V1 building rules and say 'it pointed out to proper". By that standard the Storm is a balanced cruiser. It's not, it's over costed and weak. That's one of the reasons I think the V1 model creation rules were bunk. They don't take into account the real value of a ship that's built to be min/maxed vs. a ship that designed more poorly (such as having a handful of rear gun dice, not enough to damage anything realistically but enough to cost points).

By your logic, the Storm is just as good a cruiser as the original Hawker, right (because the points work out on both to 60)?

I'm not saying the new one isn't weaker (and probably a bit too weak), but I don't think it's useless and I do think the old one was overpowered. Yes, it loses attack dice quickly but it was cheap enough that fielding two squadrons of 3 was easily doable.

Zak

Do not get me started on the Storm, they are decent at best. Nothing for the Aquans to go home and write about.

I am with Zak on this one though, the orginal was good but fluff wise, it had no name so it was a test to see how good it would be, they saw the overwhelming responce and took the Ban Hamma to a bunch of the systems.

At least on a fluff side I can see where it would be "The desighns for this cruiser were destroyed at battle XXXX, and the last of these cruisers are serving as a home defense force."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Hawker get expanded on a little, maybe a heavy cruiser or the like, maybe even a Battle Cruiser. he second simply because we've yet to see one made, and it might be interesting to see a somewhat outdated Terran warship that's been hastily brought into teh war after mounting the shields onto it. Having a light battleship would be a nice touch for the support fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Hawker get expanded on a little, maybe a heavy cruiser or the like, maybe even a Battle Cruiser. he second simply because we've yet to see one made, and it might be interesting to see a somewhat outdated Terran warship that's been hastily brought into teh war after mounting the shields onto it. Having a light battleship would be a nice touch for the support fleet.

Darn good idea. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn good idea. +1

Agreed. I mean we have two sorta light DNs now (the RSN DN and the Manta) but I like the idea of an outdated uber ship loaded with impromptu refits. Heck, it would be interesting to have a ship with tough stats but a MAR that makes it weaker when it gets damaged. Like a Vulnerable MAR - this ship loses two attack dice on the first damage point taken or "Unreliable" - the first crit this ship takes can be re-rolled by the opponent (the second result must be taken).

Basically, like the Galactica from the new BSG.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batt leCruisers are a bit hard to actually make, you have to have it weaker in hull and shields than a BB but stronger than a Cruiser, and then you have to give it the firepower of the BB . . . .its annoying to get into it. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the models don't suck (which very rarely happens with spartan ships) I am very much looking forward to adding a small fleet of hawker ships. Hawker fluff really appealed to me and I am quite happy to field the "toned down" cruisers and an excelsior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A battle cruiser also resembles the navy's design ethos for a battleship, but lighter and faster. Thus a Terran battle cruiser should be somewhere between the Razorthorn and the Templar. Most likely it would incorporate turrets, but weaker than the Razorthorn. The broadsides of all three should be almost the same. Torpedoes would be in the range of the Templar, as would be speed. I picture the stats to be in the range of the CVs, but movement as high as 8 inches. Shields maybe only at a value of 2, but maybe mines and a single MAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some battlecruisers in the work-in-progress alliance/league lists, but they were all dropped for V2. Possibly the concept is a bit problematic.

I think most of us consider battleships the minimum useful single-ship weapons outlay. Meaning: anything with smaller than battleship AD values that cannot link-fire (I'm looking at you carriers) is not such a viable game option. Battlecruisers offer a unique problem -- if they are smaller than battleships they need smaller AD values, but if they are large class ships maybe they shouldn't be permitted to squadron-up either. With the two Gunships offering almost battleship firepower and being able to link with a squadron, battlecruisers may end up to be a class of useless vessels.

It might work if battlecruisers were really just battleships that were faster -- but we already have a few examples of those and creating a new designation might be redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.