Battleships Worth?

[JamFalcon]

I never really played BFG1 but am a TT player where Battleships are very useful. But i have heard in BFG1&2 they just are not that good due to mobility issues. Is that really a thing? Because I want so bad to have flagship Retris and Emps squashing xenos in my campaign play through.

[Cryswar]

I'm not gonna lie and say that a full battleship fleet is GREAT or anything but you can make it work vs AI alright. They're not bad, it's just that especially in multiplayer you want more escorts and smaller ships for battlefield control, and dodging human-placed abilities. Vs AI you can absolutely run double Cairn builds and other battleship-heavy silliness and make it work fine. The point of the game is to have fun after all.

[Kevin Winston MD]

Bringing battleships in multiplayer more often than not is a suicide sadly.

[Panfilo]

In the current meta a Battleship is a risky proposition for multiplayer. The most common way a ship gets taken out of comission is by getting 'hulked' (all the crew are killed). While a Battleship has more crew points than other ship classes, many factions (Tyranids, Space Marines, Orks) can dump so many boarding actions with multiple ships that they will gang up on a single expensive ship. A big point investment like a Battleship is also very vulnerable to crits, which can cripple it before it can even do much.

In Campaign, Battleships are better because the AI is pretty dumb. The only real issue you have is your Renown level, which determines the total number of points worth of ships a given admiral can take, and their Leadership, which determines how many ships can be on the battle at a given time (ships that are destroyed/flee get replaced by the rest of the fleet that couldn't initially deploy due to lower leadership value). So earlier on, taking a Battleship might mean you won't have many other ships along with it at once, or conversely you might have some cruisers and your battleship might not show up until several of them are gone. Later on this is less of an issue.

For some races, Battlecruisers/Grand cruisers might be more cost effective, since the step up to Battleship might only give you a bit more crew/boarding/HP but a big jump in cost and a loss of high energy turn. For Imperials for example, an Exorcist class Grand Cruiser is almost as good as an Emperor class Battleship, yet is cheaper for virtually the same stats.

I've heard in the next update they are going to make Battleships more resistant to crits, to make them a little more worthwhile to take in multiplayer. You're still putting most of your eggs in one basket, but at least that basket is as resilient as multiple smaller ships would be.

[Subtle Butt ( >ω<)っ ♡]

In the beta patch, its not that bad bringing battleships if you have micro warp jump. Only bring one though and dont bring one in standard 600 point 2v2.

[Jagore]

In my experience only Deldar use battleships, 3x deldar battleships is a huge pain for a lot of fleets to deal with.

Everyone else has to use light cruiser and escort spam...

[jaxjace]

Grand Cruisers are just better because for the same cost as a battleship, you can take a grand cruiser and a cruiser which is a lot more firepower than a battleship AND in total more durable.

I wouldnt get into the cost imbalance problems though until we get the weapons and ordinance mechanics down, currently strike craft is the way to go, and it shows, all carriers cost more than non carriers, by a LOT.

[JamFalcon]

Originally posted by jaxjace:

I wouldnt get into the cost imbalance problems though until we get the weapons and ordinance mechanics down, currently strike craft is the way to go, and it shows, all carriers cost more than non carriers, by a LOT.

Which is weird cause my strike craft are always getting shot down in my campaign. Ill send a thunderhawks bombers/assault from my LCs and the AI just boosts away shooting them so they rarely reach

[ChaosKhan]

It really depends on the cost of the BBs. Some "cheap" Battleships somewhere between 300 and 200 aren't "risky" simply because they aren't a lot more expensive than GCs and BCs, but tankier and more damaging, so it kinda keeps a balance. Even if you lose one to focused boarding, it hurts, but it's the same as if you lose 2 Cruisers, for which you would have paid the same amount anyway. BBs in the price range of 400-500 do have some abilities to back it up, but are basically "glas cannons" for their cost and therefore very risky. They can't "tank" more than your average 300 points BB, but you lose far more points in case they get destroyed. Whether you can leverage your points until it goes boom though is another question...

[Dent]

Battleships in TT game: No high energy turns, but same turn rate as cruisers.
Battleships in BFG1: Slower turn rate, but high energy turns allowed.
Battleships in BFG2: Even slower turn rate, and no high energy turns.

A classic "double nerf" issue.

That's why it's risky taking them against human opponents that can spam bombs, novas, and torps.

[Knight Commander Martellus]

Originally posted by JamFalcon:

Originally posted by jaxjace:

I wouldnt get into the cost imbalance problems though until we get the weapons and ordinance mechanics down, currently strike craft is the way to go, and it shows, all carriers cost more than non carriers, by a LOT.

Which is weird cause my strike craft are always getting shot down in my campaign. Ill send a thunderhawks bombers/assault from my LCs and the AI just boosts away shooting them so they rarely reach

If you use strike craft use one ship to send mainly a cruiser that doesn't have a lot of hanger slots send fighters the turrets cannot fire at will on every small ship, They can only focus on the first target that comes into range until said target is destroyed completely, Then a second or two after you send the fighters send your boarders if your sm etc and your bombers if your in free crew kills free damage as the turrets arn't going to attack them and you get your bombers back etc. Keep doing this and you get say if all your fighters are destroyed per ship using bombers per ship and boarders say get a good 12-14 runs in and that matters a lot damage and crew wise.

[YoJimbob]

As a Corsair player I get excited when i see an enemy has chosen a Battleship build. Their lack of mobility means i can wipe them out before they have even ID'd me which of course leads to abusive language.. i get it, its frustrating having chosen a ♥♥♥♥ build. BUT in campaign the AI is stupid so Battleships are great.

[Mr Plainview]

In multiplayer battleship = You have chosen poorly.
In single player campaign battleship = Faceroll your way to victory laughing the whole while.

[Rachel Wulf]

Originally posted by Mr Plainview:

In multiplayer battleship = You have chosen poorly.
In single player campaign battleship = Faceroll your way to victory laughing the whole while.

i mean, i'll argue that for some factions, some of the battleships are worthwhile, but you can't just faceroll with them like you could against the AI.

[Subtle Butt ( >ω<)っ ♡]

I like the Apocalypse for how cheap it is. Nova Cannon, the crew and tankiness, and the lock-on lances especially in beta is really good and not much more expensive than a GC. Just do yourself a favor and get micro-warp jump.

[ComradeWinston]

Bringing battleships against boarding factions is suicide.