Login

Chills · 05-30-2018, 06:10 PM,

2 is good. In terms of balance its better than 1. Battlecruisers purpose is hunting cruisers, as such following them on their tails. But should flee from battleships. 1 has a fat front and a small ass, thats exactly promoting the opposite from what it is supposed to do. It wont get hit well by battleships shooting in its back but be easy to hit by cruisers that it is supposed to be following.
The nomad cruiser is the opposite of 1. Small front big ass and it can evade easily cruiserfire but gets hit more easily by battleships. the second looks best from all, has a better shaped front and a bigger ass, exactly what a BC needs. The small belly is not much of concern imo, skilled players wont have a problem hitting its front or butt by blindfiring when it tries to TS around infront of their BS. people who do not blindfire usually dont hit any battlecruiser already in existence anyway.

2 would make for a nice medium BC like LABC, maybe light. The others from 3 - 6 as heavy BCs.

mayu20 · 05-30-2018, 06:30 PM,

Really like 1,3 and 5. Although 3 and 5 are my favorite, 1 I like it because looks funny.

My Media

Kazinsal · (This post was last modified: 05-30-2018, 06:42 PM by Kazinsal.)

1 is a horribly ugly Bretonian shrimp brick. So it works to an extent, but it still has some design language that's not in line with the rest of the line.

2 is pretty much unbalanceable due to the "centre" of the model needing to be either in the void (making it impossible to hit) or in the middle of the core section (in which case the forward arms are something that makes the bounding box of the ship fit that of a battlecruiser but makes its overall targetable profile that of an elongated crusier at best).

I'm not a big fan of 3.

4-6 are interesting but also don't feel 100% right as battlecruisers to me.

I guess my favourite one would be 6, since it probably works the best out of any of them.

Retired, permanently.

SMI-Great.Fox · 05-30-2018, 07:07 PM,

4-6 Look like the best in terms of development stages, With 5 being the best in transiting up to the Dunkirk.

Lengthwise it is the longest of the series which could add to changes in its stats as a heavy battlecruiser.

Number 6 looks simply like an Upgraded Number 4 to be honest so is the least acceptable of the three, also No. 4 shows that on the tail it doesn't have a spot in which you could place a middle turret.

All three look in best with that of the Percheon as well, which is a good and sturdy design so they get points in my book.

The previous three look either uninteresting or underwhelming in intimidation factor to be a true threat.

-"If we do not learn at least one thing a day....Our minds turn to stupor"- Kyle Sparrgrove -2005

Ships Log of the Maverick IV Logs of the Maverick.V The.Maverick.IV & Maverick.V Feedback Lot How it all began...

Piombo65 · (This post was last modified: 05-30-2018, 07:12 PM by Piombo65.)

The last models (The fifth especially) could be VERY MUCH good with the Carrier class.

{AC}= Auxilia Coalition - Recruitment - Register your mercenary company

SMI-Great.Fox · 05-30-2018, 07:15 PM,

(05-30-2018, 07:11 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: The last models (The fifth especially) could be VERY MUCH good with the Carrier class.

Now this I can back up. Personally I wouldnt mind the current carrier assets still be around for like maybe an SRP but this idea I can get with.

-"If we do not learn at least one thing a day....Our minds turn to stupor"- Kyle Sparrgrove -2005

Ships Log of the Maverick IV Logs of the Maverick.V The.Maverick.IV & Maverick.V Feedback Lot How it all began...

Chills · 05-30-2018, 07:17 PM,

(05-30-2018, 06:42 PM)Kazinsal Wrote: 2 is pretty much unbalanceable due to the "centre" of the model needing to be either in the void (making it impossible to hit) or in the middle of the core section (in which case the forward arms are something that makes the bounding box of the ship fit that of a battlecruiser but makes its overall targetable profile that of an elongated crusier at best).

nop middle part really doesn't matter for balance. It's about engine and front size.

Piombo65 · 05-30-2018, 07:22 PM,

(05-30-2018, 07:15 PM)SMI-Great.Fox Wrote:
(05-30-2018, 07:11 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: The last models (The fifth especially) could be VERY MUCH good with the Carrier class.

Now this I can back up. Personally I wouldnt mind the current carrier assets still be around for like maybe an SRP but this idea I can get with.

No, seriously; from some years I told that the current (that new one) carrier model is ugly.

{AC}= Auxilia Coalition - Recruitment - Register your mercenary company

SMI-Great.Fox · 05-30-2018, 07:29 PM,

(05-30-2018, 07:22 PM)Piombo65 Wrote: No, seriously; from some years I told that the current (that new one) carrier model is ugly.

Certain ugliness has beauty to it. <3

-"If we do not learn at least one thing a day....Our minds turn to stupor"- Kyle Sparrgrove -2005

Ships Log of the Maverick IV Logs of the Maverick.V The.Maverick.IV & Maverick.V Feedback Lot How it all began...

**Antonio** · 05-30-2018, 07:30 PM,

Anything 4-6.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Poll: Which Bretonian Battlecruiser Concept Do You Like Better? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
One	17.86%	20	17.86%
Two	24.11%	27	24.11%
Three	16.07%	18	16.07%
Four	10.71%	12	10.71%
Five	19.64%	22	19.64%
Six	11.61%	13	11.61%
I have a model of my own (share it please)	0%	0	0%
Total		112 vote(s)	100%