Lists with Medium Tier 1

[Ruckdog]

Sorry for the rather awkward thread title, but this is something I've been tossing around since Adepticon, when I got thrashed by a Sorylian list that was mostly mediums. To be clear, what I'm talking about are lists that take the bare minimum in Tier 3 models, and dump the rest of their points into Medium-sized models. This generally means that the Tier 1 selections are Battlecruisers and Heavy Cruisers (depending on the points level). So, that brings some interesting questions to mind:

1. Are medium-centric lists a generally viable list building option, or are they only good for certain factions and/or in certain match-ups?
-My thinking is that they are generally viable, though admittedly Sorylians are a poor yard stick with their 4-strong cruiser squadrons.

2. Is the effectiveness of medium-centric lists at all related to game size? In other words, are there point limits at which medium lists can be expected to perform better?
-My thinking is that, certainly at the Patrol Fleet level (800 pts and below), having a larger number of mediums on the board might be a tough nut to crack for a fleet that puts too much of its points into a BB and/or CV. However, for fleets that lack an escort carrier option, this would also remove all wing support, which could be a Bad Thing.

In all honesty, the genesis of this question is that I'm taking a look at my options for the upcoming NOVA Open FSA tournament, and I'm contemplating going with a Terran fleet that is built around battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, and cruisers. What are your thoughts?

[Quickdraw]

I think an argument can be made that it is better suited to some factions. Sorylians being one example. Another was a medium heavy Aquan/Terquai list that Stephan thrashed me with once. In general those factions that are able to run 4 strong cruiser squadrons are better suited to this list type.

Now, I have two observations that are not necessarily mutually exclusive about the Terran's...
Obviously take my ramblings with a grain of salt because I'm no expert, but my usual opponents can tell you that I've experimented rather extensively with medium heavy Terran lists.

~~~ The Terran's are in general considered to have the worst medium ships in the game. If not in firepower, then in durability and utility. At the same time many people seem to think they have some of the better large ships. I don't even want to know how many pages have gone into useless threads about the Terran heavy cruiser on the Spartan forum. That being said though, I've experimented with medium heavy Terran lists and I like them. My findings from those games were that the list was much less forgiving then a "standard" Terran list. The Terran mediums are suited for very specific roles, and as long as you stick within those roles you'll do fine (but as they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy)...Cruiser's with torpedoes need to stay far away or in cover, destroyers need to stay far away, cruisers with extra shields/extra hull points need to run distraction or stay on the flank, heavy cruisers need to shunt in and destroy something. Hence the reason I find they are less forgiving then your more balanced Terran list.

~~~ Regarding battlecruisers...The Terran battlecruiser is something I love. I have said it before and I will say it again. The Terran battlecruiser is my favorite Terran ship. The nuclear/spook torpedo system is almost just not fair, and AD spread with beams is not shabby, especially considering they are both turrets. I've experimented pretty extensively with Battlecruisers as my only Tier 1 and I have some ideas about how they function. This is where different game sizes tend to have the most drastic effect.
The battlecruisers at 1200 points are a great pair of ships that can start on the table and confidently take out medium squadrons with nukes, or they can start off the table and shunt in to wreck something big. However, even a pair of Terran battlecruisers will wilt under pressure from a proper Tier 1. The damage track is lackluster and there is a definite difference in 2 shields and 3.
Would I put my admiral on a battlercuiser at 1200 points? Probably not often. He needs good protection and you want him to start on the table so you can play TAC cards.
That takes me to 800 points. A single battlecruiser is a lot different then a pair. A single battlecruiser loses it's strength to confidently take on a battleship sized model. Relegating it to a support role is not a bad thing however. It can still take nuke/spook and it can still eat up medium squadrons. However, it will likely be the only ship eligible for your admiral, so you have to protect it that much more. If your battlecruiser is hiding that frees up the enemy to focus on all of those other medium squadrons you just spent your points on. Bringing me back to the first point, Terran mediums are not known for being durable....

Overall it's a risk and reward. Is it really fun to play? Extremely. Is it plausible competitively? Probably. Is it different then every other "standard" Terran list? Very much so.

As this thread expands I can even go into more detail about specific squadron compositions I've tried if want some ideas. Like I said, I've experimented extensively with the Terran mediums.

[Ruckdog]

Thanks, Quickdraw. That was very helpful! Here are a few thoughts provoke

Terran cruisers...I have to admit, I have never thought them to be especially better or worse than average in terms of firepower, durability, or utility. Medium ships in general are vulnerable in both FSA and DW; the question is, just how vulnerable are you? I am contemplating going with a shield cruiser attachment to my regular cruisers for some extra durability.

Part of my thought process with a medium-centric list is that it presents too many targets for my opponent to effectively focus on one model. From what I saw at Adepticton, if I run a BB or a DN it is pretty easy for my opponent to say "KILL IT!!" and then focus his entire fleet on my large. BBs are tough, but they aren't that tough! There is also the speed and maneuverability advantages of the mediums, though I don't know if that will offset the vulnerability enough to be tactically useful.

I get what you are saying about "staying at range." And, on paper, the Terrans and their 48" torpedoes are impressive. My practical experience however has been that I am inevitably compelled to close the range in order to put out effective shooting, thanks to the large amounts of PD put out by many fleets (especially if they are running Interceptors!). When you are firing into a PD "mountain" that is up in the teens, a cruiser squadron's torpedoes just don't go very far.

Another thing that will compel me to close range is the scenarios I will be playing with this list, which is an important consideration. The NOVA scenarios are up on Ryjak's blog:

http://ops-center.weebly.com/

I can't access it at work, but from what I recall many of the scenarios require advancing forward to an objective, and actively punishes a "sit back and snipe" play style.

So, the real challenge is, can I make a medium-centric Terran fleet that can work well when forced to close with the enemy?

[Quickdraw]

That's definitely a good consideration regarding the objective placement in those scenarios.

One thing that you could try, and I've had fun with, is two cruise squadrons minimally upgraded with only the movement increase. It is surprising to an opponent when your Terran cruiser squadrons boost forward 9". In a few games using this tactic I was able to leap frog my cruiser squadrons up a flank and really overwhelm the opponent. I like what you're saying about the Terran cruiser's being no worse or better than others. I personally tend to agree, I think they are fairly effective given the right upgrades. The general sentiment (primary source being the Spartan forum...which I'll admit I hardly read anymore due to incessant whining) is that the Terran cruisers melt like butter. Which I could see being the case if not upgraded properly.

I think the medium list is a decent plan. A more important consideration, and a more important discussion, is your admiral's vessel. Because the tournament is 800 points you need to figure out the way you'll be getting a medium heavy list. You really have only a few options. A minimally upgraded Apollo (probably a shield at maximum), a minimally upgraded carrier, a single battlecruiser, or a heavy cruiser squadron. If you go the route of battlecruiser you'll have to think about the fact that you need to replace the heavy firepower that you normally have from a Tier 1.

[Ruckdog]

Good point! I had sort of envisioned a list that uses a BC as the Admiral's vessel. However, it might be worthwhile to look at the CV and BB options as well. I'll have to play with the list ideas in my head a bit! I'll post them here when I have my thoughts together a bit more.

[Quickdraw]

I'll look forward to seeing your ideas. It's always interesting to see variations that other people come up with.

[Ryjak]

The Scenarios are designed to encourage player and table interaction by requiring you to leave the deployment zones.  I suggest determining which Scenarios you think Terrans will dominate, and designing a list with these two scenarios in mind... Then figure out how they need to adapt for the other two scenarios.

My instinct is to focus on Secure the Trade Lane and Capture Ancient Beacons.  I think System Conquest could be difficult, as I'm not sure how well the Terrans would hold the central planetoid, and everyone hates Intensifying Engagement.  Both of these scenarios require holding part of the table, and Terran Shields should be very helpful.  They also provide plenty of cover for Torpedo lobbing, and encourage your opponent to split their forces... Which makes it harder to guard with Interceptors.

As for Medium-heavy lists, I'd say they're just as viable as Large-heavy lists, but perhaps not as forgiving.  If you want to try this, I'd use the following core:

Cruisers (+1 HP, Weapon Shielding, Beams)

6 cost 420 points, leaving 380 for your Tier 1 & 3.  4 Missionaries are 100-120 points, and make great Shunt Bombs.  The leaves 280 for a Tier 1.  This selection will define your fleet's play-style.  A Battlestation lets your opponent know they are not taking a Waypoint; a Battleship is for being more aggressive and pushing for table center.  You may also want to spend 50-100 points on Shield Cruisers for your Cruisers; in this case, +1 Shields is better than +1 HP, and an Apollo with +1 Shields and Sectored Shielding will be very annoying.

Also, if you bought the Taskforce Reinforcements, you have the option for Torpedo or Light Cruisers, which could be interesting.

[Ruckdog]

Thanks for the thoughts Ryjak! It's taken me a few days longer than I'd hoped, but here are a few possibilities I'm tossing around:

LIST A, "Larges? We don't need no stinkin' Larges!"

++ Terran Fleet (Standard Fleet) (800pts) ++

+ Tier 1 (450pts) +

Battlecruiser (210pts)
····Marshal Battlecruiser (210pts)
········Harpoon Torpedo Cruiser (70pts)
············Harpoon (70pts) [Nuclear Torpedoes (5pts), Torpedo Spook (10pts)]
················Beam Weapons, Nuclear Weapons, Sector Shielding, Torpedo Spook
········Marshal (140pts)
············Marshal (140pts) [Nuclear Torpedoes (10pts)]
················Nuclear Weapons, Torpedo Spook, Weapon Shielding

Heavy Cruiser Squadron (Tier 1) (240pts)
····Hauberk Heavy Cruiser (240pts)
········3x Hauberk (240pts)
············3x Hauberk (240pts) [3x +1" Mv]
················Sector Shielding, Weapon Shielding

+ Tier 2 (230pts) +

Cruiser Squadron (230pts)
····Teuton Cruiser (230pts)
········Aegis Shield Cruiser (50pts) [Aegis (50pts)]
········3x Teuton (180pts)
············3x Teuton (180pts) [3x +1 Sh (30pts)]
················Sector Shielding

+ Tier 3 (120pts) +

Frigate Squadron (120pts)
····Armsmen Frigate (120pts)
········4x Armsmen (120pts) [4x Armsmen (120pts)]
············Beam Weapons, Difficult Target


Pros: All medium models! This is probably the most extreme I could push it.
Cons: Only have one Tier 3 squadron, which could be problematic for some scenarios!

LIST B, "In Battleship We Trust"

++ Terran Fleet (Standard Fleet) (800pts) ++

+ Tier 1 (210pts) +

Battleship (210pts)
····Apollo Battleship (210pts)
········Apollo (210pts)
············Apollo (180pts) [Nuclear Torpedoes, Sector Shielding  (10pts)]
················Nuclear Weapons, Sector Shielding, Weapon Shielding
············Guardian Escort (Uses Squire Profile Below) (30pts) [2x Squire (30pts)]
················Difficult Target

+ Tier 2 (350pts) +

Cruiser Squadron (350pts)
····Teuton Cruiser (350pts)
········Aegis Shield Cruiser (50pts) [Aegis (50pts)]
········Hauberk Heavy Cruiser (90pts)
············Hauberk (90pts) [+1 Sh (10pts)]
················Sector Shielding, Weapon Shielding
········3x Teuton (210pts)
············3x Teuton (210pts) [3x +1 Sh (30pts), 3x Nuclear Torpedoes (15pts), 3x Weapon Shielding  (15pts)]
················Nuclear Weapons, Sector Shielding, Weapon Shielding

+ Tier 3 (240pts) +

Frigate Squadron (120pts)
····Armsmen Frigate (120pts)
········4x Armsmen (120pts) [4x Armsmen (120pts)]
············Beam Weapons, Difficult Target

Frigate Squadron (120pts)
····Pilgrim Frigate (Uses Armsmen Profile Below) (120pts)
········4x Pilgrim (120pts) [4x Armsmen (120pts)]
············Beam Weapons, Difficult Target

PROS: A bit more of a balanced force, with the battleship providing one hard target, and a fully decked-out cruiser squadron another. Two Tier 3's to boot!
CONS: The BB takes up a big chunk of points, and I'm not sure of how effective the composite cruiser squadron will be.

LIST C, "It's Raining Cruisers!"

++ Terran Fleet (Standard Fleet) (800pts) ++

+ Tier 1 (200pts) +

Carrier (200pts)
····Ares Carrier (200pts)
········Ares (200pts)
············Aegis Shield Cruiser (50pts) [Aegis (50pts)]
············Ares (150pts) [+1 Sh (10pts)]
················Deck Crews, Sector Shielding
················Interceptor Token (15pts) [3x Interceptor (15pts)]

+ Tier 2 (360pts) +

Cruiser Squadron (180pts)
····Teuton Cruiser (180pts)
········3x Teuton (180pts)
············3x Teuton (180pts) [3x +2" Mv (15pts), 3x Weapon Shielding  (15pts)]
················Sector Shielding, Weapon Shielding

Cruiser Squadron (180pts)
····Teuton Cruiser (180pts)
········3x Teuton (180pts)
············3x Teuton (180pts) [3x +1 Sh (30pts)]
················Sector Shielding

+ Tier 3 (240pts) +

Frigate Squadron (120pts)
····Armsmen Frigate (120pts)
········4x Armsmen (120pts) [4x Armsmen (120pts)]
············Beam Weapons, Difficult Target

Frigate Squadron (120pts)
····Pilgrim Frigate (Uses Armsmen Profile Below) (120pts)
········4x Pilgrim (120pts) [4x Armsmen (120pts)]
············Beam Weapons, Difficult Target

Created with BattleScribe

PROS: 5 activations, two full squadrons of cruisers. One is intended to shunt in and use its speed to postion, the other is intended to stick to the CV. The two frigate squadrons are on independent ops.
CONS: This list skimps on upgrades and the CV's loadout. The CV is also not the toughest model out there, so it's still a risky choice for the fleet commander.

So, keep in mind, these are entering arguments, and I expect my final list will look somewhat different that what I have above. I look forward to your comments and suggestions!

[Quickdraw]

Your first two lists look pretty good.
Is your battlecruiser accompanied by a torpedo cruiser? I didn't even realize that was an option. I haven't really looked at those new ships yet though. That's a much better escort option because it can have nuclear torpedoes.
List one has the potential to give up a pretty good battle log swing, but I would say of the three lists it would be the most fun to play.
List two is obviously well balanced. Almost to the point where it can't fall into a medium heavy type list. I'm thinking it might be better to go even more minimal on the battleship and force a second tier 2 in there.
The third list seems a bit iffy to me. The carrier is pretty squishy. I think that list could benefit from the biggest revision process.

[Ryjak]

Would you bring a Carrier within range of a Battleship's guns in a WWII setting?  If the answer is no, then why are you doing it here?  The only answer is: two more Cruisers as Accompanyments. Most lists you face will feature a Battleship, because it's in every Patrol Fleet box (because Battleships go out on patrol, right?) and its the toughest unit at this point level.  Keep in mind FSA is a game of attrition, and the main Terran strength is resiliency.

That said, I think your first list is very viable, but you have to play it right.  I assume everything sets up in a corner and lobs Torpedoes, relying on Sectored Shielding + Shield Projector to stay alive.  The Heavies Shunt Entry from reserve as late as possible, so they can wreck whatever squadron you've decided they need to kill.  Ideally, they'll act as an opening move the turn they arrive, hitting two or three targets, paving the way for later Torpedoes to finish them off.

[Ruckdog]

Would you bring a Carrier within range of a Battleship's guns in a WWII setting?  If the answer is no, then why are you doing it here? 

Not to sound too flippant, but it's because FSA is not WWII  !

I get what you are saying, but the very nature of FSA 2.0's carrier mechanics demand that carriers close within short range of their targets...this is my main beef with FSA 2.0. Unfortunately, the stats for the carriers were not improved much between FSA 1.0 (when wings could go zooming off to the other side of the board and the carrier could hang back out of the main line of fire) and FSA 2.0.

Your first two lists look pretty good.
Is your battlecruiser accompanied by a torpedo cruiser? I didn't even realize that was an option. I haven't really looked at those new ships yet though. That's a much better escort option because it can have nuclear torpedoes.
List one has the potential to give up a pretty good battle log swing, but I would say of the three lists it would be the most fun to play.
List two is obviously well balanced. Almost to the point where it can't fall into a medium heavy type list. I'm thinking it might be better to go even more minimal on the battleship and force a second tier 2 in there.
The third list seems a bit iffy to me. The carrier is pretty squishy. I think that list could benefit from the biggest revision process.

Thanks for the thoughts! Yeah, I know all too well from experience that the Terran carrier is squishy...like I said, these are conversation starters, intended to be "archetypes" of sorts to help me direct my thinking. I'll mull over what you and Ryjak provided and start working on some revisions.

[Quickdraw]

I've had great success using a carrier with a full wing of fighters and a half wing of interceptors, accompanied by a shield cruiser. The carrier can hunker down behind some cover and threaten out to 26 inches. It can defend objectives from range, take on smalls and mediums, and generally cause the enemy to come hunting it, usually leaving objectives behind. This works well at higher point levels where the carrier is not your admiral's vessel, and you have a different hammer (such as a battleship)
It's crucial to replace the firepower though, so I would advise heavy cruisers as a must in that list. It's a fun list, but probably could be hard in a competitive setting.
 

[Quickdraw]

I just downloaded the last eat ORBAT. There are new accompaniment options I wasn't aware of. The addition of the Harpoon cruiser makes the single battlecruiser a much better option in low point games. 10 nuclear spook torpedoes at both the 4th and 3rd range bands really means you could splash a couple mediums/smalls for additional turns before committing to a firefight.

[Ryjak]

Not to sound too... brutal? But FSA IS a WWII game, because they pretty much directly ported all the mechanics into their steampunk WWII game.  Nothing in FSA feels like space... None of the space games do either, as they do not utilize the unique features of space combat:

Inertia's impact on movement
Full 3D environment

[Ruckdog]

Not to sound too... brutal? But FSA IS a WWII game, because they pretty much directly ported all the mechanics into their steampunk WWII game.  Nothing in FSA feels like space... None of the space games do either, as they do not utilize the unique features of space combat:

Inertia's impact on movement
Full 3D environment

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one...Spartan's engine in its various incarnations (US, FSA, DW, etc), while a lot of fun to play, doesn't do a very good job of accurately representing naval combat from any historical time period, let alone WWII . In other words, trying to use WWII fleet concepts of operation (CONOPS) in FSA (or DW, for that matter) won't work very well, for the simple reason that the game wasn't designed for that. Please note that I'm not saying that the game isn't fun, or balanced, or anything like that! I'm simply stating that it doesn't give a good feel for WWII combat.

As for 3/D vector movement in a table top game....Ewww.