In this thread I want to take a look at the new Clone Wars wave that was spoilered somewhat recently.
I was actually pretty happy about the balance of the Clone Wars releases to this point.
Comparing the Acclamator to the Victory and Munificent to the AFMK2 seems balanced to me:
The AFKMK2 A, while not the most commonly played version, matches the Star Frigate + ET perfectly wrt points.
Hull same; Command 2 vs 3; Flak comparable if slightly better for Muni; Defense Evade vs Salvo - a wash I would say; Dice count for a double arc is the same, in total 2 plus for the MK2, but will mostly not come into effect; Nav with ET for Muni also somewhat comparable with regard to personal preferences. Upgrades comparable. All in all, rather balanced.
The comparison between the Acclamator and VSD is more skewed to the ACC.
VSD +1 hull; Flak win for ACC; Def tokens ACC wins with Salvo vs Redr; Dice Count is comparable; Speed 3 vs 2 is huge advantage for Acc, Vic needs title and ET which increases cost by 11; Upgrades similar. All in all, not balanced but ok-ish.
Now in the new wave, we have the Recusant:
A large base ship that costs 85 (4 more than the AFK); 10 dice in its double arc vs 7 (MK2) or 9 (ACC); has 8 hull vs 6 and 11 shields vs 12 (MK2) or 10 (ACC); 3-2-3 vs 3-2-4 (MK2) or 3-3-4 (ACC); will have 4 def tokens incl Salvo (I assume due to reasons); can go Speed 3 (I assume due to reasons); has similar upgrades - however no def retrofit.
Of course it has funky arcs which are hard to judge the impact of now.
The closest large base ship is maybe the MC75. MC 75 wins slightly in terms of hull, flak, and command values, while the REC shoots better dice to my mind. Def Tokens look much better for the REC, while the MC75 has slightly better shields. A big difference, again, is the defense retro slot for the MC75, while nav chart is comparable. The MC75 is 19 points more expensive, that is almost a Luke.
REC MC75
8 hull, 11 shields 9 hull, 13 shields
3-3-3 3-3-4
4 def incl evade, salvo 4 def no salvo
10 dice in double arc 10 dice in double arc
upgrades slight + for MC75
nav comparable
Next up the Providence, lets compare it to the MC80 due to its upgrade layout and point cost:
Providence MC80
9 hull, 13 shields 8 hull, 11 shields
3-4-4 3-2-4
4 Def tokens incl Salvo 3 def tokens, no salvo
Ordnance+off retro support team
11 dice in double arc 10 dice in double arc
Nav somewhat similar
cost 105 cost 103
Last, the Venator (lets forget the Pelta):
Its hard to know what to compare this ship too, maybe the MC75 again as the cost and dice layout of the VEN2 is similar.
VEN II MC75
9 hull, 12 shields 9 hull, 13 shields
3-5-4 3-3-4
4 def incl salvo 4 def no salvo
10 dice in double arc 10 dice in double arc
upgrades slight + for MC75
nav slight + for MC75
Especially with this ship I am afraid of its ability to activate 7! squads with a single command and that it doesnt have to run away like a ***** (as the Quasar does). Assuming there will be a commander that increases the potency of squads further (as all factions do and will have) this can go bad fast.
Its early, but doesnt that seem more unbalanced than the first wave? I am leaving out the Commander and upgrades here which is not optimal but necessary for brevity purposes.
Of course there is an elefant in the room - actually three: The SSD, Starhawk and Onager which the new factions must be able to deal with. Is it necessary to make these ships more powerful? Should the other ships be changed to match the new ones? Should the SSD, SH and Onager change to then also bring the new ships more in line with the existing releases? Is everything too late anyway, and are we slightly doomed to this cycle of release power creep 😋?
I dunno. It's kinda hard to judge without knowing nav charts and the full set of defense tokens.
@Bertie Wooster Now everyone knows them.
The Venator, at least to me, seems much more like an improved Victory.
I initially swapped the CIS/Rebel large base analogs, comparing the Requsant to the LMC80, and the Providence to the MC75.
The Ven1 and the ISD1 seem to have some influence and commonalities that can be examined.
There are probably many valid comparisons to be made. I chose mine based on what I think which ships match the new ones best. But further comparisons might be interesting.
I think the VSD comparison is kind of flawed, because the VSD is just about unplayable. If the Accie was "balanced" in comparison to a VSD, then that just means the Republic has an unplayable ship.
Same thing applies to the Guppy vs Munificent comparison. The fact that the Munificent feels about equal seems like a bad thing, because the Guppy is decidedly below average (not quite as bad as a VSD, but not great, either).
Remember, it's not power creep if the thing you're creeping was never powerful in the first place.
The Assault Frigate MK2 became much more powerful with the ability to gain a salvo defense token, since so far it is the cheapest ship to be able to fire a salvo attack with 3 dice. But yeah, both the Vic and AF2 were underpowered since Wave 2.
The thesis of the OP wasn‘t power creep in wave 9 (Fleet Starter) but the large-based ships of wave 10. It‘s not that the Muni is so much better than the AFII. It‘s awkward that the point-costs of all three newly revealed ships are quite low, but the stats are similar (or better). To be honest, we don‘t know all the stats by now. But the Recusant alone for 85 FP seems to be a bargain. Onager and Liberty start at 95/96. And Liberty has not much that calls out for +10 FP, in my eyes.
@Triangularer My guess is a terrible defense token suit for the Recusant and no Def Retro Slot, but yeah. 85 points for so many red dice and with those firing arcs seems incredibly powerful.
Updated with new images from AMG stream.
The AFMkII is not underpowered, and never was.
The A version pretty much never got played before salvo came along because its 9 points more for just 1 blue die more in the front, back and flak, which is already a bad trade even without loosing 1 squadron value. You can like it but it was never really priced accurately
Here are my thoughts:
Recusant Support. That's a lot of red dice for 90 points! And fantastic def tokens! Like the Muni, LTT seems like the best turbo, although I could see the case for TRC and Kraken. The arcs are indeed weird. Looks like you'll want to navigate if you want to double arc something, like the side of an ISD. But that front arc is so wide it looks more likely that you'll be shooting one thing with the front and another with the side. I'm guessing the arcs are the big reason this ship is so cheap--just guessing though. It's hard to say if it'll be unbalanced--it's definitely very offensive for its cost, but lacks the hull/shields other large ships have. Less than even the Liberty, which is already a fragile ship with double braces and a single redirect. Some other things to consider: The MC75 has access to Ackbar/Agate. Separatists don't have a commander right now that helps to navigate better. This ship looks like it'll love long range and hate close range.
Providence. The problem with comparing dice by saying "11 dice in double arc" and "10 dice in double arc" is that the dice are so different in this case. The MC80 Battle Cruiser (which I rarely see on the table, compared to the cheaper Star Cruiser) really wants to be at long/medium, and the Providence really wants to be at close (unless you're okay with your large ship shooting less dice than a Vic-II). Double arcing should be easier with these arcs (they're actually more similar to the other MC80), which is good because you can't nav and command squads at the same time.
I don't know the cost or upgrade bar of the Ven II, so it's hard to judge. As for the Ven I: Since it's so black dice heavy and has 3-3-4 stats, I'd probably compare it to the MC75 Ordnance. Between the two, I agree that I'd probably prefer the Ven I on the face of it. I mostly saw the MC75 Ordnance with Raddus or Dodonna, and I really don't see those admirals much nowadays. Maybe Agate to improve its defense. Another ship to compare it to is the Vic I. The Vic I is much cheaper, but with the Ven I you don't need to spend points on Tua, Harrow, or Engine Techs. And the Ven I shoots more side/rear/flak dice and has salvo.
So I agree that the Venator I, at least, looks really cheap for what it does on the face of it, but I'm less sure about the others. They look pretty solid. The lack of flotillas was possibly a factor when deciding on points costs for CW ships. I think a points rebalancing of GCW ships would be welcome though.
Based on the differences between the Acc1 and Venator 1, I am going to make a guess about the Venator 2. From the preview article we already have the armament info and the command stats, so really this comes down to guessing upgrade slots and cost.
Upgrades of: Officer, Weapons Team, Offensive Retro, Defensive Retro, Ion, and Turbolaser slots.
Keywords: Clone, Jedi, Transport.
Finally, I'll guess 97 points.
I wonder if the Venator II will have double offensive retrofit, since it has a Squadron value of 5. It's clearly the main carrier variant and most carrier variants (MC80, ISD1, Quasar) have double offensive retrofit.