| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject: Unimpressive Phelps?
|
 |
|
Anyone else a bit underwhelmed by USS Phelps? Her only advantage on the Fletcher trio's base stats is gunnery, she suffers in all other respects. Additionally, her SA's are nice, but to my mind they don't interact well.
The combination of Establish Screen and Bad Weather Fighter would make Phelps the perfect partner for Hoel in a lose initiative shoot and smoke build. But with her other SA, a Hoel would boost initiative, not something you really want to have happen. All in all, Phelps doesn't seem like she should cost more than Hoel, right? Seems more like an 8-9 tweener than a 10 point uber-destroyer.
_________________
 |
|
 Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:22 am |
|
|
Posts: 174
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think she's one of the few U.S. units that seems overpriced, but she does give the U.S. a 1941 destroyer for early war scenarios. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:29 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Swarbs,
You are just frustrated that I blew your DD's out of the water Friday night! 
I agree it is at least one point too high. And that is made all the worse because the Fletcher/Hoel/Kidd are a point too cheap. The Armor 3 for the Fletchers is more valuable than the Vital Armor 8 for the Phelps IMO.
And I just now noticed the Hoel and Kidd have a range 2 torpedo that Fletcher (and Phelps) does not have!
Overall I think the undercosting of the Fletcher class is the bigger issue. But given that reality I agree the Phelps should have been cheaper. For now it is a 'period piece' for early war games. That might become more useful with some lower cost Bagley's, Benhams or even Clemson's to use with the destroyer leader SA.
PS. It is a beautiful sculpt though!
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:46 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually, that's something I didn't consider. Perhaps this is Year Available counting as a stat for pricing again. Any you're right, Phelps didn't really do much in our last game either.
_________________
|
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:50 am |
|
|
Posts: 143
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree it is at least one point too high. And that is made all the worse because the Fletcher/Hoel/Kidd are a point too cheap. The Armor 3 for the Fletchers is more valuable than the Vital Armor 8 for the Phelps IMO. |
Does that 3 armor really help? At all? Not in my experience. Sure an occasional shot will miss the 3 that would have hit 2, but almost 90% of the time DDs disintigrate with frightening speed once engaged. It's very rare for any DDs to survive the 'mad minute' regardless of armor unless they are getting lucky with smoke rolls IMO.
| Quote: | | Overall I think the undercosting of the Fletcher class is the bigger issue. |
And I still havent figured out why people think the Fletcher is 'undercosted'. It is a GREAT escort unit with its AA factor but beyond that what do you have? A destroyer which cant really participate in the ship to ship brawls, doesnt have smoke, and doesnt have Sub hunter. Her guns are crap, her torpedoes are crap, and she has little in the way of useful SAs. As indicated above, the 3 armor MIGHT let you last until later in the same fire phase before evaporating - a dubious advantage at best IMO.
I just dont see what people see in the Fletcher to make them think that it's undercosted (aside from the obligatory "it's a US ship ergo it's undercosted"). It DOES perform a role. But that role is AA protection which honestly the US just doesnt need all that often IMO. What else can it really do to exert any form of control over the battle?
Dont get me wrong, I'm actually curious what people see in the Fletcher that is sooooo good cuz I just dont see it. Yes, I buy them from time to time when playing the US and I feel like 7 points if MORE than fair. It's just not that capable of a combatant IMO.
edit - The funny thing is that I think the Phelps is actually pretty good. MAYBE a point over, but it's hard to quantify that +1 Initiative every round. No I wouldnt buy 3+ Phelps, but I think there is a place for at least 1 in nearly every non-gimmick US build. In fact WITHOUT a Phelps, I see little reason to bring many US DDs anyways (as per above, their role is just too limited to spring a significant number of points on). |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:28 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't know that I agree Uncle Joe. Three armor has saved me quite a few times. I'll save the math for someone else, but it seems like the odds of Fletcher doing damage at 4 dice against 2 armor is probably just as good as the enemy destroyer looking to damage 3 armor with 5 or 6 dice. Anyway, Fletcher is costed ok precisely because she doesn't have a dominant SA, but that's not precisely the case with the other two. Hoel and Kidd both have torpedoes just as high as any other Allied destroyer and gunnery boosts to boot as well as good SA's. Kidd at 8 points is a better AA escort than most other navies can field for twice the points and smoke is the nicest destroyer SA.
I agree that +1 init is nice, but like I said, it works against the other two SA's. While you point out that the US isn't hurting for AA options it is also true that they're not hurting for initiative options either. Even if you don't think the Fletchers are particularly under-costed compared to other ships, I think they are in comparison to Phelps.
_________________
|
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:56 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Uncle_Joe wrote: |
Does that 3 armor really help? At all? Not in my experience. Sure an occasional shot will miss the 3 that would have hit 2, but almost 90% of the time DDs disintigrate with frightening speed once engaged. It's very rare for any DDs to survive the 'mad minute' regardless of armor unless they are getting lucky with smoke rolls IMO.
|
I generally don't suffer from the 'US is undercosted' virus. I was comparing the Fletchers to other US DD's. I will re-iterate my opinion that 3 armor is a strong statistic. When you consider what is usually 'thrown' (pun intended) at a DD - secondary and tertiary BB or cruiser gunnery (3 to 6 dice), other DD's (3 to 5 dice), and strafing fighters when they have nothing else to do (2 or 3 dice) the difference between armor 2 and armor 3 is quite significant. If a DD can survive the 'secondary' assault and force your opponent to use the main guns of his cruisers or BB's against it then I think the DD has paid for itself.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:12 am |
|
|
Posts: 1754
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Armor 3 really matters.... a lot. Especially when you're not playing against the IJN.
Fletchers explode the same as all other destroyers when hit with a Long Lance. (course if the LL doesn't worth the IJN DD is hosed)
However, in a gun fight they will outlast most destroyers. Especially Italian DD's, In my games, Grand Scenario, etc etc, the Italians always suffer against Fletchers if they aren't successful with torpedoes. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:32 am |
|
|
Posts: 143
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh I agree that having 3 armor vice 2 helps vs specific attacks. There is no doubt there. But my experience is that there is NO shortage not only of kill power vs DDs but OVERkill power vs them. There are just too many secondaries, tertiaries, DD killer/Escort killer (giving a cruiser 2 full shots vs DDs) etc for them to survive regardless of 3 vs 2 armor.
One of my chief complaints in the original game (and even today to some extent) is that one of the major disadvantages you incur by bringing DDs to the table is that you 'validate' all of the small gunnery attacks that your opponent brings. Cruisers and secondaries and tertiaries can't do a whole lot to a BB and can't do ANYTHING to aircraft or subs. So every DD you bring is just giving your opponent SOMETHING to shoot all those weapons at. IMO in the 'competitive' environment DDs are still a liability unless you strongly suspect a heavy sub build and even there you can often find alternative ASW options that are FAR more survivable.
The exceptions to the above IMO would be DDs that can actually KILL ships in the main line of battle (Japanese and to a lesser extent Brits with R2 Torps) or DDs that can pop smoke to screen your own fleet from enemy attacks. Fletcher cant perform those roles at all and even with the 3 armor, it will die to weapons that had no other worthwhile targets anyways.
At first brush, Fletcher appears to be quite the bargain, I agree. But after having played for a few years, I'm just not enamoured of them at all. There are many many better DD options available and I think they are justified in the point expenditure to buy them over the Fletcher. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:38 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Uncle_Joe wrote: | Oh I agree that having 3 armor vice 2 helps vs specific attacks. There is no doubt there. But my experience is that there is NO shortage not only of kill power vs DDs but OVERkill power vs them. There are just too many secondaries, tertiaries, DD killer/Escort killer (giving a cruiser 2 full shots vs DDs) etc for them to survive regardless of 3 vs 2 armor.
One of my chief complaints in the original game (and even today to some extent) is that one of the major disadvantages you incur by bringing DDs to the table is that you 'validate' all of the small gunnery attacks that your opponent brings. Cruisers and secondaries and tertiaries can't do a whole lot to a BB and can't do ANYTHING to aircraft or subs. So every DD you bring is just giving your opponent SOMETHING to shoot all those weapons at. IMO in the 'competitive' environment DDs are still a liability unless you strongly suspect a heavy sub build and even there you can often find alternative ASW options that are FAR more survivable.
The exceptions to the above IMO would be DDs that can actually KILL ships in the main line of battle (Japanese and to a lesser extent Brits with R2 Torps) or DDs that can pop smoke to screen your own fleet from enemy attacks. Fletcher cant perform those roles at all and even with the 3 armor, it will die to weapons that had no other worthwhile targets anyways.
At first brush, Fletcher appears to be quite the bargain, I agree. But after having played for a few years, I'm just not enamoured of them at all. There are many many better DD options available and I think they are justified in the point expenditure to buy them over the Fletcher. |
I also agree with you that the 'Fletcher' (not the class) is a fairly average DD for the game now. Hoel and Kidd are far more useful for only a point more. Still, 'back in the day' with only Set I the Fletcher was a fairly potent DD. Two torps at range 1 is good for an Allied DD and Armor 3 is strong. I think Swarbs was really comparing Hoel and Kidd (Fletcher class) to Phelps. I was the one that brought in the 'Fletcher' and 'Fletcher class.' I think 'Fletcher' should be 8 points and Hoel/Kidd should be nine. Then Phelps at nine points would fit too. But really, it is also true that one point this way or that is not a really big deal. As you say, DD's are really 'disposable' specialty units or 'distractors'. Hmmm. Just like the real thing! 
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:04 am |
|
|
Posts: 622
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: |
I was the one that brought in the 'Fletcher' and 'Fletcher class.' I think 'Fletcher' should be 8 points and Hoel/Kidd should be nine. Then Phelps at nine points would fit too. But really, it is also true that one point this way or that is not a really big deal. As you say, DD's are really 'disposable' specialty units or 'distractors'. Hmmm. Just like the real thing! |
Hole is 9 Kidd is 8. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:12 am |
|
|
I refuse to sit here and have my ship shot out from under my ass!
Posts: 1008
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Never under estimate the power of establish screen or armor 3.
_________________
Official Bismarck Class Fanboy |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
|
Moderator (here to help you!)
Supreme AHF Trader
Posts: 2123
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
If you view phelps not as strong DD but weal CL it suddenly becomes a nice asset IMHO.
DDs have a value, but as said not against a surface and Air fleet.
DDs should fight Subs or act as Smokers (in rare cases as torpedo bases)
Add Is a Torpedo boat killer (sub) - its not an unit to engage Cruisers or larger ships.
Consider this and you will find value...
THE Fletcher is a nice cheap unit, but there are DDs in the game that are significantly better (one could argue that the IJN DDs are overcosted, but they ARE better than our run of the mill Fletcher.
Kidd and hoel are improvements.
i don't believe theyare totally off concernuing cost, just good units
Still my fav DD is neitehr US nor IJN, its the lovely Javelin
_________________
[img.]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Animated_gun_turret.gif[/img]
Lieber eine flotte Rote als die rote Flotte! |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 174
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
When I'm playing an allied fleet as opposed to U.S. only, I'd far rather go with Arunta or Haida as opposed to Haida. Both have sub hunter, far better guns than Fletcher, a range 2 torpedo and similar AA and ASW stats. I'll take that over the 3 armor. Interesting that only one U.S. destroyer out of seven (the little DE Samuel Roberts) has sub hunter.
You get a sense of how much more powerful the Japanese DDs are when you've played some 100-point, no-aircraft games as I have lately. When I'm playing an allied fleet, I'm constantly getting peppered with LL torpedo shots. With the addition of the Aoba to buff the stats, it becomes brutal. The Japanese DDs aren't cheap, but they're easily the best small attack ships in the game. Without air cover, allied ships are at a distinct disadvantage. |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
Moderator (here to help you!)
Supreme AHF Trader
Posts: 2123
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
poor US
_________________
[img.]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Animated_gun_turret.gif[/img]
Lieber eine flotte Rote als die rote Flotte! |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:10 pm |
|
|
Posts: 249
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I like the Phelps. The extra initiative bonus is nice, and the higher torpedo attack is a nice thing to have around. Yes, it is more expensive, but I wouldn't take more than two or three in a larger battle (500 pts. or so).
By using the Japanese light cruisers at the rate of one per six to eight destroyers--using them as flotilla leaders (de facto or nominal)--it makes their cost not so hard to swallow. E.g., one Jintsu for maybe five or six Iskokazes.
I would use the Phelps the same way: one for every six or so Fletchers. So by using them at a historical amount, when present with other ships of the same class, they fit right in nicely.
My disclaimer: I tend to err on the side of historical rather than gaming advantage.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 340
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
2 phelps (the max I would ever take) + 2 alaska (obviously the max I can take) = fun, plus I do like her initiative bonus
_________________
SHUT UP ABOUT AMERICAN POWER CREEP, YES WOTC DO GIVE THEM OBVIOUS PREFERENCE, THERE A US COMPANY, BUT IF YOU CAN'T BEAT US FLEETS OF ANY TYPE, THEN JUST COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT MAYBE YOU JUST SUCK.
Trader rating+10 |
|
| Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 174
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Richter von Manthofen wrote: | | poor US |
Poor everyone else is what I constantly hear on this board. But my experiences don't bear that out, especially with the Japanese in low-point games. |
|
| Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:33 am |
|
|
Posts: 145
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rangefinder wrote: | | When I'm playing an allied fleet as opposed to U.S. only, I'd far rather go with Arunta or Haida as opposed to Haida. Both have sub hunter, far better guns than Fletcher, a range 2 torpedo and similar AA and ASW stats. I'll take that over the 3 armor. Interesting that only one U.S. destroyer out of seven (the little DE Samuel Roberts) has sub hunter. |
Arunta and Haida are 1 point undercosted. |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:50 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| WarHighlander wrote: | | Rangefinder wrote: | | When I'm playing an allied fleet as opposed to U.S. only, I'd far rather go with Arunta or Haida as opposed to Haida. Both have sub hunter, far better guns than Fletcher, a range 2 torpedo and similar AA and ASW stats. I'll take that over the 3 armor. Interesting that only one U.S. destroyer out of seven (the little DE Samuel Roberts) has sub hunter. |
Arunta and Haida are 1 point undercosted. |
Actually, R.B. blogged just before Set II was released that he thought Arunta and Haida main gunnery stats are one die too much.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:56 am |
|
|
|
