Ospreys: Some tactical considerations

[lastbesthope]

So I've been looking at the Osprey and had some thoughtson it's use:

1) There is an argument to be made for fielding an empty/near empty Osprey instead of a Vladimir. For only 90 points more in the empty case you get a few less weapons but you do get Command +2, which until the Command Frigate hits the tables is not too bad. Unless you're up against a fleet with lots of "Lets ignore his shields" weaponry.

2) If you want a Dreadnought but need a Carrier in your group, the Osprey is a decent compromise.

3) In Carrier clash the Carrier needs to be the largest ship in the fleet points wise. Hawkwood can do that with an Osprey and thus still have access to cruisers, mind you in low points games that is not an advantage.

4) 490 points is a lot before you even fill it with fighters. consider only half filling it, 9 is still more than most single carriers can deploy, and you'll be able to start the game with all your fighters deployed...

Mind you, given my poor run of tactical acheivement I wouldn't expect any of the above to hold true.

LBH

 

[katadder]

its problems are hull 4 and less weaponry for 90pts less. that hull 4 is the main reason for me.
so far carriers have not had a massive impact on games, perhaps the osprey can but its expensive if loaded out with bombers. plus need a Malcolm or 2 to support those bombers with fighters

 

[lastbesthope]

YEah but an Osprey can carry 2 Malcolms worth, it's fighters can coover it''s bombers.

You're right about Hull 4 and it lacks weapons compared to a Vlad, but I've had these thoughts bouncing around in my brain for a while so I thought I'd bounce them off other people's as well :lol:

LBH

 

[starbreaker]

its problems are hull 4 and less weaponry for 90pts less. that hull 4 is the main reason for me.
so far carriers have not had a massive impact on games, perhaps the osprey can but its expensive if loaded out with bombers. plus need a Malcolm or 2 to support those bombers with fighters

110 points less, but agreed in general. The firepower tradeoff (3 medium lasers, 2 heavies, and the heavy meson cannon) is much less significant than the lowered hull value, especially now that there are two enemy fleets with a mix of Inaccurate and Guided weapons (both of which love hull 4) rather than just one. You're also missing the 6 free Marauders and 4 troops overall which is probably a hidden cost - against many foes (including Kurgan) you'll want to pay for Marauder upgrades to compensate. I can't see running it empty myself, but filling the bays probably isn't absolutely vital to get good value out of it.

Also, Hawkwood bombers may be the best in the game right now (Hazat can argue the point too) and skimping on them seems a shame. They're such a good mix of speed, durability (8 AD on average to force a carrier save!), and offense (3 AD of microtorps is great) that an enemy pretty much has to deal with them, and that draws fire away from the Osprey's soft hull and keeps its guns firing longer. Even if he kills them with dogfighting, the points he invested there are ones not spent ship-killing guns, and more likely some of his ships' fire will be expended shooting down bomber waves. He can't ignore them - 4 bombers one-shot a frigate, and 6 will manage a destroyer most of the time, and with speed 10 you might actually get to reload and do it twice.

You might try running it with lots of galliots and frigates in a big game. If the bulk of your fleet is hull 4 the Osprey is less likely to be singled out than if it's the soft target alongside a wall of destroyers and cruisers. The galliots would help cover your boarding vulnerability, and might grab some big VP and extra guns to bolster your own fleet. Selective bomber strikes and careful use of the Osprey's guns should isolate targets for boarding with the galliots pretty effectively.