See this link on Star Ship Build Times for further information on that very discussion.

See this link on Star Ship Build Times for further information on that very discussion.

Thank you Nameless2all for the link. After reading a few of the posts here i remembered that you are correct javcs...it was a lunar classed ship and it was built in 11yrs...but that was rather the exception not the standard...since lunar class was one of the refits for existing cruiser classes...not that long to refit to lunar standards...but even building one from scratch if you have all the relevant materials in the same system...i would say that 10yrs for a cruiser class would be a good average ( if you have mechanicum build it )

See this link on Star Ship Build Times for further information on that very discussion.

Thank you Nameless2all for the link. After reading a few of the posts here i remembered that you are correct javcs...it was a lunar classed ship and it was built in 11yrs...but that was rather the exception not the standard...since lunar class was one of the refits for existing cruiser classes...not that long to refit to lunar standards...but even building one from scratch if you have all the relevant materials in the same system...i would say that 10yrs for a cruiser class would be a good average ( if you have mechanicum build it )

Nooo ... the Lunar is a base cruiser class, not a variant on another cruiser class. A relatively simple cruiser hull, but it is one commonly used as a base for variants, either through refits or new-builds, or repair/rebuilds after taking severe damage.

We might also be assuming that the labor lasts, resources being shipped in from out-system don't get lost when Tzeentch burps, and on. With various Tech-Priests viewing this or that as heresy, or lacking full piety, anyway, and backstabbing each other with what only they still know, I can see the ships, especially big ones, taking stupidly long times. if you stop and think about it, we don't, necessarily, do much better. Half the people question the expense, when plenty of the things on the ground could use the money (America's infrastructure is rated D, I think, though that can change from year to year; probably won't, though), while the other half question what we are REALLY building up there. Is it spying on us? Will it nuke someone from orbit, and various global nations bicker about what's allowed, and CERTAINLY don't pool all their resources to make it a reality. Certain people are certainly only trying to profit off of it, like most gov't expenses, because I ignorantly question the sheer expense of some parts of it, but only a few gov'ts are paying toward it. I won't say the InSS isn't an amazing thing, because it is, and I'm a strong supporter of our space program, when America has one, but the stuff we have built has taken decades, and is simple by 40k Imperial Battleship standards. We are no where near living on the Moon, colonizing Mars, or other such stuff that they can do, and we comparatively get along. Figure the Death Star took 20 years in Star Wars to build, and that was with the best equipment, minds (Bevel Lemelisk, himself), and thousands of planets each anteing up parts of the expense, in a planned, calculated way (how the second one was a good deal bigger, and past 50% done in 2 years is Lucas's fault). 40k has a lot more things that can go wrong,, a lot less best gear, and fewer dedicated minds. Also, nothing says the ship foundries are working at maximum capacity; they SHOULD be, but bureaucracy is bureaucracy at every level.

Yeah, Lunar-class are special for being very quick to make, by cruiser standards. Go for something a little more out there, say the Tyrant, and you might be waiting half a century. It's also the fault of 40k scale. Their "big ships" are HUGE, easily what many other franchises refer to as station-sized, already. Babylon 5 was a space station, at 5 miles long. Star Wars used to be about there, with 1,000 m Star Destroyers, and 5km long Supers, like the Executor (back in the 90's kids), but then it was if if a billion nerds suddenly cried out in rage, and couldn't be silenced, and Lucas went upscaling things, so I now think that the big E of Star Wars is officially around 21 miles long, or so, because hell, Lucas's models weren't to scale, but they were painted. Still got Marty McFly back to 1985. If 40k ships weren't stupidly huge, they'd take a lot less time to build, even with conniving tech-priests still being conniving.

So I made a weapon for this beast..

Starhammer Lance: Battlecruisers, Grand Cruisers. Power 15, Space 8, Str 3, Dam 1d10+4, Crit 3, Range 10, SP 3, Very Rare, Heavy Weapon.

"Rather than being a lance array, the Starhammer is, quite simply, the single biggest and heaviest laser weapon the Imperium can still reliably produce, albeit only at a handful of forge worlds. Only placeable on Battlecruisers and larger, or in ground-based emplacements, it must be placed in the Prow slot, where it can only fire directly forward, except on Grand Cruisers and larger, where it can also be placed in a Dorsal slot. It is often favored by many Battlecruiser captains who dislike Nova Cannons due to their lack of reliability, volatile systems, inaccuracy, and arduous use requirements, but which still desire the single heaviest weapon possible."

And I also wrote up what seems to be a good loadout for this monster, IMO appropriate to a consideration of 'the best new vessel the Navy can generally put together'. I'm thinking in the range of ~123 ship points with the full loadout. Thoughts?

Ifrit Heavy Battlecruiser
Vessel of the Fleet - Steadfast Ally
Good Power Saturine-Pattern Class 4A "Ultra"
Strelov 2
Good Power Emergency Field
Triple Void Shield Array
Good Power Ship Master's Bridge
Good Power Vitae Life Sustainer
Good Power Voidsman Quarters
M-201.b Augur
Prow: Mars Nova Cannon
Dorsal: Starhammer Lance
Port 1: Ryza Plasma Battery
Port 2: Sunsear Las-Broadside
Starboard 1: Ryza Plasma Battery
Starboard 2: Sunsear Las-Broadside
Cargo Hold and Lighter Bay
Munitorium
Veteran Crew
4x Good Quality Turbo-Weapon Batteries

1x Good Quality Superior Damage Control

Which is why this isn't a battlecruiser? It is designed to be a modern heavy cruiser built along battlecruiser lines?

IE, rather than 'lots of guns, good speed, some armor', it's 'lots of guns, lots of armor, bad speed'? IE, the closest they can get to a battleship, but smaller? So a modern pocket battleship?

I'm probably nitpicking here, but I think you have the wrong idea of a pocket battleship. The only ships from history I recall that were referred to in that way were the 3 German ships. The Germans were limited by the Versailles Treaty, though that was somewhat ameliorated by the Washington Treaty (iirc). Regardless, these ships were really battle cruisers of their time. They were lightly armored (the Graf Spee was sunk by heavy cruisers' 8" guns). They were fast (28 knots was a good clip at the time they were laid down, though slow by WWII standards). They had BC guns (11"). One of their speed issues was due to the diesel engines. These ships were designed as commerce raiders, not ships of the line. They had an incredible endurance (over 10k miles). They were designed to stay out raiding without having to return to port.

I don't really see Imperial battlecruisers as lightly armored. I also don't see the reason for nitpicking the name, as I have just done. Why not just call it a different kind of cruiser hull?

Well things aren't an EXACT match to the history of the british navy, ya know? I guess the official is 'Heavy Battlecruiser'?