I've been trying to get to a calculus on identifying the most cost/beneficial hulls in the book.

I assign values to each hull characteristics to balance them on what I find more important (for example, I divide manouverability by 2 and make turrets rat times 5), sum them together, and then divide by the SP cost of the hull.
Note I am not taking into account the ones that come with pre-installed stuff, like the carriers (the Dictator being specially awesome among the cruisers).

The higher the number, the better the cost-benefit. I did not include Void Shields capacity in it, but I will for a next calculation.Maybe also put a modifier in SP for the pre-installed components.

Really gets me to see the transports in a new way.

Calculation: (Space+Speed*5+Det+Armor*2+Man/2+Hull+(WeapSlots*3) +TurretRat*5) / SP

Transports
Core
Jericho 7.4 (Cargo Hauler (1))
Vagabond 7.2 (Cargo Hauler (1))
ITS Specific
Loki 7.1 (Cargo Hauler (1), Hidden Predator (Gain Wolf in Sheep's Clothing History automatically))
Orion 7.3 (Cargo Hauler (1), Fast Ship)
BFK
Carrack 6.1 (Cargo Hauler (1))
Goliath 5.8 (Cargo Hauler (2), Plasma Refinery, Powered by Stars)
Universe 4.5 (Cargo Hauler (4), Oversized Monstrosity, Secondary Power Genetorium)


Raiders
Core
Hazeroth 6.0
Havoc 5.2
ITS Specific
Cobra 6.0
BFK
Iconoclast 5.9 (Easy to Repair (2))
Meritech Shrike 5.8 (Advanced Cogitator Linkage)
Viper 6.9


Frigates
Core
Sword 4.8
Tempest 4.7
ITS Specific
Firestorm 4.5
BFK
Claymore 4.6
Falchion 4.3 (torpedo specialist)
Turbulent 4.6 (Antiquated Communications, Fiery Temperament (2))


Light Cruisers
Core
Dauntless 4.3
ITS Specific
Secutor 4.0 (can equip 2 VS)
Lathe 4.1
BFK
Defiant 3.9 (carrier 2)
Endeavour 4.1 (torpedo specialist)


Cruisers
Core
Lunar 4.2
ITS Specific
Tyrant 4.1
BFK
Ambition 4.3
Conquest 3.9
Dictator 4.0 (carrier 2)


Battlecruisers
BFK
Armageddon 4.0
Chalice 4.1
Mars 3.3 (Carrier (2), Inherent Warship (Mars-Pattern Nova Cannon, Armored Prow)
Overlord 4.0


Grand Cruisers
BFK
Avenger 4.2
Exorcist 3.8
Repulsive 4.1

Did you take weapon capacity configuration into account?

In my book, the Jericho get's a serious mark-down compared to the Vagabond, due to purely non-overlapping fields of fire.

Good point, I multiplied each weap slot by 3 but I didn't take into consideration the ones that have overlapping fields.

My own evaluations usually consider weapons to have the given value per fire-arc-element

Now that you are talking about it, the Dictator worries me (I was going to use it in a coming campaign in which I will be the RT).

A single broadside. How bad would it be to go against Rak Gols with just a single broadside?

(the awesome bomber complement would be pwned against the Rak Gols turret rat 4 ships)

Maybe a best quality hecutor pattern, hmm...

A single broadside, so what?

Do you actually have a gunner who's good enough to make full use of that broadside?

Otherwise, a simple sunsear laser battery in each weapons' mount will usually do the trick.

But really, I'd expect a dictator to absolutely molest Rok'Gol. Simply because because carriers fight based on Command rather than BS. Use assault boats, they do damage based on opposed Command checks, and Rak'Gol will fail their command checks. They have even worse Fellowship than orks and unless I've missed something, they have no "Might Makes Right"-style trick to actually pass command checks.

It's perhaps ironic, but while you don't particularly want to get into close combat against Rak'Gol, boarding their ships is actually about the best way to fight them.

Again, unless I've missed something :-/

A single broadside, so what?

Do you actually have a gunner who's good enough to make full use of that broadside?

Otherwise, a simple sunsear laser battery in each weapons' mount will usually do the trick.

But really, I'd expect a dictator to absolutely molest Rok'Gol. Simply because because carriers fight based on Command rather than BS. Use assault boats, they do damage based on opposed Command checks, and Rak'Gol will fail their command checks. They have even worse Fellowship than orks and unless I've missed something, they have no "Might Makes Right"-style trick to actually pass command checks.

It's perhaps ironic, but while you don't particularly want to get into close combat against Rak'Gol, boarding their ships is actually about the best way to fight them.

Again, unless I've missed something :-/

Agreed, for the most part. Sure, mechanics-wise, Rak'Gol vessels are best fought up-close with Boarding/Hit-and-Run tactics. However, given the fluff, that makes zero sense - so a good GM simply "corrects" the technical aspect to make more sense. I would likely apply a +20 to the Rak'Gol command test to board or repel boarders because they are beasts in close combat. Thus, boarding a Rak'Gol vessel should be done with elite troops or not at all.

As for the first part - about broadsides and needing a good gunner - again, agreed to some degree. But good crews know their strengths/weaknesses, and act accordingly. As such, when there isn't a good gunner among the crew, you basically lean on the Auger Array. Lock on Target makes anyone with a 40+ BS (easy to get to) into a real threat. Sure, it all comes down to the rolls, but, then again, if every shot the gunner took hit every single time, how fun would that be? It would make space combat a foregone conclusion nearly every time.

If your gunners are ... less skilled, one option is Mars Macrocannons (not broadsides!) for the side batteries, and a lance in the prow. Lances ignore armour and have some justification is this configuration.

They have even worse Fellowship than orks and unless I've missed something, they have no "Might Makes Right"-style trick to actually pass command checks.

True. However, they'll still be checking on their basic stat for 'standard' or 'veteran' crew, even though it's better in theory than their fellowship value (just as a krooza's gunz are checked on the same basic stat despite it being better than most orks' BS); it just means they wouldn't be any better when a named commander was on board (which is fair, because Rak'Gol aren't really disciplined enough to do so).

Cruisers can get away with a single broadside because their prow mount can support broadside fire. It's the fact that a transport's can't that makes the Jericho such a pile of grox droppings in a fight (which, let's be fair, it's supposed to be). The Vagabond, by comparison, is actually not bad in a scrap because it can carry a lance and gun batteries, and turns quickly (I always thought 90' turns should have been Raiders, Frigates and Light Cruisers, not Raiders, Frigates and Transports).

True. However, they'll still be checking on their basic stat for 'standard' or 'veteran' crew, even though it's better in theory than their fellowship value (just as a krooza's gunz are checked on the same basic stat despite it being better than most orks' BS); it just means they wouldn't be any better when a named commander was on board (which is fair, because Rak'Gol aren't really disciplined enough to do so).

Aboslutely true. However, when was the last time your group ws worried about anyone with an effective skill of 40, much less 30? All experience tells me that named commanders are largely essential for ships intended to be a credible threat. Preferbly named Gunner as well.

Cruisers can get away with a single broadside because their prow mount can support broadside fire. It's the fact that a transport's can't that makes the Jericho such a pile of grox droppings in a fight (which, let's be fair, it's supposed to be). The Vagabond, by comparison, is actually not bad in a scrap because it can carry a lance and gun batteries, and turns quickly (I always thought 90' turns should have been Raiders, Frigates and Light Cruisers, not Raiders, Frigates and Transports).

I'm confused here, I thought not only that I was making this point, but that I already had?

The only weapons' setup I've seen for a Jericho that looked like it might be actually useful, was a Voss Torpedo Launcher (or Archeotech launcher, I suppose). And you might cut a hole in the cargo hold and use it for fliers I suppose.

Not having overlapping fields of fire for weapons (that is, weapons "being able to support each other") reduces the value of weapon capacities to almost exactly zero. The Sunsear can cause damage on it's own. Sometimes. Against lightly armoured ships. As can broadside batteries, with a sufficiently skilled gunner. But neither reliably so in my experience.

Just as one more comment regarding the Rak Gols: their ships are soaked with deadly high levels of radiation, their life sustainer is called "Fume Life Sustainer" by the AdMech and for a good reason.

Every single boarding crew should need a voidsuit with a good isolation for radiation (the Rak Gol Pulse Drives together with the Fume life support already generate way more radiation in the ship than the void itself already irradiatesI understand).

I think I will just give up on my carrier ideas and return to an Avenger with 3 broadsides overlapping/castellan/excess void armor.
Ah, and also to selling my kidney on the black market for the extra SP I will need for that.

A Dictator, trust me, is a beast. I can give you the impression first hand, as my players' flagship was a cruiser with 2 Bays, 2 broadside and a macro-battery on prow slot. I say w as because she has been refitted now as a battlecruiser.
Disclaimer : we used the Mathammer house-rule aka reduce armor value by 12, deduce armor to EACH macro weapon hit, broadsides strenght are halved, added the Storm quality.
.

Without the houserule, using macro-batteries R.A.W, our Master Of Ordnance can tear appart a cruiser with Broadside+ Prow + Bombers, in a single round. With the houserules, she can do that in two or three turns, depending on the crits inflicted, the damage rolls. Against a smaller targets such as frigates, a full broadside + prow battery is enough usually.
Bombers covers the ship against torpedoes, other small crafts, and also, more importantly, the stern.

My players were not interested in torpedoes in the prow, like a dyed-in-the whole Navy Dictator, as it reduces the ship autonomy in long exploration runs (where can we get torpedoes if we spend all our load ?), adds explodey bits, needs a lot of room, and can't be combined in nice salvo on port/starboard. And reduce the stained glasses surfaces and cathedral-like aspect of the prow, so that was a big no-no ;p.

Though, it can offer appreciable killing power at far range on the prow arc, if that's your taste.

Nevertheless, fo fit a Dictator at creation, you'll still need to have a fresh kidney on hand, trust me.

I think I will just give up on my carrier ideas and return to an Avenger with 3 broadsides overlapping/castellan/excess void armor.

Ah, and also to selling my kidney on the black market for the extra SP I will need for that.

No fire in the front arc

Remember that carriers can interact with targets in any fire arc - even the rear.

Carriers are just plain awesome!

But you'll need someone with a good command skill mind you.

If your players have a decent grasp of spaceship tactics, an Orion is the best bang for your buck. The firing arcs and speed/maneuverability let you use long range weapons to snipe down opponents without really taking any return fire. I have to disagree with your cost-benefit for it. It has raider speed and maneuverability with lots of space for additional components. In actual play it has done extremely well. It has keel and dorsal arcs, which means it can hit from any direction as well.

I'd love to see how you evaluate each parameter.

And as a note aside, I assume you read them all as linear additions? Only, I suspect that the usefulness of speed is almost quadratic.

I personally prefer heavy hitting/heavily armored ships that rely the less as possible on the crew rolls.
I added my current calculus to the top.

I will work on a new one taking into account different weapon slots.

I LOVE the Avenger.

Think of 3 Hecutor Broadsides hitting at range 22 for awesome damage and assloads of strength (imagine a savo from that thing?).
That whilst being protected by 3 VS (if you don't have castellans, in which case these become 6VS) and a natural Armor 21 (which I'd up to 24 and sacrifice manounerability and speed as I won't be needing these unless I have to go against a battleship)
Ah, and the Vapourization crits.

And if you want to be really "Tru", put an armored prow in it, barracks, overload shields, and ram someone while taking 2 ships down each turn on each of the sides.

If you read the Avenger fluff in Bf Koronus, that's exactly what it was built for - being able to wreak havoc in a whole fleet while the other ships come in.