2nd Ed its great :D : however in an ideal world.......

[akenatum]

the man who suggested the removal of lumbering is a genius.....

I would say make the G'quan emines slow loading ( give it's variants 1 shot emines) the bin tak slow loading and leave the g'vhran as is, and make the G'quonth able to fire it's e-mines every turn... i think just doing that would bring the ships into line a lot more for narn....

The octurion needs more range lets say 20 and give it double damage....

It'll still be weaker than a lot of war ships out there, but at least it will bring it that little bit more in line...

Nemesis, okay this is supposed to be a warlock blended with shadow tech, and that blending was supposed to be more thought out and planned than the shadow omega debacle, I would make it's molecular slicer beam a fore arc weapon, cause as an armageddon level ship it's just piss weak, it already sacrifices range to the warlock and a lot of punch in secondaries.

 

[Omnipotent]

A flight of fighters for the Ochlavita? There's a solution I never thought of. That might actually make it more useful. Personally I think it needs maybe 2 more AD on its front bolters, either way. It's just undergunned for its PL.

Dilgar has no fighters in battles with lower lvl ships then Raid. And you get only two flights with a Targrath but it takes up two points

Garasoch is just not worth taking cause you will loose so much firepower, and it will not be compansated with the fighters. It´s a great ship yes, but not when it is the highest priority lvl on the table. U could pretty much compare taking an Garasoch in a 5 point Skirmish battle to taking an Avenger, the Avenger is a bad choice, although the fighters it would bring are great, but I would never use up over 1/3 of my points on a carrier(not talking Gaim here

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I don't know, the Garoasch has to be among the best raid level carriers. Ten flights of decent (if not brilliant) fighters and a bit of firepower to back them with, plus fleet carrier, isn't bad at all. Swap some for the torpedo variant and you have reasonable ship killing potential.

I like the idea of a single flight for the Ochlavita, though. Hey Mongoose, you listening?

 

[Nomad]

just going off topic a sec .. why is a Sub called a boat?

It's a hangover from the 1900s, when the early submarines were very small. It became a tradition, and the RN do love their traditions

It used to apply to destroyers as well, but fell into disuse once they passed 1000 tons displacement, and became proper seagoing ships back around WW1.

 

[akenatum]

Lt.Derina wrote:
just going off topic a sec .. why is a Sub called a boat?

Actually if i remember correctly it's got to do with the number of "masts" a ship has, or in the case of modern ships those high rise tower thingos (don't actually know there name) but 1 or less is a boat, see subs and aircraft carriers are by deffinition boats, destroyers battle ships cruisers all seem to have more than one of these tower/stack "mast" things and are thus reffered to as ships.

 

[dag'karlove]

Lt.Derina wrote:
just going off topic a sec .. why is a Sub called a boat?

Actually if i remember correctly it's got to do with the number of "masts" a ship has, or in the case of modern ships those high rise tower thingos (don't actually know there name) but 1 or less is a boat, see subs and aircraft carriers are by deffinition boats, destroyers battle ships cruisers all seem to have more than one of these tower/stack "mast" things and are thus reffered to as ships.

Well they are still called mast's. They are actually all "ships" as they have Masts. However, Those of us in the navy call our ships boats as a loving expression as its Just not much more than home to us. Albeit a Home that in most cases could level a country the size of Cuba (Unless we had nukes on board then a well a few countries of bigger size). I just wanted it to sound like us sailors have a really cool secret to keep. Well we do but im not telling what it is (And No its not us being gay thats very rare and only because the Us marines belong to teh department of the navy They are our "Lighter shoed sisters") Not that theres anything wrong with being gay mind you it just pisses mariens off to call them that, and i can never pass up a good opportunity to get a good jab in on the maries i mean marines.

 

[Gunnvaldr]

including Matt of a annual "update" book perhaps ideas for this may be appreciated (or not :lol: ).

Not a bad idea, you can add the tantulus and even add different space stations, from a generic to species types.

Shadow Stalker - a bit weak (couple more damage points and a 4AD beam perhaps)[/i]

They seem fine to me when I face them, albiet I can't put faith in any ship with only 1 weapon system

Demos - maybe too good compared to the Vorchan (I would suggest drop the Ion cannons to 8AD)

Poll on this ship. I voted it's fine as it is.

Octurion - not quite good enough I feel (give it either same range beams as the Sullust - 24" or a interceptor or 2)

I thought it was a typo when I read that the Sulust profile for the first time and she had a 24" reach with it's beams. The Octurion still serves well for me, albiet somewhat outshine by my perferance to field the Adira when I can. It insures area denial and good for finishing off cripples and push wounded ships to the corners.

G'Quan - a bit weak (make its beam 6AD)

My Narn buddy will never use the ship or it's variants given a choice. Either going up for a G'Vrahn or down for Var'Nics. The ship is consider very pretty but otherwise uneffective. I do like blow them up with my Secundus

G'Vahn may be a little strong? (perhaps make the energy mine a normal SL one but not sure here)

Another Poll'd ship, voted it was fine as it was. Out shine the G'Quon/Lan/etc and makes the bin'tak somewhat uneffective. besides ISD my Narn buddy will never touch the G'Quon/etc or the Bin'Tak. The Ka'Bin'Tak however he's addicted to.

Fireraptor - Well it fits the fluff - its dire

Needs more! Spd 10, swap Particle for Heavy Particle's, add 1 more Sky and/or add 2 more Star's, 6+ dodge (same to the falcon's plz), and perhaps throw in breach pods for good measure. Just doing half of this will give a Drazi fleet a effective heavy fist at war lvl.

Raiders - I still think Triggy's scavanged ships would be a great additon to this fleet ............

I understand MGP stand not to make the Raider's an effective military force, but still you can throw in more old hulls into their force. Like a Orestes System monitor/Battleship.

 

[David Anla Shok']

Lt.Derina wrote:
just going off topic a sec .. why is a Sub called a boat?

Actually if i remember correctly it's got to do with the number of "masts" a ship has, or in the case of modern ships those high rise tower thingos (don't actually know there name) but 1 or less is a boat, see subs and aircraft carriers are by deffinition boats, destroyers battle ships cruisers all seem to have more than one of these tower/stack "mast" things and are thus reffered to as ships.

Well they are still called mast's. They are actually all "ships" as they have Masts. However, Those of us in the navy call our ships boats as a loving expression as its Just not much more than home to us. Albeit a Home that in most cases could level a country the size of Cuba (Unless we had nukes on board then a well a few countries of bigger size). I just wanted it to sound like us sailors have a really cool secret to keep. Well we do but im not telling what it is (And No its not us being gay thats very rare and only because the Us marines belong to teh department of the navy They are our "Lighter shoed sisters") Not that theres anything wrong with being gay mind you it just pisses mariens off to call them that, and i can never pass up a good opportunity to get a good jab in on the maries i mean marines.

"Life is hard, it's harder when you are a Tard"... and don't ever forget to capitalize Marines, you dope... ;>

 

[David Anla Shok']

In a more appropriate vein, I am shocked, shocked mind you, that I pretty much agree with Da Boss. Well, about 90 per cent of it anyway. Too bad we aren't on the Mongoose rules Annual Selection System or perhaps the Rules Equalization, Testing, Analysis, Reconsideration, and Distribution groups.
I don armor, activate stealth, but not run silent in preparation for the worst.

 

[Foxmeister]

"Life is hard, it's harder when you are a Tard"... and don't ever forget to capitolize Marines, you dope... ;>

It might just be me, but I've no idea how one would "capitolize" a Marine???

Regards,

Dave

 

[Da Boss]

In a more appropriate vein, I am shocked, shocked mind you, that I pretty much agree with Da Boss. Well, about 90 per cent of it anyway. Too bad we aren't on the Mongoose rules Annual Selection System or perhaps the Rules Equalization, Testing, Analysis, Reconsideration, and Distribution groups.
I don armor, activate stealth, but not run silent in preparation for the worst.

Am not sure how to take that ?

It was a mixture of my thoughts and how I understood the "feeling" on the forum.

 

[locarno24]

It might just be me, but I've no idea how one would "capitolize" a Marine???

Send them up to the hill to beg for funding from Congress.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

No, that's capital as well. Capitol is only appropriate for the silly American government building or the hill in Rome. :wink:

 

[Prophaniti]

But he was referring to the silly building.

 

[Greg Smith]

The Capitol is where congress sits. Even this silly Brit knows that.

There's one in Toulouse, too.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Can't expect the French to spell properly, though, can you? :wink:

 

[David Anla Shok']

Can't expect the French to spell properly, though, can you? :wink:

Oh my. All this from the folks with an excess amount of "u"s..... It was 0300. Even I am permitted the occasional misspelling. Now, as for the rest of you...

 

[Foxmeister]

So long as you don't use "loose" when you really mean "lose". As wargamers, it's one we see all the time and it's my own personal pet bugbear!

I once had an employer incorrectly insist that I correct my spelling of "lose" to "loose" in a document, and every time I see it I'm reminding of what a pompous arse he was! :evil:

 

[David Anla Shok']

So long as you don't use "loose" when you really mean "lose". As wargamers, it's one we see all the time and it's my own personal pet bugbear!

I once had an employer incorrectly insist that I correct my spelling of "lose" to "loose" in a document, and every time I see it I'm reminding of what a pompous arse he was! :evil:

Indeed. Just one of many for me though Oh for a forum spell check!

 

[Lord David the Denied]

So long as you don't use "loose" when you really mean "lose". As wargamers, it's one we see all the time and it's my own personal pet bugbear!

I once had an employer incorrectly insist that I correct my spelling of "lose" to "loose" in a document, and every time I see it I'm reminding of what a pompous arse he was! :evil:

My pet hate is cavalry misspelled as calvary. One is soldiers on horseback. The other is the hill where Christ was crucified. You'd think people would know the difference...