A G'Vrahn thread!**now with added poll!**

[Da Boss]

Hiffano is going to be very angry when he logs back in !

 

[katadder]

lol when isnt he only joking hiff. well at least its not about Liatis anymore, its warlocks versus octurions

 

[GhostRecon]

I can see my point was wholly missed and glossed over, and so reading comprehension becomes a concern, but regardless...

although TBH what this has to do with the g'vrahn versus bin'tak type debate I really dont know.

In the post I made before yours:

This only highlights what I'm trying to say: That there is more that needs balancing than just nerfing the G'vrahn, even to make the Bin'tak a better choice. That there are underlying issues and balance problems that, if resolved, could probably fix alot of the complaints and issues we have now.

If you change the G'vrahn, you need to consider how that affects the rest of the Narn war-level hulls, and how -THAT- affects High Priority Level performance for the Narn fleet, and how ALL of that affects the Narn Fleet in battles, competitive or not. And, if necessary, juggle some numbers and make changes so that the Narn don't get shafted because one ship is percieved as "broken."

the hyperion gets 4AD compared to a teshlans/whitestars 2. the omega gets 6AD compared to a tinashis 4. its all because of boresight and on beams dice matter.

Except the Hyperion is speed 8 to the Teshlan's speed 14, the Teshlan is 2x45A, and is stealth 5+ to boot. We'll exclude the secondaries of both for the sake of argument.

Whitestars are well established, and need no explanation.

Both ships outclass the Hyperion. The Whitestar's Dodge, AA, SR, 14/15 speed, 2x90A mean it'll survive whatever beam shots it gets and run rings around the Hyperion. And how 4 AD of DD beams, with boresight, is justified compared to the far better 2 AD of TD, P beams (With the same range between the two) is confusing, at the least. Where is the logic in that?

More beam dice does matter, yes. Which is why forward arc beams are better. They have a few less AD in dice, but they get to use those dice far more often.

And 2 AD more on the Omega, compared to the Tinashi? Thank god you're here, whatever would we do without you?

The Omega is lumbering, which only magnifies the limitations of a boresighted beam weapon.

Worse, its 6 AD of DD beams may have 5 inches better range, but the Tinashi's beams DD and Precise, all for a loss of 2 AD. This on a hull with less damage and crew, but speed 10, 2x45 turns, Stealth 5+...

A Omega or Hyperion would need to get 4 turns of boresighted shots to, based on an averaged amount of beam shots (At 4+, the Omega would have, on average about 5 hits and the Hyperion on average between 3 to 4 hits), equal the amount of beam shots that, comparatively, a Teshlan, Whitestar, or Tinashi would get, at the appropriate priorities, over 6 turns.

Now, thats 4 turns of getting boresight, assuming you can get 4 turns of boresight on the targets you need, and assuming initiative favors you. And with the Omega, assuming you arn't out maneuvered. And that's on average, and not accounting for precise, which on beam weapons, is huge.

And which is more likely, hm? 4 turns of boresight beam shots, or 4, or even 6 turns, of forward arc beam shots?

So a boresight weapon having 2 more AD, in both examples used, is supposed to equal a forward arc beam weapon that has precise? What fantasy world is this, that I too can have boresight weapons that defy all logic, a wonderful world where 2 AD somehow means my boresight weapons are as good as the precise, forward arc beams? Not even to mention the forward arc, precise beams being mounted on faster, more maneuverable ships, and in general, having longer ranged secondary weapons as well.

 

[katadder]

And which is more likely, hm? 4 turns of boresight beam shots, or 4, or even 6 turns, of forward arc beam shots?

well apart from the precise that evens out 4 turns of 6AD boresight beams is 24AD, 4-6 turns of forward arc 4AD beams gives you 16-24AD. so overall that looks pretty balanced. ok if its precise thats more crits but the ships with precises also tend to have less damage more often than not.
one question, why does lumbering make it any harder to line up a boresight? you still have a single 45 degree turn to use at any point in your move. only differance is if said target is further away than your max range after turning. so yet agian you come out with things you know nothing about. lumbering or not 1/45 turn equals just as likely to get a boresight.

 

[GhostRecon]

And which is more likely, hm? 4 turns of boresight beam shots, or 4, or even 6 turns, of forward arc beam shots?

well apart from the precise that evens out 4 turns of 6AD boresight beams is 24AD, 4-6 turns of forward arc 4AD beams gives you 16-24AD. so overall that looks pretty balanced. ok if its precise thats more crits but the ships with precises also tend to have less damage more often than not.
one question, why does lumbering make it any harder to line up a boresight? you still have a single 45 degree turn to use at any point in your move. only differance is if said target is further away than your max range after turning. so yet agian you come out with things you know nothing about. lumbering or not 1/45 turn equals just as likely to get a boresight.

Amusing how every single of your retorts is essentially "Lol you're wrong" and thus "You know nothing."

Except, as is completely obvious, 1x45 degree turn is even worse than the Hyperion at lining up boresights, which is 2x45.

And because its lumbering, it can't move after turning.

And of course, the most obvious thing that you blithely ignore, even after having used it in the examples of the Octurion vs the Warlock.

Namely, that lumbering ships will have significant difficulties getting ships into their forward arc, let alone boresight. Particularly after the first turn, and especially when things are up close. Restricted to 1x45 lumbering turn per turn, unless you get a Come About roll, essentially means you will be outmanuvered.

So, the idea of getting 4 turns of boresight with a Omega is laughably optimistic, particularly if you're fighting a Tinashi, or Liati.

And so the number of AD you get to shoot that spiffy 6 AD DD boresighted beam with drop off even quicker, only increasing the gap between it and the forward arc precise beam weapons.

I'll use your "refuting argument" method:

yet agian you come out with things you know nothing about.

And "Lol your wrong".

 

[Misiolak]

I mostly agree with GhostRecon, and he really uses Liati only as an example to support his arguments.

I also have a feeling that some Centauri players have a biased oppinion on matter of the G'Vrahn, maybe because it is so good as exposing the Liati only weakness.

I am for not messing with the balance, apart from shadow fighters of course, but fortunately my friends and I homeruled it to 3/flight.

The problem with only seeing G'Vrahns in Narn fleets is not with G'Vrahn. It is problem with G'Quan and Bin'Tak.

 

[Ripple]

the only issue with looking at it from the point of view of the G'Quan and the Bin'taks are the problem is that you are now entering codex creep. Find the toughest ship in the game, make everyone equal to it, screw up one ship, maybe two, and all other ships now need to be boosted again, until you have to go to a whole new edition to get back any sanity.

Instead of looking at this is better than that, how about what is the standard basic ship at War? Then we can look at what horse trading was done to produce each ship, and whether we agree on the formula.

example is the G'Quan vs the Omega vs the Tinashi... all long range battle sniper ships... more beam dice vs better beam dice vs specialist weapon in addition to beam. Hard to argue which should be bumped which should be dropped without a standard, as throwing in Xaak or Kaliva and the comparisons become less clear.

Ripple

 

[Foxmeister]

Interestingly, with 64 votes in (which is a pretty reasonable sample), it's currently bang on 50% of the vote that believe the G'Vrahn is fine as is, and 25% believe that perhaps the E-mine could be made one-shot.

As a Narn player, I'm naturally biased anyway, but I wouldn't necessarily mind the Bin'Tak and G'Vrahn swapping e-mines - in my experience even a 6AD TD SL e-mine isn't going to be a major factor in the amount of damage that the G'Vrahn can kick out over a game except to smaller ships, but then again it may need that in order to get full use from its boresight gun.

However, all being said and done, my intepretation of the poll results thus far is that the G'Vrahn clearly isn't broken if 75% of poll respondents are advocating little or no change.

Regards,

Dave

 

[H]

Thank you to those who are trying to remain Civil. It is appreciated.

 

[Misiolak]

the only issue with looking at it from the point of view of the G'Quan and the Bin'taks are the problem is that you are now entering codex creep. Find the toughest ship in the game, make everyone equal to it, screw up one ship, maybe two, and all other ships now need to be boosted again, until you have to go to a whole new edition to get back any sanity.

That is why I wrote that I am against messing with balance in the same post. The line about G'Quan was only to put some perspective in.

 

[Burger]

Instead of looking at this is better than that, how about what is the standard basic ship at War? Then we can look at what horse trading was done to produce each ship, and whether we agree on the formula.

That is actually something we discussed locally over here. There should be a fleet called the "vanilla fleet" or the Genericoids or something. All their ships are very plain and boring with no special features or traits, but perfectly balanced. There can be generic fast attack ships, generic slow cruisers, generic carries, etc. Every other ship at that level should be created from this template: if you add something, you should also take something away. For example give it stealth, reduce its hull and damage values. Give it a double damage beam, reduce its AD.

That way you have something to compare to. Instead of saying "Ah the G'Vrahn is better than a Bin'Tak" or "Oh but the Liati is good too, so the G'Vrahn is fine". Comprisons could be made to the generic fleet. If something is better, nerf it. If worse, boost it. Comparisons to other ships become irrelevant.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

That generic fleet should be the Earth Alliance. The fleet we get most info on from the canon, gets most screen time and most people are familiar with.

 

[katadder]

one question, why does lumbering make it any harder to line up a boresight? you still have a single 45 degree turn to use at any point in your move. only differance is if said target is further away than your max range after turning. so yet agian you come out with things you know nothing about. lumbering or not 1/45 turn equals just as likely to get a boresight.

Amusing how every single of your retorts is essentially "Lol you're wrong" and thus "You know nothing."

Except, as is completely obvious, 1x45 degree turn is even worse than the Hyperion at lining up boresights, which is 2x45.

And because its lumbering, it can't move after turning.

And of course, the most obvious thing that you blithely ignore, even after having used it in the examples of the Octurion vs the Warlock.

Namely, that lumbering ships will have significant difficulties getting ships into their forward arc, let alone boresight. Particularly after the first turn, and especially when things are up close. Restricted to 1x45 lumbering turn per turn, unless you get a Come About roll, essentially means you will be outmanuvered.

like i said what has lumbering got to do with how easy it is to get a boresight? yes i agree a hyperion has more chance of getting a boresight than an omega as it has 2 turns standard.
but an omega has as much chance of boresighting a target as a warlock, which is my point. lumbering does not effect your ability to boresight unless you are out of range after turning, which with a 30" beam doesnt have very often. as ranges get closer the omega actually is better off than a warlock due to being slower.

as you keep saying read my posts and you might realise what I am on about. thing is here I know I am right, boresight is not a problem at all, I never have a problem with it and neither do many earth/narn players that i know. you can say I am wrong all you like, however fortunately enough I know how right I am

 

[Ripple]

Bore sight can often need more than one turn due to needing to see around terrain, lumbering ships can't make a Come About to get a second turn, only a better turn.

You can't move after the turn, so if the range is close to edge, you often can't quite make it, as turning effectively shortens your move.

Just two cases where it does matter, and does make it harder.

Ripple

 

[katadder]

very rarely is 2/45 better than 1/90 though ripple as long as you have the movement. an omega could go forward 7" and turn 90 degrees on come about to actually get round the terrain as it were.
a warlock could make 2/45 on come about but it still ends up being 90 degrees but with at least 2" between turns.
and the omega can always go less than a warlock to make that 90 degree turn.
as you said, the only time lumbering really matters between ships of the same speed is if you are not quite in range after making the turn, which is rarely a problem on 30" ranges.
the only other time lumbering matters is if you have a boresight ship in a head to head with your lumbering ship as you cannot get off the boresight, as my mothership found saturday. 2 drazi firehawks boresighted it before it had even moved but as they were directly head to head there was nothing i could do to get off the boresight.

one good thing about the bin'tak (also applies to omegas, marathans, hyperions) over the g'vrahn to try get back on topic is it can do a double boresight. lots of people forget that rear beam and a double boresight is actually quite easy to do as long as you have the move to get on that line between 2 ships. triggy pulled it off at the weekend, unfortunately we took out his rearbeam then his ship but the chance was there.

 

[Kosh127]

The ship is powerful but its not broken. Its forward fire power it very massive but, it is very lacking in all others. Plus if you can be behind its over. The Bin is a great ship. Its tought and has good weopens. The good thing about it is that it has more all around firewpower. I my self perfer the GVran, but they are both good ships. One is just better than the other. Don't forget the service dates on them. On is old and the other Brand new. With the range you should be able to shoot for more than one turn every 6.

 

[Burger]

Don't forget the service dates on them. On is old and the other Brand new.

Very few people use ISD's. Age has nothing to do with PL or balance.

 

[Kosh127]

true people don't use them. However look at the game as a whole and there should be when looking at 1 fleet in its lifetime a dirffrence. If you want to look for advancement and common sence. Plus more fun. case in point EA.

 

[Burger]

Yes, hence why the EA's more advanced ships are higher PL levels.

ISD has nothing to do with a ship's PL. Just like model size, colour and name don't either. Only the ship's power dictates its PL. All ships in one PL should be equal, irrespective of all other details.

 

[H]

Yes, hence why the EA's more advanced ships are higher PL levels.

ISD has nothing to do with a ship's PL. Just like model size, colour and name don't either. Only the ship's power dictates its PL. All ships in one PL should be equal, irrespective of all other details.

agreed. As i was discussing at weekend, the US battleships were astoundingly powerful. they could dish out destuction over and above some modern warships. however they are outclassed by modern warships, not in destroctive power, and indeed they had better armour, but they are outranged and not as flexible.