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

[Enalut]

The Bin Tak was a "good" not ship before the G'Vrahn came out in FIRST EDITION. But is was better than it currently is (especially compared to the first edition G'Quan that was even more pathetic than it is now).

Given the miriad of changes that occured to the various rule mechanics (beam, point splitting, lumbering, emines, etc...) as well as the complete overhaul of many ships and races, the comparison of what the Bin Tak was in its previous form versus what it is now is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Critically, once the point splitting ruels changed and it became much more advantageous to use swams lof smaller ships rather than one large one, what was a passibly effctive brawler ceased to be able to accomplish its task agaisnt the increased effectiveness of smaller ships.

Refering o the previous "Glory days" of a ship as an argument for why it is not effective in the current game is a spuriosu attempt to belittle your opponents argument.

Yes I am advocating greatly increasing the strengnth of te Bin Tak--but I do not want to see the roels of the two ships merged.

If you want to state the basis for a belie that the current Bin/Tak is an effective ship, please do so, but please withhold any pithy sniping about a changed situation until you choose to add some substance to a discussion.

EDIT: Changed some glaring spelling mistakes and added the second last paragraph.

 

[Foxmeister]

While that may have been the original intent of this thread, I believe that as others and myself have illustrated, you cannot discuss -just- balancing one ship without considering how it balances across that entire priority level among all races, how it balances that particular fleet, and how it affects that fleet's performance in relation to other races. And how, ultimately, one can make shifts, if necessary, to better balance the whole equation.

I suggest you read the post I made prior to the one you commented on! I was pointing out the Enalut has dropped in on a thread and misunderstood the premise entirely!

Regards,

Dave

 

[Ripple]

Your comparison is flawed Enalut.

Right now any buy down is better than a single larger choice. You can do that across all fleets.

What you are advocating is a general escalation of the entire game. Find any over powered ship and then go through the fleet and raise all the ships up to the level of the busted ships. I've played those games, they continually get worse as time goes on.

I'm also not sure I agree with you assement of the roles they fill. As evidence look at all the changes you need the Bin'Tak to go through to fill that role. The Bin'Tak has short ranged secondaries in large numbers, that indicates to me that it is a bunker sniper. Much the role that the G'Quan fills.

The G'V has longer ranged secondaries and more forward arc (as opposed to bore) firepower. This is the ship that engages multiple smaller ships, using its maneuver to swing that front arc around to wherever its needed, and using it's long range (for narn) secondaries to support near escorts.

You want to claim they have different roles, try only giving one command, try giving them different fighter compliments, as is, the G'Vrahn does everything the Bin'Tak does AND is a great fast attack cruiser.

Ripple

 

[Enalut]

Ripple,

I admit to arguing for an "escalation of the game", but not a general one. What I think is needed is generally to escalate the firepower of the larger ships to make them more attractive. Given the apparent consciosu decision of Mongoose to revamp certain basic rules (specifically the point spliting rules and the beam dynamic) to favor smaller ships, then I am advocating a corresponding change in thier firepower to encurage the use of larger ships.

 

[Jim?]

The Bin Tak was a "good" not ship before the G'Vrahn came out in FIRST EDITION. But is was better than it currently is (especially compared to the first edition G'Quan that was even more pathetic than it is now).

Actually, I prefered the 1e G'Quan... it won me a tournament when given 2 banks of ship breaker emines. It had a rediculous ammount of short range punch in that configuation, and killed Da Boss' Tertius in one volley, if I recall correctly :?

Quite frankly, I think the best think to do with the G'Vrahn and Bin'Tak is to give them both one shot emines, then drop the the Bin'Tak's pulse cannon as well and give it a P/S/A burst beam at range 12 with 4AD, as has previously been suggested. Maybe TL the G'Vrahn's secondaries if you want, it'd make them actually worth having.

I'd love to see a G'Quan varient that drops the emine and Pulse cannon to get a 4D burst beam in the side arcs as well...

 

[Target]

If the G'Varhn had no emines would people still take it ?
If so then it's probably a tad overpowered.
I'd still take it over Bin Tak.

 

[inq101]

If the G'Varhn had no emines would people still take it ?
If so then it's probably a tad overpowered.
I'd still take it over Bin Tak.

I would still take it to lead my fast and agile Narn ship squadrons but would feel it was weak for the job.

 

[dag'karlove]

Personally I will continue to use my Bintaks whether in concert with my gvrahns or not. They are still bruisers they still take up attention and they are still to me the hallmark of my narn fleet. As for someone will always buy down? Way off the mark. Only if someone is suicidal will they take 2 Gquans or thier variants over a Bintak. I would refer you to my avatar if they do. Bottom line If any of you ever want to come to my neck of teh woods and put your fleet up against my narn with a Bintak in it, Bring it and ill show you how just how toothless you all think the Bintak is. And after you limp home with your tail between your legs and ytou see ha the Bintak is still a premier Warship itll give youa whole new outlook.

 

[GhostRecon]

While that may have been the original intent of this thread, I believe that as others and myself have illustrated, you cannot discuss -just- balancing one ship without considering how it balances across that entire priority level among all races, how it balances that particular fleet, and how it affects that fleet's performance in relation to other races. And how, ultimately, one can make shifts, if necessary, to better balance the whole equation.

I suggest you read the post I made prior to the one you commented on! I was pointing out the Enalut has dropped in on a thread and misunderstood the premise entirely!

Regards,

Dave

I did, I was simply commenting on both your posts, the difference is simply he chose a perspective that maybe the Bin'Tak needed to be better, since half the premise of the arguments used in favor of nerfing the G'vrahn was that the Bin'Tak was no longer a worthy choice.

My point is, people for nerfing the G'vrahn have made no inquiries or suggestions, or even comments, as to how reducing the G'vrahn in anyway affects the performance of the Narn war-level choices as a whole, overall high-priority level Narn fleet performance, and the balance of the Narn fleet as a whole.

Sure nerfing the G'vrahn makes the Bin'Tak a better choice; but how does this affect, say, EVERYTHING ELSE in the game? Because "Lol nos" to the contrary, it in fact does.

 

[H]

it affects nothing in the game apart from the ship that is ammended if done correctly. This has been done before and sure as hell will be done again.

by changingthe G'Vrahn, should it be done, you have, in fact, changed the G'Vrahn. it may become less appealing, but it does not change the effectiveness of the Var'Nic against an earth alliance fleet, it does not make the Gaim any less sickening to play against, and it does not make stealth any more or less a pain in the ass. your argument that changing this one ship means you have to review everything seems odd. I changed the tyre on my car recently, what did it do? it affected my car, did everyone else have to go get new tyres to balance with me?!

 

[dag'karlove]

Its spelled Tire*. and in a roundabout sense it does effect the rest of us. By giving you better traction you increase you stability and stopping time making you less of a hazard to the rest of us on the road. Do I have to change my tire's now? No. Amd I safer and id it have an effect? Yes.

 

[H]

tire is what hapens to you after a hard days work, you tire, you become tired, you are tired.

but did YOU have to re-balance your car by buying a new tyre, no! only my tyre was broken, now it is fixed,

 

[Enalut]

Hiff, you are pushing the argument to the absurd. Changing the G/Vrahn does effect how the Narn play as a fleet and effects more than the calculations of whether to take that one ship or not.

 

[H]

no, I am pointing out to Ghost recon that changing one ship does NOT require that you re-asses every single ship in a fleet.
I may have used a silly example to do so though.

 

[GhostRecon]

no, I am pointing out to Ghost recon that changing one ship does NOT require that you re-asses every single ship in a fleet.
I may have used a silly example to do so though.

Please read what I said...

My point is, people for nerfing the G'vrahn have made no inquiries or suggestions, or even comments, as to how reducing the G'vrahn in anyway affects the performance of the Narn war-level choices as a whole, overall high-priority level Narn fleet performance, and the balance of the Narn fleet as a whole.

Changing one ship changes the entire dynamic of the fleet.

If you removed the Demos, how does that affect the entire Centauri fleet?

If you nerfed the Liati, how does that affect the entire Centauri fleet?

If you made the Marathon a forward arc beam armed ship, how does that affect the entire Earth Alliance fleet?

If you change the G'vrahn, you change the entire dynamic of how Narn players may or may not chose their fleets.

What if they use the Bin'Tak more, but find it simply doesn't perform up to snuff? What if they decide, ultimately, that fielding a combination of four Dag'kars and Var'nics is better? They might even continue just using the G'vrahn.

Changing one ship can easily highlight, exacerbate, or reveal problems in other ships in the fleet just as easily as people claims it fixes them.

The question needs to be asked and answered: Do those changes result in a overall better balanced fleet? In a better balanced game?

To use the tire example, if I change just one tire on my car, it affects the other three as well, in ways I may not even have realized until I changed that one tire. Just as equally as changing that one tire can fix problems Im having with my car at the moment, it can reveal or create new ones.

 

[Methos5000]

no, I am pointing out to Ghost recon that changing one ship does NOT require that you re-asses every single ship in a fleet.
I may have used a silly example to do so though.

Please read what I said...

My point is, people for nerfing the G'vrahn have made no inquiries or suggestions, or even comments, as to how reducing the G'vrahn in anyway affects the performance of the Narn war-level choices as a whole, overall high-priority level Narn fleet performance, and the balance of the Narn fleet as a whole.

Changing one ship changes the entire dynamic of the fleet.

If you removed the Demos, how does that affect the entire Centauri fleet?

If you nerfed the Liati, how does that affect the entire Centauri fleet?

If you made the Marathon a forward arc beam armed ship, how does that affect the entire Earth Alliance fleet?

If you change the G'vrahn, you change the entire dynamic of how Narn players may or may not chose their fleets.

What if they use the Bin'Tak more, but find it simply doesn't perform up to snuff? What if they decide, ultimately, that fielding a combination of four Dag'kars and Var'nics is better? They might even continue just using the G'vrahn.

Changing one ship can easily highlight, exacerbate, or reveal problems in other ships in the fleet just as easily as people claims it fixes them.

The question needs to be asked and answered: Do those changes result in a overall better balanced fleet? In a better balanced game?

To use the tire example, if I change just one tire on my car, it affects the other three as well, in ways I may not even have realized until I changed that one tire. Just as equally as changing that one tire can fix problems Im having with my car at the moment, it can reveal or create new ones.

But that is why there is playtesting, you make a change and see what impact it has, if the impact it to great you adjust it until things equalize.

Using the tire comparision if the Bin'Tak and G'Vrahn are equally balanced its like having 2 17" tires on your car, right now its like one is a 15"(Bin'tak) and one is a 17"(G'Vrahn) which leads to a very uncomfortable ride and horrible gas mileage.

Whether it is an arguement for bumping up the Bin'Tak or lowering the G'Vrahn its the same concept. There is a clear disparity for the Narn at War level.

The best example I can think of for a 2nd edition comparison is the Vorchan and Demos, both very good ships but the Demos loses nothing to the Vorchan by gaining the interceptor. Sure people take Vorchans occasionally but most take a Demos, difference here is its the same model so it has little impact, many Narn players have Bin'Tak models laying around that I'm sure they wish they could use but aren't because right now the G'Vrahn is just an all around superior choice.

I agree with the comments that these ships should fill different roles however the Bin'Tak being slower should be the long range sniper and the fast Maneuverable G'Vrahn (epecially with its AJP) should be the short range brawler.

And please don't take this to mean I think the G'Vrahn should be nerfed, Im not saying it should, Im just saying that if I was a Narn player, I wouldn't be fielding many Bin'Taks if given the choice, and it seems many seem to agree, so doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

 

[Target]

I guess whay you call nerfing?
Demos down to 8AD from 10- most people think is fine.
G'Varhn lose slow loading on 45" e-mines, hardly a nerf.
I pointed out earlier that if you lost the e-mines all together, it's still a far better ship than the fireraptor or any other War level ships with 2 turns. More hits, interceptors, more craft,command, AJP. Exception is the Whitestar carrier but it's still better to me but that is debatable. Remember this is with the loss of e-mines.
Not too many ships have 6AD 30" DD,Beam- it is boresight so loses a little but not so much & followed up with 4AD TD,Beam 25".
You should see the Drazi look at this ship & go " What the hell! But we are meant to be the kings of forward beam firepower ".

I don't if seen anyone post lets strip her down of her weapons or even make her 62 hits like the Drazi ship which also doesn't interceptors.
It's not the first time people have said she a tad overpowered but since people have seen what they can do on a regular occurance thanks to the tourney. It's become a bit more visible.

 

[inq101]

I disagree with Methos. The Narn fleet is split into the pack hunters and the brawlers. The G'Vrahn is a larger, advanced version of the various Narn pack hunters (e.g. Ka'Tock, Var'Nick) while the Bin'Tak is a solid brawler (G'Quan, Rongoth). The pack hunters tend to be fast, agile and long ranged. The only problem I see with the G'Vrahns stats is it might be a little too tough compared to the Bin'Tak. IMO the Bin'Tak should have 10-15 extra damage and crew (it might then need to be re-balanced, loose a few secondaries/AF/etc.) and the G'Vrahn 5 fewer.

 

[katadder]

well played 2 games tonight against a narn fleet using a g'vrahn.
1pt armageddon, annihilation scenario
Narn Fleet:
G'vrahn
G'lan
Var'nic
2 Ka'tocs

1st game i used minbari:
Sharkaan
Tinashi
2 Teshlan

due to horrible stealth rolls from the narn player the minbariwon without losing a ship (but did have a crippled teshlan from rear g'vrahn guns). the sharkaan manage to kill the g'vrahn in 2 rounds of shooting with that big front beam.

game 2 I took earth force, crusade era:
Warlock
Omega
Delphi
2 Chronos

i didnt do very well with init. 1st turn lost a chronos that was on CBD to the G'vrahns mag gun whislt its main beam hit the warlock. however the combined firepower of the warlock and omega levelled the g'lan.
2nd turn the g'vrahn got the omega in range for all beams and nuked it from fresh to nothing in a fire phase. the warlock managed to put some damage on the g'vrahn.
after that it was a case of the warlock trying to line up its boresight whilst the g'vrahn ran around using mainly front guns and the occasional boresight. the g'vrahn did get skeletoned thanks to a 6,5 crit (although a flight comp meant no effect) but due to having interceptors 4 was able to stop most the front arc weapons from the warlock whilst wearing it down with its mag gun and e-mine.

the narn won with the var'nic and g'vrahn surviving. this ship with so many long range front arc guns, good speed and good turns plus interceptors is a nightmare for any unstealthed ship to face. this ship has everything including the kitchen sink. more beam dice than any other warship, then e-mines, then ion torps as well as being extremely manouvrable for a warship plus tough and well defended.

 

[GhostRecon]

But that is why there is playtesting, you make a change and see what impact it has, if the impact it to great you adjust it until things equalize.

Using the tire comparision if the Bin'Tak and G'Vrahn are equally balanced its like having 2 17" tires on your car, right now its like one is a 15"(Bin'tak) and one is a 17"(G'Vrahn) which leads to a very uncomfortable ride and horrible gas mileage.

Whether it is an arguement for bumping up the Bin'Tak or lowering the G'Vrahn its the same concept. There is a clear disparity for the Narn at War level.

The best example I can think of for a 2nd edition comparison is the Vorchan and Demos, both very good ships but the Demos loses nothing to the Vorchan by gaining the interceptor. Sure people take Vorchans occasionally but most take a Demos, difference here is its the same model so it has little impact, many Narn players have Bin'Tak models laying around that I'm sure they wish they could use but aren't because right now the G'Vrahn is just an all around superior choice.

I agree with the comments that these ships should fill different roles however the Bin'Tak being slower should be the long range sniper and the fast Maneuverable G'Vrahn (epecially with its AJP) should be the short range brawler.

And please don't take this to mean I think the G'Vrahn should be nerfed, Im not saying it should, Im just saying that if I was a Narn player, I wouldn't be fielding many Bin'Taks if given the choice, and it seems many seem to agree, so doesn't that suggest there is a problem?

Well, from the stats and other Narn player's experience, the roles are reversed.

The G'vrahn is the Scapel, or Sniper of the Regime, and the Bin'Tak is the brawler, designed to wade into combat (In theory) and win.

The Bin'Tak is the ship with the large banks of secondary weapons, compared the to G'vrahn which has the vast majority of its firepower in its forward arc.

Target-

It seems you've missed my point. My question is, how do those changes affect the overall balance of the race's fleet, and how it performs against other fleets, etc?

The discussion on reducing the Demos has already acknowledged that changing it does little to change current Centauri fleet composition, except to make the Demos a less obvious and almost necessary choice.

But by that same token, some Narn players still field Bin'Taks, just like some Centauri players field some Vorchans instead of Demos.

As for using the Drazi as a comparison, if boresight worked independent of initiative sinks, would they still be "poor" in comparison to other fleets?

Let me rephrase that. If boresight actually worked reliably, in actual battles, as if initiative was not a massively deciding factor, would the Drazi still be "deficient" in these comparisons?

That is the sort of question I've repeatedly raised in my last posts. In fact, I'll quote myself:

My point with every post I have made in this thread: You cannot balance just one ship without addressing other ships that share and contribute, even in small parts, to the “general” imbalance. Just as the G’vrahn was “discovered” to be “broken” in the Earth-Centauri War, so to did it illustrate that there are apparent problems in the Liati, and the possible issue of problems with EA fleet performance (Which, again, might be resolved if boresight was more effective and initiative sink independent).

Would the Fireraptor, whose primary firepower is almost all boresighted (6 AD B, SL, TD, and 6 AD of B) be as worse off in a comparison to other War choices, if boresight wasn't quite as heavy a limitation as it is?

With Katadder's battle reports:

How different would things have been if the Earth Alliance fleet wasn't as heavily limited by Boresight as it was?

Since the EA's fleet primary attack weapons are boresighted beams, they are heavily hampered by boresight, and initiative.

So again, how different would that battle be if boresight wasn't the problem it is? What if you were using SA: Raking Fire, or SA: FTT? How different would that battle be THEN?

Just because the G'vrahn was in a battle that was won doesn't mean it is specifically the cause: Correlation is not causation. Just as equally, the G’vrahn was in a battle against the Minbari that it lost.

Just because there are growing numbers of Pirates does not mean they are the cause of increasing global temperatures. Correlation is not causation.

I’m sure people will just pick snippets of this post and refute them with “Lol your wrong” arguments, but regardless, I am not saying I do not think the G’vrahn doesn’t need toning down, as I have iterated repeatedly, to no apparent avail, I think it could definitely do for some. I -AM- saying we need to take a look at everything else and consider the all the factors that are causing the problem. We need to find the causation, and not just make some correlations that could, may, or are part of the problem.

Try the battles again with boresight fixes. Try them again without boresight fixes. Try them without boresight fixes, but G’vrahn fixes. Etc. Correlation is not causation. People talk about playtesting, well, do some playtesting, and cover every angle.