Ok so as a newbie narn player I find it quite hard in some priority levels to pass on certain ships .They always are in my fleets and I find myself not using certain ships ever (rongoth) which I hate .Do you find this to be true as well? Also how do the tourneys control the cheese fleet factor like the fleet with a ka bin tak an 6 Dag Kars (or something of the like ) is their a cheese factor in this game or do you guys feel differently. thanks for your oppinions Patrick
A question about fleet composition and cheese
- Thread starter bickets
- Start date
CZuschlag
Mongoose
The Dag'Kar in quantities only gets cheesy when the fight gets to be War-level or higher. If you roll random priority, the Dag'Kar, in my experience, is just a good Raid ship, with its own flaws and issues. The Ka'Bin'Tak doesn't seem to be cheesy at all.
The Narn fleet is particularly susceptible to channeling to certain ships because it has so many loser hulls out there. In a previous entry I listed ships that have balance issues as being too weak or too strong. ONE Narn ship was too strong (the G'Vrahn is cheesy-broken at any priority). However, I think that no less than 8 ships are in dire need of an upgrade to address balance issues: G'Quan, G'Tal, G'Quonth, Rongoth, G'Sten, Rothan, T'Rann, T'Loth. That's a ton!
If you're worried about Dag'Kar cheese, there are some other options out there for you....
-- Skirmish is awash in good solid choices. I like, in no particular order, the Thenus, Ka'Toc, T'Rakk, and Sho'Kar.
-- There is one Raid choice that I love: the Var'Nic. Lovely hull. It's the Narn Hyperion (and there's nothing wrong with that.).
If your opponent is fielding large numbers of Demos against you, forget worrying about cheese and field whatever you like. That ship is broken beyond words.
Good hunting, and, the only good Demos is a dead Demos; I prefer to use Ballpeen Hammers.
The Narn fleet is particularly susceptible to channeling to certain ships because it has so many loser hulls out there. In a previous entry I listed ships that have balance issues as being too weak or too strong. ONE Narn ship was too strong (the G'Vrahn is cheesy-broken at any priority). However, I think that no less than 8 ships are in dire need of an upgrade to address balance issues: G'Quan, G'Tal, G'Quonth, Rongoth, G'Sten, Rothan, T'Rann, T'Loth. That's a ton!
If you're worried about Dag'Kar cheese, there are some other options out there for you....
-- Skirmish is awash in good solid choices. I like, in no particular order, the Thenus, Ka'Toc, T'Rakk, and Sho'Kar.
-- There is one Raid choice that I love: the Var'Nic. Lovely hull. It's the Narn Hyperion (and there's nothing wrong with that.).
If your opponent is fielding large numbers of Demos against you, forget worrying about cheese and field whatever you like. That ship is broken beyond words.
Good hunting, and, the only good Demos is a dead Demos; I prefer to use Ballpeen Hammers.
Luckily for me I own all the CTA minis in these parts and no-cheese allowed. It does seem like it's an issue in general however and just another point in the anti-FP argument.
In addition to a Point system, CTA should also go to a Field Allowance system like Warmachine has to avoid the cheese.
In addition to a Point system, CTA should also go to a Field Allowance system like Warmachine has to avoid the cheese.
apart from unique ships there no need for fleet allowances. sometimes fleets just had one of a kind ship - take the WS fleet, or the EA fleet over mars (omegas only) or the Shadow omega fleet.
the only limits I would see are that you have to use a certain percentage of your FAPs on ships from the level the game is.
so perhaps in a 5pt raid 2-3pts have to be raid ships, the last points can be spent on any other PL ships you can afford.
the only limits I would see are that you have to use a certain percentage of your FAPs on ships from the level the game is.
so perhaps in a 5pt raid 2-3pts have to be raid ships, the last points can be spent on any other PL ships you can afford.
would hate to see forced to take at the level of the fight.. to me that just tells me that the FAP/PL system is unbalanced if you inherently want to go down.
and while fleet allocations might be an issue... whole fleets of 'support ships' or 'test beds' does seem a bit over the top. A fleet of all G'Quans makes sense... all Sags doesn't.
Ripple
and while fleet allocations might be an issue... whole fleets of 'support ships' or 'test beds' does seem a bit over the top. A fleet of all G'Quans makes sense... all Sags doesn't.
Ripple
And we'll be right here with our flaming arrows, waiting to shoot that flag down 
Actually I don't know why I am saying that - I have never fielded more than a reasonable numbers of any ship type... most I've done is 8 Strikehawks (which presumably would be "common" anyway), and after that.. 4 White Stars. But I guess I like having the freedom to choose whatever ships I like rather than being restricted by an arbitrary number.
Actually I don't know why I am saying that - I have never fielded more than a reasonable numbers of any ship type... most I've done is 8 Strikehawks (which presumably would be "common" anyway), and after that.. 4 White Stars. But I guess I like having the freedom to choose whatever ships I like rather than being restricted by an arbitrary number.
I agree with most of this other than you saying the T'Loth and T'Rann are weak. They fill distinctive roles in the Narn fleet that are highly valuable and if you are taking a "survivable" Narn fleet (e.g. T'Rakk, T'Loth, Bin'Tak, etc.) then they work really well. However, the rest I'm in agreement with (although whether the G'Sten/G'Karith and Rongoth/Rothan will see any love is up for debate).CZuschlag said:
CZuschlag
Mongoose
I have a problem with the "Survivable" fleet only because of the nature of critical hits. A ship can be out of action and have half its hits.
I think the T'Rakk is solid as-is; I rather like the thing.
If you had a special Narn Trait like "Redundancy 1" or "Redundancy 2" which allows the user to ignore one or two critical effects (or hits, debatable) of their choice during the course of the game --- well, the G'Quan family, T'Rann and T'Loth with Redundancy 2, the Rongoth and Rothan with Redundancy 1 .... now that's a tempting fleet element for those who hate the crit table with a passion.
I think the T'Rakk is solid as-is; I rather like the thing.
If you had a special Narn Trait like "Redundancy 1" or "Redundancy 2" which allows the user to ignore one or two critical effects (or hits, debatable) of their choice during the course of the game --- well, the G'Quan family, T'Rann and T'Loth with Redundancy 2, the Rongoth and Rothan with Redundancy 1 .... now that's a tempting fleet element for those who hate the crit table with a passion.
Burger I think you're forgetting that one of the possible field allowances is (U) "Unlimited".
Clearly FAs aren't in the spirit of ACTA, but I would say gaming the system by creating an unrealistic fleet of say 20 dag'kars only is also not in the spirit of the game.
I know a points system is never going to happen for ACTA, and that's fine because why put that much effort in to what is a ghosted system. But no one would create a NEW system using just PLs, and there's a reason for that.
Clearly FAs aren't in the spirit of ACTA, but I would say gaming the system by creating an unrealistic fleet of say 20 dag'kars only is also not in the spirit of the game.
I know a points system is never going to happen for ACTA, and that's fine because why put that much effort in to what is a ghosted system. But no one would create a NEW system using just PLs, and there's a reason for that.
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
20 White Stars....
"I love the smell of cheese in the morning, it smells like victory!"
"I love the smell of cheese in the morning, it smells like victory!"
B_Steele
Mongoose
That is sort of my point exactly. Just because we could institute Field Allowances doesn't mean that we couldn't open up the FAs to like 10 or more for the common ships; it would just allow us to rein in the ridiculous fleet stylings that occasionally rear its ugly head from time to time.
-Bry
-Bry
Foxmeister
Mongoose
bickets said:
I've often thought that if the FAP table was always doubling up (1 Skirmish = 2 Patrol, 1 Raid = 2 Skirmish; 1 Battle = 2 Raid etc, etc), you could get away with giving ships "values" rather than strict priority levels.
For example, a G'Quan, as it currently stands, could be 1 Raid+1 Skirmish, and a G'Vrahn could be 1 War + 1 Raid (perhaps).
It would just allow more granularity.
Regards,
Dave
Those problem fleets are due to one ovepowered ship being taken in abundance, such as the Sag in 1e. I'd prefer to fix the source of the problem, rather than apply a band-aid; ie. fix the overpowered ship.Mongoose Steele said:
So, which ships are going to be made "rare" or whatever? Those that are rare according to fluff/background? Right thats Solarhawks, Vaarls etc. The idea is failing already, those ships don't need to be restricted. The ones that need restricting are the ovepowered ones. But the rarity will surely be defined during playtesting, and set in stone when the fleet book is released... so who decides the rarity? The same person that decides the ship is perfectly balanced for its PL? Oh dear. This idea is definitely smelling of fail. Surely if TPTB deem a ship is overpowered then it is just as easy to balance it than to make it "rare"?
I wouldn't be against rarity as a rule in general. It could be optionally used, like ISDs are, to add character and distinction to the game. But as a method of balancing fleets, it sucks.
Burger said:
Agreed!
I totally agree with this. Having Fleet Allowances is not necessarily a bad thing but it is not the way to balance fleets. Just look at 40K to see how Force Organisation Charts don't work as a balancing factor for armies (although again, they aren't a bad idea in themselves).Burger said:
