About the Narn...
- Thread starter Jim?
- Start date
not both.Morpheus1975
Mongoose
So IF we were to strengthen up the Narn to balance them what stats would you give them.
Starting with the G'quan for instance.......
Starting with the G'quan for instance.......
What about all the tech the Narn got off the ISA to make the G'Vrahn possible? Do you think they wouldn't be retro-fitting this new technology to older designs a bit like the Centari did with the Vorchan to come up with the Demos.
Making the G'Quon's beams forward arc would be a start, it's in the refits and it's something that could easily be trialled. If more is needed it could be added at a later date, if not sorted.
I agree with all the above changes by Tzarevitch, but I'd also drop the Gorith's guns to 1AD but give it +2 dogfight, and change the Frazi to 3AD at range 3.
I also think the Mag Gun should be changed. I'd give it a new weapon trait to make it completely different in feel from a beam, but still a hard hitting weapon.
Something like this:-
Trait:-
Mag Gun. These weapons fire super accelerated nuclear charges at incredible speeds, ripping through a ship's hull and defences with terrific force. These weapons ignore interceptors, count bulkhead hits as solid hits, and can be redirected by scouts or reroll misses from the Concentrate All Fire! Special Action.
Skirmish Mag Gun (Ka'Toc)
Range 20", F Arc, 2 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
Battle Mag Gun (G'Lan)
2 banks (as lasers are removed)
Range 20", F Arc, 4 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
War Mag Gun (Bin'Tak)
Range 20", F Arc, 6 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
Advanced Mag Gun (G'Vrahn, Ka'Bin'Tak)
Range 25", F Arc, 4 AD, SAP, Triple Damage
I think that would give them the feel of being a destructive weapon system without resorting to giving them the beam trait.
I also think the Mag Gun should be changed. I'd give it a new weapon trait to make it completely different in feel from a beam, but still a hard hitting weapon.
Something like this:-
Trait:-
Mag Gun. These weapons fire super accelerated nuclear charges at incredible speeds, ripping through a ship's hull and defences with terrific force. These weapons ignore interceptors, count bulkhead hits as solid hits, and can be redirected by scouts or reroll misses from the Concentrate All Fire! Special Action.
Skirmish Mag Gun (Ka'Toc)
Range 20", F Arc, 2 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
Battle Mag Gun (G'Lan)
2 banks (as lasers are removed)
Range 20", F Arc, 4 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
War Mag Gun (Bin'Tak)
Range 20", F Arc, 6 AD, SAP, Slow Loading, Triple Damage
Advanced Mag Gun (G'Vrahn, Ka'Bin'Tak)
Range 25", F Arc, 4 AD, SAP, Triple Damage
I think that would give them the feel of being a destructive weapon system without resorting to giving them the beam trait.
The only problem with making the Mag Gun a precise weapon is the power level of TD crits. There are only a few fleets with TD/P weapon systems in the game, all of them using advanced technology, and most of them with realtively poor secondary weapons, and generally few in AD...
Ignoring bulkhead hits gives the Mag Gun the reliability of causing at least 3 damage per hit, without ramping up into truly sick territory (especially as it blasts through interceptors) and making it possibly the best and most reliable ship killer in the game.
The precise trait (in game terms) also implies the weapon system is able to be aimed at weaker areas of a ship more easily, and is (as it's name suggests) precise. The Mag Gun just blasts through anything in it's way like a sledgehammer. With the stats above, it outranges the EA heavy missile, generally has as many (or more) AD for the PL (exception: Saggs, but they're still much slower and shorter ranged) and you're not going to be hitting any bulkheads, when they do.
If you really think it should be precise, then perhaps lowering the number of AD would be the way to do it, or perhaps making the Mag Gun DD instead of TD?
Ignoring bulkhead hits gives the Mag Gun the reliability of causing at least 3 damage per hit, without ramping up into truly sick territory (especially as it blasts through interceptors) and making it possibly the best and most reliable ship killer in the game.
The precise trait (in game terms) also implies the weapon system is able to be aimed at weaker areas of a ship more easily, and is (as it's name suggests) precise. The Mag Gun just blasts through anything in it's way like a sledgehammer. With the stats above, it outranges the EA heavy missile, generally has as many (or more) AD for the PL (exception: Saggs, but they're still much slower and shorter ranged) and you're not going to be hitting any bulkheads, when they do.
If you really think it should be precise, then perhaps lowering the number of AD would be the way to do it, or perhaps making the Mag Gun DD instead of TD?
GhostRecon
Mongoose
I agree with Jim? on this one. Giving it TD and Precise would be a bit too much, especially with that stat-line. Very few races get TD, P weapons, even EA with their significantly more advanced Marathon Advanced Cruisers and Warlock Advanced Destroyers don't get anything of the sort.
I personally don't like the trend of interceptor-ignoring weapons, particularly with the dearth of beam weapons that now ignore hull 6, both of which combine to effectively remove the two primary defenses for all EA Ships (High Interceptor and Hull Values being rather useless against beams, and these proposed Mag Guns), especially since there is no evidence as to the limitations of WHAT a Interceptor can block, merely HOW much (A key reference for which being that; In Severed Dreams, where the XO to Major Ryan mentions that they can use their aft beam batteries now that the Clarkstown's interceptor grid is down). However, I think the stats that Jim? came up with for the Mag Guns, as is, are pretty balanced. I like them, and I'm the one who ends up fighting the Narn, not the other way around.
As for the G'quan and its variants, I would either go for:
1) As Hiffano said, make their beams Forward Arc, and keep their AD as is. (Though, I would argue, various EA ships should get forward arc beams as well, notably the Omega).
2) 6 AD Beam, but still boresighted.
In addition, Battle and War level Narn ships, at the minimum, should have 10 inch secondaries, not 8 inch, as previously established.
My gaming group also created a house ruling where the G'vrahn has its AJE dropped to a JE, loses its Command trait, and its E-mine is One-shot instead of Slow-Loading. In exchange, the Bin'Tak gets Command +2, and its E-mine becomes Slow-Loading instead of One-Shot.
I personally don't like the trend of interceptor-ignoring weapons, particularly with the dearth of beam weapons that now ignore hull 6, both of which combine to effectively remove the two primary defenses for all EA Ships (High Interceptor and Hull Values being rather useless against beams, and these proposed Mag Guns), especially since there is no evidence as to the limitations of WHAT a Interceptor can block, merely HOW much (A key reference for which being that; In Severed Dreams, where the XO to Major Ryan mentions that they can use their aft beam batteries now that the Clarkstown's interceptor grid is down). However, I think the stats that Jim? came up with for the Mag Guns, as is, are pretty balanced. I like them, and I'm the one who ends up fighting the Narn, not the other way around.
As for the G'quan and its variants, I would either go for:
1) As Hiffano said, make their beams Forward Arc, and keep their AD as is. (Though, I would argue, various EA ships should get forward arc beams as well, notably the Omega).
2) 6 AD Beam, but still boresighted.
In addition, Battle and War level Narn ships, at the minimum, should have 10 inch secondaries, not 8 inch, as previously established.
My gaming group also created a house ruling where the G'vrahn has its AJE dropped to a JE, loses its Command trait, and its E-mine is One-shot instead of Slow-Loading. In exchange, the Bin'Tak gets Command +2, and its E-mine becomes Slow-Loading instead of One-Shot.
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
GhostRecon said:
Supposedly that was a CGI/script mismatch. JMS called for the aft batteries to fire a pulse weapon and thus giving it an advantage with intercepters being down, the CGI guys thought a laser was more cool. Which it was. There is also lots of stuff floating around that gave EA ships 'force field' type technology that was part of teh interceptors and was used to disperse beam weapon damage. This isn't portrayed in ACTA
What I meant to say was I would keep the Mag gun as it is and just add precise to it. One of the things I really like about the game is the Beam dynamic as it fits in well with the series. The part where someone completely misses with them and everyone laughs to all the oooos & arrrrs when someone usually Skavendan just keeps rolling 4+’s and a ship goes Nova.
The argument against a triple damage and precise beam for the Narn is poor. First they are one of the big four and second they are supposed to have received technological support from the ISA who do have a Triple Damage Precise beam. Then there is no reason why as one of the Big Four they wouldn’t have developed similar technology to all of the others. If you fall behind in the arms race you die.
Neither is impossible that the ISA wouldn’t have given such technology to the Narn simply to better allow them to act as a counter to the Centari.
The basic problem with the Narn is they don’t deal out crits as fast as their opponents and don’t have any ability to absorb them other than a few more damage points, which we already know isn’t enough. One of these areas needs to be looked at.
I also still think there are issues with speed and manoeuvrability too, no point having the weapons if you’re never going to be in a position to fire them.
The argument against a triple damage and precise beam for the Narn is poor. First they are one of the big four and second they are supposed to have received technological support from the ISA who do have a Triple Damage Precise beam. Then there is no reason why as one of the Big Four they wouldn’t have developed similar technology to all of the others. If you fall behind in the arms race you die.
Neither is impossible that the ISA wouldn’t have given such technology to the Narn simply to better allow them to act as a counter to the Centari.
The basic problem with the Narn is they don’t deal out crits as fast as their opponents and don’t have any ability to absorb them other than a few more damage points, which we already know isn’t enough. One of these areas needs to be looked at.
I also still think there are issues with speed and manoeuvrability too, no point having the weapons if you’re never going to be in a position to fire them.
The problem is that this is in the crusade era. Prior to this they should be less advanced than others - they are one of the big four due to an expansionist rampage rather than age or technological ability. Early Era EA is a good analogue - albeit reverse engineered and copied Centauri hardware rather than developed and understood (but less sophisitcated) indigenous hardware. Unless we're going to do different 'era' narn fleets then it doesn't quite work*.
Boresight lasers I've never, ever liked, for anyone, but that's just me.
* P.S. Hiffano, do you still have a link up anywhere to the early narn fleet list you did for 1st edition?
katadder said:lol with all these changes to the narn seems people want them to be the most powerful race out there. why not give them stealth 5+ on all ships as well
Would you disagree with the GQoun and variants having a 6AD beam?
If so what would you change ?
Also is there anything you feel should eb changed about the Narn listing?
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Rawwar said:
Not sure about that - their are plenty of Narn ships with Ion torps, which are precise. That's one of the reasons why you see Sho'Kovs rather than Sho'Kos more often than not - init sinks with a reasonable crit ability.
Regards,
Dave
