stepan.razin
Mongoose
Just curious to see what people think of these to ships. Also, has anyone ever used the Apollo variant.
Apollo vs Marathon
- Thread starter stepan.razin
- Start date
Foxmeister
Mongoose
I think they are different ships, suited for different purposes.
If I were looking for a general purpose workhorse, I would pick the Marathon, but in a large game I think the Apollo Bombardment Cruiser can come into its own once it can get 2 or 3 arcs firing.
Regards,
Dave
If I were looking for a general purpose workhorse, I would pick the Marathon, but in a large game I think the Apollo Bombardment Cruiser can come into its own once it can get 2 or 3 arcs firing.
Regards,
Dave
stepan.razin
Mongoose
My biggest issue with a marathon, is that there are way too many fleets that can use init sinking to prevent the Marathon beam from firing at High Value targets.
I've found that, in most battles, it is the Marathon that attracts the most attention, but it is the Apollo that does the most damage. The Precise missiles means that I'm twice as likely to crit and I never bulkhead. A broadside from an Apollo will usually rid local space of Drakh raiders and the like.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
stepan.razin said:
That's a boresight/initiative issue though really isn't it? Even the G'Quan wouldn't be half as kack as it currently is if it could reliably get its beam going at a target of its own choosing. If Matt et al could just let go of the idea that us players can't utilize firing arcs of less than 90 degrees the whole issue could be removed in an instant.
Regards,
Dave
sidewinder
Mongoose
Seriously. I'd be happy with a 30 degree fwd arc instead of a boresight. 45 would be easier but it wouldnt take long for someone to come out with something to measure a 30 degree arc.
I'd favour the limited Arc over the actual rule.
@Topic. IMO the Marathon and Apollo have certain duties on the battlefield. The first sniper and fast attack cruiser, the other long range bombardment. A Marathon is only hampered by the boreside of its main gun. It even depends on playing stile if I choose an Omega or Marathon, as the Omega brings the larger fighter compliment and lorger ranged laser. I like both with a tendency toward the Omega.
@Topic. IMO the Marathon and Apollo have certain duties on the battlefield. The first sniper and fast attack cruiser, the other long range bombardment. A Marathon is only hampered by the boreside of its main gun. It even depends on playing stile if I choose an Omega or Marathon, as the Omega brings the larger fighter compliment and lorger ranged laser. I like both with a tendency toward the Omega.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
sidewinder said:
You mean like a protractor or angle measure? Those things every schoolkid needs and you can buy for pennies from any supermarket or stationers? :wink:
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Lord David the Denied said:
Or a couple of extra lines on the GF9 template!
Regards,
DAve
Greg Smith
Mongoose
It is definitely horses for courses, but my preference is for the Omega. More damage, more fighters, more beam AD = more crits.
And a limited arc would certainly solve a lot of boresight/initiative sink problems.
And a limited arc would certainly solve a lot of boresight/initiative sink problems.
This whole boresight vs init sink discussion (and this was a pretty cheap way to bring it up...again, stepan.razin) shows the superiority of the Apollo over the Marathon. Simply put, an Apollo does not need to worry about initiative sinks, their flaming hulls are swept aside!
stepan.razin
Mongoose
wkehrman said:
Yeah, cause it obviously doesn't affect the Marathon vs Apollo gameplay one bit.
stepan.razin said:
Have the intestinal fortitude to post the topic you really want to talk about, the boresight vs. initiative sink issue. Don't hide it behind a poll about two Crusade era Battle level ships. You weren't even very subtle about it, jumping in right after the first poster to bring up the Boresight issue.
I've had better success overall with the Apollo than with the Marathon even when the Marathon's beam is a factor! This is in a variety of scenarios, on a variety of tables, with a variety of debris and at a variety of points. One Apollo, the EAS Texas evokes more emotional response from my regular opponents than any or all of my Marathons. So much so that it has earned it's own crest.
<<<<<<<<<<<
I put my Apollos on the table precisely because of the response I get. I'm thinking of giving them custom paint jobs! My appreciation for the power of the Apollo goes way beyond the Boresight issue. I tried a fleet without any beam weapons one time and discovered the beauty of the Apollo. No matter where you are, I can fire my missiles at you! Even the best beam weapon "fix" (if it can be called that) only gives you front arc. Go ahead, "fix" the boresight rule....I'll still take the Apollo.
Don't MESS with TEXAS!
stepan.razin
Mongoose
wkehrman said:
Relax dude, the topic came from a discussion in our gaming group about which is a better ship to have in a Battle 5 battle. Imagine that, a game mechanic that affects the play of the 2 hulls made it into the discussion. Shocking, absolutely shocking. You assumed what my motives are, so ANY REASON WHY YOU ARE TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO AN ARGUMENT?
By the way, is there a reason why you think I "JUMPED" on the first poster? I neither agreed or disagreed with Foxmeister. I didn't say anything derogatory about him.
stepan.razin said:
Re-read the post, I said Jumped IN not Jumped ON. Where I come from, that's two VERY different things.
As for the rest, are you suggesting the boresight/init sink ISN'T a factor for you in this thread? You first response to anyone is to bring it up. Then you are questioning it as a factor in gameplay. Now that you've been called on it the discussion is suddenly about anything but boresight.
It is an argument, a tired old one about how broken the boresight rule is.
I don't know, I think acknowledging it as a factor in deciding which ship to take is just a smart consideration, not a way to bring up the discussion about whether bore sight is busted or not. Whatever your position on bore sight, I think you have to agree it's a consideration in choosing between these two ships. Same as the two other controversial stats being discussed, precise and beam.
Beam - folks have issues for and against... but when choosing between the two you have to ask yourself whether the beam mechanic will work with what you strategy is for that fight.
Precise - given what else your taking is the crit table part of your strategy for dealing with the enemy or are you going for raw damage numbers.
Boresight - do you think you'll find enough high value targets for the weapon... do you care? Do you think you'll find a low value target every turn but be pretty sure of destroying it? Is it forcing you to buy another ship you didn't want to keep numbers up?
All rational things to consider, nothing subversive about bringing them into the discussion comparing the two ships.
Ripple
Beam - folks have issues for and against... but when choosing between the two you have to ask yourself whether the beam mechanic will work with what you strategy is for that fight.
Precise - given what else your taking is the crit table part of your strategy for dealing with the enemy or are you going for raw damage numbers.
Boresight - do you think you'll find enough high value targets for the weapon... do you care? Do you think you'll find a low value target every turn but be pretty sure of destroying it? Is it forcing you to buy another ship you didn't want to keep numbers up?
All rational things to consider, nothing subversive about bringing them into the discussion comparing the two ships.
Ripple
stepan.razin
Mongoose
Ripple said:
I actually painted my other Omega last night, so tonight I will use them instead of my apollos or marathons.
