Are Raiders still underpowered in 2e?

[Poi]

I never understood the logic of Raiders being a weak fleet. I could understand their ships being lower on the priority scale, and never get as far as War or Armageddon, but why should a Raider ship be weaker than (say) an EA ship at the same level?

No reason at all that I can see.

So has this nonsense been maintained in 2e, or are Raiders now a viable fleet for anyone other than a masochist?

 

[Da Boss]

One of the Playtesters said earlier that on M Spranges instructuions the Raiders would always be weaker than other fleets........

 

[Romu]

They re still a little worse then everyone else but at least every ship should be usable now.

Not a playtester tho, can't tell you much more.

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

One of the playtesters did mention in another thread that the Raiders are the 'bottom marker' fleet, having the weakest fleets in each priority.

 

[WereRogue]

No reason at all that I can see.

So has this nonsense been maintained in 2e, or are Raiders now a viable fleet for anyone other than a masochist?

It's only nonsense from a game perspective. Historically (in both Real World and game genres), Pirates have always been underpowered when compared to their Naval counterparts. They only need to be more powerful than the merchant ships they attack for plunder, and most pirate doctrine from the past indicates that they would usually run when faced with a capitol ship than stand and fight.

Considering that most of their stock is stolen or salvaged, it's understandable that they will be outclassed by a true Navy.

There's no reason, IMO, for Raiders to be interested in engaging in large scale fleet actions on the level that ACTA usually sees. Other than to pick up the pieces after it's all over, that is.

Someone always has to be the underdog, and Raiders (or Pirates, or Mercenaries - however you want to call them) are a natural choice.

-Ken

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Look at the Raiders tactics article for a discussion of what fights Raiders want to be involved in.

To summerise, the only fight that they will hang around for is against a bunch of unarmed civilian ships, if the military turn up Raiders have no reason to fight them and will simply withdraw.

 

[The Hobbybox]

Raider fleets could be used very effectively in a campaign.
I'm hoping to run a campaign at the club in Swindon soon (yes Katadder, I will take the pain on this one!), and I have been toying with the idea of introducing a random 'Raiding' element to it.
Essentially a group of raiders, not directly involved in the overall campaign, who randomly attack players, and either cause a loss of RR points, or you have to draw ships from your fleet to protect the targets of the raiders.

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Raiders are best used in campaigns, that's the environment that they are designed for.

Go for it!

 

[Da Boss]

Raider fleets could be used very effectively in a campaign.
I'm hoping to run a campaign at the club in Swindon soon (yes Katadder, I will take the pain on this one!), and I have been toying with the idea of introducing a random 'Raiding' element to it.
Essentially a group of raiders, not directly involved in the overall campaign, who randomly attack players, and either cause a loss of RR points, or you have to draw ships from your fleet to protect the targets of the raiders.

Seems an interesting idea

 

[Jhary]

No reason at all that I can see.

So has this nonsense been maintained in 2e, or are Raiders now a viable fleet for anyone other than a masochist?

It's only nonsense from a game perspective. Historically (in both Real World and game genres), Pirates have always been underpowered when compared to their Naval counterparts. They only need to be more powerful than the merchant ships they attack for plunder, and most pirate doctrine from the past indicates that they would usually run when faced with a capitol ship than stand and fight.

Considering that most of their stock is stolen or salvaged, it's understandable that they will be outclassed by a true Navy.

There's no reason, IMO, for Raiders to be interested in engaging in large scale fleet actions on the level that ACTA usually sees. Other than to pick up the pieces after it's all over, that is.

Someone always has to be the underdog, and Raiders (or Pirates, or Mercenaries - however you want to call them) are a natural choice.

-Ken

But i can´t understand why a Civilian Transport ship is better like it was in the 1 Ed then a raider fleet. We hade a lot of raider against civilians games ever the same end raider wiped of civilian won. Different Player different senarios ever the same.

 

[WereRogue]

But i can´t understand why a Civilian Transport ship is better like it was in the 1 Ed then a raider fleet. We hade a lot of raider against civilians games ever the same end raider wiped of civilian won. Different Player different senarios ever the same.

That's easy, Jhary, you were just unknowingly fielding Q-Ships!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

-Ken

 

[MustEatBrains]

The pirating idea reminds me of X3- whenever I try to bring my shiny new battleship into a new sector, a bunch of pirate fighters turn eventually up on the way and blow it out of the sky... :?

 

[H]

um, weak? the Battlewagon? try telling that to the EA, Centauri, narn and Minbari who have all lost ships to the raiders in our campaign!

 

[katadder]

Raider fleets could be used very effectively in a campaign.
I'm hoping to run a campaign at the club in Swindon soon (yes Katadder, I will take the pain on this one!), and I have been toying with the idea of introducing a random 'Raiding' element to it.
Essentially a group of raiders, not directly involved in the overall campaign, who randomly attack players, and either cause a loss of RR points, or you have to draw ships from your fleet to protect the targets of the raiders.

uurgh, not nice, if you want raiders run raiders lol last campaign i would have just had the victory kill them all as it didnt have much else to do.
next campaign I had planned was actually going to be pure league. so everyone picks one race from the LONAW to play. although you can use raiders if you wish as none of the fleets are overpowered so you may have more chance than if was against the big 5.

 

[Sulfurdown]

It's only nonsense from a game perspective. Historically (in both Real World and game genres), Pirates have always been underpowered when compared to their Naval counterparts.

It's very much nonsense from a game perspective which has historically been a oft used reason for adding or changing ships of other fleets.

You're right that historically pirates were weaker but that had more to do with available resources, not through any "we're good enough to take down a merchant, we don't need anything better". As Poi said - being limited to lower priority makes sense since they don't have the resources to acquire the high end ships, but ships in a priority level are supposed to be relatively equal to any other ships of the same priority level. That's why the number of fighters in a flight are calculated based on how good it is. It's also why placement in a PL is based on how good a ship is. (Raid - White Stars aren't raid because they're the same size as Novas...)

This is one topic that I will agree with Matt that Raiders should be limited and strongly limited, always the underdog in the grand scheme; but will always disagree that they should be deliberately under powered in a specific Priority. I'd even be ok special rules for a campaign like - "Ships cost double for Raiders" to force an artificial representation that raiders don't have access to government subsidized dry docks, they've got whatever they can scrounge up.

___________________________________________________
Priority Levels! Let's keep ships level in each!!

EDIT: I'm going to point out the "deliberate" part of the under powering. I think that's what really got under my saddle blanket!

 

[Bostich]

Making their ships cost double would be way worse than just having them underpowered.

It sounds like the raiders are a well thought-out fleet. Good for scenarios where you need an underdog but probably no good for the more general x Pts at x Lvl type games.

 

[Triggy]

It's only nonsense from a game perspective. Historically (in both Real World and game genres), Pirates have always been underpowered when compared to their Naval counterparts.

It's very much nonsense from a game perspective which has historically been a oft used reason for adding or changing ships of other fleets.

You're right that historically pirates were weaker but that had more to do with available resources, not through any "we're good enough to take down a merchant, we don't need anything better". As Poi said - being limited to lower priority makes sense since they don't have the resources to acquire the high end ships, but ships in a priority level are supposed to be relatively equal to any other ships of the same priority level. That's why the number of fighters in a flight are calculated based on how good it is. It's also why placement in a PL is based on how good a ship is. (Raid - White Stars aren't raid because they're the same size as Novas...)

This is one topic that I will agree with Matt that Raiders should be limited and strongly limited, always the underdog in the grand scheme; but will always disagree that they should be deliberately under powered in a specific Priority. I'd even be ok special rules for a campaign like - "Ships cost double for Raiders" to force an artificial representation that raiders don't have access to government subsidized dry docks, they've got whatever they can scrounge up.

___________________________________________________
Priority Levels! Let's keep ships level in each!!

EDIT: I'm going to point out the "deliberate" part of the under powering. I think that's what really got under my saddle blanket!

Well, as you say, this is a Matt directive. I agree with you that limiting their options (particularly at higher PLs) is a good thing but deliberately reducing their effectiveness compared to equivalent ships in other fleets is another... at least they are better than 1st ed

 

[Sulfurdown]

Making their ships cost double would be way worse than just having them underpowered.

It sounds like the raiders are a well thought-out fleet. Good for scenarios where you need an underdog but probably no good for the more general x Pts at x Lvl type games.

eh, it was an on the fly suggestion that I realize it would have drastic impact on campaign fleets. Also consider that the campaign set-up offers the ability for the raiders to better control their engagements in scenarios and unlike tournaments, winning each battle isn't as important. It's just going to make the raider far more cautious about how they throw away ships in engagements (which I think is actually more representative of what the Raider Tactical Guide was suggesting). Keeping in mind that I would be advocating that they remain equal in the PL so your low level engagements the Raider would be just a formidible as the other fleets, they'll just be less willing to let a ship die without substantial return and more willing to run from high engagements. Just like a real pirate! It's a give & take in the campaign setup!

 

[WereRogue]

It's just a simple statement of theme. Raiders are underpowered because they're Raiders. Just like Shadows and Vorlons are overpowered because they're Ancients.

If they weren't the "underdog" fleet, then you'd have someone else complainng that their fleet were the underdog fleet. And that just doesn't make sense for other Naval fleets.

Raiders are underpowered because they shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with equivalent levels of Navy ships. It should always be a challenge, and Raiders (or Mercs, or Pirates or whatever) should generally always suffer a pucker factor whenever the Navy shows up.

I know that there are those that will always disagree with that, but if every ship could keep up with every other ship in it's PL (or point range, class, etc) then things would become quite generic.

-Ken

 

[MustEatBrains]

I know that there are those that will always disagree with that, but if every ship could keep up with every other ship in it's PL (or point range, class, etc) then things would become quite generic.

I say both yes and no to that - ´ships of different fleets sharing a PL should be at least competitive to each other; since a good part of PL-placement are the strengths and weaknesses of the whole fleet, they will never be quite equally good.

Still, the Raiders are a special case, in that they are MEANT to be the underdog, not to be the equal of any given fleet. This is the only case MGP has done this; as I see it, the Raiders are supposed to be a special challenge for players - a bit like a higher difficulty in a video game.

So, to be effective with Raiders, you have to be a pretty good player, because you´re playing ACTA at a higher difficulty.

I still think that there should be more flexibility in the Raiders list to make the most out of this challenge factor, though