Can Crusade EA jack ships from previous Eras?

[GhostRecon]

I figured this wouldn't make sense if you tried, say, using an earlier era and taking a later era's vessels (For what I hope are obvious reasons) but is there any reason or restriction against Crusade EA players from using ships from, say, the Third Age list? (Even as far as Tournament settings?).

I say this because, looking and comparing EA lists to others, and to each other, Crusade EA is, in my opinion, severely hampered in lower point battles (Such as a 5 point raid). Chronos Attack Frigates are decent ships, and Hyperions are effective workhorses, but I find that Crusade EA has severe downfalls in the lower point battles, specifically in that:
a) They have a severe lack in lower-point Carriers that other races have, and EA even had prior to the "Crusade"-era.
b) They have a severe lack of longer ranged low-point battle effective ships. The best we get are the Hermes Transport and Hyperion Cruiser, neither of which, in my opinion, equal even the effectiveness of the Third Age's Olympus Corvette.

So, I guess, to the meat of my question. Is it okay, and can I, as a Crusade Player, field Olympus Corvettes and Avenger Carriers in my lists? Would that even be allowed in a tournment (Potentially a stupid question).

It makes little sense that in transitioning from "Third Age" to "Crusade" that the Earth Alliance Military would suddenly decide "Hey, we don't need cheaper Carriers to supply our fleets with fighter support!" and "Hey, we don't need cheap, numerous long ranged gunfighters!" Especially in light of the whole Earth-dun-got-screwed deal with the Drakh's virus.

 

[Fiztbane_65]

Not sure if this will help you or not since i cant make official rulings on stuff, but in the campaign myself and a few of my friends are starting this weekend, im playing Crusade EA. So what we all decided is that out of the 10 battle points i get to build my campaign fleet list with, i could use 1 of those points to buy ships from earlier eras.

Not sure if that helps or not, but its a house rule we came up with.

 

[Gunnvaldr]

Yes, EA:C weak point in fleet selection option does lie to their skirmish priority level. Fitzbane does have a good idea for a house rule, I personally look at the EA:C campaign bonus for inspiriation.

Skirmish level ships from previous Eras, in particular EA:EY are a viable venue to look at for house rules. Compliments the Campaign rolls as well.

As to the lose of the Avenger, it's the only thing I really miss from the previous eras. Like I said in other topic, I just hope they come out with a Raid level, new hull carrier in the future.

Although I don't like it, I personally accept the list hinderance and take it in character of the fleet. It does change your management of RP by focusing obtaining battle and war level ships moreso then previous Eras.

 

[Greg Smith]

One of the Ea other duties allows you to bring a ship from a previous fleet into yours.

 

[Burger]

The original question hasn't been answered yet... NO you can't jack ships from earlier eras, unless as Greg states you get the "other duties" roll.

Lower PL doesn't necessarily mean cheaper... for example the Sagittarious was actually extremely expensive to produce; that's why it was phased out.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The other thing is, look at it from a realistic viewpoint. Is the venerable Anvenger-class carrier worth keeping in the fleet? As a ship ages its maintenance costs, in both time and money, increase to the point that it's simply not worth keeping. You need crew and supplies for such ships in addition to yard time and spare parts, so the cost of running it is still higher.

In contrast you can field the newer Poseidon-class super-carrier and have a bigger, better ship that does everything the Avenger did and more besides. It has bigger fighter bays, more defensive guns and a better command suite. Why use the obsolete ship?

Various EarthForce ships are replaced during the timeline - the Hyperion with the Omega, the Avenger with the Poseidon, and eventually the Omega with the Marathon and/or Warlock. In-game considerations may mean you'd like the older, lower PL ship, but that's the price you pay for using the advanced Crusade-era list. Look at the Minbari for the same problem. Their main line warship is war PL, with only older or light ships at lower levels. If you want to use the older ships, use the 3rd Age list. You get most of the best toys that way.

 

[katadder]

you miss the olympus but the chronos replaces that vessel.
ok its not got missiles but it is hull 6, with more interceptors and some actual anti-fighter fire.

 

[GhostRecon]

you miss the olympus but the chronos replaces that vessel.
ok its not got missiles but it is hull 6, with more interceptors and some actual anti-fighter fire.

The problem being, katadder, that EA: Crusade has no real long ranged capabilities in a Raid- or lower priority level battle. Either, you cough up the points for an Apollo Bombardment Cruiser or you go down and buy the Hermes Transport, which isn't exactly a premier choice, RP-lore or in-game.

I do agree that the Chronos Attack Frigate is solid; however, it is also slow, relatively weakly armed for even a skirmish level vessel, and while its interceptors make it even harder to kill, they don't work against, essentially, half the weapons out there (Particularly beam and emine fire).

The other thing is, look at it from a realistic viewpoint. Is the venerable Avenger-class carrier worth keeping in the fleet? As a ship ages its maintenance costs, in both time and money, increase to the point that it's simply not worth keeping. You need crew and supplies for such ships in addition to yard time and spare parts, so the cost of running it is still higher.

In contrast you can field the newer Poseidon-class super-carrier and have a bigger, better ship that does everything the Avenger did and more besides. It has bigger fighter bays, more defensive guns and a better command suite. Why use the obsolete ship?

I would agree wholly with this viewpoint, except for the one problem in that: What replaces the Avenger as a lower-cost carrier that can accompany small patrols and escort convoys and provide valuable fighter cover?

Its clear in all Eras that the Earth Alliance Navy is built around fighters as a main striking arm of their fleet: However, the Crusade-Era fleet is the only Fleet list of the three eras that doesn't have a cheap Carrier hull to provide a low-maintenance, low-cost fighter-carrier for smaller battles (Such as long-range patrols, convoy escort, etc).

While I can see, in terms of realism/lore that when I buy Fighters at the Patrol level, I am probably getting fighter support from a Poseidon Super-Carrier out-of-theater, it doesn't make much sense to leave such a large gap in terms of fighter coverage for the EA navy. Especially when you read the lore and consider the fact that the Aurora Starfury is fairly short-legged when it comes to fuel and power endurance to last long on its own.

The only other realism-based solution I see to the endurance issue is that Starfuries "hot" rotate in and out of whatever existing hanger space exists in the patrol fleet you're using (Say, the hangers of three Hyperions) but that, again realism-based, means that you're putting a gigantic strain on both the Fighter Support Crew, and the Pilots themselves. Not exactly an intelligent or optimum solution for the long-ranged patrol a Raid-level fleet likely represents.

Various EarthForce ships are replaced during the timeline - the Hyperion with the Omega, the Avenger with the Poseidon, and eventually the Omega with the Marathon and/or Warlock. In-game considerations may mean you'd like the older, lower PL ship, but that's the price you pay for using the advanced Crusade-era list. Look at the Minbari for the same problem. Their main line warship is war PL, with only older or light ships at lower levels. If you want to use the older ships, use the 3rd Age list. You get most of the best toys that way.

I certainly agree here; I just, suppose, wish that the High Command of the Crusade-era had deigned to give us poor fleet commanders a cheap long-range capable combatant hull to make up for the holes we have between the Chronos and Olympus, and a cheap Carrier hull to make up for the loss of the, relatively, plentiful Avenger hulls.

On the other hand, its odd that in the descriptions they talk about how the Olympus was phased out because it created a large supply trail... yet, the Marathon, Apollo Bombardment and Strike, and the Warlock hulls all use Railguns and Advanced Missile Racks, which on their own would only increase, incredibly, the amount of supply a EA Battle-line would need. Even the Chronos itself uses Railguns still, which, in my opinion, at least makes part of the reason that the Olympus was phased out less viable.

Even getting the Hermes Transport with Advanced Missile Racks, and minus its Plasma Cannon, might be a viable solution. >.> 4AD Advanced Missle Rack fast attack boat anyone? Dump the Starfuries, and up its armor and (probably) priority by one, and I think that might be an option worth taking!

Still, regardless, I'll still play Crusade: Era simply because I like it so much. The Marathon itself is pretty much worth the cost :lol:

 

[Karhedron]

On the other hand, its odd that in the descriptions they talk about how the Olympus was phased out because it created a large supply trail... yet, the Marathon, Apollo Bombardment and Strike, and the Warlock hulls all use Railguns and Advanced Missile Racks, which on their own would only increase, incredibly, the amount of supply a EA Battle-line would need. Even the Chronos itself uses Railguns still, which, in my opinion, at least makes part of the reason that the Olympus was phased out less viable.

The newer ships are significantly larger (apart from the Chronos) and faster than the Olympus. Presumably they can carry enough ammo with them for extended missions. If they occasionally need to return to base to re-arm, that is easier as their higher speed means they are out of service for less time. Fluff arguments are always shaky but hey, that is part of the fun of the game.

Ultimately, all fleets are characterised by their weaknesses as well as their strengths. EA Crusade era is a very solid list at higher levels but struggles at low PLs. This is part of their nature.

 

[Triggy]

The other thing is, look at it from a realistic viewpoint. Is the venerable Avenger-class carrier worth keeping in the fleet? As a ship ages its maintenance costs, in both time and money, increase to the point that it's simply not worth keeping. You need crew and supplies for such ships in addition to yard time and spare parts, so the cost of running it is still higher.

In contrast you can field the newer Poseidon-class super-carrier and have a bigger, better ship that does everything the Avenger did and more besides. It has bigger fighter bays, more defensive guns and a better command suite. Why use the obsolete ship?

I would agree wholly with this viewpoint, except for the one problem in that: What replaces the Avenger as a lower-cost carrier that can accompany small patrols and escort convoys and provide valuable fighter cover?

Its clear in all Eras that the Earth Alliance Navy is built around fighters as a main striking arm of their fleet: However, the Crusade-Era fleet is the only Fleet list of the three eras that doesn't have a cheap Carrier hull to provide a low-maintenance, low-cost fighter-carrier for smaller battles (Such as long-range patrols, convoy escort, etc).

I think you're slightly confusing game "cost" with "real life" cost. The Avenger and the Poseidon are both similar enough in "real life" cost and their roles are similar too as a large fleet carrier. Over time the Avenger became relatively more financially costly to run and the Poseidon could do the job better so the Avenger was phased out and the Poseidon phased in.

Despite both ships offering substantially the same battlefield role, the Poseidon is simply better at it (in much the same way as fighters from current air forces perform substantially the same role as fighters from World War II but are just much better at that role). How good a unit is in the game is reflected by its Priority Level (or "cost"). This Priority Level (PL) bears little or no relation to how expensive a unit is to run or how old and high-maintenance a unit is to run in a fleet, it is purely a measure of battlefield ability.

Just because a Poseidon is War PL doesn't mean it performs in a different way to the Raid PL Avenger, it's just better at it. Generally if you want to play the Crusade EA fleet in a similar way to the Third Age EA fleet, raise the PL of the game you are playing by one and play an older race (e.g. Minbari, Drakh, Vorlons, Shadows - although the last two wouldn't historically happen). If you want to play lower PL games, Third Age/Early EA may suit your style a little better if you still want a lot of ships on the table.

 

[GhostRecon]

Actually, based on the "lore" and from the way the game plays, a lower PL generally means lower cost or more plentiful hulls.

Which is why the Victory and Excalibur are both Armageddon level ships, the Warlock is a War level hull, and the Omega is generally a Battle level hull.

The Avenger is obviously a cheaper hull to purchase over the Poseidon. Its smaller, has weaker armaments, and generally has less of everything that a Poseidon does. Its clearly a weaker "Escort Carrier" type hull.

The Poseidon is a "Super Carrier." It carries, and largely is, three times the size of the Avenger. It would be obvious to assume it also costs in "real-life" three times as much, at the least.

The Avenger, on the other hand, is significantly smaller, even carrying a third of the Fighter compliment, a third of the interceptors and anti-fighter armaments, has less advanced communications and avionics (Representing the fact it gives +1 Command instead of the Poseidon's +3). The Avenger hull is also significantly weaker (40 to 95 damage), carries a little less than a third of the Poseidon's crew (50 to 120), and has a significantly diminished weapon array.

Its pretty clear that the Avenger was designed as a hull to carry Fighters cheaply, and its "lore" description even supports this theory, stating "Its ability to bring dozens of Starfuries and the new Thunderbolts to a conflict without risking a much more expensive warship such as the Omega made it indispensable during the initial phases of the conflict."

That the Poseidon is superior is beyond question. But thats because they're built to different purposes. An Avenger is designed to be a cheaper fighter carrier to give fighter support to smaller fleets, say a long-range patrol that doesn't warrant an Omega Destroyer. The Poseidon is a Super Carrier, designed to bring and carry unmatched fighter firepower to the battlespace, and carry the defensive armaments necessary to defend itself while it does so.

Ask yourself the most obvious question. What makes more sense, if you were a EarthForce Naval Captain, to equip your small patrol fleets with? A massively expensive Carrier carrying a significant portion of the Fleet's Starfury Assets (The Poseidon) or a smaller fighter carrier that, while less capable, is significantly cheaper (The Avenger)?

Now, its obvious that PL doesn't precisely carry over into real-life cost, but as an indicator of the relative number and cost of a ship compared to others in that race's navy, I think it serves as an effective indicator.

 

[Taran]

It's simpler than that, really.

You can draw an almost direct correlation between the advancement of the EA fleets to the USNavy of the last 70 years.

As the fighters got better and the ability to produce better and larger and more powerful aircraft carriers, the smaller Escort Carriers went away. Their speed was insufficient. They carried too few fighters. They were too easy to kill. And now we have the USS Ronald Reagan, the first aircraft carrier built with anti-ship weapons other than the fighter complement. And as the fighter screen and attack force became more important, the fleet stopped being oriented around the battleship with carriers to protect it to being centered on the aircraft carrier with cruiser to protect it.

The EA starts with the Avenger. It's fast enough to keep up with most of the fleet and its job is to provide a fighter escort for the real heavy hitters.
As the fighters get more capable (instead of Auroras, we have T-bolts and then Firebolts), the carrier becomes more important and having enough fighters transported fast enough with a harder to kill vessel became more important. And technology and ship-building made the Poseidon possible.

The Avenger just isn't good enough and the fleet is oriented more around the fighters than ever before.

 

[Shadow Queen]

I would go with Greg on this issue that you can only take it if you roll the numbers on duties table.

 

[Voronesh]

I can only say the same about "real life costs" as others did.

Basically the Marathon replaces the Hyperion. For the EA ist about the same cost in the long run. But its about 80% more effective. Same about the Omega and the Warlock, you get so many more goodies for so "little" extra cost. In the end you would also choose the Crusade era ships if you would pay with B5 credits for your ships.

but since we pay for our ships based on how powerful they are, you only get half as many Marathons as opposed to Hyperions.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

GhostRecon, you're picking this up all wrong. The Avenger-class is not, and never has been, an escort carrier. It's a fleet carrier, with a compliment of four full squadrons of fighters, twice as many as "line" battleships like the Nova or Omega.

The fighter cover and striking ability that's so important to the EA is represented by the fact that almost all their major warships have fighters on board. Compare that to the other races, no one else gets as many fighters as the EA do, bar the Gaim, and they just use them as kamikazes. The Narn, Centauri, Minbari, Vree, Brakiri, all have fewer fighters on their capital warships than the EA. You really don't need a raid-level carrier when you have plenty of fighters on most of your ships.

 

[dag'karlove]

I have 3 fleets: Crusade EA, Narn, and Shadows. Of these three fleets I have found one valuable truth. The more dice you can put on target the better the chance you have. EA skirmish and patrol lists consist really of only 2 fighting ships. The Chronos (Mad wicked little ship) and the Myrmidon. Both have turretted weapons and if Squadroned are Very Very very lethal. I Dont Use fighters. Ive never been a big fighter fan although my thunderbolts and firebolts have a bit o punch to them. I have found fighters get killed too quick. All of you other crusaders out there My EA fleet has never lost, never and with proper tactics yours wont either. Just remeber The more dice you have, the more hits you can get and teh more damage you can do.

 

[Green_Knight]

sorry to pop into this...

1st, no you can't take in early EA ships in crusade.
(execpt for the duties roll)
Its the same as saying: "i play narn and since the centauri left
many hulls on narn so i want to use some vorchans in my fleet list".

From the background there may be some older hulls floating around,
but at last its a game (and that is represented by the duties roll).

The PL reflects only the ability in battle, not the availability of the
particular ship. If it weren't so why is the Omega Battle ?
Its the main ship in 3rd and would be lower if availability should
be presented by PL.

In conclusion:

If you want low PL power choose Early
for intermediate power choose 3rd
and for high PL power choose Crusade.

Or go for Psi-Corps and you're different.