Centauri Balvarin: Broken?

Is the Centauri Balvarin a broken ship?

  • The Balvarin as stands in SFOS is right

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A carrier without carrier ability!? Give it back carrier 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carrier 2, interceptors 1, Hull 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Under the original Call To Arms rules I loved the Balvarin carrier, it was a good ship with a great model.
When I first read and playtested the SFOS draft version I was surprised at just how good the ship had become, gaining fleet carrier and command +1 it was now arguably too good. :twisted:
Unfortunately in my opinion, the guys at mongoose wielded the axe on the Balvarin too far and have emasculated the ship.
It is now the slowest carrier in the game at launching and loading fighters (6 turns). So the Centauri are left with a carrier which will take an entire game to disgorge its fighter compliment, leaving them to be picked off one by one. :(
Not only that but the model is clearly designed with two launch bays and the descriptive text in SFOS states that the Balvarin is an excellent command ship often chosen by admirals over the Primus/Octurion.

Now the Primus doesn't get a command rating so I don't mind the Balvarin lacking there, but I really feel that the Balvarin needs to have the carrier 2 trait re-instated. At a pinch it should maybe get level 1 interceptors too but the carrier ability definitely. If the high hull points is a stumbling block then reduce the hull to 4, we have precedent there with the Nova.

The logic in the SFOS FAQ is wanting, it states that the Balvarin is not a "carrier" because the centauri had no desire or need to build one at the time. However what government will spend vast sums of money on what is clearly a fighter carrier (the balvarin lacks meaningful guns) if they didn't want one? :? Using a historical example, Britain was axing its carriers before the falklands war, not spending money on vessels it considered surplus to requirements.

So what is your opinion on this ship? Neutered scrap yard material or overpowered wmd?
 

H

Mongoose
Um, wheres the vote option that says who gives a frapacino, the Centauri are one of the hardest fleets in the game anyway :twisted:
I think pretty much every fleet player can complain about at least one of the ships in there fleet, but I notice no one says, damn, that primus is to hard, fix it mongoose...
 

Pauly_D

Mongoose
hiffano said:
Um, wheres the vote option that says who gives a frapacino, the Centauri are one of the hardest fleets in the game anyway :twisted:
I think pretty much every fleet player can complain about at least one of the ships in there fleet, but I notice no one says, damn, that primus is to hard, fix it mongoose...

yes but emperorpenguin is making allowances for that by saying if thats too much reduce to hull 4 to keep it balanced, as it stands there is no point in taking it atm. and the Primus although it is incredibly powerful it lacks maneouverability and that can be a huge weakness if exploited correctly so it doesnt need fixing
 

Karlopopoli

Mongoose
I concur, I rate the Primus as the best Battle choice in the game if not the best value for money ship about.

The centauri are grand as far as i'm concerend but the balvarin is without carrier which doesn't really make a lot of sense for a carrier.
 
Karlopopoli said:
I concur, I rate the Primus as the best Battle choice in the game if not the best value for money ship about.

The centauri are grand as far as i'm concerend but the balvarin is without carrier which doesn't really make a lot of sense for a carrier.

Exactly. Please stop hijacking my thread with whinges about the Primus, start up a new thread if you feel that way.
This one is about the illogicality of a clear carrier design which isn't a carrier! :evil:

If we'd followed the logic of the first few whingers on here then the Nova, Maximus and White Star would never have been originally updated because of people complaining about other ships in their respective fleets
 

Matt

Mongoose
Exactly. Please stop hijacking my thread with whinges about the Primus, start up a new thread if you feel that way.
This one is about the illogicality of a clear carrier design which isn't a carrier!

If we'd followed the logic of the first few whingers on here then the Nova, Maximus and White Star would never have been originally updated because of people complaining about other ships in their respective fleets

primus are to uber gimp all centauri ships :p
 
Matt said:
Exactly. Please stop hijacking my thread with whinges about the Primus, start up a new thread if you feel that way.
This one is about the illogicality of a clear carrier design which isn't a carrier!

If we'd followed the logic of the first few whingers on here then the Nova, Maximus and White Star would never have been originally updated because of people complaining about other ships in their respective fleets

primus are to uber gimp all centauri ships :p

CAN'T YOU READ? Don't hijack this thread :roll:
 

Karlopopoli

Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Karlopopoli said:
I concur, I rate the Primus as the best Battle choice in the game if not the best value for money ship about.

The centauri are grand as far as i'm concerend but the balvarin is without carrier which doesn't really make a lot of sense for a carrier.

Exactly. Please stop hijacking my thread with whinges about the Primus, start up a new thread if you feel that way.
This one is about the illogicality of a clear carrier design which isn't a carrier! :evil:

If we'd followed the logic of the first few whingers on here then the Nova, Maximus and White Star would never have been originally updated because of people complaining about other ships in their respective fleets

it's hardly hijacking a thread, it's just conversational evolution
 

H

Mongoose
I don't recall reading that you can't evolve a conversation? is that a new rule on the forum. we were still discussing Centauri ships, it's not like we were talking about lap dancing and custard.
 
I started the thread and I asked people to discuss the merits of what I proposed for the Balvarin, you have all started talking about the Primus which steers the topic away from the one I started and weakens the overall purpose of the thread.

NOW FOR THE LAST TIME STOP TROLLING. There's plenty of GW boards for you to do that on. If you want to discuss the merits of the primus do it on a seperate thread, this is my topic and I ask that you respect the purpose of the poll by talking about the issue in hand.
It is not conversational evolution it is thread hijacking pure and simple :evil:
 

Karlopopoli

Mongoose
mmmm lap dancers covered in custard!!!! that is a topic i'd like to explore.

But back to the Balvarin, It's a nice little damage soaker as far as i've seen, the only time people have used them they've kept them well and truly out of the fight miles away from everything.

I think the carrier trait was dropped from far too many things or lowered like the Poseidon dropping to carrier 4, ( not attempting to hijack, don't stress)
 
Yes but it's a damage soaker which spends an entire battle trying to launch fighters one flight at a time

I was surprised by the lowering of the Poseidon but at least it launches 4 flights at once.

The Balvarin shouldn't just be a damage soaker, why give it fighters at all! :roll: Just look at the faulty logic in designing a carrier which isn't a carrier, then read the text description of the Balvarin in SFOS.

As I've said reduce the hull to 4 and it soaks less damage but gives it back its role as a carrier.
 
hiffano said:
Um, wheres the vote option that says who gives a frapacino, the Centauri are one of the hardest fleets in the game anyway :twisted:
I think pretty much every fleet player can complain about at least one of the ships in there fleet, but I notice no one says, damn, that primus is to hard, fix it mongoose...

Actually there was an option 4 for "something else" but it seems to have vanished :?
 

Karlopopoli

Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Yes but it's a damage soaker which spends an entire battle trying to launch fighters one flight at a time

I was surprised by the lowering of the Poseidon but at least it launches 4 flights at once.

The Balvarin shouldn't just be a damage soaker, why give it fighters at all! :roll: Just look at the faulty logic in designing a carrier which isn't a carrier, then read the text description of the Balvarin in SFOS.

As I've said reduce the hull to 4 and it soaks less damage but gives it back its role as a carrier.

Give the balvarin squadrons of elite lap dancers and custard bombs that would sort the problem out.

I haven't got a copy of SFOS to hand at the minute but i suspect you could always use the balvarin to soak damage while getting close to launch a boarding action .

launching loads of fighters as the centauri probably would be a bad idea anyway as their arch enemy has a fantastic way of knocking out groups of fighters almost instantly.

Am I allowed to mention other centauri ships that are suffering or do i have to start another thread?
 
Karlopopoli said:
I haven't got a copy of SFOS to hand at the minute but i suspect you could always use the balvarin to soak damage while getting close to launch a boarding action .

launching loads of fighters as the centauri probably would be a bad idea anyway as their arch enemy has a fantastic way of knocking out groups of fighters almost instantly.

Am I allowed to mention other centauri ships that are suffering or do i have to start another thread?


It's a fighter carrier, not a boarding ship, that's the role of the secundus.

On your second point if launching fighters is a mistake then why design the Balvarix? :p You're not stopping to actually consider the logic in any of this, just knee-jerking that "the centauri are too good therefore they're not allowed to have any of their ships fixed"

You said yourself earlier on that the idea of a carrier without carrier ability is stupid, just whaere do you stand on this? :?
 

H

Mongoose
Of course, I am viweing if from the angle of an arch enemy, who has no actual carrier, no, the T'ran is NOT a carrier, it's a waste of a point! I think the key to all ships is fielding them in a competent fleet. I agree that as a carrier, only being able to launch ships as fast as a cruiser is a bit of a drawback, it's essentially now as if they designed a cruiser/destroyer, then stripped it down and stuck some fighters in. However, sitting behind a strong fleet, slowly disgorging fighters to support existing flights etc, is a decent use, and it's tough enough to hang around. The thing is obvioulsy, IF you want to use it as a front line carrier then it is indeed weak, but if it's used as support to resupply existing fighters, whilst at least proving a distraction, it probably has it's uses. The thing is though, if you deem the ship weak, then don't field it, and remember ACTA IS an evolving game, so it may well make a dramatic comeback as a carrier in a future supplement.
 
hiffano said:
Of course, I am viweing if from the angle of an arch enemy, who has no actual carrier, no, the T'ran is NOT a carrier, it's a waste of a point! I think the key to all ships is fielding them in a competent fleet. I agree that as a carrier, only being able to launch ships as fast as a cruiser is a bit of a drawback, it's essentially now as if they designed a cruiser/destroyer, then stripped it down and stuck some fighters in. However, sitting behind a strong fleet, slowly disgorging fighters to support existing flights etc, is a decent use, and it's tough enough to hang around. The thing is obvioulsy, IF you want to use it as a front line carrier then it is indeed weak, but if it's used as support to resupply existing fighters, whilst at least proving a distraction, it probably has it's uses. The thing is though, if you deem the ship weak, then don't field it, and remember ACTA IS an evolving game, so it may well make a dramatic comeback as a carrier in a future supplement.

Exactly you're viewing it as an enemy. And most opponents only see the good hence "are the minbari broken" threads etc
I have noticed that Centauri players are the ones who see the fault in the ship. No one I have met thought the pre SFOS Balvarin too good.
The fault in your argument is that you say the Balvarin should sit back and feed fighters one at a time into the battle.
This would take six turns easily the length of most battles, meaning not all will be launched.
Secondly unlike the EA, Narn, Minbari most centauri ships do not carry a fighter compliment, so what exactly would you be feeding replacements for? :shock:
Sending out one flight of sentris per turn to get mobbed is not a sound tactic.
Many centauri players I know have said they will not field the ship as it is, it really is that poor.
I really cannot see what you have against allowing it to launch one extra flight per turn in exchange for hull 4! :shock:
 

H

Mongoose
Actually, if it gets hull 4, it's all good for me, and 2 fighters a turn means I'm not wasting good e-mines on single fighters :wink:
 
Top