Centauri Balvarin: Broken?
- Thread starter emperorpenguin
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Matt said:
unlike centauri ho allways do the smart thing like having a palace guard wache for a flower o has been dead for a 1000 years
actually based on a true story of a Russian soldier ordered to guard a flower by the Tzar
Karlopopoli
Mongoose
Yes, the idea of a carrier without carrier is silly but not unheard of, look at the league i'm sure a couple of their ships that are called carriers don't have carrier X.
They designed the Balvarix when they identifed the lack of an effective carrier was a problem or when the Drakh said "Build a carrier we command it foolish fan heads"
it may well be the roll of the secundus to disgorge troops into the very hulls of enemy vessels but if the Balvarin can do it well then why not.
I'm sure somewhere it says that Centauri don't place a high value on fighters and their pilots so they wouldn't develop an advanced carrier with state of the art lauching systems if they viewed fighters as pointless until they discovered a use for it.
Believe me, I am considering everything I post and not Knee jerking I don't actually think the Centauri are too hard I think they are a good example of a decent race, well balanced. The carrier without the carrier x trait does make sense from a cultural point of view but not from a game point of view when comparing to other races.
I suppose it's the difference betwen having carriers like the american nuclear type and the british Ark royal type ones, you can't launch many harriers at a time form the ark royal but it's still classed as a carrier.
They designed the Balvarix when they identifed the lack of an effective carrier was a problem or when the Drakh said "Build a carrier we command it foolish fan heads"
it may well be the roll of the secundus to disgorge troops into the very hulls of enemy vessels but if the Balvarin can do it well then why not.
I'm sure somewhere it says that Centauri don't place a high value on fighters and their pilots so they wouldn't develop an advanced carrier with state of the art lauching systems if they viewed fighters as pointless until they discovered a use for it.
Believe me, I am considering everything I post and not Knee jerking I don't actually think the Centauri are too hard I think they are a good example of a decent race, well balanced. The carrier without the carrier x trait does make sense from a cultural point of view but not from a game point of view when comparing to other races.
I suppose it's the difference betwen having carriers like the american nuclear type and the british Ark royal type ones, you can't launch many harriers at a time form the ark royal but it's still classed as a carrier.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Karlopopoli said:
A) None of those League carriers take 6 turns to disgorge
B) But the Balvarix's complement would still be just as vulnerable to e mines so to say that prior to this e mines prevented carriers is a fallacy
C) Because the Secundus isn't carrying a dead weight of 6 sentri flights, don't forget that the cost of fighters is factored into ships, so why would i want to pay for fighters when I'll be using the ship to board opponents?
D) A good point but essentially undermined by the fluff for the Balvarin which says it is a carrier and command ship, plus the model is clearly equipped for launching two sets of fighters. It's like looking at the Ark Royal and saying even though it has a flight deck it can't launch fighters
E) the carrier without carrier trait makes no sense when compared with the fluff of the vessel, or the model or the prior version of the ship
F) Except the Invincible class has a tiny complement of fighters, the Balvarin actually carries quite a large number, just takes too long to launch them. It's actually more like comparing them with the French Charles De Gaulle and saying they can only launch at a snail's pace.
Incidentally the Invincible class can actually launch theit harriers quite quickly
Karlopopoli
Mongoose
Because they don't have 6 flights of fighters! if they had 6 flights then they would. don't forget new special action that lets you launch another one!emperorpenguin said:
I wasn't saying it was the sole reason for them not having any, I said "it was probably a bad idea" which it is, if facing emine launchers ready to fire.
I'm not saying it should be it's exclusive use, i was saying taht you can do it with it aswell being as it can take a fair old amount of damage before goign down in a ball of fire. it's a secondary use for it. you may want to pay for the fighters because you can, because you will be able to have some more fighters to escort other vessels even if you can only launch a couple of fighters per turn if you do no other spec actions. because you can use them as boarding pods so your troops get to attack first and possibly wipe out the enemy troops before suffering casualties.
D) A good point but essentially undermined by the fluff for the Balvarin which says it is a carrier and command ship, plus the model is clearly equipped for launching two sets of fighters. It's like looking at the Ark Royal and saying even though it has a flight deck it can't launch fighters
Just because the model has two pod thingies that look like launch bays doesn't mean it launches a fighter flight from each, what if each one can launch 3 fighters? or what if one is a launch bay the other is a sensory suite or gunnery control pod or fuel tank? you can't use what the model looks like as a basis for giving it traits! not all traits have external indicators like that.
But before there wasn't the balvarix, now there is so you get to see the evolution of the next genration of Centauri carriers, see where they came from. Yes being an advanced race you'd expect it to have carrier x, they rectified this by creating the Balvarix
OK then I'll compare the merican big nuclear carrier with the french Charles de Gaulle class then, still it stands, they are both carriers yet they both launch craft at different rates.
from http://www.naval-technology.com/
USN Nimitiz class can launch one aircraft every 20 seconds.
Charles de Gaulle can launch one every 30 seconds or every 60 seconds (not clearly worded).
I'm sure these will make no difference to the discussion but I was bored.
USN Nimitiz class can launch one aircraft every 20 seconds.
Charles de Gaulle can launch one every 30 seconds or every 60 seconds (not clearly worded).
I'm sure these will make no difference to the discussion but I was bored.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Karlopopoli said:
But equally everyone can use that special action, it might not work and saying that everyone else would take as long to launch their fighters IF they held as many is a bit of a false argument
Well I for one am not happy with the idea of using ships in a role they're not intended for as some sort of compensation. besides you're then relying upon enemy ships to be dead in the water so you can board them
Erm yes you can! that's exactly the argument AOG put forward for battle lasers on the primus! :lol: they are both clearly launch tubes, one is not a sensor array, that's like claiming a weapon turret on a hyperion is a sensor array!
But the Balvarix isn't a small step up, it's a giant leap. One priority level higher, armed with matter cannons, 2 extra flights of fighters, equipped with level 2 interceptors, carrier 2, fleet carrier and command +2
All I'm arguing for is carrier 2, interceptors 1 and hull 4
Pauly_D
Mongoose
even though there is a special action "Scramble, Scramble" its still on a 3+ so 1 in 3 turns you will fail it so on average that would still 4 Turns to launch all fighters, by which time the Balvarin is usually a drifting hulk
It needs Carrier 2 so that all fighters can be out by turn 2, even if it does have Hull 4
It needs Carrier 2 so that all fighters can be out by turn 2, even if it does have Hull 4
Its not so much as fielding an ubership - the Balvarix is a masterpiece of fleetcarrierness there, but of more like taking a ship designed to carry fighters and not being able to launch them. So what the Balvarin is, is essentially an oversized Hermes (or ablative armour if the manouver to shiled them action can be pulled off). Only I would rather have the three Hermes. Carrier 2 would at least make it a consideration to take the ship for its fighter support, as opposed to looking for more useful ships, like a Dargan.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Matt said:about the ship i am a bit unsure what i think i mean if a centauri ants a uber varrier ship they can field Balvarix
so you say if the centauri want a carrier take the higher level balvarix?
lets strip the EA avenger of its carrier ability and say to all Earth players "just take a poseidon"
or strip the brikorta and tell brakiri players to take the brokados instead :roll:
well so far the poll is 3 to 1 in favour of giving the balvarin back its carrier ability
Scimitar
Mongoose
I'm in favor based on the idea that she has 6 flights. If she had 4 or fewer, I'd say OK, it was designed to be a warship with fighters instead of a CV, then I'd wonder why she was too slow and too poorly gunned to be a warship.
With 6 flights, and her armament and speed, the Centauri were obviously going for a fighter based attack. That said at present she cannot launch them all before the battle is well on its way to decision.
I understand no fleet carrier, it was too cheap before and the Centauri probably saw them as more of a reconnaisance or deterence factor since they were minimal use against the Narn. The interceptors, OK, she was a carrier and the Belvarix should be better protected.
But no carrier trait. Sorry, I won't waste the raid point on a Belvarain. Get a Dargan.
With 6 flights, and her armament and speed, the Centauri were obviously going for a fighter based attack. That said at present she cannot launch them all before the battle is well on its way to decision.
I understand no fleet carrier, it was too cheap before and the Centauri probably saw them as more of a reconnaisance or deterence factor since they were minimal use against the Narn. The interceptors, OK, she was a carrier and the Belvarix should be better protected.
But no carrier trait. Sorry, I won't waste the raid point on a Belvarain. Get a Dargan.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Scimitar said:
Excellent post Scimitar, nobody builds a ship with 6 flights and then says it's not a carrier...
The balvarix is the warship-carrier, the balvarin should just be a carrier. until then it's a waste of space in the fleet
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
more votes please! whatever you feel please post your feelings on the matter
Similar threads
