Matt
Mongoose
You're not stopping to actually consider the logic in any of this
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
You're not stopping to actually consider the logic in any of this
Matt said:You're not stopping to actually consider the logic in any of this
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
Karlopopoli said: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.
it's hardly hijacking a thread, it's just conversational evolution
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: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
karlopoli 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.
karlopoli said: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.
Nomad said:The crack about the Primus was meant as a joke.... :shock:
Karlopopoli said: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!
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.
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
mmmm lap dancers covered in custard!!!! that is a topic i'd like to explore
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
Scimitar said: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.