Drakh Huge Hangars
- Thread starter CZuschlag
- Start date
Too much enthusiasm to pop in my ten cents worth, and not enough reading your whole post.mrambassador1
Mongoose
HI all, hope you don't mind me posting too early, I don't have a very strong opinion anyway so please don't pay any attention too my meagre ramblings. No really don't listen to me, I don't know why anyone would take anything I have to say seriously anyway, seriously please don't even waste the 30 secs of your life to read this pointless drivel, its really not that important or well thought out anyway. You shouldn't still be reading this, its just a trifle of a post, really I'm terribly sorry, I shouldn't be wasting your time like this, its nothing really, don't know why I'm even bothering. Please just go on to the next post, I'm sure its much more interesting than mine, I don't really have much to say.
I don't think the Drahk hangers are too over or underpowered and haven't had enough experience with them to really speak intelligently on their capabilities, the only minor issue I have with them is the something for nothing aspect many carriers (of normal fighters) can often have, especially before 2e. That the ship carries enough smaller ships to basically be worth no more than the ships they are carrying and then you get the carrier on top of them. It just bugs me, especially when its actually cheaper.
Having said that I don't think they are too over or underpowered, theres not much in it really. There I told you it wasn't worth reading, my whole post could have been summed up in that last sentence, which basically said nothing anyway. God I hope you'll forgive me this pointless rambling, it really wasn't worth taking the time to read it, I should never have troubled you with my worthless opinions. God, I've become like one of those people who spend 50 cents on a phone poll for the news to say they don't know/have an opinion.
Hopefully this post won't influence anyone's vote (how could it, its meaningless gibberish), I doubt anyone would have gone onto the 2nd page before voting anyway.
I don't think the Drahk hangers are too over or underpowered and haven't had enough experience with them to really speak intelligently on their capabilities, the only minor issue I have with them is the something for nothing aspect many carriers (of normal fighters) can often have, especially before 2e. That the ship carries enough smaller ships to basically be worth no more than the ships they are carrying and then you get the carrier on top of them. It just bugs me, especially when its actually cheaper.
Having said that I don't think they are too over or underpowered, theres not much in it really. There I told you it wasn't worth reading, my whole post could have been summed up in that last sentence, which basically said nothing anyway. God I hope you'll forgive me this pointless rambling, it really wasn't worth taking the time to read it, I should never have troubled you with my worthless opinions. God, I've become like one of those people who spend 50 cents on a phone poll for the news to say they don't know/have an opinion.
Hopefully this post won't influence anyone's vote (how could it, its meaningless gibberish), I doubt anyone would have gone onto the 2nd page before voting anyway.
Clanger
Mongoose
I like the Huge Hangar ability of the Drakh it is their ace in the hole. I do not think it is over powered at all. The advantage is extra ships but the down side is the extra VP the opponent gets. Other races get their good abilities so why not the Drakh.
With the Carrier you get another Battle point worth of ships and with the Mothership 3 Battle points. What is there not to like?
With the Carrier you get another Battle point worth of ships and with the Mothership 3 Battle points. What is there not to like?
EDFDarkAngel1
Mongoose
@mrambassador1 - It's okay, they ignore my posts too.
Dark Angel
Dark Angel
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Voting has stabilized, so I'm releasing this for general comments a slight bit early.
Votes as they stand:
The Drakh Huge Hangars ships (Ma'Cu and Amu, mainly):
....are too weak; they provide cheap way to get a lot of extra VPs 2% [ 1 ]
....are too weak; they don't have Battle-level firepower even with the Raiders (like the Milani) 2% [ 1 ]
....are somewhat too weak, but not worth fixing (like the Ochliavita) 6% [ 3 ]
....are balanced well (like the Hyperion) 14% [ 7 ]
....are somewhat strong, but aren't that bad (like the Targrath) 23% [ 11 ]
....are overpowered; with the raiders there's too many guns (like the Demos) 4% [ 2 ]
....are overpowered; you're getting something for nothing 10% [ 5 ]
....I haven't played against often enough to make an opinion. 36% [ 17 ]
I'm bluntly surprised at the results. While I expected it to be more balanced than the Demos:
(previous poll results)
What do you think of the Demos
It is a totally sick skirmish level ship! 22% [ 16 ]
It is a little too good compared to the Vorchan 51% [ 37 ]
It is fine as it is. 26% [ 19 ]
It is too fragile and only has front guns. 0% [ 0 ]
the result is surprisingly familiar --- it's a similar profile to the G'Vrahn:
Would you/How would you fix the G'Vrahn?
Leave it, it's tough but not broken 52% [ 38 ]
It's a tad ott, change it's e-mines to one shot 23% [ 17 ]
drop it to one turn, and remove some forward weapons 16% [ 12 ]
up it to armagedon level with some upgrades 4% [ 3 ]
something completely different, mentioned below 2% [ 2 ]
Of the people who stated an opinion on the Huge Hangars ships, the same percentage of players who stated the G'Vrahn is OK, also stated the Ma'Cu and Amu are OK (54% vs. 52%).
And the G'Vrahn is not OK.
It used to be that the Drakh Huge Hangars ships hid in deathly terror of SAP DD beams. You would just rack up hit after hit on them, and, when CAFed, two Sulusts in squadron CAFed into one shot were a deadly threat to instakill a Carrier. Now, Hull 4 is perfect for absorbing beam fire. The long-range bombing has stopped, and they can wade into battle --- at least, after the biggest weapon banks have been reduced or eliminated.
This leads me to conclude that we have a (heretofore unidentified) potential balance issue.
My reason for unidentified is that even the forum regulars, who are likely some of the most active players in the game today, 36% have not played with or against the Drakh enough to form an opinion.
My open question:
To those who think we have a problem -- is it just that we have a issue with the fleet breakdown rates that manifest themselves in the Huge Hangars ships? For example if we had:
Ma'cu: Huge Hangars 3
Ria'vash: Huge Hangars 1
Amu: Huge Hangars 9
and 3 Skirmish ships were bought for 1 Battle point (as opposed to the current 4)
... would this solve the problem for you? Oversolve the problem?
Votes as they stand:
The Drakh Huge Hangars ships (Ma'Cu and Amu, mainly):
....are too weak; they provide cheap way to get a lot of extra VPs 2% [ 1 ]
....are too weak; they don't have Battle-level firepower even with the Raiders (like the Milani) 2% [ 1 ]
....are somewhat too weak, but not worth fixing (like the Ochliavita) 6% [ 3 ]
....are balanced well (like the Hyperion) 14% [ 7 ]
....are somewhat strong, but aren't that bad (like the Targrath) 23% [ 11 ]
....are overpowered; with the raiders there's too many guns (like the Demos) 4% [ 2 ]
....are overpowered; you're getting something for nothing 10% [ 5 ]
....I haven't played against often enough to make an opinion. 36% [ 17 ]
I'm bluntly surprised at the results. While I expected it to be more balanced than the Demos:
(previous poll results)
What do you think of the Demos
It is a totally sick skirmish level ship! 22% [ 16 ]
It is a little too good compared to the Vorchan 51% [ 37 ]
It is fine as it is. 26% [ 19 ]
It is too fragile and only has front guns. 0% [ 0 ]
the result is surprisingly familiar --- it's a similar profile to the G'Vrahn:
Would you/How would you fix the G'Vrahn?
Leave it, it's tough but not broken 52% [ 38 ]
It's a tad ott, change it's e-mines to one shot 23% [ 17 ]
drop it to one turn, and remove some forward weapons 16% [ 12 ]
up it to armagedon level with some upgrades 4% [ 3 ]
something completely different, mentioned below 2% [ 2 ]
Of the people who stated an opinion on the Huge Hangars ships, the same percentage of players who stated the G'Vrahn is OK, also stated the Ma'Cu and Amu are OK (54% vs. 52%).
And the G'Vrahn is not OK.
It used to be that the Drakh Huge Hangars ships hid in deathly terror of SAP DD beams. You would just rack up hit after hit on them, and, when CAFed, two Sulusts in squadron CAFed into one shot were a deadly threat to instakill a Carrier. Now, Hull 4 is perfect for absorbing beam fire. The long-range bombing has stopped, and they can wade into battle --- at least, after the biggest weapon banks have been reduced or eliminated.
This leads me to conclude that we have a (heretofore unidentified) potential balance issue.
My reason for unidentified is that even the forum regulars, who are likely some of the most active players in the game today, 36% have not played with or against the Drakh enough to form an opinion.
My open question:
To those who think we have a problem -- is it just that we have a issue with the fleet breakdown rates that manifest themselves in the Huge Hangars ships? For example if we had:
Ma'cu: Huge Hangars 3
Ria'vash: Huge Hangars 1
Amu: Huge Hangars 9
and 3 Skirmish ships were bought for 1 Battle point (as opposed to the current 4)
... would this solve the problem for you? Oversolve the problem?
Huge hangers on the Ma'Cu are fine since the Carrier is fairly underpowered without them, but on the Amu, they simply aren't enough when compared to the Ma'Cu.
For one Amu, I can take 4 Ma'Cu which gives an extra 4 Huge Hanger slots (though I can't use them to take the larger ships) but also reduces the susceptibility to the deadly "lose a trait" crit rolls.
So, imho, the Ma'Cu is fine as is, but the Amu needs an upgrade somewhere, especially given the slow start that a Drakh Huge Hangers fleet ALWAYS gets off to.
For one Amu, I can take 4 Ma'Cu which gives an extra 4 Huge Hanger slots (though I can't use them to take the larger ships) but also reduces the susceptibility to the deadly "lose a trait" crit rolls.
So, imho, the Ma'Cu is fine as is, but the Amu needs an upgrade somewhere, especially given the slow start that a Drakh Huge Hangers fleet ALWAYS gets off to.
skavendan said:lol would you like cheese with that?
On the list of capital ships that need moding that's no where near the top
I'm sorry, but is this not the thread about the Drakh Huge Hangars? Could've sworn it was, and not a thread debating which ships need fixing.
Must've been wron... oh no wait, it IS the thread to discuss the Huge Hangers. Oh well. My point stands. Amu needs a fix.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
thePirv,
How long do your games last?
When I played 1st Ed. Drakh (and I played a bunch; I remember writing a massive tactics article that got reduced to irrelevance when 2nd Ed. came out), I'd almost never see a Drakh fight finish in less than 6 turns. Over half of them expired at the end of 10 turns. The slow start didn't ever hurt; I'd mostly hide behind (in 1st Ed., often inside of) asteroid fields, trusting in the big ships' GEGs to keep me save on the hide and bury turn. Launching enough Raiders in time was almost never the problem, especially with the effective Drakh scout.
Now, much of that still applies, but not as much so. So, do your games end much faster? And why?
Do you regularly play with no terrain? That would cause it, too.
I'm just wondering, because I find the Amu to be the best Armageddon-level ship in the game, and I'm including the Victory, Ancient Shadow Ship, and the Vorlon CA in that assessment as well.
How long do your games last?
When I played 1st Ed. Drakh (and I played a bunch; I remember writing a massive tactics article that got reduced to irrelevance when 2nd Ed. came out), I'd almost never see a Drakh fight finish in less than 6 turns. Over half of them expired at the end of 10 turns. The slow start didn't ever hurt; I'd mostly hide behind (in 1st Ed., often inside of) asteroid fields, trusting in the big ships' GEGs to keep me save on the hide and bury turn. Launching enough Raiders in time was almost never the problem, especially with the effective Drakh scout.
Now, much of that still applies, but not as much so. So, do your games end much faster? And why?
Do you regularly play with no terrain? That would cause it, too.
I'm just wondering, because I find the Amu to be the best Armageddon-level ship in the game, and I'm including the Victory, Ancient Shadow Ship, and the Vorlon CA in that assessment as well.
skavendan said:
My aren't we a cheeky little shit.
I'm not bitching, I'm simply stating that the Huge Hangers on the Amu aren't up to the task in my opinion. Or are you god of this thread now and get to ignore others opinions at will?
Anyway, to make a meaningful response, I'll just ignore the troll from here on out and talk to people whop are willing to have a discussion and not just run their mouth off.
CZuschlag, My games are usually over by turn 6, but then I'm usually playing rough and ready pickup games, so scenery never really factors in. I know thisreally plays to the Drakh disadvantage, but terrain "shouldn't" be such a deciding factor in a game, especially given that some scenarios don't allow for terrain.
In 1ed, my Drakh seemed to do fine, with games lasting long enough, but in 2ed, the Mothership just seems like more of a liability to me given the new FAP breakdown. When it was like the Armageddon breakdown, things were fine, but I'm now finding that the Amu tends to meet more firepower than it can reliably deal with especially against a long range fleet that can pound on you before your carried ships can engage.
Against shorter ranged fleets, it's not so bad, but I still feel that the Huge Hangers on the Amu aren't quite up to the task anymore.
Note that this is not a reflection on the Drakh fleet as a whole, I still love them, but rather my opinion on the Huge Hanger capacity on the Amu Mothership alone. Carrier is fine, Amu needs a tweak to the Huge Hangers. That's all I'm saying.
CZuschlag
Generally I find the first few turns dictate how things are going and will proceed to go. Alot of games I have seen by turn 3 it was obvious who was going to win.
Terrain in space is an odd ball I find. Militarily speaking you fight where you fight because either the attacker dictates it or the defender. Which in 99% of instances mean there would be terrain to protect a flank or something to that extent. I dont like the on a 6 you get terrain I think it's far too few terrain. That or the defender should set up terrain as he wishs unless he is being ambushed. After all the defender theoretically takes a stand there for a reason.
The Amu Is one of the best Armageddon-level ship in the game period.
However it is a Carrier not a war cruiser!
thePirv
Yeah thats me. You can not just say something is a bad ship on a single point. The Amu is the best carrier in the game and if used right devastating. Crits can cripple any ship and you always run the risk of losing a good trait. It's upto you as commander to put your Amu somewhere to get the best use of this.
If your not using terrain I can see why you don't think it's that good.
Also a point if you take the Amu against an enemy like a league fleet you will get swarmed and lots of attacks means lots of crits I wouldn't field it against Empires with overwelming numbers as it just isn't movable.
P.S. I'll be your GOD if you want
Generally I find the first few turns dictate how things are going and will proceed to go. Alot of games I have seen by turn 3 it was obvious who was going to win.
Terrain in space is an odd ball I find. Militarily speaking you fight where you fight because either the attacker dictates it or the defender. Which in 99% of instances mean there would be terrain to protect a flank or something to that extent. I dont like the on a 6 you get terrain I think it's far too few terrain. That or the defender should set up terrain as he wishs unless he is being ambushed. After all the defender theoretically takes a stand there for a reason.
The Amu Is one of the best Armageddon-level ship in the game period.
However it is a Carrier not a war cruiser!
thePirv
Yeah thats me. You can not just say something is a bad ship on a single point. The Amu is the best carrier in the game and if used right devastating. Crits can cripple any ship and you always run the risk of losing a good trait. It's upto you as commander to put your Amu somewhere to get the best use of this.
If your not using terrain I can see why you don't think it's that good.
Also a point if you take the Amu against an enemy like a league fleet you will get swarmed and lots of attacks means lots of crits I wouldn't field it against Empires with overwelming numbers as it just isn't movable.
P.S. I'll be your GOD if you want
I haven't said that the Amu isn't a good ship. It's a very good ship. Those things are incredibly hard to kill.
What I am saying is that under the current FAP breakdown, it doesn't have the same carrying capacity as the equivalent 4 Carriers, and that while the Amu is a good ship, gets severly outgunned by many fleets now, even with the Huge Hangers 12 trait.
A combination of the Drakh slow start so your launched ships are moving in waves or having to hang about out of range hoping your enemy doesn't have long ranged weapons is a hindrance that shouldn't rely on good terrain.
A couple of extra points in the Amu's Huge Hangers would make the world of difference and make the Amu more worthwhile than the 4 Carriers with combined score of Huge Hangers 16 and more immunity to crits between the 4 ships than the Single Amu with Huge Hangers 12 and being more susceptible to crits since there's only the one of them.
What I am saying is that under the current FAP breakdown, it doesn't have the same carrying capacity as the equivalent 4 Carriers, and that while the Amu is a good ship, gets severly outgunned by many fleets now, even with the Huge Hangers 12 trait.
A combination of the Drakh slow start so your launched ships are moving in waves or having to hang about out of range hoping your enemy doesn't have long ranged weapons is a hindrance that shouldn't rely on good terrain.
A couple of extra points in the Amu's Huge Hangers would make the world of difference and make the Amu more worthwhile than the 4 Carriers with combined score of Huge Hangers 16 and more immunity to crits between the 4 ships than the Single Amu with Huge Hangers 12 and being more susceptible to crits since there's only the one of them.
IMO where the Drakh carriers excell is in the low PL games. Taking a carrier in a 5 skirmish battle is pretty vile as you are getting the extra battle point worth of ships for nothing, and the races you are fighting against have a hard time coming up with enough firepower to kill the carrier.
I guess for me it's not that the carrier and the mothership are too good, it's that the ships, specifically the raiders, are too good for the numbers that the carriers carry. If it was easier to kill a heavy or specifically a light raider, the carriers wouldn't be so bad.
Dave
I guess for me it's not that the carrier and the mothership are too good, it's that the ships, specifically the raiders, are too good for the numbers that the carriers carry. If it was easier to kill a heavy or specifically a light raider, the carriers wouldn't be so bad.
Dave
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Skavendan:
Even against swarms, it's viable; you just need the ship's newest bestest friend, All Hands on Deck. It's risky, I grant --- one No Special Actions or appropriate critical, and you're hosed (3-5, 3-6, 5-5, 5-6, 6-1, 6-3, partial hosing on 5-3. 5-4) but you can repair a horde of crits in one turn with that. It's VERY frustrating for an opponent to see all those crits vanish.
Also, keep in mind that it's 1-in-6 to find terrain in each square foot of table space. For the standard table, you'll find that's 24 die rolls. There will very likely be terrain (carefully read page 34, Generating Stellar Debris). There's a lot of it out there; we make but one local modification --- Stellar Debris is allowed for the A Call to Arms scenario.
thePirv:
I understand the idea of maximizing the Huge Hangars trait, but I feel far more confident wading into the heart of battle with the Amu. The pulse batteries are just vile; the ship has it's own Abbai-like halo of crit-doom. It also can't be outflanked. Just make sure that if you take that No Special Actions crit someone with AJP is nearby to make a Jump Point that the Amu can, if needed, drift through to run off the table (I keep at least one CL or FDD on the Amu just for this purpose).
Even against swarms, it's viable; you just need the ship's newest bestest friend, All Hands on Deck. It's risky, I grant --- one No Special Actions or appropriate critical, and you're hosed (3-5, 3-6, 5-5, 5-6, 6-1, 6-3, partial hosing on 5-3. 5-4) but you can repair a horde of crits in one turn with that. It's VERY frustrating for an opponent to see all those crits vanish.
Also, keep in mind that it's 1-in-6 to find terrain in each square foot of table space. For the standard table, you'll find that's 24 die rolls. There will very likely be terrain (carefully read page 34, Generating Stellar Debris). There's a lot of it out there; we make but one local modification --- Stellar Debris is allowed for the A Call to Arms scenario.
thePirv:
I understand the idea of maximizing the Huge Hangars trait, but I feel far more confident wading into the heart of battle with the Amu. The pulse batteries are just vile; the ship has it's own Abbai-like halo of crit-doom. It also can't be outflanked. Just make sure that if you take that No Special Actions crit someone with AJP is nearby to make a Jump Point that the Amu can, if needed, drift through to run off the table (I keep at least one CL or FDD on the Amu just for this purpose).
My take...
Issues arise against a number of races, as the raiders are very hard to kill for their level. What this means is you out sink a number of races from the second turn on or so. This can be very frustrating for the bore sighted races and given the difficulty of killing the raiders/carriers the extra vp on the table is often irrelevant. (simply start jumping out as you get hurt)
to the Pirv
The one issue I have with your point is that the Amu is not as good as the multiple of a low pl ship. This is frankly never the case in ACtA, why would the drahk be different? A Posiedon does not carry as many fighters as four Avengers either. (HOw do the VP's work out one Amu vs four Carriers?)
We're also glossing over the cruiser which now comes with a built in initiative sink as well. It's not a really substandard cruiser (not great admittedly but not really weak either) so why does it come with a free sink. I think the importance of the extra sink is not well reflected in the PL system... as noted by the move to ship number limits in tourneys.
The extra vps at risk template did not work with the Gaim, I don't see it working with the Drahk either. In most games you will only give up those VPs if there is no terrain present or in which you have already lost terribly.
I don't know, I've played against them a good bit, they seem to work fine as a standard fleet, with the huge hanger ships just being a flat advantage, you effectively pay one pl level for all the extra ships except for for the cruiser.
Ripple
Issues arise against a number of races, as the raiders are very hard to kill for their level. What this means is you out sink a number of races from the second turn on or so. This can be very frustrating for the bore sighted races and given the difficulty of killing the raiders/carriers the extra vp on the table is often irrelevant. (simply start jumping out as you get hurt)
to the Pirv
The one issue I have with your point is that the Amu is not as good as the multiple of a low pl ship. This is frankly never the case in ACtA, why would the drahk be different? A Posiedon does not carry as many fighters as four Avengers either. (HOw do the VP's work out one Amu vs four Carriers?)
We're also glossing over the cruiser which now comes with a built in initiative sink as well. It's not a really substandard cruiser (not great admittedly but not really weak either) so why does it come with a free sink. I think the importance of the extra sink is not well reflected in the PL system... as noted by the move to ship number limits in tourneys.
The extra vps at risk template did not work with the Gaim, I don't see it working with the Drahk either. In most games you will only give up those VPs if there is no terrain present or in which you have already lost terribly.
I don't know, I've played against them a good bit, they seem to work fine as a standard fleet, with the huge hanger ships just being a flat advantage, you effectively pay one pl level for all the extra ships except for for the cruiser.
Ripple
my usual load for an amu is a war cruiser and 2 light cruisers, this can be launched in one turn and provides plenty of firepower.
going to 16 huge hangars would be too much as you could get 2 war cruisers plus the mothership which is about war level in its own right.
and yes it doesnt have the same raider capacity as 4 carriers but it can carry bigger ships instead. also it has hull 5 over hull 4 and GEG4 plus GEG3. and twice the firepower of a carrier but in all 4 directions so good to jump into the middle of an enemy fleet.
going to 16 huge hangars would be too much as you could get 2 war cruisers plus the mothership which is about war level in its own right.
thePirv said:
and yes it doesnt have the same raider capacity as 4 carriers but it can carry bigger ships instead. also it has hull 5 over hull 4 and GEG4 plus GEG3. and twice the firepower of a carrier but in all 4 directions so good to jump into the middle of an enemy fleet.
except obviously ones taken that turn or vital crits.
