Fixing the Narn / G'Quan
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
Foxmeister
Mongoose
skavendan said:
That fighter clearly had a refit to allow it!
Regards,
Dave
Methos5000
Mongoose
It's not a bad idea but it is one that may require a rebalancing of several Narn ships
The Ka'toc, as mentioned, would probably be OTT 3AD of TD beam on a skirmish hull is a bit much.
Plus you might run into the problem of raid choices being devalued. The Var'nic is a nice ship but if the Ka'Tocs and G'Quans can do TD to its DD would it still be taken often? If it stays as is you would have a Ka'Toc with a total of 3AD of TD vs the Var'nics 4AD of DD but you get 2 Ka'Tocs for every Var'nic.
And why couldn't the Medium Laser Cannon benefit from this, the only difference is range, but the design principles are the same. If the HLC can handle TD beam output at 30" mediums should be able to handle TD output at 20". I'm not saying they should be upgraded also but it seems in general the terms Light, medium and Heavy have more to do with range then damage in this game.
It also brings up the issue of the Mag Gun. Wouldn't making the HLC TD devalue it as a weapon system? Sure its still F arc but on the battle level hulls and up it loses 12" of range over the HLC
Plus the G'Lan would probably end up seeing less use then it is now.
4AD DD B Beam at 18" plus 2AD TD F Beam at 18" or
4AD TD B Beam at 30" plus a OS TD Emine just for good measure.
The G'Lan has a slightly higher average damage but has to close to 18" to get it. The G'Quan would have fired at least twice during that.
It would give the G'Quans beam the the same average damage as a Omegas beam (though the Omega should have a better chance for crits with more dice the G'Quan when it gets crits would do more damage so it probably averages out in the long run)
I do kind of agree with the general idea, it would need some tweaking, but I definitely think it is an idea that is out of scope for P&P (it will require too many stat changes and the powers that be seem to want to avoid major changes to fleets.)
The Ka'toc, as mentioned, would probably be OTT 3AD of TD beam on a skirmish hull is a bit much.
Plus you might run into the problem of raid choices being devalued. The Var'nic is a nice ship but if the Ka'Tocs and G'Quans can do TD to its DD would it still be taken often? If it stays as is you would have a Ka'Toc with a total of 3AD of TD vs the Var'nics 4AD of DD but you get 2 Ka'Tocs for every Var'nic.
And why couldn't the Medium Laser Cannon benefit from this, the only difference is range, but the design principles are the same. If the HLC can handle TD beam output at 30" mediums should be able to handle TD output at 20". I'm not saying they should be upgraded also but it seems in general the terms Light, medium and Heavy have more to do with range then damage in this game.
It also brings up the issue of the Mag Gun. Wouldn't making the HLC TD devalue it as a weapon system? Sure its still F arc but on the battle level hulls and up it loses 12" of range over the HLC
Plus the G'Lan would probably end up seeing less use then it is now.
4AD DD B Beam at 18" plus 2AD TD F Beam at 18" or
4AD TD B Beam at 30" plus a OS TD Emine just for good measure.
The G'Lan has a slightly higher average damage but has to close to 18" to get it. The G'Quan would have fired at least twice during that.
It would give the G'Quans beam the the same average damage as a Omegas beam (though the Omega should have a better chance for crits with more dice the G'Quan when it gets crits would do more damage so it probably averages out in the long run)
I do kind of agree with the general idea, it would need some tweaking, but I definitely think it is an idea that is out of scope for P&P (it will require too many stat changes and the powers that be seem to want to avoid major changes to fleets.)
Foxmeister
Mongoose
goom said:
Given the range on the Ka'Tocs "Heavy Laser Cannon", it should probably be downgraded to a "Medium Laser Cannon" anyway. Obviously this would just be a change of nomenclature since it would keep exactly the same stats as it currently does.
Regards,
Dave
hmm a TD beam? you guys seen the marathon right? it has a TD beam but its also got a glass jaw, crippled in 28 damage. the narn are abit too tough for such a big beam. also it would add to the g'vrahn, bin'tak and KBTs firepower as they have heavy laser cannons.
then the EA would want to know why their heavy laser cannons cant be TD as well.
then the EA would want to know why their heavy laser cannons cant be TD as well.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
I don't like the TD beam, but there's something not "enduring" about the big clunky Narn. Some trait to shrug off critical hit effects (sometimes ... like 1 in 3 or so?) would be a new strong temptation to take stuff like the T'Loth, G'Quan(s), and Rongoth/Rothan types.
It would make sense as a Narn adaptation to Centauri Battle Lasers that would result from the END project. After all, the Narn ships were only built with one war in mind --- the one against the Centauri.
It would make sense as a Narn adaptation to Centauri Battle Lasers that would result from the END project. After all, the Narn ships were only built with one war in mind --- the one against the Centauri.
Foxmeister
Mongoose
katadder said:
Not that I'm arguing for the TD beam (and I agree on the War ships it would be inappropriate!), but since you've drawn the comparison with the Marathon I would just say that the Marathon has:
Double the speed
Double the turns
Isn't Lumbering
Interceptors 4
2 AD TD Rear Beam
Secondaries with 50% more range
A SL Missile rack which is better than the O/S e-mine on the G'Quan (and can be a O/S SAP e-mine too!)
3 more AF
Vastly superior fighters.
IMHO, just comparing them directly, even if the G'Quan had a TD beam, the Marathon is a superior ship.
Regards,
Dave
lumbering is arguably the stupidest trait in the game, apart from the whitestar. . .ahem...
no, anyway, I agree the marathon has a wee bit more punch the tradeoff of course being that it dies if you sneeze on it. Remember lets not get dragged into comparisons, or I will be demanding an Avioki upgrade!
no, anyway, I agree the marathon has a wee bit more punch the tradeoff of course being that it dies if you sneeze on it. Remember lets not get dragged into comparisons, or I will be demanding an Avioki upgrade!
Foxmeister
Mongoose
hiffano said:
I concur - 1/45 should've been enough without the added handicap of Lumbering as it currently stands. If you really *had* to keep Lumbering of some sort, I'd prefer it was something like you cannot "All Stop" if you have previously moved more than half speed on the previous turn, and keep the restriction that they can never make more than 1 turn.
I.e. If a G'Quan wants to "All Stop" and has already move 6" in an earlier turn, it would first have to spend a turn "decelerating" to 3" move and then could "All Stop".
Regards,
Dave
Yes keep the book keeping out of it.
Lumbering was a bad idea as it was implemented. Limiting to a single turn would have been plenty without the can move after you turn stuff. Even better would have been no single turn over 45 degree's. This would have left gravity turns alone, still let you Come About without wondering if ensign redshirt was now a smear on the wall, and let the big bore sight beams have the ability to actually 'slide' a bit sideways and still shoot. Try play with these ships around terrain now and you might as well just concede.
On the TD beam... marathon is indeed a glass jawed ship... but it has a lot over the G'Quan too. There is nothing magical about the beam being DD or TD, if the AD balance out it should be similar in effect, and again it doesn't have to stack up or down. Add a tiny bit of verbiage to the name and the 'one name, one gun' crowd is covered... we're already changing something.
So it's not lost in the paragraph... changing the G'Quans gun has no impact on other ships in the fleet.
I just want to make sure when we shoot an idea down, we do it for reasons that actually matter.
No 'it's called x therefore you can't change anything about it'
No 'but the skirmish ship is good so your battle has to be bad'
No 'the fluff says it should suck... so there'
You want to say no TD beam because individual hits are stronger, roll up is stronger and the crit effect is nasty... that's good stuff. Arguable even. Saying well we'd have to change every heavy laser in the fleet is crap... we change range and AD, we can change anything we'd like... including the name if it comes to that.
Ripple
Lumbering was a bad idea as it was implemented. Limiting to a single turn would have been plenty without the can move after you turn stuff. Even better would have been no single turn over 45 degree's. This would have left gravity turns alone, still let you Come About without wondering if ensign redshirt was now a smear on the wall, and let the big bore sight beams have the ability to actually 'slide' a bit sideways and still shoot. Try play with these ships around terrain now and you might as well just concede.
On the TD beam... marathon is indeed a glass jawed ship... but it has a lot over the G'Quan too. There is nothing magical about the beam being DD or TD, if the AD balance out it should be similar in effect, and again it doesn't have to stack up or down. Add a tiny bit of verbiage to the name and the 'one name, one gun' crowd is covered... we're already changing something.
So it's not lost in the paragraph... changing the G'Quans gun has no impact on other ships in the fleet.
I just want to make sure when we shoot an idea down, we do it for reasons that actually matter.
No 'it's called x therefore you can't change anything about it'
No 'but the skirmish ship is good so your battle has to be bad'
No 'the fluff says it should suck... so there'
You want to say no TD beam because individual hits are stronger, roll up is stronger and the crit effect is nasty... that's good stuff. Arguable even. Saying well we'd have to change every heavy laser in the fleet is crap... we change range and AD, we can change anything we'd like... including the name if it comes to that.
Ripple
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Ugh, who ever says 'its called X so it has to be X'
Just because something is a heavy laser cannon doesn't mean it has to have the same stats as every other heavy laser cannon. That just makes no sense.
I have an M4 carbine. Its a 5.56 caliber semi automatic gas-operating weapon with an 18 inch barrel.
You can get an M4 chambered in .22 rimfire, 9mm, .308, .50 cal.
You can have the barrel anywhere from under 16" to over 22"
They come in gas operated to piston.
All these things affect the accuracy, stopping power, penetration, range, etc. of the weapon.
While specific naming might vary between manufacturers, they are all called M4s
Just because something is a heavy laser cannon doesn't mean it has to have the same stats as every other heavy laser cannon. That just makes no sense.
I have an M4 carbine. Its a 5.56 caliber semi automatic gas-operating weapon with an 18 inch barrel.
You can get an M4 chambered in .22 rimfire, 9mm, .308, .50 cal.
You can have the barrel anywhere from under 16" to over 22"
They come in gas operated to piston.
All these things affect the accuracy, stopping power, penetration, range, etc. of the weapon.
While specific naming might vary between manufacturers, they are all called M4s
