House rules for beam-less Centauri?

[Voronesh]

Youre definitely right.

But then i dont perfectly get what you are aiming at. My stat block for the laser went at 10" range. Little extra fire power unless in a brawl. And i realize my post isnt 100% clear. I meant the actual number of AD should be between 12-18 as a target area. Not around 18, sry bout that.

I guess that is mostly the problem of these 10 people make suggestions threads. Too many cooks worsen the meal. Hard to keep everything separate, and combined at the same time to reach a good combination.

Only your interceptor numbers are wrong. Sentris i regard as actually weaker. Because most enemy will either outnumber Cent fighters or have better dogfighters, or in the case of EA both. Yet even still you need 4 no deplete 2 int rolls. And Raziks need even 6 flights, i only prefer them to get better dogfighters to get better interceptor ability with low Cent fighter flight numbers.

 

[Ripple]

Ah...okay...12 to 18...

on the fighters vs interceptors -

Sentri's throw 3 AD...so three flights will get you one hit for sure and 50/50 for the second intercpetor hit. Statistically you should get the second expected hit at roughly that point. Against hull 6 you are better off than a starfuy, and if you are willing to buy the carrier or wings (4 to the EA's 3) you will do better.

Only Minbari/ISA has better dogfighters than Centauri. Do not understand why you think they are worse. Starfury is only +2, even with a sentry, and T-Bolts are only +1 and that is with the new stats. Three AD weak is not much worse than 2 AD twin on the starfury, but eh...

Ripple

 

[Target]

The Sentri's could do more dam, suppose thats the trade off. I take them now over the Razik but thats because of our house rules more than anything else.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Ah...okay...12 to 18...

on the fighters vs interceptors -

Sentri's throw 3 AD...so three flights will get you one hit for sure and 50/50 for the second intercpetor hit. Statistically you should get the second expected hit at roughly that point. Against hull 6 you are better off than a starfuy, and if you are willing to buy the carrier or wings (4 to the EA's 3) you will do better.

Only Minbari/ISA has better dogfighters than Centauri. Do not understand why you think they are worse. Starfury is only +2, even with a sentry, and T-Bolts are only +1 and that is with the new stats. Three AD weak is not much worse than 2 AD twin on the starfury, but eh...

Ripple

It's much worse. TL is infinitely more valuable than weak...

 

[Burger]

Three AD weak is not much worse than 2 AD twin on the starfury, but eh...

Against hull 6, you are right, 3AD W is not much worse than 2AD TL because Weak does not make any difference against hull 6. But against hull 5 or 4, 2AD TL is far better.

 

[Voronesh]

Yes 3 AD of weak against Hull5 are plain nothing. So i always prefer to take 2AD of weak and gain the dogfight bonus.

EA are better dogfighters than Cents, cause they get simply way more fighter flights. Narn are better cause you wont have any fighter flights remaining after the emine barrage (normally). Only against LONAW will you get any real advantage.

 

[Ripple]

I agree against the hull 5 the fighters are better as weak starts to be an issue, but my big thought was against hull 5 you are only likely to get one hit with either set. Hull 4 the twin links do two 3/4 of the time, the 3 weak get one. So the big difference here is one hit. If that hit is a crit a big deal yes, but otherwise we're discussing one point of damage on average difference. And if we want to talk about lucky rolls the Sentry wins due to having a higher total potential with 3 hits to 2. Pretty even if you ask me.

As too the EA just getting way more fighters, sure they do, unless of course fleet selection goes the other way. Centauri takes Dargans and the EA takes hyperions. All of a sudden its the EA crying the centauri are getting too many. Or are we talking buying the fighters? Centauri get 4 to EAs 3 most often. Balvarix is a very capable raid level fighter that comes with battle level traits and figher complement.

Just saying that not everything comes down to the Nova/Omega have so many. Could be that I have rarely seen either of those ships earn their keep so they are far less common than when we started playing. The centauri keep saying they are weak across the board and it really pisses me off as they have at least second best in most catagories, and that inclues fighters. You lose out to the Narn...big shock so does everybody and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Frazi's being a good fighter. Centauri can fight any fighter in the game with a good chance to win and the ability to lay down fire while somewhat high in the variance department is pretty damn solid due to number of AD thrown with the Sentry, Razik not so much but better dogfighter and the Rutarian while expensive has precise on a DD gun.

I respect everyone's opinion here, I have said so before but the flat reality is that the Centauri are not fighter weak. If they take nothing but the heavy beam variants they can run short of fighters, but that is still better than many races in the game. You have a high initiative that means you get better use out of your fighters more often. You have a good move on your fighters. You have good defenses on your fighters dodge or dodge/stealth. You have access to a fleet carrier that can actually hurt things.

The only thing that hurts you at all is fact that EA can take a majority T-bolts (off base with the fluff that...but oh well) and if you did not take a carrier or tailor your list to include fighters you will have to deal with a bad turn before you start killing them off.

If you feel short of fighters try using the Altarian and its variants, solid ships. The Dargan, another 2 flight fighting ship. The Vorchat carries a flight at skirmish. The regular Primus has a pair. Even the Corvan carries one. Yes the Nova/Omega carry more than the equivalent in the centauri roster but not much and the Narn have their e-mines, but try waiting for the slow load and scrambling on the second turn with the fighters launched in support.

sigh...sorry all....the rant kicked in again. As I said I really respect the opinions of the folks commenting here, I just wish you would really look at the options. The two Centauri players we have locally (and the two that quit due to the the direction they saw the game going in) have never had an issue achieving if not fighter superiority at least reducing the enemy fighter force to an irrelevant flight or two.

gah...okay.../rant off

Ripple

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Ok, so you reckon Centauri are strong in terms of fighters?

Firstly, the Balvarix carrier is battle level, not raid. The Balvarin is raid, and comes with 6 flights of Sentris. It has no weapons beyond 8" range, no carrier trait, no fleet carrier trait, no interceptors. No use, basically.

The Balvarix is a nice ship, you're quite right, but it's not the equal of the EA Avenger class. Why not? Carrier 2 to Carrier 4, and the standard Sentri fighter is now only equal to the Starfury in a dogfight, has no afterburners like the Starfury and has inferior firepower. On the other hand, the Balvarix has better weapons, but it's a carrier, not a battleship, so it doesn't belong on the front line.

The common EA choices have more fighters than the common Centauri choices. The Altarian and Magnus get 1 flight, so they're equal to the Hyperion, but the Dargan only gets 2 to the Nova's 4. Primus is the same, 2 Sentri flights to the Omega's 4 Starfury flights. At war it's level peggings, 4 flights for 4, but your Starfury is the better fighter now the dogfight scores are equal.

The Centauri fleet's strength isn't in fighters, it's in capital ships with heavy firepower. Now that fighters are important again, the average Centauri fleet is at a disadvantage compared to the average EA fleet.

What does this have to do with replacing battle lasers with ion cannons, though?

 

[emperorpenguin]

The Centauri fleet's strength isn't in fighters, it's in capital ships with heavy firepower. Now that fighters are important again, the average Centauri fleet is at a disadvantage compared to the average EA fleet.

What does this have to do with replacing battle lasers with ion cannons, though?

I agree, the Centauri should be weaker in terms of fighters

So back to ion cannons....

 

[Ripple]

Sorry EP to go off on a tangent. It had some relevance in that you have to take into account all the strengths of a fleet when you give them strengths. The Centauri fighter set is just not a weakness, I am not claiming that it is any stronger than the other major powers just that they are not weaker and do not need special help due to a preceived weakness of the fighters.

In the post above I think you missed the point on the Balvarix. I did not mean it is raid pl, I ment it is as capable a combatant as many raid ships, with the carrier element making it worth a battle choice. Unlike an Avenger it can fight, and there is no backfield in ACtA, the table is not big enough to protect ships through the second turn.

On the Ion armement maybe we need to recap what the traits, ranges and suites we are discussing.

Ion Cannon were going to be twin-linked double damage
Battle Laser was going to be precise (AP?, SAP?...)
Plasma Stream was SAP DD
Matter Cannon keeping AP DD

Long range was the Ion Cannon, next the Battle Laser, then Matter Cannon and finally Plasma Steams?

Just looking for a new baseline.

Ripple

 

[Target]

I was thinking maybe ion cannons could a bit like laser/pulse arrays by having 2 modes of firing.
1 for long range and the other for up close and personal.
Long range fire could be weak and 50% increase AD & Short could be DD,Precise.
Thought it might be cool with 2 types of firing.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Ion Cannon were going to be twin-linked double damage
Battle Laser was going to be precise (AP?, SAP?...)
Plasma Stream was SAP DD
Matter Cannon keeping AP DD

Long range was the Ion Cannon, next the Battle Laser, then Matter Cannon and finally Plasma Steams?

Just looking for a new baseline.

Ripple

Matter Cannon as is so AP & DD
Battle Laser AP, Beam & Precise
Ion Cannon TL & DD
Plasma Stream I would say Super AP, Beam, TD, Slow-Loading

For ranges well
Matter Cannons are around 12" typically
Plasma Stream is 10"
Battle Laser from 15" to 18" depending on ship
Ion Cannons from 15" to 18" depending on ship

I'm going to try coming up with stats for the fleet and see how they look

 

[Lord David the Denied]

We need to work out a replacement for twin arrays, though. Some ships only have a battle laser and short-range twin arrays, after all. Giving those (Sulust, I'm thinking, especially) a free upgrade from twin arrays to ion cannons isn't really fair.

B5Tech.com claims the Primus mounts light pulse cannons at the bow, those little turrets around the hangar opening. We could just use that and say that the Narn twin arrays are a poor copy of ion cannons?

 

[emperorpenguin]

We need to work out a replacement for twin arrays, though. Some ships only have a battle laser and short-range twin arrays, after all. Giving those (Sulust, I'm thinking, especially) a free upgrade from twin arrays to ion cannons isn't really fair.

B5Tech.com claims the Primus mounts light pulse cannons at the bow, those little turrets around the hangar opening. We could just use that and say that the Narn twin arrays are a poor copy of ion cannons?

But the lessening of the Sulust's primary weapon (the lasers) is balanced by the increased cannon strength, it's not free

To be honest I don't see any pulse cannons there! B5 Tech gets things very wrong at times :wink:

 

[Lord David the Denied]

You can see the little turrets, though? They're right there on the model and any photos of the ship you care to look at...

 

[emperorpenguin]

You can see the little turrets, though? They're right there on the model and any photos of the ship you care to look at...

There's no turrets on the model or in the ship plans but it does show little fixed tubes and mentions pulse cannons

to be honest that's not something I really believe, if there is no evidence of centauri lasers there is far less of tiny pulse cannons!

I'd prefer the Centauri didn't have pulse weapons, makes us different and after all we didn't take part in the Dilgar war

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Dude, unless you got a badly-cast Primus, the turrets are clearly visible. Little round turret with three gun barrels sticking out.

Maybe an AF array to the front? Light particle gun, AF, weak, 4-6AD?

 

[emperorpenguin]

Dude, unless you got a badly-cast Primus, the turrets are clearly visible. Little round turret with three gun barrels sticking out.

Maybe an AF array to the front? Light particle gun, AF, weak, 4-6AD?

Nope I can't see any on my 3 Primus'

see the little tubes sticking out of the front?

I wouldn't be in a hurry to add weapons on the say so of B5Tech.com, the site is hugely flawed

 

[emperorpenguin]

A good example of why B5tech.com is awful

http://www.b5tech.com/centauri/centauriships/centauricapships/vorchan.html

HOW MANY twin arrays on the Vorchan!? :shock:

as for energy mines..... :roll:

 

[emperorpenguin]

Anyway I've been going over my figures and the damage potential appears slightly less than at current, precise may help there.

the loss of laser range is balanced by increased range on ion cannons (I hope)

it could be that something needs adding to the mix (traitswise) or simply upping the AD on the ion cannons by a couple of dice