is the drakh heavy raider underpowered?

[H]

ok some people will already be laughing and calling me a fool, but bear with me.
lets look at it in comparisin to a light raider,
it gains double damage on it's weapon, and another damage point, but it looses acurate, 90 degreesworth of turns and 4 sped, as well as a whole doge point.
It looses a heck of a lot more than it gains, especially if you decide to get all mathmatical.

Now I'm of the belief that the raider is a highly situational vesel anyway (either heavy or light) which makes my thoughts that the Heavy raider is underpowered in comparision to the light raider even more important to me at least! now you will note I am looking at it in comparison to it's faster neighbour here, I could compare it to say the demos that killed 5 raiders without receiving a return shot last night, but then we already know the Demos issues ;-)

therefore i will compare it to a Drazi warbird as they have some things in common.

speed. the Warbird is 2 faster
turns, they are the same
dodge, they both get 5+
hull damage score the same, the crew is slightly in the warbirds favour
geg 1, obviously the raider gets this, the drazi doesn't.
the drazi ship gets a tougher hull
Weapons loadout. the raider gets a 2 dice double damage precise beam in it's forward arc at 8". the warbird gets 4 single damage dice in a boresight at 15". now then i would actually consider these roughly equal, more dice and range restricted by a boresight and less traits. but then here is another issue.. the Warbird also gets 12 more twin linked dice, admitedly boresight. but suddenly this ship is faster, as maneuvreable, and can close blast doors while still firing, limited by a boresight. What started out as two fairly equal ships suddenly tilts very favourably towards the warbird.

is one comparison enough, probably not, however so far we have shown the raider to be potentially inferior to it's own sister ship, and to a league ship.
I've probably waffled, but what do people truly think about the heavy raider? I think in large games when there are a lot of bigger ships, it can actually just about hold it's own, but in any small scale game, it will get outclassed by many of it's "equals" give it some thought, and add your wafflings to mine!

 

[katadder]

I never use them unless it gets to large games and I have to have the models. light raiders are better as they are crit seekers.

couple of changes I would make:
hull 5
either 90 degree turns or dodge 4+
speed 12

 

[H]

may I apologise for my spelling, my god I'm getting worse! i swear, i once won a spelling competition, but stupid technology appears to be dumbing me down.

 

[Rawwar]

Well I have some Drakh arriving one day :roll:

So I've been looking at this quite a bit & they seem underpowered to me, though if your opponent can't dodge they hit harder.

Comparing ships one for one can be very subjective some ships can seem obviously weak because they don't fit in with the rest of the fleet well so to use them you end up moving about piecemeal & get picked off trying to make them effective. Others do work well with the rest of their fleet but everyone agrees they are underpowered. I think part of the G'Quan's problem is that it's too easy for fleets with better low level ships to blow it's escort away & then it's a sitting duck. So does that mean the G'Quan is weak or is it the escorts, or is it the fleet as a whole?

Playing against the ISA anything other than the light raider is going to look weak because firepower-wise you loose as much as you gain. If you loose speed & turns too then a good ISA player well make mincemeat of you. A Demos will make you pay in similar fashion.

 

[H]

I think it is acknowledged by many that the G'Quan is underpowered in response to that.

 

[Burger]

I always thought the raiders were a little underpowered compared to othe skirmish ships. But, consider that you get 4 free with a carrier... then, they become worthwhile... if they were as good as Warbirds then the carrier would be way too good!

 

[H]

that then is an issue with the carrier is it not? I understand your thinking there, but it's not valid if you take independant raiders.

 

[Rawwar]

Well it's the argument between a balanced fleet and a balanced ship.

With some you gain with others you loose.

Some fleets appear to gain more than they loose.

 

[Burger]

I thought the whole idea of the Drakh fleet was to take carriers, not independent raiders

 

[H]

I hate carriers

 

[Rawwar]

I don't much like the models but I think the extra ships you can get with the carriers increases the fleets 'punch' so from a fleet building stance I'm with Burger on this one.

The downside is you can surrender more vps if I've read it right. So winning the battle but loosing the war or does it fit better the other way round?

 

[silashand]

I would be happy if the Heavy Raider had accurate beams. Everything else could stay the same. Otherwise I think it's fine, though probably underpowered.

For those arguing for the carrier, it's not that good even for free. In fact, based on my own usage I'd say it's *only* real benefit is that its free. Otherwise it's pretty poor IMO.

Cheers, Gary

 

[H]

but that means you are Forced to take a ship just to make the rest worthwhile?! yes yes i know, it's a fleet game, but still.

actually, can the patrol cruiser be carried, it's the same priority as the raiders.

 

[Rawwar]

From what I've read it goes on priority size as to what the carriers can carry. They can then get an upgrade to take higher priority level ships in the refits section.

 

[silashand]

but that means you are Forced to take a ship just to make the rest worthwhile?! yes yes i know, it's a fleet game, but still.

I agree. I don't think that sounds appropriate at all really. But oh well.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Burger]

I think it is totally appropriate that you get a bonus when playing with your fleet's normal MO, and a disadvantage when playing against it.

 

[H]

now you know thats just silly

 

[Rawwar]

I think it is totally appropriate that you get a bonus when playing with your fleet's normal MO, and a disadvantage when playing against it.

Agreed which is why I have trouble with the Narn fleet. If I try to play it like a Narn I get my arse kicked, if I namby pamby about at range being Gaym I do ok. All very unsatisfying & totally un-Narn

 

[Ripple]

The heavy raider does become the ship of choice to destroy, largely due to the light raider being so hard to kill. But I think you underestimate the importance of precise on the beam by a lot if you think the warbirds beam is equal to the heavy raiders. Front arc also means you can line up on two targets and fire on the one that you didn't roll hot against with another ship.

I also think you underestimate the combo of geg/dodge. With a one third dodge you are often only taking 2-3 hits from secondary weapons, so that geg is saving you half the damage, and making you immune to many fighters efforts.

And unless your talking about seriously toning down Huge Hangers you have to consider the raiders as part of the larger ships.

That said I do think the heavy raider is situational, and prefer the light raider... but I consider the light raider borderline broken due to being way to durable. No drazi fleet can ever win against the drahk due to the light raider negating the fleets defenses (beam negates hull, accurate negates dodge). Huge Hanger interaction basically negates buying down, so the drazi are out sinked often as well unless they take sunhawks, affectionately known as popcorn where the drahk are concerned.

(how exactly did a demos kill 5 raiders in a turn? that had to be ridicules rolling, tough as the demos is.)

Ripple

 

[CZuschlag]

I find these opinions a bit odd -- I'm in love with the Carrier. The CV is now a respectable platform, as beams don't tear it to shreds like they did in 1st Ed. They lurk behind terrain until about mid-game, emerge after the heavy ships on the other side are done/crippled/out of position/dead, and win through based on the power of All Hands On Deck and GEG 3. This ship is a winner in my book.

I have found that the Heavy Raider is still a ship that needs to be sunk out to find its proper place. It operates in gaps in your opponent's fire coverage. However, you have to put stress on your opponents fleet layout to create these gaps in coverage. I use Light Raiders getting behind the opponent's fleet for this purpose.

I find the Heavy Raider the better source of damage. Consider that the HR gives double the firepower output in exchange for a concession of roughly 1/3 of the survivability. This puts you 1/6 ahead. Not much, I assure you! But, if you can find places where it eats lists of small amounts of dice (and do that by sinking out the heaviest guns), you'll come through just great.