New Saggi!

[Black Omega]

Well they could always reinstate it as a new sagg variant thereby side-stepping the need to admit to another half-assed update gone awry

 

[Triggy]

The Sag is changed, its not gonna be changed again! I can't imagine any games company, even Mongoose, admitting a typo like this in such a hotly awaited ship change. Even if it was accidentally missed off, they're gonna say "Oh yeah, we removed that deliberately and its not coming back".

Too true I'm afraid and it's exactly what I thought too!!!

Thankfully, it [the "error"] won't make too much difference either way.

 

[prelude_to_war]

Leave it w/o the AF defense - that plus the Hull 4 make it a real liability. That's the price one should pay for all those missiles on a Skirmish PL ship.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

There is a good reason for the particle beams issue - we'll be covering this in a later issue of S&P. . .

 

[Alexb83]

The lack of AF is a nice touch - it means that the Saggi user has a number of options - either take supporting ships/fighters that can deal with enemy fighters, or lose some of your all important ship killing missiles in exchange for anti-fighter. Then which launchers would you pick to put the AF missiles on? Will you dedicate whole ships to AF to try and cover all arcs? How many fighters can you kill before they get onto your bases and start peeling your hull 4 ships apart?

It deters the use of all-Saggitarius fleets off the bat.

 

[Black Omega]

Hi guys,

There is a good reason for the particle beams issue - we'll be covering this in a later issue of S&P. . .

Thanks Matt, i'll look forward to reading that future issue of S&P

 

[Burger]

Hehe.. what did I say, was I right or was I right :lol:

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'd hope it's not an error leaving off the Particle Beams (bit much to put out a correction to a correction ). Assuming it's not, I can see why they were removed as the Sagittarius is purely a long-range bombardment vessel that isn't designed to get up close and personal with enemy cruisers. It was built to fight the Dilgar after all. Besides, with the number of Starfuries the EA usually field fighter cover shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't fancy your chances going up against anything other than fighters with a 5" weak beam! I don't think putting the beam back on the sagg would make too big a change in terms of the way its used tactically, lets face it, if the beam is re-instated you aren't going to suddenly start going to go toe to toe with enemy capital ships with your saggis.
Similarly from an opponents point of view the saggi is a high enough priority target that you should be trying to knock it out at long range with capital ships most of the time rather than relying on fighters to take it down.

Still you make a very good point about the EA having enough fighters on hand to provide fighter cover for it.

Quite right, I just meant that it now relies on other ships for fighter defence unless you load up with AF missiles which is usually a bit of a waste against most opponents. There's still no way I'd send it in to close range against anything that was capable of firing back.