Playtest rules: Crusade era and 3rd age
- Thread starter Joe_Dracos
- Start date
Yeah thats different thing - played a 6pt War game recently where I got beaten by Chandlers Minbari - 2/3 through the game his Neroon and Admiral died leaving me with my battered Adira and Admiral with a +4 Initiative advantage - could I win Initiative for the next two turns - could I hell..................
stepan.razin
Mongoose
Foxmeister said:
The 3rd Age vs Dilgar battle would come down to a signle fact, can earth take out enough Tikrits/War level boys, before they get into range... I dont see a 3rd Age fleet that can outsink the Dilgar, so The Omega beams could be useless, or there would not be enough Omega's to make much of a difference.
Indeed the only EA list which could beat the Dilgar seem to be the Early Ear list as it focus, too on small ships.
The other 2 are all weaker then this one. One fact I greatly dislike.
Crusade lacks a serious Skrimish and Raid lvele choice and the ships from the 2 lists generally IMO need a bump up to be competitive
The other 2 are all weaker then this one. One fact I greatly dislike.
Crusade lacks a serious Skrimish and Raid lvele choice and the ships from the 2 lists generally IMO need a bump up to be competitive
I'd like to see a light carrier for Crusade at some stage. The Chronos missle varient should have the missles on the turret. Bring on the Omicron.
One thing with P&P im a little concerned really with the new rules being added is it might start getting more complicated & slow the game down. best thing about this game is it's quick.
One thing with P&P im a little concerned really with the new rules being added is it might start getting more complicated & slow the game down. best thing about this game is it's quick.
one I have worked on:
Hephaestus-class Light Carrier Raid
Earth Force no longer had the fighter supremacy it used to have when the old Avengers were in service and needed something to fill the gap when a mission was not critical enough to send a Posiedon. Whilst the Hephaestus does not have quite the same carrying capacity as the older Avenger it has more technology and greater firepower allowing it to deliver its cargo closer to the action and support them once they are there.
Speed: 9
Turn: 1/45o
Hull: 6
Damage: 36/8
Crew: 44/10
Troops: 4
Craft: 6 Aurora Starfury flights
Special Rules: Anti-Fighter 3, Carrier 3, Command +1, Fleet Carrier, Flight Computer, Interceptors 3, Jump Engine
In Service: 2270+
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Quad Railguns 15 T 4 AP, Double Damage, Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 F 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 A 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 P 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 S 6 Twin-Linked
Hephaestus-class Light Carrier Raid
Earth Force no longer had the fighter supremacy it used to have when the old Avengers were in service and needed something to fill the gap when a mission was not critical enough to send a Posiedon. Whilst the Hephaestus does not have quite the same carrying capacity as the older Avenger it has more technology and greater firepower allowing it to deliver its cargo closer to the action and support them once they are there.
Speed: 9
Turn: 1/45o
Hull: 6
Damage: 36/8
Crew: 44/10
Troops: 4
Craft: 6 Aurora Starfury flights
Special Rules: Anti-Fighter 3, Carrier 3, Command +1, Fleet Carrier, Flight Computer, Interceptors 3, Jump Engine
In Service: 2270+
Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Quad Railguns 15 T 4 AP, Double Damage, Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 F 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 A 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 P 6 Twin-Linked
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 S 6 Twin-Linked
Hmm its a good ship - perhaps still should be lumbering and maybe a bit speedy
Keep it speed 7 and add Lumbering would be my suggestion
and Hull 6 as well? - just tips it over the edge in my opinion compared to its competitors?
I would suggest keeping it at Hull 5 I would think and its then agood match for the Brokodos and Balvarin given the Hephestus extra tech defenses and weapons vs loss of two fighters..........
Keep it speed 7 and add Lumbering would be my suggestion
and Hull 6 as well? - just tips it over the edge in my opinion compared to its competitors?
I would suggest keeping it at Hull 5 I would think and its then agood match for the Brokodos and Balvarin given the Hephestus extra tech defenses and weapons vs loss of two fighters..........
well does have less damage and firepower than a balvarin. as well as the 2 less fighters. in fact its firepower is only slightly more than a chronos. maybe speed is slightly high but then crusade EA seem to be faster with new ships - look at the marathan and warlock so maybe speed 8 at slowest. also neither marathan or warlock are lumbering so perhaps thats something else EA is getting over with more tech.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
That'd be a good ship without the fighters. It is both a carrier and a good raid-level warship.
It isn't as well armed as the Balvarin but it has better defences - more interceptors, better anti-fighter, a flight computer; and it is a better carrier and has almost twice the speed so is better able to get in range and isn't lumbering.
And it makes the Avenger look like a broken down nag.
It isn't as well armed as the Balvarin but it has better defences - more interceptors, better anti-fighter, a flight computer; and it is a better carrier and has almost twice the speed so is better able to get in range and isn't lumbering.
And it makes the Avenger look like a broken down nag.
lol theres no chance it would be a good raid level ship on its own. its got chronos weapons with a few more AD. 1 less turn, 1 more interceptor and 1 more AF.
basically I looked at the chronos, slightly upgunned the secondaries by a few AD, increase damage, AF, Int etc to make it worth raid and then put in fighters but less than normal.
if this came without fighters would you ever take it over 2 chronos? not a chance in hell.
and yes its better than an avenger as a warship but carries less fighters, has less damage, less crew and less troops.
it is supposed to be a fighting carrier and as such I think fills the role without being overpowered.
basically I looked at the chronos, slightly upgunned the secondaries by a few AD, increase damage, AF, Int etc to make it worth raid and then put in fighters but less than normal.
if this came without fighters would you ever take it over 2 chronos? not a chance in hell.
and yes its better than an avenger as a warship but carries less fighters, has less damage, less crew and less troops.
it is supposed to be a fighting carrier and as such I think fills the role without being overpowered.
katadder said:
hmm firepower the Balvarin has better front firepower but has nothing at the rear but this one has a turreted heavy weapon and guns all round, if you are keeping the rest as is, drop the front (to 4AD) and rear (to 2AD) armament AD to match Earths usual broadside style.
I still think hull 6 is too good...........
Its amusing to compare to it the G'Stern made in the same year - still very primative those Narn................ :wink:
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Da Boss said:
There are clearly two tiers of ISA membership.......
Regards,
Dave
Greg Smith
Mongoose
katadder said:
It has double the secondaries. And the AD, TL DD railguns are very nasty indeed. Only a couple of other ships in the game have weapons with those traits, and Quad Bolters and Heavy Ion Cannons certainly aren't turrested.
It has the same damage as the Nova, but better defences.
Probably, mainly for that turret, especially if it came with command. If it came in the third age fleet I'd take it over a Nova in a heartbeat.
It has 4 points less damage! And it has hull 6, more interceptors, antifighter and a flight computer.
The loss of 2 fighters, and 4 damage points, 6 crew and 2 troops does not balance:
Hull 6
Anti fighter 3
loss of lumbering
+1 interceptor
flight computer
2" extra speed
Turreted, TL DD weapon
4" range, 2AD and TL on its pulse cannons in all arcs.
its in a completely differant fleet to the avenger anyway.
or had we better nerf your mothership as it makes the hyperion look like a broken down nag.
major point its not in the 3rd age list. much as I would prefer a an early years nova over the 3rd age one you would prefer this over a nova but they are in differant lists.
as I said the ships stats are based off the chronos, maybe the TL railgun is a bit much but if it was standard it would have no problem fitting into the fleet.
it should have double the secondaries of a chronos as it doesnt have double the primaries. it has less turns. it doesnt have double the interceptors or AF. it has slightly more than double the damage. anything less and it would never get used as the explorer carrys as many fighters, has the +1 command, more damage, similar weapons and is a scout too whilst 2 chronos outgun it and have more interceptors and AF between them.
or had we better nerf your mothership as it makes the hyperion look like a broken down nag.
major point its not in the 3rd age list. much as I would prefer a an early years nova over the 3rd age one you would prefer this over a nova but they are in differant lists.
as I said the ships stats are based off the chronos, maybe the TL railgun is a bit much but if it was standard it would have no problem fitting into the fleet.
it should have double the secondaries of a chronos as it doesnt have double the primaries. it has less turns. it doesnt have double the interceptors or AF. it has slightly more than double the damage. anything less and it would never get used as the explorer carrys as many fighters, has the +1 command, more damage, similar weapons and is a scout too whilst 2 chronos outgun it and have more interceptors and AF between them.
um...
It's as large as some battle level ships, certainly the higher end of raid, hull 6 and has more than average interceptors. (Yes, the jump from 2 to 3 is still significant... its at 3 to 4 you get no real benefit.)
It has greater range on its weapons than the Avenger, more AD, TWL. It's main weapon is turret instead of front (so five arcs instead of four), gains DD and TWL in exchange for 2 AD and has nearly twice the range.
It's not lumbering and is faster...
Yes it lost 2 troops, but 4 is still a very good number for a Raid hull.
It loses two flights for this overall upgrade.
Sorry but this is a perfect example of power creep in the game. The ship is just out of bounds for a raid hull... or is the argument that the Avenger needs a serious upgrade?
You've just exceeded the norms for a Raid carrier at a number of points.
You used the Balvarin as an example...
your faster, more maneuverable, better hull, better interceptors, better carrier trait, more troops, better guns (more coverage, turreted heavy that gains twl)... you do have less damage/crew and two less flights.
Overall the proposed ship is just better.
You actually made the point that you went out of bounds to start with, you tried to make this ship better than two chronos. Sadly the game is balanced assuming that you shouldn't want one raid hull over two skirmish. You more than double a number of stats, and while you do lose out some on the heavy weapon over two chronos, you gain the fleet carrier and six flights.
You should be 10% or so less than two smaller ships, and lose out some on even the remaining heavy weapon given the power of Fleet carrier and the six flights (easily equal to a 4 AD turret, even before you twl it.)
I would think
Speed 7
Turn 1/45
Hull 6
Damage 30/5
Crew 36/5
Troops 5
Craft 5 Aurora Starfury flights
Special Rules AF 2 (avenger indicates AF on light carriers is assumed to be in the flights), Carrier 2 (you have to make scramble to launch remaining in one turn), Command +1, Fleet Carrier, Flight Computer, Interceptors 3, Jump Engine
In Service 2270+
Weapon
Railgun 15 F 4 AP, DD
Railgun 15 A 3 AP, DD
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 F 4 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 A 2 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 P 6 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 S 6 TWL
Goes for and aft instead of heavy turret (we don't see turret above skirmish in EA), no extra arc to absorb crits. I would drop command as well as you seem to want this to be a forward fighting ship not a core fleet element sitting in the back.
Still a much tougher and more maneuverable ship than the avenger, but carries only slightly better than half the flights. It's an alternative to a hyperion, rather than just better nine times out of ten. Something you take to put flights on the table in a low end game. If you want more flights in the design, drop the rails to medium pulse (no twl, range 10) and go up to eight.
You would still be better than the avenger defensively, less damage crew, but better hull, interceptors, AF... and more maneuverable.
Ripple
It's as large as some battle level ships, certainly the higher end of raid, hull 6 and has more than average interceptors. (Yes, the jump from 2 to 3 is still significant... its at 3 to 4 you get no real benefit.)
It has greater range on its weapons than the Avenger, more AD, TWL. It's main weapon is turret instead of front (so five arcs instead of four), gains DD and TWL in exchange for 2 AD and has nearly twice the range.
It's not lumbering and is faster...
Yes it lost 2 troops, but 4 is still a very good number for a Raid hull.
It loses two flights for this overall upgrade.
Sorry but this is a perfect example of power creep in the game. The ship is just out of bounds for a raid hull... or is the argument that the Avenger needs a serious upgrade?
You've just exceeded the norms for a Raid carrier at a number of points.
You used the Balvarin as an example...
your faster, more maneuverable, better hull, better interceptors, better carrier trait, more troops, better guns (more coverage, turreted heavy that gains twl)... you do have less damage/crew and two less flights.
Overall the proposed ship is just better.
You actually made the point that you went out of bounds to start with, you tried to make this ship better than two chronos. Sadly the game is balanced assuming that you shouldn't want one raid hull over two skirmish. You more than double a number of stats, and while you do lose out some on the heavy weapon over two chronos, you gain the fleet carrier and six flights.
You should be 10% or so less than two smaller ships, and lose out some on even the remaining heavy weapon given the power of Fleet carrier and the six flights (easily equal to a 4 AD turret, even before you twl it.)
I would think
Speed 7
Turn 1/45
Hull 6
Damage 30/5
Crew 36/5
Troops 5
Craft 5 Aurora Starfury flights
Special Rules AF 2 (avenger indicates AF on light carriers is assumed to be in the flights), Carrier 2 (you have to make scramble to launch remaining in one turn), Command +1, Fleet Carrier, Flight Computer, Interceptors 3, Jump Engine
In Service 2270+
Weapon
Railgun 15 F 4 AP, DD
Railgun 15 A 3 AP, DD
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 F 4 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 A 2 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 P 6 TWL
Heavy Pulse Cannon 12 S 6 TWL
Goes for and aft instead of heavy turret (we don't see turret above skirmish in EA), no extra arc to absorb crits. I would drop command as well as you seem to want this to be a forward fighting ship not a core fleet element sitting in the back.
Still a much tougher and more maneuverable ship than the avenger, but carries only slightly better than half the flights. It's an alternative to a hyperion, rather than just better nine times out of ten. Something you take to put flights on the table in a low end game. If you want more flights in the design, drop the rails to medium pulse (no twl, range 10) and go up to eight.
You would still be better than the avenger defensively, less damage crew, but better hull, interceptors, AF... and more maneuverable.
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
katadder said:
So that makes its excesses alright?
They have the same damage, the same pulse cannons, the comparison is a valid one.
If you were making a straight combat ship, doubling, or more of the Chronos' weapons would be fine. But you are making a carrier.
Speed 4 and hull 4 are a big, big downside. Which is pretty much why players don't use it and want a better mid-level carrier.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Again, Hull 4 and speed 4 are a big, big downside. Something you and I don't seem to agree on.
stepan.razin
Mongoose
This argument sounds a little weird to me.
The ship seems like a good starting point, playtest it, and see if a little nerfing is needed. Give it a combination of Lumbering, Weaker main gun, less defenses etc, etc, if the playtesting shows that its over the top.
I like the fact that the ship fits into Crusade style... it should have hull 6 with some interceptors.... everything else could be playtested for balance.
The ship seems like a good starting point, playtest it, and see if a little nerfing is needed. Give it a combination of Lumbering, Weaker main gun, less defenses etc, etc, if the playtesting shows that its over the top.
I like the fact that the ship fits into Crusade style... it should have hull 6 with some interceptors.... everything else could be playtested for balance.
