Playtest Rules -- Drakh Updates (Amu and GEG Crit Defense)

[CZuschlag]

This is the thread to log any armchair discussions (as opposed to formal results) on Drakh updates as posed in v0.1 playtest document submitted for test on 05.08.2008 (08/05/2008 for North Americans). This thread is intended to concentrate only on:

--- Critical Systems Defense rule for the Drakh.
--- Changes to the Amu for balance.

Thank you.

 

[CZuschlag]

Balance item 1 for discussion: Amu Huge Hangar settings.

The new proposed fleet breakdown structure is as follows:

Ship is one Priority Level lower 1 point buys 2 ships/wings
Ship is two Priority Level lower 1 point buys 3 ships/wings
Ship is three Priority Level lower 1 point buys 5 ships/wings
Ship is four Priority Level lower 1 point buys 8 ships/wings
Ship is five Priority Level lower 1 point buys 12 ships/wings

This is a downgrade from the previous chart. However, the number of Huge Hangars on the Amu is unchanged.

Thus, for 2 War, you can either get 1 Amu + its 12 Raiders, or 10 Raiders. This is not a no-brainer .... I contend that it's flat unbalanced. Are we agreed?

If most of us agree, then we can proceed to determine what that balance point is later.

Also, due to the nature of testing, please indicate your fleets that you run. This isn't because of suspicion, it's just that one doesn't tend to see one's own fleet particularly as objectively as other they don't run.

Primary -- Dilgar
Secondary -- Drakh
Tertiary -- Early EA

 

[Clanger]

For an Armaggeddon level ship making it Hull 4 does not seem right. But I suppose being able field up to 12 extra ships makes up for it.

I like the idea of crit protection. Though I would have liked the ability to be able to mix and match the 2 on a ship. Say on the War Cruiser have 2 GEG and 2 Crit protection.

 

[Burger]

AGREE strongly! Amu should be changed to reflect the new FAP chart (or vice versa )

Though I do like the critical systems defence rule.

Primary, Secondary, Tertiary in any order - ISA, Minbari, Drazi
Quaternary - Drakh

I like the idea of crit protection. Though I would have liked the ability to be able to mix and match the 2 on a ship. Say on the War Cruiser have 2 GEG and 2 Crit protection.

No, that would be too good. Choosing just 1 leaves vulnerability to the other.

 

[Clanger]

Well the break down still still to holds with the Huge Hangars, The Amu could still carry the 12 raiders or (my fav) a Cruiser and 2 Light Cruisers / 4 Light Raiders.

As the ships carried by the Huge Hangers are not subject to the FAPs system this should not be a problem for the Drakh. The carried ships are already facted into the cost level of the ship.



Prefered Fleets

Drakh, Earth Force Crusade, Vorlon

 

[Burger]

When it was factored into the cost, it was factored against what other fleets could buy for the same cost. Other fleets can now buy less for the same cost (8 instead of 12 skirmish ships). So the Amu should be "refactored".

It also causes a problem with initiative, the Amu gets 12 sinks for free, whereas someone buying down to skirmish only gets 8 for 1 Armageddon point.

 

[H]

i have no primary fleet anymore, i flit around

I play with most recently Brakiri, Drakh, less recently Narn, EA Crusade, and Minbari. and owna psi corps fleet i have not yet played

 

[CZuschlag]

It could be that the Amu needs a specific refactoring for the number of spaces a Dra'Vash and/or Sa'dravash , Ria'stor Gris take.

 

[H]

I'd prefer a repair job on the breakdowns forst, then factopr it in against that. I'm in fill agreement with burger that the Armageddon breakdown was as good as it got

 

[silashand]

For an Armaggeddon level ship making it Hull 4 does not seem right. But I suppose being able field up to 12 extra ships makes up for it.

I don't think so. I don't agree that *any* armageddon level ship should have a hull less than 5. I'm not saying it shouldn't be rebalanced, it should, but in principle I don't think downgrading the hull that far is appropriate no matter the fleet we're talking about.

Cheers, Gary

 

[katadder]

Balance item 1 for discussion: Amu Huge Hangar settings.

The new proposed fleet breakdown structure is as follows:

Ship is one Priority Level lower 1 point buys 2 ships/wings
Ship is two Priority Level lower 1 point buys 3 ships/wings
Ship is three Priority Level lower 1 point buys 5 ships/wings
Ship is four Priority Level lower 1 point buys 8 ships/wings
Ship is five Priority Level lower 1 point buys 12 ships/wings

This is a downgrade from the previous chart. However, the number of Huge Hangars on the Amu is unchanged.

Thus, for 2 War, you can either get 1 Amu + its 12 Raiders, or 10 Raiders. This is not a no-brainer .... I contend that it's flat unbalanced. Are we agreed?

ok you looking at it going down but lets look going up:
it costs 8 raid to buy an amu with 12 raiders
this gets you 16 raiders for the same cost.

it swings in roundabouts, the higher the PL of the game the better it is to buy big ships and vice versa. which is how it should be. you should want big ships in big PL games and vice versa big ships are less likely to turn up for low PL games.

edit: also on this point 2 warpoints of carriers gets you 4 carriers and 16 raiders which is better again, but then thats always been the case.

 

[silashand]

it swings in roundabouts, the higher the PL of the game the better it is to buy big ships and vice versa. which is how it should be. you should want big ships in big PL games and vice versa big ships are less likely to turn up for low PL games.

Agreed. Big ships should be encouraged to show up in big games. You also have to remember that the Raiders are the equivalent of fighters for the Drakh, who have no activity in that phase.

edit: also on this point 2 warpoints of carriers gets you 4 carriers and 16 raiders which is better again, but then thats always been the case.

And as I have found, the carrier itself is not a very good ship. It's quality lies *solely* in what it can brings with it which is appropriate for any type of "carrier" IMO.

Cheers, Gary

 

[katadder]

dunno, gets 8AD of front beams (at least for same cost) compared to the motherships 4AD plus outnumbers motherships raiders and has the init bonus - 20 ships v 13
the carriers are also guaranteed to launch all raiders in 2 turns, mothership needs 2 scrambles. and with one scramble a carrier can have all raiders launched turn 1.

 

[silashand]

dunno, gets 8AD of front beams (at least for same cost) compared to the motherships 4AD plus outnumbers motherships raiders and has the init bonus - 20 ships v 13

And has hull 4, geg 3 and *no* other decent ranged weaponry in any arc. I have found that it is not very survivable at all once the enemy gets within range. Since it can start deploying it's craft only starting at the end of the first turn, a couple decent crits that remove traits can cripple it relatively easily. This is yet another reason I think downgrading the Amu's hull to 4 is a seriously *bad* idea.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Clanger]

The Hull should remain at 5 for the Amu, as the Drakh ships are weaker hulls in most cases with their PL.


What is the reasoning for this downgrade?

I think the Huge Hangars would not compensate for this drop or will we see an upgrade as a trade off?

 

[Foxmeister]

Since it can start deploying it's craft only starting at the end of the first turn, a couple decent crits that remove traits can cripple it relatively easily.

With the new GEG/Crit rules, at GEG 4 you can be ignoring 4 crits a turn. That is a heck of a lot of survivability IMHO.

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

but get raped on your hull 4 thats no longer protected by GEG.

 

[Clanger]

Maybe to compensate this low hull, a wee idea.

Like I suggested a few posts up you can split the GEG/CRIT Protection. Then the Hull 4 would not be much of a problem.

 

[silashand]

Since it can start deploying it's craft only starting at the end of the first turn, a couple decent crits that remove traits can cripple it relatively easily.

With the new GEG/Crit rules, at GEG 4 you can be ignoring 4 crits a turn. That is a heck of a lot of survivability IMHO.

I was referring to the Carrier. At hull 4 it will be taking a *lot* more damage so I seriously doubt the ignoring crits thing is going to help much given all the AP, SAP and TL weaponry out there. However, the same applies to the mothership.

Realistically, the more I think about it, I like the new FAP, but if the tradeoff for the slightly better GEG is hull 4 on the Amu I think I'd rather keep it as it is now. I despise large ships with Hull 4 as IMO it's both inappropriate in the extreme and from a realism standpoint it's just stupid. I think the GEG needs to be improved as it has some glaring weaknesses (the Drakh aren't in the top tier of fleets anyway last time I checked), but I think a more appropriate solution would be to simply downgrade the huge hangers to 10. JMO though...

As to the GEG changes, personally, I think a set value for each would be more appropriate than allowing the player to choose one or the other, e.g. the Amu could be 4/1 or some such meaning it would still be GEG4, but ignore the first crit per turn. Not saying to use that value, but you get my drift. IMO having to trade-off between ignoring crits and keeping the GEG is too much of a sacrifice. No small ship will use it as it means they will get totally pounded and even the larger ships will in turn get pummelled, particularly since you have no idea if any crits will even happen. That's a lot of risk for no reward whatsoever IYAM. In essense, I don't like it as it stands at all.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Foxmeister]

Yes, at hull 4 it is going to get hit more often but only against non beam weapons but with 140 DPs and "Redundancy 4", that's an awful lot of "raping" that it can take. In my experience, all the big ships are critted out of the game long before they lose all their DPs "conventionally". If I were playing Drakh, I think I'd almost invariably take the crit protection for the Amu over standard GEG.

Regards,

Dave