Playtesting vorlons.

[Grunvald]

On first look at the dreadnought I was more impressed with it than most people here seam to be. For me it was a specialist role varient designed for long range destruction outside of discharge gun range.
Not necessarily as useful as the HC in all circumstances, but more durable and with more firepower at long range, these all seamed like reasonable trades considering the HC is one of the most powerful Arm PL ships out there, so a varient almost had to be less useful.

sneaky using transport ships, i like it.

The problem that most people have with the dread nought is the sriten history for it, it is never ment to be a varient of the HC. It was ment to be a ship design onto its self!

A BIG UBER ship that only sees the light of day in a war to end all wars, but not close to shadows war extremes!

And what we got was..........

Like the idea of making the SA regen work twice in a turn, once when you perform the action (kind of an emergency patch) and at the end phase as normal. (get rid of the drift option and keep no guns and it starts to become more on parr with the shadow merge!).

And another Vote for a Vorlon carrier of some description!

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Hey, I've been arguing for a Vorlon scout and carrier since the first edition of the rules. Never got anywhere though.

 

[Grunvald]

The common response seems to be that vorlon ships can not carry fighters!

So what is the meaning of "Maternal" under their campaign advancements!

Oh it gains a flight of fighters, meaning it now carries fighters!!!!

Earlier in this thread it was surgessted to make the freighter a carrier varient as well!

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

If we're finally going to see the Vorlon carrier (and they must have one, lets be serious here for a moment), we should see the fleet carrier. Maternal warships can cover the casual carrier role after all.

The fleet carrier could be something really different.

Perhaps it's unarmed itself, but the fighters actually embed in it's armoured hull, weapons out, and can fire from there. So as it launches more fighters it's own firepower is reduced.

Maybe the reason you never see the Vorlon carriers is that they are designed to operate mainly in hyperspace. Wouldn't mean that they couldn't enter realspace, just normal operating procedure is not to do so. Perhaps it is a carrier scout, and doesn't enter realspace because the Vorlons rarely need scouts. But have this ship available in case they need it.

A more traditional vorlon carrier would be based on the light cruiser hull, but without the main lightning cannon. Instead it has a smaller discharge gun, maybe 4 AD at 24". Enough to keep a smaller ship away, but not enough to wade into the fighting too much.
Should have somewhere between eight and twelve fighters, fleet carrier, carrier 3 or 4 and be able to perform the scramble SA.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

 

[Da Boss]

If we're finally going to see the Vorlon carrier (and they must have one, lets be serious here for a moment), we should see the fleet carrier. Maternal warships can cover the casual carrier role after all.

The fleet carrier could be something really different.

Perhaps it's unarmed itself, but the fighters actually embed in it's armoured hull, weapons out, and can fire from there. So as it launches more fighters it's own firepower is reduced.

Maybe the reason you never see the Vorlon carriers is that they are designed to operate mainly in hyperspace. Wouldn't mean that they couldn't enter realspace, just normal operating procedure is not to do so. Perhaps it is a carrier scout, and doesn't enter realspace because the Vorlons rarely need scouts. But have this ship available in case they need it.

A more traditional vorlon carrier would be based on the light cruiser hull, but without the main lightning cannon. Instead it has a smaller discharge gun, maybe 4 AD at 24". Enough to keep a smaller ship away, but not enough to wade into the fighting too much.
Should have somewhere between eight and twelve fighters, fleet carrier, carrier 3 or 4 and be able to perform the scramble SA.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

Been there - done that :lol: :wink:

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Da Boss: Who's been where, and done what?

 

[Ripple]

We've proposed a nearly unarmed hper based carrier before I think. As well as the light cruiser based one. The issue here is that Matt has a view of the Vorlons as being single mentality regarding ship design... and not adding new designs. I think the idea is that they don't do special purpose ships, only general purpose ships.

Of course we can see from the show, they do transports, light warships, heavy warships and planet killers... oh and fighters which they keep around in swarms... so I don't see where that argument comes from.

Ripple

 

[inq101]

Maybe the reason you never see the Vorlon carriers is that they are designed to operate mainly in hyperspace. Wouldn't mean that they couldn't enter realspace, just normal operating procedure is not to do so. Perhaps it is a carrier scout, and doesn't enter realspace because the Vorlons rarely need scouts. But have this ship available in case they need it.

Or because it can do the job from hyperspace. I'm getting the image of a permanent mobile jump point spitting out fighters and scout checks while the actual carrier is safe in hyperspace.

 

[Da Boss]

Da Boss: Who's been where, and done what?

just meant that the (second) ship you describe is pretty much what I have in Darkness Rising.

The Vorlon Carrier case has been made a good few times and I hope eventually will win through in some form or another.............

 

[Grunvald]

The issue here is that Matt has a view of the Vorlons as being single mentality regarding ship design... and not adding new designs. I think the idea is that they don't do special purpose ships, only general purpose ships.

If that is the case, i kindly ask Matt to come on here and say so, cause that is just a rubbish point of view!

Surgest setting up a poll, because saying that an ancient race (ie vorlons) does not have any specialised ships is really stupid!

Saying we dont see them in the show... well in that case probabley over half the ships in the fleet book are never shown, so do we remove them from play because they arnt seen?

I am sorry but that is a VERY narrow windowed view point if it is the case from Matt, especially since the Campaign xp xhart for vorlons gives them the capability to carry fighter flights! (contrdicting ones self again???)

 

[Triggy]

Grunvald - the general fluff for B5 has races becoming less specialised with fewer options on their ships as the race gets older and less involved in arms races. This fluff was seen in the show and generally in B5W (particularly the written fluff).

The reasons for no Vorlon carrier are twofold - partly based on fluff but more so based on a gameplay point of view. It's the same reason why not every fleet has access to every type of ship (e.g. pak'ma'ra having no dogfighter, Vree and Narn having no Fleet Carrier, Minbari having no Patrol PL capital ship, Third Age EA having no beam with an arc, etc.)

The Dreadnought may see a (small) boost but that's probably about it for changes. Also, any boost to the Dreadnought would have to keep it as no better than the Heavy Carrier except for a few specific situations. That's one reason why most of P&P's stuff has been on the whole unspectacular -the creations are intended to be less likely to be over or underpowered.

 

[Da Boss]

Grunvald - the general fluff for B5 has races becoming less specialised with fewer options on their ships as the race gets older and less involved in arms races. This fluff was seen in the show and generally in B5W (particularly the written fluff).

The reasons for no Vorlon carrier are twofold - partly based on fluff but more so based on a gameplay point of view. It's the same reason why not every fleet has access to every type of ship (e.g. pak'ma'ra having no dogfighter, Vree and Narn having no Fleet Carrier, Minbari having no Patrol PL capital ship, Third Age EA having no beam with an arc, etc.)

The Dreadnought may see a (small) boost but that's probably about it for changes. Also, any boost to the Dreadnought would have to keep it as no better than the Heavy Carrier except for a few specific situations. That's one reason why most of P&P's stuff has been on the whole unspectacular -the creations are intended to be less likely to be over or underpowered.

hmm perhaps..............

As I understand it both the Volrons and Shadows had more classes of vessel in B5 Wars?

MGPs own book Darkness and Light mentions Vorlon Carriers IIRC

Balance - yes and no - penalising some fleets and not others is not always a good thing - esp gaps in the PL structure _ hence the previous problems with Shadow Fighters and the lack of a Vorlon raid level ship.
Some Fleets - notebly my beloved Centauri, have all classes and good or at least adequate ships at all PL's.

Sometimes its makes no sense in terms of fluff - the pak absolutely should have a scout - they are the sort of people who go looking for things - especially in places that others do not bother. Also it would give them something since at present P+P gives them virtually nothing?

The Dreadnought - be better using the space for a official "planet killer" design along the lines of those you have made up with the Space Station rules. Although I am presuming that your "hevay Carrier" is a freudian slip :wink:

Sadly the inaitial Playtest P+P had massively overpowered things in it and still has areas of concern (vree extraction, hunting pack, EA emines)

 

[Triggy]

I agree about the first public P&P having stuff that was out of what and although i disagree on EA fusion missiles (I think they're weak enough and one-shot making them really not a great option except in very few games) I agree that the Vree need extraction beams toning down to levels you initially suggested (fun but not normally that useful except maybe for scoring VPs) and Centauri need the hunting pack rule ditching in favour of something simple and probably unexciting like the stressed engines (and that's if they need anything at all).

pak'ma'ra scouts - this one I probably agree with in principle!

Yeah, Vorlon Heavy Carrier definitely a slip of the tongue (not to mention talking about B5W stuff at the same time).

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Triggy: This is not the first time that somebody from Mongoose has said that it's policy for some fleets to have types of ships missing. I'm sure you have reasons for this, however to the rest of us it just seams like an arbitary decision handed down from on high. I think that a lot of players out here feel that their opinions are not valued because of this.

To address this perhaps whoever took these aparently arbitary decisions could come onto the forum and state why they took this decision, and argue the case with the players over it.

If it is Mongoose policy for these gaps to be kept in the fleet lists, despite anything that the players may say, then there is little point arguing further about what we as players want. Vorlon carriers or scouts, or anything else for that matter.

 

[Triggy]

It's not just arbitrary - it's a combination of matching onscreen evidence (Vorlons are one of the few races to never be seen launching fighters at all) and part of keeping a gameplay style (which admittedly is slightly arbitrary but no more so than making any decision about how any fleet should play without being shown at least half a dozen of their ships in battle in the show). During 2nd ed. design stages each fleet was thought about in how it should play, then it was thought about how this could be achieved and finally the ships were modified to bring this style about. Sure it's not worked perfectly but it has brought about more successes than failures (e.g. Centauri now play much more like they appear on screen and still have specific weaknesses too).

 

[Nightmares about Minbari]

Triggy: I wasn't saying that it was arbitary, just that it appeared so without the background to the decision.

Vorlons not launching fighters on screen, I think that has more to do with the Vorlons never being caught unready for combat so never having to launch their fighters when the camera was on them. Which means that they must have pretty good intelligence if they never get surprised. Surely that argues for the existence of a Vorlon scout?

So what is the Vorlon gameplay style that carriers, scouts and other suggestions would go against? Maybe if the rest of us knew where you were trying to get to with the fleet, we could offer more constructive suggestions.

Certainly I've no objection to each race having a definite style and feel, and I agree that in most cases you've done a good job. For example the Pak, they have a definite feel, one that I don't happen to like, which is why I never bought any. unlike 18 of the other 19 fleets which I do have.

 

[Ripple]

I understand the idea of fleet style.

I do hate when folks talk about NOT seeing stuff in the show as evidence for why it should not exist. By that standard most of the ships don't exist.

Similar issue with things like the scout trait. The game trait seems much more an ew specialist than a recon ship, yet we use evidence of being used for recon to give a ship the scout trait and create something never seen in the show.

The change in VP for fighter flights helps a bit to bring the vorlons back to what they were in the show, ie always escorted by flights of fighters.

Ripple

 

[Da Boss]

It's not just arbitrary - it's a combination of matching onscreen evidence (Vorlons are one of the few races to never be seen launching fighters at all) and part of keeping a gameplay style (which admittedly is slightly arbitrary but no more so than making any decision about how any fleet should play without being shown at least half a dozen of their ships in battle in the show). During 2nd ed. design stages each fleet was thought about in how it should play, then it was thought about how this could be achieved and finally the ships were modified to bring this style about. Sure it's not worked perfectly but it has brought about more successes than failures (e.g. Centauri now play much more like they appear on screen and still have specific weaknesses too).

I understand that - however - one of the supposed weaknesses of my Centauri is the lack of fighters at low level - but we are getting a skirmish level carrier?

Apart from Earth do we ever see anyone actually launch fighters - the Narn and Centauri def have them with them in the same way as the Vorlons but launching them - don't recall them doing it??

The Vorlon vessels are obviously organic and have the ability to birth new fighters which seems to suggest that there is either a big ship or facility breeding the fighter swarms which sets up the carrier concept very nicely?

Of course Every race can now have a scout and a carrier as a option for a space station therefore filling the gap that way but I would prefer a ship that was unique and in character to the race?

 

[Grunvald]

This fluff was seen in the show and generally in B5W (particularly the written fluff).

So are we now going to argue about what is seen in the show and what isnt!

If so delete over half the ships in the fleet book because we dont see them!

Never read the fluff in B5W so i cant comment on it, BUT you are not B5W you are mongoose are you not?

So you are sticking with fluff written by someone else, does that count for every race?

From what i recall mentioned in another thread something about a race having scouts in B5W and not in ACTA (Pak i think but dont comment me on that) so you stick with one rule for one race and not for another????

(If i had a copy of B5W races fluff i would go through them and comment on what is and isnt in there but dont so cant!)

You have filled a gap for the vorlon with a raid ship, thanks this helps. But what real use is it apart from filling a P level?

Vorlon Dreadnought, change the name if you want to keep it the way it is, but come on it nowhere near worth the title of dreadnought, and it is nothing like what its fluff makes it out to be!

People seem to make comments about "onscreen" and things like "keeping with the fluff" but when it comes down to it a lot of it still has to be common sense!

And saying you cant have something because you dont see it on screen, well....... nuff said!

People have made their views clear on here many times over, it not just experessing an opinion, it is what is needed to make things more balanced!

Being the only race to buy fighters (not 100% sure of this) we get peanalised by having to give VP's away practically before the game has started, having a carrier or ships that can carry fighters balances out that problem.

And i've said it on several occasions and will again here :
Saying the vorlons dont have carriers and then giving them the ability "MATERNAL" in campaigns kicks that "Can't" right out the window!

 

[Alexb83]

The major argument for no Vorlon carriers is that their fighters can form their own jump points to enter/leave hyperspace unsupported... but that's not represented in the game.

ISTR the official fluff is that a vorlon 'fighter' is about 25m in length - they're the size of most other races' small patrol vessels, and on screen, a single 'squadron' of them (using the ACTA basing convention) was able to tear a Shadow vessel apart... but hey.