Problems with Vree

[Ripple]

I understand the idea of 'forced pairing'... I just don't understand it from a fluff standpoint, same as when we discussed it. It's a band aid fix, trying to stop the extra sink issue. I'm not saying it doesn't have some potential, but so does stringing cable all over the outside of my old house to get service in every room... still ugly as sin and a bad, if cheap, solution to the issue of not wanting to fish the walls.

Goes along with my biggest complaint on the new rule book. They kept a lot of vague wording (virtual cut and paste) an tacked on what used to be clarifications at the end. Made me feel like I bought a house with the holes all spackled over but still unpainted. It's okay to know there are fixes and rebuilds in the system, I just don't want to see them so clearly.

Ripple

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Why not just create a new PL below Patrol? It wouldn't be the first time a new PL has been added to the mix.

 

[Foxmeister]

The 2-for-1 ships thing is also being addressed too if current plans go through (can anyone say "compulsary squadrons"? of course, add this to the extra VPs they give away.)

I made a similar suggestion to my local gaming group:

The "Twofers"

Another issue, again related to ship movement, is the existence of the so called "twofers", which for Eds benefit is two ships which can be purchased for one Patrol FAP. Clearly taking "twofers" can give you a tactical advantage since there may be a tendency to take them purely as initiative sinks, which is metagaming the rules. The example I gave above is a prime example of this. My solution to this problem is to say that anything bought in a 2-4-1 deal must be considered a squadron. So, if I spend 2 patrol FAPs on 4 Sho'Kovs, each pair of ships must become a squadron, and they must always remain within that squadron. Squadrons created thus, may be included in larger squadrons, but the ships cannot leave the new squadron individually and must abide by the restrictions for both squadrons.

Essentially, anything bought as a pair must always act as a pair.

It was never tested as no one seemed really keen on the idea. I think that over time, I lost confidence in it as solution as it is metagaming the system really.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Tolwyn]

Fully agree here.

It's no sulution to the problem. 2 twoflers have nearly the same amage and Crew as Skirmish Level ships. Sometimes they are even better as the smaller ships have adequate dodge scores.

Another PL wouldn't work as well IMO, as all fighter wings and normal Patrol ships have to be changed then to fit into either of those 2 PL's.

 

[katadder]

nothing wrong with 2fers being squadrons. mostly they little bigger than fighters anyway so they the sort of ship that would be sent out in pairs.
also which skirmish ships have damage as low as the 2fers?

 

[Dave G]

"I agree with most of katadder's posts on this thread. The Xeel is the only ship in absolute need of toning down although I'd tone down the Xaar too slightly, either to 3AD or my preference is to convert the Antimatter Cannon to an Antimatter Shredder (10", Double Damage, Twin-Linked). "


In my opinion the Xaar should be reduced to Armour 4 from Armour 5. I can see no reason why this smaller vessel should have more armour than its bigger cousins, especially when put together with the Vree idea of not being there to be hit in the first place.

I appreciate this is going to get some flak along the lines of "but it's one of the few Vree ships with armour 5/6 as it is" - but I just don't see why it should be more heavily armoured than larger ships.


As for the Xeel in my opinion the major problem is with the weaponry.
Having a fighter carrier that can also put out as much damage as the pure gunship equivalent, the Xorr, is a bit too much. Knocking the AD back, from 6 to 2, should about do it. It would also make the main weapon of the Xeel the same as the secondary weapon of the Xorr.

The comparison would then be that the Xorr would have the extra weapon (twin cannon, 15 4, DD/SAP/TL),
and the Xeel would have 4 Tzymm flights, Jump Engine, 1 extra AF point, 2 extra points of Hull damage and 6 extra crew.
If it is a bit too much to knock off the AD without compensation then make the Xeel 5 hull, or 2/90 manoevre, rather than putting the weaponry back up.

In that way the Xeel becomes a proper small carrier, rather than a gunship that carries fighters as well.

 

[Tolwyn]

nothing wrong with 2fers being squadrons. mostly they little bigger than fighters anyway so they the sort of ship that would be sent out in pairs.
also which skirmish ships have damage as low as the 2fers?

When I count together 2 Sho'Kos I get 24 Damage and 20 Crew,
that's more then an Artemis or Ka'Tok at Skirmish. When I take 2 Haven I get 16 Damage and 12 Crew + 5+ Dodge. A good trade of to buy 4 of them instead for 1 skirmish level ship.

 

[katadder]

well that happens with anything pretty much. 2 G'quans have 110/140 dam/crew, 2 primus have 104/130 dam/crew. both alot more than their respective warships.

now 2 havens have 6 more damage than a kutai, but the same crew at the same level. if going to compare dam/crew better to do it against ships at the same level.
unfortunately the narn ones cant be compared due to having no other patrol ships at their level, but 2 tethys only have 2 more damage and 4 more crew than a hermes.

 

[Tolwyn]

Ok, if we go down this way :wink:

I haven't thougth about much about the twoflers otherwise.
I greatly dislike the idea behind them and would like to see them changed to regular 1 on 1 patrol level ships.

 

[Burger]

I haven't thougth about much about the twoflers otherwise.
I greatly dislike the idea behind them and would like to see them changed to regular 1 on 1 patrol level ships.

Agree!

 

[Da Boss]

So what happened in the games themselves?

 

[Jim?]

I prefer getting rid of 2fers completely, as well. Possibly either up damaging/crewing them (Tethys), up gunning them (Sho'Kos/Sho'Kov) or a combination of both (Haven).

Something like +4 damage/crew to the Tethys, +2/+4 on the Haven along with 4 AD of AP/DD Light Matter Cannon at range 8, and 8 AD of T/L Light Ion Cannon at range 6.

Sho'Kos, give it a 2 AD burst beam (F arc, Beam @ range 8 ) and dump all of it's pulse cannon into a single non-weak range 8 turret with 6 AD, and give the Sho'Kov 2AD of Light Ion Torps (F arc, AP, Precise @ range 15) and the same turret.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I have no problems with there being ships weaker than Patrol level. Rather than having them as 2fers though, I'd just create another level below Patrol (similar to how Armageddon was created above War). Drop the fighters down a level but get half as many per wing, and weaken the 2fers a bit seeing as they no longer have the "you still get full VPs" excuse for them.

 

[CZuschlag]

I hate the twofer's with an applied passion. I think that, in general, an initiative sink itself is worth at least half a Patrol point. If it gets to throw one attack die more, it's a broken ship.

Now, a static initiative sink that can't be killed might be worth a half-point. The attempted balance is a challenge to that invulnerability, and the loss of VPs should it get shot. But, even with the doulbe VP effect of giving a full Patrol kill for each one, I don't like the cover-up philosophy on the ships. So, either scrag the extra activation you get for the twofers, or scrag the twofers outright.

 

[B5freak]

I like this listing:

My Fear-'em-fleets:

Gaim
Centauri
ISA
Vree

And Barely-This-Side-of-Fair?, That's Debatable:

Early EA
Dilgar
Drakh

You Get Bonus Points For Fielding This Rot:

Raiders
Abbai
Drazi

It really shows the tiers of capability. Now, I'd move Vree down a notch and I think ISA isn't all that bad. Gaim? Haven't seen them played since the new list came out. That just leaves Centauri on the high side, and I'd contend that a properly built and admiraled Centauri fleet is a match for pretty much anything out there....but that's a story for another time.

As to the Vree, I personally think they fall into the middle of the road since they hit really hard (when they hit) and have some nice advantages (SM and +1CQ), but they also have some severe vulnerabilities (1 fire arc, relatively low hull, no active defenses, no beams). I personally think they're one of the most balanced yet "themed" fleets in 2nd Ed.

 

[Ripple]

Surprised on your Vree opinion... under first ed they were very weak due to the beam mechanic. Under 2ed they have become a monster. Any terrain and they are incredibly hard to get shots on where they are not returning shots from their whole fleet.

They are vulnerable to the lose an arc crits but so Centauri, ISA, Drazi, Gaim, etc... any ship that loses 2/3 or more of its firepower in a shot has issues. The fact that they repair better than anyone but the ISA actually makes them deal with it fairly easily. And the lack of 'wasted' shots due to turret more than offsets this.

Ripple