Stilton at Dawn- Centauri/Narn Batrep

[Reaverman]

.

Since you were listing drawbacks I felt I'd mention one you clearly forgot.

Not forgotten, just irrelevant. The game is based on fleet tactics, and not the merits of an individual ship. Just becasue a ship has no rear arc weapons, does not make it broken or nerfed.

BTW I was not listing drawbacks, where did I say that?

 

[Slightly Norse John]

Andy(Narn) was the aggressor, but he took the tactical decision to go for me with all his fleet at the same place at the same time- partly so they could cover each other and avoid defeat in detail, partly because we generally reckon that it's a gift to the enemy unless you have AJP. He had to set up first, so that I would have deployed differently if he had held anything back in hyperspace- outer flanks pointing inwards rather than straight, ready to curve in and run along rather than across the board.
That aside, previously we have both done horrible things to ships emerging in the middle of an enemy fleet without the chance to shoot back. It came to the same thing anyway- two semi- detached clashes- but I reckon he might have been better off jumping the Bin'Tak and G'Quans in, possibly on turn 2 after moving the skirmishers forward more slowly to start with then rushing. They're more likely to survive until they can return fire, it puts them in a position they move too slowly to reach otherwise, and it would have scared the bejesus out of me.
I deployed no fighters, incidentally; in the face of so many E- mines it seemed pointless, and the carrier was only there for the initiative. The assassination target was Tertius 2- Relentless- he knew I would put it in harm's way, it seemed easier to get to than the Balvarix.

 

[emperorpenguin]

.

Since you were listing drawbacks I felt I'd mention one you clearly forgot.

Not forgotten, just irrelevant. The game is based on fleet tactics, and not the merits of an individual ship. Just becasue a ship has no rear arc weapons, does not make it broken or nerfed.

BTW I was not listing drawbacks, where did I say that?

Irrelevant? I don't think so. That's like saying a ship with no fighters isn't a drawback because others will have them. A ship with slow-loading isn't a drawback because others will cover for it....

Burger said

No real drawbacks other than 1/45 turn and no fighters (big deal). What other Raid ship has all of these?

So clearly HE believes those are drawbacks, in which case a lack of rear weapons is also a drawback. Or are we about to once again get into one of these things whereby you never accept anything other than your own opinion? :roll:

I don't consider the Prefect underpowered by any means but any logical analysis of weakness in the ship MUST factor in arcs without weapons as much as poor turning, lack of fighters etc

 

[Reaverman]

Like I said its a fleet game, you have other ships and auxilary craft to support the vessel. If you deploy a ship with weak arcs and then dont take that into consideration, its the fault of the Admiral and not the designer.

 

[Silvereye]

You'll notice that the Drazi players are quite happy with their fleet, and a lot fo their ships don't even have a Fore arc to speak of...

If you fancy a fleet with all round firepower, take the Earth Alliance or Vree out for a fight. I like the fact that the Centauri tend to ignore Rear firing weaponry, it just means that they have stuck more or bigger weapons on the front. And for a fast attck ship that the Centauri fleet seems to prefer it is great. You just need to play carefully to cover the weak arcs to stop your opponent exploiting it. Or use it as bait.

 

[emperorpenguin]

and so do I but you're missing the point if Burger lists a lack of fighters as a weakness then how come no aft weapon isn't?

You're arguing for the sake of it again Reaverman, one day I'd love you to not do that

 

[H]

and so do I but you're missing the point if Burger lists a lack of fighters as a weakness then how come no aft weapon isn't?

You're arguing for the sake of it again Reaverman, one day I'd love you to not do that

Um, but the same can be said of you too at this juncture?

 

[Abraxas]

Problem with the centauri is not that any one ships screams "broken" its that they seem to have ships at every PL that are a bit better than average. It ends up making a fleet that is very very strong.

The biggest problem with trying to balance good choices in a fleet list with bad choices is there are no rules to force people to take the poor choices. .)

the Centauri are very similar to 3rd ed Eldar in 40K. Some things are very poor (Demos, Kutai/Dire Avengers, Fire Prisms) so they get ignored because the competition is far better (Sulust, Corvan/Wraithlord)

I play Eldar and I know exactly what you mean. Nothing made me more angry then when Eldar players took 3 Wraithlords (whether they were Iyaden or not). I never have more than one, mostly cause they are sooooooo slow and my friends have discovered they can turn them to swiss cheese with a few las cannons. Although I am getting off topic...

I do wish MP would go back and fix the Vorchan and Demos. I love both ships... but as of now they are simply not whorth it. I will take a wolf pack of Vorchans no matter what (my signiture, you could say) but it would be nice if they were actually decent...

I don't want to play with the Prefect and Teritius because A) they are not tourney (as far as I know) and B) too many people complain they are cheese. I want the legal standard ships.

 

[emperorpenguin]

and so do I but you're missing the point if Burger lists a lack of fighters as a weakness then how come no aft weapon isn't?

You're arguing for the sake of it again Reaverman, one day I'd love you to not do that

Um, but the same can be said of you too at this juncture?

That happens when you helpfully point out a ship has no aft weapons and get told "that's irrelevant" funny being a playtester I'm pretty sure it's not...

Reaverman is going out of his way to argue that everything Burger said is valid but what I said isn't, even though there is no logic to his argument.

 

[Reaverman]

You'll notice that the Drazi players are quite happy with their fleet, and a lot fo their ships don't even have a Fore arc to speak of...

If you fancy a fleet with all round firepower, take the Earth Alliance or Vree out for a fight. I like the fact that the Centauri tend to ignore Rear firing weaponry, it just means that they have stuck more or bigger weapons on the front. And for a fast attck ship that the Centauri fleet seems to prefer it is great. You just need to play carefully to cover the weak arcs to stop your opponent exploiting it. Or use it as bait.

My point exactly

 

[Reaverman]

Reaverman is going out of his way to argue that everything Burger said is valid but what I said isn't, even though there is no logic to his argument.

Well not really since Burger made a post after mine, and I dont have to argue anything. I was just pointing out that this is a Fleet game, its down to your fleet selection and not the individually ship.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Reaverman is going out of his way to argue that everything Burger said is valid but what I said isn't, even though there is no logic to his argument.

Well not really since Burger made a post after mine, and I dont have to argue anything. I was just pointing out that this is a Fleet game, its down to your fleet selection and not the individually ship.

therefore logically you'd have to say that Burger was wrong to say a lack of fighters is a drwaback to the Prefect as that can be covered by other ships. Likewise the poor turning, that's what ships behind and escorts are for?

 

[Reaverman]

Reaverman is going out of his way to argue that everything Burger said is valid but what I said isn't, even though there is no logic to his argument.

Well not really since Burger made a post after mine, and I dont have to argue anything. I was just pointing out that this is a Fleet game, its down to your fleet selection and not the individually ship.

therefore logically you'd have to say that Burger was wrong to say a lack of fighters is a drwaback to the Prefect as that can be covered by other ships. Likewise the poor turning, that's what ships behind and escorts are for?

LOL...dont try and put words into my mouth!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Well not really since Burger made a post after mine, and I dont have to argue anything. I was just pointing out that this is a Fleet game, its down to your fleet selection and not the individually ship.

therefore logically you'd have to say that Burger was wrong to say a lack of fighters is a drwaback to the Prefect as that can be covered by other ships. Likewise the poor turning, that's what ships behind and escorts are for?

LOL...dont try and put words into my mouth!

seriously though, I disagree with your reasoning because Burger said the 'ship' drawbacks, not fleet. And aft weapons can be covered for as can lack of fighters or poor turning. However that does not take away from those being a drawback to the ship.

For instance, Sherman tanks had a drawback that they could not defeat Tigers or Panthers at range. So they covered each other and flanked the enemy usually losing 3 or 4 tanks on average until they got behind and destroyed the tank. That is definitely a drawback whether you legislate for it or not....

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Why is it that the Burger/Reaverman double feature always assumes that when I argue against a specific ship in my chosen fleet being broken, that I'm not happy with the fleet as a whole or that I want their stats improved?

The only Centauri ships I want to see improved are the Demos and Kutai, and as some of the members here are so fond of pointing out, that's a widely-held opinion. I simply don't agree that the unholy trinity of the Tertius, Prefect and Sulust are the broken, unfair death-merchants they're made out to be.

Please tell me if I'm being unclear, since no one seems to understand what I'm saying...

 

[Reaverman]

seriously though, I disagree with your reasoning because Burger said the 'ship' drawbacks, not fleet. And aft weapons can be covered for as can lack of fighters or poor turning. However that does not take away from those being a drawback to the ship.

Then your disagreement is with Burger, not I.

For instance, Sherman tanks had a drawback that they could not defeat Tigers or Panthers at range. So they covered each other and flanked the enemy usually losing 3 or 4 tanks on average until they got behind and destroyed the tank. That is definitely a drawback whether you legislate for it or not....

Thats not a drawback, thats called being outnumbered. It was also a drawback for the Shermans, that had to try and get through Bocage and found an 88 or a Panzer unit on the otherside of a small field, but it was not one tank that won the shores of Normandy. It was the concerted efforts of various units, working together.

Which takes us full circle to what I said earlier, this is a fleet game.

Why is it that the Burger/Reaverman double feature always assumes that when I argue against a specific ship in my chosen fleet being broken, that I'm not happy with the fleet as a whole or that I want their stats improved?

Where have I 'Assumed' that, EP mentioned that not I

 

[emperorpenguin]

seriously though, I disagree with your reasoning because Burger said the 'ship' drawbacks, not fleet. And aft weapons can be covered for as can lack of fighters or poor turning. However that does not take away from those being a drawback to the ship.

Then your disagreement is with Burger, not I.
....

Nope you're the one claiming that a lack of something in a ship is not a drawback, not Burger! Burger said it was!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Where have I 'Assumed' that, EP mentioned that not I

Where did I mention that?

 

[emperorpenguin]

Why is it that the Burger/Reaverman double feature always assumes that when I argue against a specific ship in my chosen fleet being broken, that I'm not happy with the fleet as a whole or that I want their stats improved?

The only Centauri ships I want to see improved are the Demos and Kutai, and as some of the members here are so fond of pointing out, that's a widely-held opinion. I simply don't agree that the unholy trinity of the Tertius, Prefect and Sulust are the broken, unfair death-merchants they're made out to be.

Please tell me if I'm being unclear, since no one seems to understand what I'm saying...

Whenever Reaverman/Burger post they post together so you'll always feel ganged up on.

I have to say I don't think the Prefect is as bad as Triggy says or as not good as you say, It's definitely a good ship in between your views.

 

[Reaverman]

seriously though, I disagree with your reasoning because Burger said the 'ship' drawbacks, not fleet. And aft weapons can be covered for as can lack of fighters or poor turning. However that does not take away from those being a drawback to the ship.

Then your disagreement is with Burger, not I.
....

Nope you're the one claiming that a lack of something in a ship is not a drawback, not Burger! Burger said it was!

You are missing the point...BIG TIME

Like I said its a fleet game, you have other ships and auxilary craft to support the vessel. If you deploy a ship with weak arcs and then dont take that into consideration, its the fault of the Admiral and not the designer.

I never said that it did not have a drawback, I said that it was irrelavant when used correctly in a fleet.