The highlight of my game last Saturday

[phoenixhawk]

Finally got to play last Saturday for the first time since like January. Took EA Crusade vs Drakh in a 4 pt Raid. The Drakh had a light cruiser and 6 raiders. I took 2 Chronos, 1 Delphi, and an Apollo. The first couple turns went well for EA, with the Apollo charging into the midst of the Drakh and firing from all arcs and the Chronos ships doing their part. But then it all fell apart. One Chronos was destroyed while the other one was de-crewed, so the Drakh was free to blast the Apollo apart.

The highlight of the game...The Apollo and Delphi were running for the edge of the board while the Drakh boarded the de-crewed (and 1 hull point remaining) Chronos. One of the raiders hit the Apollo with 9 beam dice. (I thought he was never going to miss!) and the Apollo blew up in a spectacular fireball. The only ship caught in the blast: the boarded Chronos. It too blew up in a spectacular fireball, taking those blasted Drakh invaders with them. No prize for you, vile Drakh!

The Delphi fled to live and tell the tale of the battle to its superiors back at Earth. The fallen heroes aboard the destroyed ships will be avenged the next time the EA face off against the Drakh.

When he first invaded my ship, I wanted to have the Apollo blast it since why would I want to just let the enemy take my ship when I can blow it away with a missile volley and deny them their prize. since this was against the rules, I was delighted when it still managed to work out and I found a way to blow up the ship.

Chris

 

[l33tpenguin]

Thats awesome! I've never gotten to deny my opponent points like that!

 

[Pawnographer]

Took EA Crusade vs Drakh in a 4 pt Raid. The Drakh had a light cruiser and 6 raiders. I took 2 Chronos, 1 Delphi, and an Apollo.
Chris

Personally, as the Drakh in a 4 pt Raid, I would have taken 2 Ma'cu Carriers each with 4 Raiders each in their huge hangars giving me a total of two carrers + 8 Raiders (far more firepowe!) rather than 1 Lt Cruiser and 6 Raiders. In my opinion, the Drakh need to use (abuse) their carriers.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Huge Hanger rules are so broken

 

[H]

still don't get it? seriously, am i the only player who hates the carrier as a useless waste of space?

good to see a win for the drakh though

 

[l33tpenguin]

They are there to use as sinks for your raiders, obviously!

 

[Pawnographer]

LOL: the opinions above were broken and a waste of space. IMHO, it is somewhere in between. Without huge hangars, the Drakh Carriers are nothing special and the Raiders individually are not superior to many other Skirmish ships. Furthermore, those extra ships count for victory points. I had a game today Drakh versus Vorlons and at the end the Drakh had a very dominating position but in terms of victory points, the Drakh won by one point because all those extra ships count towards victory points and the Vorlons did kill 1 Ma'cu with 4Raiders in it on turn 1. Ouch!!! My 4 pt War Fleet: 1 Amu Mothership & 4 Ma'cu Carriers. Amu had 1 War level Cruiser & 2 Lt Cruisers w/ Raiders plit 75% Lt and 25% Hv.

IMHO, the Drakh need to be played as a carrier fleet but they are not broken and have their own strengths and weaknesses although I quite like the Mothership.

 

[CZuschlag]

Drakh are dangerous and deadly, and the Light Raider is tough as nails. The Carrier is a bit of a mixed lot. If you field it, you're not going to hide forever; it will get exposed. If you get to do it at the end of the game, after the heaviest weapon systems have been dealt with (one way or another), the GEG 3 is a Leviathan system; it dominates everything. However, if the one-line big guns (large Bolter arrays, Lightning Cannons, large Solar Cannons, War-level beam banks, Apollos with Heavy Missiles in the front, and so forth) get to you on their terms, it'll all end quite badly. You need to be awfully patient, stay behind your cover until the first wave of combat is just about over, and then finish it up with the CV. That plan is really simple, and it really works; every other plan I've tried with it has ended up like one of James May's TopGear original ideas -- absolute rubbish.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Drahk ships from huge hangers count for victory points?

 

[CZuschlag]

Absolutely. That's how they're different from fighter-carriers!

 

[l33tpenguin]

Ah. I haven't played against a drahk fleet for points, so I didn't know!

I still feel they are broken, or at least a balance issue. I feel that all ships should have their hangers emptied, balanced and made to purchase fighters independently, though.

Huge hangers are worse than regular ones, however, because changes to a single smaller ship send a ripple effect up through the fleet in regards to balance.

 

[Burger]

I still feel they are broken, or at least a balance issue. I feel that all ships should have their hangers emptied, balanced and made to purchase fighters independently, though.

So who would bother putting fighters in at all? Might as well buy them as fighter wings, and field them as such - no need to waste time launching them...

 

[l33tpenguin]

I still feel they are broken, or at least a balance issue. I feel that all ships should have their hangers emptied, balanced and made to purchase fighters independently, though.

So who would bother putting fighters in at all? Might as well buy them as fighter wings, and field them as such - no need to waste time launching them...

I feel that balancing ships with empty hangers would make balance much easier, which is why I suggest it as such.

The problem you point out could be easily solved. Since ships would be purchased without fighters, and since fighters are still an important part of a fleet and players would still be purchasing them, merely require that fighters must fill all available hangers before they can be fielded as separate flights. As it is now, you are purchasing your fighters that are filling your hangers when you purchase the ship.

This change would also solve the whole VP issue with flights

 

[Triggy]

I still feel they are broken, or at least a balance issue. I feel that all ships should have their hangers emptied, balanced and made to purchase fighters independently, though.

So who would bother putting fighters in at all? Might as well buy them as fighter wings, and field them as such - no need to waste time launching them...

I feel that balancing ships with empty hangers would make balance much easier, which is why I suggest it as such.

The problem you point out could be easily solved. Since ships would be purchased without fighters, and since fighters are still an important part of a fleet and players would still be purchasing them, merely require that fighters must fill all available hangers before they can be fielded as separate flights. As it is now, you are purchasing your fighters that are filling your hangers when you purchase the ship.

This change would also solve the whole VP issue with flights

Sorry but this still isn't easily solved, either players would simply avoid taking fighters or they would avoid the ships that carry fighters. Only dedicated carriers would ever be seen as they can launch their fighters quickly. Who would take fighters on an Omega or a Nova? Let alone on a Milani!

 

[l33tpenguin]

Hrm, ok.

I'm just trying to think of a way that would manage the balance issue with FAP and hangers.

Take a Poseidon carrier for instance.

Under the current FAP, it carries 6 Patrol points worth of fighters. A War point buys you 12 patrol. That makes 1/2th of its value in fighters.

Under the new FAP, 1 War point buys 8 patrol, now your fighters are worth 3/4ths of the ship.

This changes the overall value of the ship, making it worth more just because of the change in the FAP costs. Changing the balance of the fighters (or other fleet ships with huge hangers) can drastically change the value of the carrier ship.

The Amu is worse.

 

[CZuschlag]

If you haven't ever faced them before, give 'em a few goes 'round before passing too hard a judgment on them.

I do think the Amu is quite a bit much, and there's some help in 1.2. Is it enough? I don't quite think so, but others think it is. For an Armageddon ship, it is very, very good. With Redundancy (should it go through), it might be a bit frightening. Without .... well, it is probably just level because Armageddon ships just aren't worth it.

The Carrier is usually a good buy until you try to do something clever, and you realize that you aren't.

The Light Raider is tough as nails, extremely maneouverable ... and does an average of 3.1 damage per turn, total. At range 8. That's nothing.

The Heavy Raider solves the firepower problem by giving up the other good things the Light Raider had in the first place.

The Scout is three shouts short of downright useless. What are you going to redirect fire for? Your own amusement?

Don't get me wrong -- it's a powerful fleet. But using it right is at least somewhat important.

 

[katadder]

does anyone even take heavy raiders? they just tend to die IMO. one less dodge, slower, worse turns. i always use light raiders if using a carrier

 

[CZuschlag]

I do, but I feel I have to shield them very carefully. I only take as many as I can protect by virtue of terrain, initiative sinking (which the Drakh do quite well), hyperspace deployment, or a flanking approach to stay away from main guns.

These produce damage, as opposed to criticals. They're best used against Shielded targets so the Light Raider's shots can produce the critical effects you're counting on.

 

[Pawnographer]

does anyone even take heavy raiders? they just tend to die IMO. one less dodge, slower, worse turns. i always use light raiders if using a carrier

I took a 75% Lt; 25% Hv split more for flavor and fairness ina casual game; my preference is 100% Lt. The Lt Raider IMHO is clearly superior with better dodge (+4 versus +5 is huge). speed and manueverability. Of course, I am looking for lots of crits with the Lt Raider. In one game against the Minbari, one Lt knocked a Troligan's engines offline and another vital systems crit mcaused teh Troligan to permanently lose damage control. I have suggested in the Forum before that the Hv at least needs s stronger Hull at least. The difference in Lt versus Hv is really glaring in our play group. By the way, in the game yesterday, the Hv Raiders died quickly.