What happened to the Narn???????
- Thread starter patton4014
- Start date
well demos/vorchan i would drop to 6AD on the ion cannons. they are only skirmish ships and is what i pushed for in playtesting.
shadow fighters i would allow shields to work both in dogfighting and against AF. there actually isnt much book keeping to do. just put a mark next to shadow fighter that has lost shields until the dogfight it is involved in is over. as once this is over win lose or draw it cant be targeted anyway, just means you need multiple dogfights to kill one (me and matt did this in starwars ACTA, if shields hadnt worked there the rebel scum would have lost fighters much quicker).
bimith basically needs to lose lumbering and get its 2 turns back. plus AD equivalent to 1e bimith.
shadow fighters i would allow shields to work both in dogfighting and against AF. there actually isnt much book keeping to do. just put a mark next to shadow fighter that has lost shields until the dogfight it is involved in is over. as once this is over win lose or draw it cant be targeted anyway, just means you need multiple dogfights to kill one (me and matt did this in starwars ACTA, if shields hadnt worked there the rebel scum would have lost fighters much quicker).
bimith basically needs to lose lumbering and get its 2 turns back. plus AD equivalent to 1e bimith.
Additional AD to the Bimith is no solution, as the problem is getting them to bear. Go back to speed eight, 2/45 and no lumbering. It will still not scare raid+ ships much, but skirmish and lower won't want to be in its attack range. Problem is that a raid level ship that sits and denies space is too expensive, at least the Halik reaches out a bit more area.
Shadowfighters need real something...shield was a really good idea, and as it regens every turn to full there should be no book keeping really...just needs to actually work vs the things fighters fight, which is rarely ships guns. Try to keep a shadow feel to the fighter, they should be advanced in some way that's tangible and creates tactical opportunities, not just another fighter.
Demos, I think 6 AD is the right number, 8 AD is barely same as the Vorchan, so this ship gets it interceptor, precise and extra range for free? Lots of ships can't break intercptors by themselves at skirmish level folks. I mean your saying the ships are identical except one ship gets an interceptor and loses 1 AD a turn for precise. That's still a no brainer.
Ripple
Shadowfighters need real something...shield was a really good idea, and as it regens every turn to full there should be no book keeping really...just needs to actually work vs the things fighters fight, which is rarely ships guns. Try to keep a shadow feel to the fighter, they should be advanced in some way that's tangible and creates tactical opportunities, not just another fighter.
Demos, I think 6 AD is the right number, 8 AD is barely same as the Vorchan, so this ship gets it interceptor, precise and extra range for free? Lots of ships can't break intercptors by themselves at skirmish level folks. I mean your saying the ships are identical except one ship gets an interceptor and loses 1 AD a turn for precise. That's still a no brainer.
Ripple
I agree with the Demos that 6AD would be right but 8AD would at least be a start.Ripple said:
The Bimith, I'd be fine with returning the speed and turns and losing lumbering.
Shadow Fighters - if you're going to have the shield work, have it work against everything, guns, AF and dogfights too. This keeps things relatively simple and gives it that different mechanism to do well compared to younger races like you suggest. (it would still need 3/wing as well).
And back to triggy's response to me...
Um, your math doesn't feel right on the Omega vs G'Quon.
The G'Quan does 10.5ish to hull 4, 7.5ish to hull 5 and 4ish to hull 6
The Omega does 7ish to hull 4, 5.1ish to hull 5, and 3.4 ish to hull 6
So difference of 3.5, 2.4 and .6 damage in favor of the G'Quon, with one of the Omega's expected damage being non-interceptable. That's adjusting the slow loading mini-beams to 2 AD to reflect slow loading. So against hull 4 ships there is a significant advantage in both damage (if firing at a small ship) and in crit potential (statistically close to a second crit. After that variance takes over the advantage pretty handily, though I suppose 2 more damage could matter. And we're assuming no rear beams, no long range (10-15) early shot from the Omega.
My only point in this is that we're being fed the idea that the G'Quon is in its glory at short range and this is where it balances out and surpasses the Omega. The minimal extra damage it does, assuming it can force range as a slow lumbering ship, does not make up for Beams larger potential.
Yes on average the beam only does 4/4 more damage...but it's potential is infinite. The max, baring crits, difference between the short range firepower is 6/6, and that's much less likely to be pulled off with the short range than the beam.
To Celi...
The T-Bolts are not the Frazi answer, they are the E-mine answer...four T-bolts hunting small ships and avoiding AF range may very well do as much damage as the E-mines. It's not about a duel between the two ships as it is how they affect an enemy fleet. I'd argue that stacks of T-bolts are just as damaging as the E-mines, and they can crit, and with the right support come back...unlike the one shot e-mine. The Frazi's end up being the answer to the Omega's interceptors.
To everyone -
Yeah, I don't think you can convince folks that the G'Quon needs help, because we just aren't working off any standing standard assumptions. Some of us see range eight as unlikely, some see it as just a given. Some see the e-mine as devastating, some see it as dangerous but only tactically interesting. Some see the fighters only as nuisance, others as almost another ship (it is a full wing). We'd have to agree on some kind of standard to have much of a discussion.
Ripple
Um, your math doesn't feel right on the Omega vs G'Quon.
The G'Quan does 10.5ish to hull 4, 7.5ish to hull 5 and 4ish to hull 6
The Omega does 7ish to hull 4, 5.1ish to hull 5, and 3.4 ish to hull 6
So difference of 3.5, 2.4 and .6 damage in favor of the G'Quon, with one of the Omega's expected damage being non-interceptable. That's adjusting the slow loading mini-beams to 2 AD to reflect slow loading. So against hull 4 ships there is a significant advantage in both damage (if firing at a small ship) and in crit potential (statistically close to a second crit. After that variance takes over the advantage pretty handily, though I suppose 2 more damage could matter. And we're assuming no rear beams, no long range (10-15) early shot from the Omega.
My only point in this is that we're being fed the idea that the G'Quon is in its glory at short range and this is where it balances out and surpasses the Omega. The minimal extra damage it does, assuming it can force range as a slow lumbering ship, does not make up for Beams larger potential.
Yes on average the beam only does 4/4 more damage...but it's potential is infinite. The max, baring crits, difference between the short range firepower is 6/6, and that's much less likely to be pulled off with the short range than the beam.
To Celi...
The T-Bolts are not the Frazi answer, they are the E-mine answer...four T-bolts hunting small ships and avoiding AF range may very well do as much damage as the E-mines. It's not about a duel between the two ships as it is how they affect an enemy fleet. I'd argue that stacks of T-bolts are just as damaging as the E-mines, and they can crit, and with the right support come back...unlike the one shot e-mine. The Frazi's end up being the answer to the Omega's interceptors.
To everyone -
Yeah, I don't think you can convince folks that the G'Quon needs help, because we just aren't working off any standing standard assumptions. Some of us see range eight as unlikely, some see it as just a given. Some see the e-mine as devastating, some see it as dangerous but only tactically interesting. Some see the fighters only as nuisance, others as almost another ship (it is a full wing). We'd have to agree on some kind of standard to have much of a discussion.
Ripple
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
The problem I have still is you see the G'Quan firing its beams in nearly every episode where you see one fight at all. A G'Quan destroyed a centauri cruiser with its beams. The G'Toc helped Sheridan destroy a shadow ship with its beams. Why then does the game version have such weak beams? It makes no sense.
Personally it doesn't matter to me that the G'Quans in the show seem to have non-boresight beams. The fact is the ship had POWERFUL beams. As I recall when the call came out to help Sheridan against the shadows, G'Kar mentioned that only the G'Toc had THAT kind of firepower (or something similar). The game G'Quan does not have THAT kind of firepower however.
The G'Toc then roared out of hyperspace firing its beam. It did not jump in and unload a vicious hail of light secondaries like some bug zapper. It did not jump in and bloop a single-shot e-mine at the shadow ship. It thundered in and pinned the shadow ship with its lasers for Sheridan's white star to finish it off.
Admittedly it IS just a show, but the game is based on the show. People play it because they are fans of the show. The ship should at least bear some resemblance (playabilitywise) to the one in the show.
I am not saying that the 2e G'Quan is terrible because it is not (certainly not on the level of the shadow fighter). It is subpar or lackluster rather than lousy. In fact, I almost wish it was just obviously lousy. If it was lousy it would probably eventually get a fix. Because it is just subpar it will probably be left to soldier on as is. I play G'Quans in my fleet because I love the look. They just look fearsome and thankfully a lot of people don't realize just how unfearsome they are in play.
Tzarevitch
Personally it doesn't matter to me that the G'Quans in the show seem to have non-boresight beams. The fact is the ship had POWERFUL beams. As I recall when the call came out to help Sheridan against the shadows, G'Kar mentioned that only the G'Toc had THAT kind of firepower (or something similar). The game G'Quan does not have THAT kind of firepower however.
The G'Toc then roared out of hyperspace firing its beam. It did not jump in and unload a vicious hail of light secondaries like some bug zapper. It did not jump in and bloop a single-shot e-mine at the shadow ship. It thundered in and pinned the shadow ship with its lasers for Sheridan's white star to finish it off.
Admittedly it IS just a show, but the game is based on the show. People play it because they are fans of the show. The ship should at least bear some resemblance (playabilitywise) to the one in the show.
I am not saying that the 2e G'Quan is terrible because it is not (certainly not on the level of the shadow fighter). It is subpar or lackluster rather than lousy. In fact, I almost wish it was just obviously lousy. If it was lousy it would probably eventually get a fix. Because it is just subpar it will probably be left to soldier on as is. I play G'Quans in my fleet because I love the look. They just look fearsome and thankfully a lot of people don't realize just how unfearsome they are in play.
Tzarevitch
Yup yup...
Arguments in a nutshell with the G'Quan...
1 - doesn't reflect how it flies in the show
2 - isn't 'quite' the equal of its pl mates...not broken, but not worth taking over the 'buy down' options
3 - it's THE iconic ship in the Narn fleet...much like the Vorchan in the Centauri you should want to grab as many of these as you can, and in reality you find yourself trying to convince yourself you haven't made a mistake taking one.
(an argument can be made the the G'Toc is not a G'Quan but a G'Lan, thus it has 'that kind' of beam firepower and had to jump in to get in range to use it, except the mag gun is not a 'beam' as much as a catapult using beam rules. Sigh...I tried folks....)
Ripple
Arguments in a nutshell with the G'Quan...
1 - doesn't reflect how it flies in the show
2 - isn't 'quite' the equal of its pl mates...not broken, but not worth taking over the 'buy down' options
3 - it's THE iconic ship in the Narn fleet...much like the Vorchan in the Centauri you should want to grab as many of these as you can, and in reality you find yourself trying to convince yourself you haven't made a mistake taking one.
(an argument can be made the the G'Toc is not a G'Quan but a G'Lan, thus it has 'that kind' of beam firepower and had to jump in to get in range to use it, except the mag gun is not a 'beam' as much as a catapult using beam rules. Sigh...I tried folks....)
Ripple
Goldritter
Mongoose
My suggestion is to increase the Laser to 6 AD, and reduce the Front Ion Cannons to 8 (or 6) AD and the front Light Pulse Cannons to 4 AD.
(Or even more).
So the Q`Quan must rely on his Laser if it want to attack targets in front.
(Or even more).
So the Q`Quan must rely on his Laser if it want to attack targets in front.
sorry i still cant see any changes to the G'quan being worthwhile. the ship works. if it gets the same beam as an omega the omega players will want e-mine.
it is supposed to be differant. not every ship is the same and they shouldnt be. the Avioki effectively has the same amount of beam over 2 turns as a G'quan but at a lot shorter range, should we take him upto 12AD beam? the nightfalcon only has the same beam as well athalf the range, perhaps that should be brought upto range and AD. and feel sorry for the poor raiders with their 6AD single damage beam.
if every ship was the same then the game woudl soon get boring. I can see no reason to change a G'quan as if you do you have to look at every other ship that has beams and doesnt have e-mines.
it is supposed to be differant. not every ship is the same and they shouldnt be. the Avioki effectively has the same amount of beam over 2 turns as a G'quan but at a lot shorter range, should we take him upto 12AD beam? the nightfalcon only has the same beam as well athalf the range, perhaps that should be brought upto range and AD. and feel sorry for the poor raiders with their 6AD single damage beam.
if every ship was the same then the game woudl soon get boring. I can see no reason to change a G'quan as if you do you have to look at every other ship that has beams and doesnt have e-mines.
Giving the G'Quan more beams would NOT make it into an Omega. It has no interceptors, 1 AF, fewer fighters (and worse fighters), etc, etc. The Omega will always be more versetile than the G'Quan.
From on-screen evidence I'd like to see the G'Quan with no e-mine, fewer secondaries (-2AD from each) but more beam dice than the Omega (8AD). Use the current stats as a G'Quan (as I've said, it works, but not that well) refitted mine carrying ship (as we only see the ships launch mines 3 times over dozens of appearances).
And then put in a new rule saying I can re-roll any dice I want, as oftain as I want :lol:
Tom
From on-screen evidence I'd like to see the G'Quan with no e-mine, fewer secondaries (-2AD from each) but more beam dice than the Omega (8AD). Use the current stats as a G'Quan (as I've said, it works, but not that well) refitted mine carrying ship (as we only see the ships launch mines 3 times over dozens of appearances).
And then put in a new rule saying I can re-roll any dice I want, as oftain as I want :lol:
Tom
Katadder, why are you so hung up on e-mines?
No one is saying give the Narn interceptors (the EA 'special system'), no one is saying improve the fighter compliment, no one is saying give the G'Quan a rear beam, or more speed. That would be trying to make the ships the same.
You don't have any answer at all to the fluff questions, just like the Centauri loyalists pre-second edition arguing for their beam heavy ships, evidence from the show be damned.
Your answer to the idea of balance between ships of the same level is to pull out other inferior ships (not so much the Avioki). Um, do you not even see the issue here? I can argue back that the Nightfalcon is a command/carrier ship (historically screwed int his game) and the Raider Nova is part of a race that is screwed because the race is admittedly designed to be under the others so it is 'a challenge'. But neither of those touches on the problem. The ships should be able to fufill their roles equally well or they shouldn't cost the same in pl slots. If you have more roles you fill you should do each roll less well than the ship that has fewer rolls.
I just showed the Omega and G'Quan to the player who originally got me into the game but has since moved on and asked whether they were balanced. Answer, no, the Omega has more guns at better ranges, better and more fighters, and better defense.
eh...
Ripple
No one is saying give the Narn interceptors (the EA 'special system'), no one is saying improve the fighter compliment, no one is saying give the G'Quan a rear beam, or more speed. That would be trying to make the ships the same.
You don't have any answer at all to the fluff questions, just like the Centauri loyalists pre-second edition arguing for their beam heavy ships, evidence from the show be damned.
Your answer to the idea of balance between ships of the same level is to pull out other inferior ships (not so much the Avioki). Um, do you not even see the issue here? I can argue back that the Nightfalcon is a command/carrier ship (historically screwed int his game) and the Raider Nova is part of a race that is screwed because the race is admittedly designed to be under the others so it is 'a challenge'. But neither of those touches on the problem. The ships should be able to fufill their roles equally well or they shouldn't cost the same in pl slots. If you have more roles you fill you should do each roll less well than the ship that has fewer rolls.
I just showed the Omega and G'Quan to the player who originally got me into the game but has since moved on and asked whether they were balanced. Answer, no, the Omega has more guns at better ranges, better and more fighters, and better defense.
eh...
Ripple
Hate to play devil's advocate on this subject, but in the current situation, the G'Quan is a useful ship (not a useful as a G'Tal, but still sometimes worthwhile)
I've tried using them as defensive ships to good effect, and generally they come into their own at battle level games and above. A G'Tal is still very useful in 5 raid when defending a Dag'Kar, in battle level games, one G'Quan/G'Lan + 2 Dag'Kars is a nasty defensive unit. All stop the lot on turn 1 and fire all 12 or 18 dice of E-mines, then pivot the G'Quan in turn 2 to target a ship as it rushes in... then either stay put and snipe at long range targets, or move forward into secondary range as they attempt to target the Dag'Kars on turn 3.
Sure, an Omega is a *much* better ship in my opinion, but the EA don't have that much in the way of long range bombardment in 3rd Age fleets (massed Olympus perhaps... or maybe not.), and an Apollo is very dodgy to shoe horn in at 5 Raid with an Omega, so this tactic is less effective for the humans. Saying that, I'd still like the G'Quan to get an upgrade in range for *some* of the secondaries, perhaps the Pulse Cannon up to range 10 rather than the Ion Cannon, though.
The G'Lan is just crap, however... 6 dice of beam at range 18 is pretty ineffective when you're speed 6 and lumbering, even if 2 of the dice are front arc. It's OKish *if* the scenario allows for jumping in, but even then it's lack of agility makes it a bit of a liability.
The Avioki wins out compared to the G'Lan by having much longer range on it's secondaries and all of it's beam arced, even is it's slow loading (it can also use APTE to get in range more easily than the G'Lan, as it doesn't have to worry about boresight, then CBD if there's not much around it while it's beam recharges.)
My 3 main fleets are Narn, EA and Brakiri, and I think the G'Quan and it's varients are the weakest option at the battle priority from any of the 3 lists. It's still useful in specific situations, though... and the G'Tal is the cheapest command ship in the Narn fleet, which makes it a good selection regardless, initiative is paramount in ACTA.
I've tried using them as defensive ships to good effect, and generally they come into their own at battle level games and above. A G'Tal is still very useful in 5 raid when defending a Dag'Kar, in battle level games, one G'Quan/G'Lan + 2 Dag'Kars is a nasty defensive unit. All stop the lot on turn 1 and fire all 12 or 18 dice of E-mines, then pivot the G'Quan in turn 2 to target a ship as it rushes in... then either stay put and snipe at long range targets, or move forward into secondary range as they attempt to target the Dag'Kars on turn 3.
Sure, an Omega is a *much* better ship in my opinion, but the EA don't have that much in the way of long range bombardment in 3rd Age fleets (massed Olympus perhaps... or maybe not.), and an Apollo is very dodgy to shoe horn in at 5 Raid with an Omega, so this tactic is less effective for the humans. Saying that, I'd still like the G'Quan to get an upgrade in range for *some* of the secondaries, perhaps the Pulse Cannon up to range 10 rather than the Ion Cannon, though.
The G'Lan is just crap, however... 6 dice of beam at range 18 is pretty ineffective when you're speed 6 and lumbering, even if 2 of the dice are front arc. It's OKish *if* the scenario allows for jumping in, but even then it's lack of agility makes it a bit of a liability.
The Avioki wins out compared to the G'Lan by having much longer range on it's secondaries and all of it's beam arced, even is it's slow loading (it can also use APTE to get in range more easily than the G'Lan, as it doesn't have to worry about boresight, then CBD if there's not much around it while it's beam recharges.)
My 3 main fleets are Narn, EA and Brakiri, and I think the G'Quan and it's varients are the weakest option at the battle priority from any of the 3 lists. It's still useful in specific situations, though... and the G'Tal is the cheapest command ship in the Narn fleet, which makes it a good selection regardless, initiative is paramount in ACTA.
