Yet another ship poll, the DEMOS!

[Lord David the Denied]

I find myself in agreement with Katadder. 4AD is too big a reduction.

Surely this a sign of the Apocalypse? :shock:

 

[katadder]

well if precise weapons are only 75% as good as DD weapons then a slow loading precise weapon is alot worse than DD every turn. with the speed of a vorchan the slow loading is also 50% worse as the vorchan can get into range 1st turn on pretty much any battle if it APTE - thats 21" forward.  even if setting up 36" apart (and as 7 is average roll on 2d6 that means more CTA scenario which is only 24" apart set up) that means the enemy cannot move more than 3" forward or they are in range of both the vorchans guns.also consider fighting earth - you fire your torps, they get intercepted easy.  the vorchan APTE forward and is in range to lower the interceptors with ion cannon before using the plasma accelerator.  to be effective either of these has to get both weapons into range to lower interceptors, and the vorchan can do this every turn.-4AD is a kneejerk reaction.  -2 is fine and puts it more on par with the vorchan and is the reduction I think most people would agree with.

 

[Court Jester]

I personally see the "sit at 20 inches and fire torpedos"" tactic as rather weak... Why use only half my weapons ona turn Icould have easily cruised into range and used all of them... You have got play in a "balls to the wall" style with an all demos fleet to get the best results 8)

 

[emperorpenguin]

The firepower of the torpedoes is actually about the same overall as the matter cannon on the Vorchan (including range as a factor) and that's why I feel the AD needs to drop by 4 as it has the Interceptor as well. !

there is no matter cannon on the Vorchan :wink:

I am with LDTD and Katadder, 4AD would be too much. I agree that the Vorchan is a bit above the curve as is, they should never have had the damage increase to 19

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The low damage figure was one of the biggest complaints about the ship, though. Given that it has absolutely no defences at all, 19 damage isn't that crazy.

 

[emperorpenguin]

The low damage figure was one of the biggest complaints about the ship, though. Given that it has absolutely no defences at all, 19 damage isn't that crazy.

So was the loss of Super AP on the plasma accelerator and the reduced number of ADs on the twin arrays.
Increasing all three was too much. As others have said 19 damage at skirmish is quite high, this added to such high firepower tips them towards "too good".
Centauri should be fragile with a dangerous bite

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I don't think I agree. It's still a fragile ship, it has no way to defend itself beyond hull 5 - no interceptors, shields, dodge, nothing to keep the damage out. It doesn't even have any anti-fighter to defend against even poor fighters taking it down en masse.

 

[Triggy]

It is one of the weaker ships in terms of hit points/defences but does have one good defence - its speed and manoeuvrability.

Either way, at best, it's average toughness but both the Vorchan and Demos have awesome firepower.

 

[dag'karlove]

One question for David, Anla Shok' - is there a ship in the game you have an issue with? I know I've seen a number of your group in the various broken ship threads saying each ship is okay as is.

On topic - I agree with Triggy on the 4 AD, the extra range is a big deal, so is the interceptor but you can't drop that due to show evidence. While the PA may do more total damage vs higher hull targets, the precise helps stack up critical effects, which is often more determinate of victory than total damage output. Yes its slow loading but your taking less return fire due to range.

LDtD commented that SA's don't break ships. I have to disagree with this statement. Ease of use can absolutely break ships. The Targrath in first ed was absolutely broken due to CAF. You can't look at a ship that can add 50% to its firepower and say that it's not relevent, espcially when a number of ships cannot do this. If all ships had equal use for SAs I would agree, but the reality of the game is that certain ships gain alot out of using SAs and certain ships gain nothing, or only barely cover a glaring weakness. That has to be taken into accoutn as part of the balance process. If centauri beams in first ed had not been able to CAF you would not have heard half the complaints.

Ripple

Gods forbid we enjoy something as it was intended and dont see a need to Screw up everything. And some of us have thoughs on how broken things are. However we tend to voice them in a different manner and have a different perspective on things due to our current or previous occupations and other game systems we play in or have played in.

 

[dag'karlove]

Ohh and david, I wasnt part of the group decision on the dag'kar or the deviation. Yes the Dag'kar has alot of firepower but its hull 4 and slowloading are what make it balanced. But i digress this isnt a dag'kar thread its the demos thread . The points are all good. However I have to agree with the its fine and a "Newer Vorchan" camp. What may help you all is bumping up its dmg track 6 points to 25 and making it raid. maybe giving it a one tougher hull.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

It's undergunned for raid, even with a tougher hull and more damage.

 

[Greg Smith]

On average and over two turns, the Plasma Accelerator does significantly more damage than the torpedoes. Now the plasma accelarator is more likely to be intercepted, however any sensible Centauri player will fire the ion cannons to deplete interceptors first, thus negating the disadvantage.

The torpedoes are likely to do more crits though.

The other real advantage the torpedoes have is that they allow the ship to be on CBD! every other turn with impunity - and ignore so 1/3 of (unintercepted) damage.

The difference between the weapons come down to how you rate crit effects - is damage output more important that more crit effects?

----
The maths:

Against hull 6, over 2 turns.

Plasma Accelerator: 4 hits, 8 base damage, 2.16 average crit damage. 0.66 crits.

Torpedoes: 3 hits, 3 base damage, 1.63 average crit damage, 1 crit.

ie roughly double the damage, compared to 50% more likely to crit.

 

[akenatum]

If people really want to kick up a stink about the demos anyway then why don't you use an isd pre demos???


That's another balancing factor to consider here...


And for the last time 19 isn't lots for a skirmish level ship look at all the ones that sit on 24+ hell the T'Rak is 37 at slirmish for christs sake.

19 is the low side of midfeild for skirmish ships.


anyway not the point. the ship is fine.

 

[Greg Smith]

70% of people who answered the poll think it is too good.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

If people really want to kick up a stink about the demos anyway then why don't you use an isd pre demos???


That's another balancing factor to consider here...


And for the last time 19 isn't lots for a skirmish level ship look at all the ones that sit on 24+ hell the T'Rak is 37 at slirmish for christs sake.

19 is the low side of midfeild for skirmish ships.


anyway not the point. the ship is fine.

ISDs are no balancing factor. ISDs are irrelevent in 90% of games (if not more) and the ISDs for many ships don't agree with the fluff text. Dilgar war era units with ISDs in the 2260s being one of the main culprits. Some of these can be put down to typing errors but by and large, ISDs get ignored, not least because of this.

 

[akenatum]

yeah i know they normally get ignored but they are a balanccing factor if actually used too a degree (typos not withstanding) as it restricts the "advanced" stuff out and balances to the more serries style ships...


70% of people answering this poll are daft, or are not willing to try other ships to counter it... there is a lot of boiling down to the same this vs that argument here... and a lot of the less typical fleet choices don't seem to be even mentioned which i think looking at them some could relly give it nice run.

It's good at it's roll but it's got a glass jaw it's not hard to take out espically in a fleet environment, when it shouldn't last more than 2 turns of being fired upon.

And As i said somewhere else it's the perfect ship for knocking out low level ships like other skirmish level ships while a vorchan is better at the bigger things (why? the slow loading and good range vs consistant up close)...

The ship dies fine, it's very fragile and the pat to the nose on this thing will get it out of your way.

 

[Burger]

yeah i know they normally get ignored but they are a balanccing factor if actually used too a degree (typos not withstanding) as it restricts the "advanced" stuff out and balances to the more serries style ships...

You're talking rubbish here. "More advanced" ships should be a higher PL if they are better. All ships across a certain PL are supposed to be balanced, irrespective of race, tech level, cost to produce (in-game and out of game), mini size or paint colour.

 

[Da Boss]

I would be happy for the Demos to go down to 8AD Ion Cannons (I even did that in my supplement

(well not happy as Centauri player actually but hey :wink: )

Down to 6AD hmm not so sure - really have to think about it.............seems a bit toooo much - if it was to be changed either by FAQ or new book or whatever I'd like to start at the 8AD and see how things go with people.

However I suupose the test is - would people take a Vorchan instead - perhaps that should be a poll in itself? Me I am very fond on interceptors so am slightly bias - even with the ability to gain the use of them through fighters..............

Straying of topic :roll: - I would actually prefer a Octurion with slightly less guns and 2 interceptors.............but then would also like 24" beams! in fact I did make up a variant that had been converted in the 2230's in case the Dilgar got upity enough to go after the Republic as well ..It used sullust guns and converting some turrets to interceptor duty (to help gains their weapons)...............lost it somewhere though

 

[akenatum]

You're talking rubbish here. "More advanced" ships should be a higher PL if they are better. All ships across a certain PL are supposed to be balanced, irrespective of race, tech level, cost to produce (in-game and out of game), mini size or paint colour.

Not really when you consider that the game factors isd's as a part of that design for use after you've adjusted to the game... perhaps they should do some errata and fix/change some of these isd's but that's a factor of where ships are....

While down grading it's ion cannon by 2ad wouldn't all of a sudden make it useless, it's not needed the ship is fine as is and is more than capable of being destroyed early in the game.

 

[Burger]

You're talking rubbish here. "More advanced" ships should be a higher PL if they are better. All ships across a certain PL are supposed to be balanced, irrespective of race, tech level, cost to produce (in-game and out of game), mini size or paint colour.

Not really when you consider that the game factors isd's as a part of that design for use after you've adjusted to the game... perhaps they should do some errata and fix/change some of these isd's but that's a factor of where ships are....

Nope sorry you're totally wrong, as has been said multiple times by both the Big Boss Matt, other Mongoose staff, and all the playtesters.