Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 15 posts ] 

"Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Well, it was to be started somewhere. We should note that house rules and official rules should be kept seperate. As it stands the current SG 'House' Rules as developed by us lovely chaps(of whom almost all of ou already number most likely) at the SG Website.

So, I brought it over here.

Last 'updated' .PDF of the rules was here:

http://www.beerbadger.force9.co.uk/Shin ... %20CPF.pdf

Now, as it stands, we've been looking into things more here:

http://www.specialist-games.com/forum/t ... IC_ID=1914

Now, current thinking at the arse-end of the discussion was this:

Custodian As you see it in that .pdf, but with an additional Prow Deflector and the Tracking Systems down to 20cm.

Protector:

Code Sample

Protector ? ? ? ?| 180pts
Type/Hits ? ? ? ?| Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Cruiser/6 ? ? ? ?| 20cm ?| 45* ? | 2 ? ? ? | 5+(Def)| 3
Armament ? ? ? ? | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Gravitic Missiles| 20-40cm ? ? | 4 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front
Prow Railguns ? ?| 45cm ? ? ? ?| 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front
Port Railguns ? ?| 45cm ? ? ? ?| 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? | FL
StBd Railguns ? ?| 45cm ? ? ? ?| 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? | FR
Prow Ion Cannons | 30cm ? ? ? ?| 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front
Port Ion Cannons | 30cm ? ? ? ?| 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? | FL
StBd Ion Cannons | 30cm ? ? ? ?| 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? | FR
Dorsal Launch Bay| B&Ms ? ? ? ?| 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? | -
Tracking Systems | 0cm ? ? ? ? | 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? | -


Emissary:

Code Sample

Emissary ? ? ? ? | 125pts
Type/Hits ? ? ? ?| Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Cruiser/4 ? ? ? ?| 20cm ?| 90* ? | 2 ? ? ? | 5+(Def)| 2
Armament ? ? ? ? | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Gravitic Missiles| 20-40cm ? ? | 4 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front
Prow Railguns ? ?| 45cm ? ? ? ?| 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? | FLR
P+S Grav Hooks ? | - ? ? ? ? ? | 1+1 ? ? ? ? ? | -


Note P+S Grav Hooks may be upgraded to S1 30cm P+S Ion Cannons with FL and FR Fire Arcs respectively at no extra cost.

Castellan
Code Sample

Castellan ? ? ? ?| 45 or 50pts
Type/Hits ? ? ? ?| Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Escort/1 ? ? ? ? | 20cm ?| 90* ? | 1 ? ? ? | 5+ ? ? | 2
Armament ? ? ? ? | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Gravitic Missiles| 20-40cm ? ? | 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front
Railguns ? ? ? ? | 30cm ? ? ? ?| 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? | Front


Warden
Code Sample

Warden ? ? ? ? ? | 30pts
Type/Hits ? ? ? ?| Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Escort/1 ? ? ? ? | 25cm ?| 90* ? | 1 ? ? ? | 5+(Def)| 1
Armament ? ? ? ? | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Ion Cannons ? ? ?| ? 30cm ? ? ?| ? ? ?2 ? ? ? ?| Front


Fleet List: Remained largely the same, except the Protector was freely available, rather than restricted IIRC.

Now, offhand, I don't think there was much else 'needing' to be said to set the ball rolling.

BRING IT ON! ?:cool:

Xisor




_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nerroth
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
Haha, my evil scheme takes one further step to completion... and already cross-pollination has occured wit h Epic!

As regards the Qath'fannor, I'd be cautious about dropping the Lar'shi'vre restriction entirely, it would turn the Il'Por'ui into a mothballed starship in may fleets... (Imagine if the Lar'shi restriction was dropped in the ECF! Besides, the Emissary is fluffed up as a more widespread ship than the Protector, this should be represented in the CPF list)

I like the idea of 1 Protector per Emissary, 1-2 per Custodian and/or 1 per squadron of Castellans.

Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Ah, thats what you'd think, wouldn't you? But is the Dauntless 'mothballed' in Imperial Fleets? Nope, it damn diddly isn't!

The difference this time is that the Protector isn't the only ship in this fleet that can hold it's own in a fight. As you may observe, the Emissary is a damned fine little ship at times. Given the Ion Upgrade, it can put more firepower out prow-on than a Dauntless and is largely more survivable at 125pts. It has the 6+ Prow and the all important Two Shields. If it wasn't for the S2Shields then you'd be correct, there'd be little to no reason to take the Emissary outside of gaining more Wardens(which is a viable thing in itself I should add).

The Emissary is a good ship as it stands IMO, a S4 Missile salvo and 45cm Battery makes it at least a useful support ship, able to add into the fleet fire output, rather than be the liability the Merchant usually is. It's a different type of ship. I don't think it's fair, under the system we're presenting, to use the Emissary and Merchants as 'counterparts' in the CPF vs ECF Debate.

In my 3rd Phase Expansion list, I allow the Emissary to be a 'free ship', but it's uses are alot less in a combined list. There are cheaper ways to access Grav Hooks, ships that do the job it does of contributing firepower just as well, and when you look at the combined fleet, it's the Protector that is most able to act as an independent 'Light Cruiser' whilst the Emissary is best left amongst squadrons to simply 'add' weight to them. It's unrestricted because it'd be useless with restrictions. As for the Protector OTOH, thats a different kettle of fish. It has to be restricted more than the Hero, just 'coz!(I hope it's obvious why).

When in a pure CPF force however, the Protector shouldn't be restricted as it's the main gunline cruiser. A battlefleet consisting entirely of Emissaries is only a joke battlefleet! The Protector is fine without restrictions as it'd be balanced, and the Emissary is an obvious choice in some instances: cheapest access to missiles in the CPF. In this way the Protector and Emissary work hand in hand as part of the CPF, wheras the Merchant and Hero in the ECF work like innocent and superhero...if you see the point.

Ah, to newcomers: The ECF is 'Exploration and Commerce Fleet', the original Kor'vattra of the Tau. And don't think thats a joke battlefleet, it's wiped the smile of more opposing Admirals than I care to remember! A good battlefleet, but certainly not one that fights in lines like Chaos and Imperials...

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
blackhorizon
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands
I notice the Protector went from 7 to 8 hardpoints. I know when Ray posted his 'lots-of-hardpoints' Protector people moaned about it.

The BFG fleet roster, only provides 5 lines :p

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
It can go back down to seven with FP3 broadside weapons. That said, it is only really viable with these hardpoints, with any less it just doesn't feel right. It's not exactly difficult to make up their own profiles on the computer by hand, is it?

I don't mind lots or less hardpoints, it simply has to work.

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nerroth
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:07 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
Forgive me if I'm covering ground already trod, but is there any reason why the Lar'shi'vre goes to the trouble of 2/2/2 and 1/2/1 for the railguns and ion cannon respectively instead of simply using 3FL/3FR and 2FL/2FR instead?

Do you feel that the model doesn't accurately represent this?

Do you not want to give the Lar'shi'vre the extra bit of broadside firepower (not much of an improvement, but noticeable enough)? It seems a little too forward-centric in terms of its firepower options as propsed above, risky thing to do for a Tau Kor'vre to have to worry about in the heat of combat...


As regards the Il'por'ui, it's surprising to see no broadside fire at all (in its case, a 1FL/1FLR/1FR seems more appropriate, given the apparent weapons on the hull - a subjective notion, of course), I don't like the idea of the Tau completely ignoring the idea of some sort of broadside fire on their capital ships - in a pinch, one or two WB in the side arc is better than none.

Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Lar'shi'vre- Basically, it's to differentiate it from the Hero and balance it. To have such a heavy armament on a light hull without 'sufficient' advances, some of the weaponry seems to be hardwired forward. I personally don't think there's even a chance it could fire S2 Ion Cannons to it's broadside. Unless we say all those turrets are Ion Cannons.

To keep with Tau 'Feel' the broadsides were mainly railguns so they could keep the unique 'overlap arc' too. It's possible the front guns are Railguns, but really, they look like Ion Cannons.

It's quite balanced at the cost with some of the firepower locked forwards. The Railguns 'could' be broadsided again, but I feel locking it forward slightly(by 1FP each broadside really) gives it a bit more of a unique and interesting feel. Not only that, but it also keeps the cost down to a reasonable value.

Il'Porrui- Basically, I'd like to see it keep Fp1Front/Side Broadsides and a S1 Ion Cannon, but I feel it works better 'within the fleet' sitting with FP3 LFR dorsals. So it has a broadside fire of FP3. In this configuration, it works nicely. I don't see the point in redressing it 'just because'. Certainly not because it makes it a better ship(IMO it's balanced as is, so to make it better warrants a cost increase...). Currently, my only real hope/aspiration/axis of variation on it is the S1 Prow Ion Cannon, which isn't 'really' necessery, but would be nice to see, as it'd fit the model better IMO than the handwaving that all that stuff is just sensor probes/comms/etc.

No?

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nerroth
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
Lar'shi'vre: Well, in that case would it be better to leave the Ion Cannon forward-firing and use the 3FL/3FR for the railgun batteries? That way the bulk of the firepower is focussed forward, but the ship still has a reasonable option should an enemy escort park itself to port or starboard...

Il'Por'ui: Sorry, in the stat you list above the ship only has forward arc-firing Railguns, are you saying it's meant to be FLR anyway? (That I could live with)

Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
All locked forward Ion Cannons was just...boring. And those big turrets do look more ion-cannony.

As for the Il'Porrui, it's supposed to be FLR, yes. My mistook.

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nerroth
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
If it's FLR on the Il'por'ui, I've no problem.

Just so we're on the same page, which weapons on the Lar'shi'vre are people judging to be which? I'd say that those 4 stubs on the front could be the Ion Cannon, with the big turrets as 3FP Railguns each - 1 Railgun per FP value, even! (Funny how that look at the ship suited my suggestion...)

Do you think I should be posting these comments back at SG, or do you think anyone else there is watching this thread? (in other words, am I tacking against the wind asking if they would like to move the debate here?)

Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
I think a joint debate would do good, but try signalling to them *from* that thread too.

If we can set up a joint faculty working on it, it'd probably help to spread the message.

For me:

Prow locked weapons= Ion Cannons round the missile tubes, and railguns or sensor probes on the wingtips

Small Turrets strike me as massed Railguns with those big turrets(ie the one per side turrets) being Ion Cannons. Then there's the little gap on the base of the ship which is a Lb.

As for strengths and ranges, I think the hardwired prow should be 45cm(the only reason to lock it forward would be for it to be 45cm Ions IMO), but with S2 Prow and FP2 prow plus Fp2/S1 per broadside it shows a bit of effectiveness with good overlap. I'd be inclined to say though the broadside RGs should be 30cm at FP3, so it's Fp2 at 45cm Prow and Fp6, S4 Prow at 30cm.

But then again, my general studies view of it is the one presented, it's the most compromising of the discussed ones.

As for the Il'porrui, I'm quite happy with the ship as it stands on LFR, very close to my original guesstimations of it, and for all the true believers it *is* the Damocles ship...

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Nerroth
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 573
Location: Canada
So by all true believers you mean just yourself? (Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but from what I can tell at tge SG board the Emissary idea isn't too popular...)

(I'd sooner see the D'yanoi config Il'fannor in the Lithesh War rather than retrofit the Il'Por'ui - maybe we can agree to disagree on that one and see which proves more interesting to the HA! If they care, that is)

As regards the posting, I have posted a request for the others to reply here if they wish - but I don't know what would make them choose to switch to here, unlike in EPic there is no Army Champion to follow over (although if Ray Bell is interested, he could use his status as a de facto AC to draw things over)

Gary

_________________


Gue'senshi: The 1st Kleistian Grenadiers

v7.3 pdf

Human armed forces for the greater good.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
Like the great Tom Zerek himself, I don't see any point in simply 'assuming' the role of leader, not where in every other locale there's room for valid debate about it. That said, I really don't think we need an 'Army Champion' as much, the only real thing for discussion at the moment, as far as I'm aware is the CPF. No other fleet lists are even seeing any attention, let alone being talked about with hope of changes any time soon...

When Armada is up for revision, perhaps then, though I wouldn't be adverse to it just now. I just don' think we need to dilute the discussion much more just now.

As to the Il'Porrui, I really do not see any good reason for not retrofitting it.

1- It's totally different design from the CPF or the ECF, it makes sense it is the 'intermediary' ship.
2- The stats actually fit the description, and we don't need to whisk up a new unnofficial ship from nowhere
3- It gives credibility to the CPF, so that, as I've said before, it doesn't seem like the Tau just pulled the fleet out of their arses and said here's one we made earlier

As for the Niccassar, I don't think it's especially needed in the CPF. Unlike the Demiurg and Kroot, and the Tau themselves, the Niccassar aren't, it would seem, a very useful race for fighting a war with. They are, by nature, explorers. As far as I can tell, they don't seem to have any desire to sit within the actual security forces of the Empire. Essentially, I think they'd have more credibility as being part of the 3PEFs and ECFs only. Perhaps allow the inclusion of Niccassar Rigs and on-board normal Explorers, but specify that they are dissallowed on the Grav Hooks of the CPF themselves, at least in CPF fleets. All that said, I don't think it'll make many odds to the fleet itself eitherway. With the good turning ability of the CPF Escorts(and now the Il'Porrui) the actual benefit provided by the Dhows is quite lessened.

Again, just to nip back a bit again, I really don't see any reason not to go back and say it's the Il'Porrui, it makes more sense. It gives things credibility. It gives the CPF some already established character.

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Shinnentai
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:52 pm
Posts: 54
Oops, looks like I've missed out on a lot of discussion here. Quick! Lock the gates before the 90? turn brigade gets here :;): ( Just joking! )

Protector
As I've said before, I find too many weapons systems confusing - doubly so for staple ships like the Protector. It's not as if the FP3 batteries are particularly powerful and need splitting up. In the absence of any strong reasons to the contrary - alwas go with the simpler option!

I'm glad that 45cm Ion Cannon on the Protector have been brought up again. At the moment a lot of people are concerned that the Protector just doesn't have enough advantages over the Hero to counter only having 6 hits, and propose it be given 90? turns to compensate.

The 45cm Ion Cannons would provide an alternative to this. Sure, the HA is unlikely to adopt this idea, but the same could be said for 2 shielded Emissaries, 2 Ion Cannoned Wardens, or the 90? turn Protector for that matter.

Here's how I see the alternatives looking, with my preferable choice :

Code Sample

4 5 C M    I C    P R O T E C T O R
Type/Hits           | Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Cruiser/6            | 20cm  | 45*   | 2         | 5+(Def)| 3
Armament           | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Prow missiles       | 20-40cm      |          4           | Front
Prow Ion Cannons| 45cm           |          2           | Front
Port Railguns       | 45cm           |          3           | FL
StBd Railguns      | 45cm           |          3           | FR
Port Ion Cannons | 30cm           |          1           | FL
StBd Ion Cannons | 30cm          |          1           | FR
Dorsal Launch Bay| B&Ms           |          1           | -
Tracking Systems | 0cm            |          1            | -


Or one including the 90? turns :

Code Sample

9 0 ?    T U R N    P R O T E C T O R
Type/Hits           | Speed | Turns | Shields | Armour | Turrets
Cruiser/6            | 20cm  | 90*   | 2         | 5+(Def)| 3
Armament           | Speed/Range | Firepower/STR | Fire Arcs
Prow missiles       | 20-40cm      |          4           | Front
Prow Ion Cannons| 30cm           |          2           | Front
Port Railguns       | 45cm           |          3           | FL
StBd Railguns      | 45cm           |          3           | FR
Port Ion Cannons | 30cm           |          1           | Front
StBd Ion Cannons | 30cm          |          1           | Front
Dorsal Launch Bay| B&Ms           |          1           | -
Tracking Systems | 0cm            |          1            | -


With 45cm Ion cannon, the Protector's weaponry values 95% that of the Hero. I've suggested all the Ion cannon on the 90? turn Protector fixed forward so as not to make it too easy to manouvre. Some on the SG board believe all weapons on a 90? turn Protector should be fixed forward, but I disagree since this would undermine the principle of interdependancy between Tau ships and a lot of the model's weapons are turreted on the model.

Emissary
I think this is fine without a prow Ion Cannon being added.those 3 sticks facing forward are weedy enough to be part of the dorsal railgun battery or communications / sensor equipment ( suitable for an ambassadorial vessel indeed! How about giving it the 'Improved sensor array' refit as standard? )

Custodian
Are we also dropping the missiles to strength 6 as per the RayB list?

+1 hit upgrade
The RayB list allows the CPF capital ships a 1hit point upgrade. Should we include this in the list? Personally I don't think it's necessary since the Emissary has 2 shields, the Custodian is fine as it is, and the Protector will presumably be getting either 90? turns or 45cm Ion Cannon to compensate for it's vulnerability somewhat.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Xisor
 Post subject: "Kor'vattra Qath'Fannor"- Tau CPF Dev.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515
+1 Hit Upgrade: I'm still not keen on it. I've really not got much to say against it except that it'd likely become a mandatory upgrade for ships(if it's really that useful, I don't see why I would take it, it's not as if it really adds much to the tactics of the fleet either). If it's not really neccessery when everything else is said and done, I'd drop it. If however, everything else can't be said and done without it, that'd leave Xisor without a leg to stand on...

45cm Ion: I like the idea, but the basis behind it remaining at 30cm also holds reason with me. Just because I like an idea, doesn't mean I should back it all the way, probably best to stay clear of any range modification. Perhaps a note saying it's a 'beefy' lance array, in that if both hit you roll another dice(max 3 hits). I know it's not terribly useful, but it'd make it a hell of alot easier to sleep at night knowing the broadsides were back to Fp3 a piece and that the prow array was still 'ooh'.

That said, the range creep is still a problem. 2IC and S2 Shields isn't much of a problem IMO as there are absolutely no good reasons against them... (so far), but the 90* and 45cm IC are still ones I can't bring myself to properly argue for. Still, we'll see. If can make the offer of shutting up about the 90* Turn on the Protector and the 45cm ICs in exchange for acceptance on the 2Shields/2IC then I'd do it in a flash.

Custodian: I'd be quite fine dropping the missiles to six, I like it having 8 missiles, but when it comes down to it, an 8 missile thing is blatantly obvious for shooting down. Perhaps a 2*S3 Compromise? (I'm still a fan of ships being able to split their salvo, perhaps this should be reconsidered for the Protector to make it a bit more 'advanced'?)

Just to reiterate, I agree more again now with the multi arc weaponry, there's no need to fix everything forward, just to emphasise the power of the forward weaponry...

Also, take a look on the SG site, I just posted 'My Plan!' in Revenge of the Tau.

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
  [ 15 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net