Tactical Command | View topic - Venerable Battle Barges

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Venerable Battle Barges

rowanalpha

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:33 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:31 am
Posts: 88

Everytime I look at the rules for Venerable BBs, they just don't sit right. ?The SM fleet is defined by a few things: Heavy armour but at a cost of shields and turrets, a lack of lances, among other things, and venerables diverge from this mould.

Here's my take on how they could be better created:
[I took out battlecruisers because, personally, I don't think an 8 hit cruiser qualifies as a 'Barge']

0-1 Venerable Battle Barge
Any Imperial or Chaos Grand Cuiser or Battleship may be made into a Venerable Battlebarge. ?That ship will gain the following modifications.
-The ship's cost is increased by +35 points.
-The ship is subject to all Space Marine rules for Leadership, Boarding, Planetary Assault, etc.
-The ship's armour is improved to 6+ in all facings.
-The ship's shields and turrets are reduced by -1.(Emperor and Oberons lose an extra turret)
-If the ship mounts no prow weaponry, it gains a str 6 torpedo launcher for +20 points.
-All lances are replaced with 30 cm Bombardment cannons in the same facings. Each point of 30 cm lance str is replaced with 1.5 points of BC firepower(round up). Each point of 45 or more cm lance str is replaced with 2 points of BC firepower.
-Ship's lose all class specific special rules (named variants, ld bonuses, etc), but retain limitations on performing CtNH orders.

Example Case #1: Oberon Venerable BB (370 pts)

Hits: 12/Battleship
Speed: 15cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 3
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 3

Prow Weapons Battery(Fpr 5, 45 cm, F/L/R)
Dorsal Weapons Battery(Fpr 5, 45 cm, F/L/R)
Port Weapons Battery(Fpr 6, 60 cm, L)
Starboard Weapons Battery(Fpr 6, 60 cm, R)
Port Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 4, 30 cm, L)
Starboard Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 4, 30 cm, R)
Port Launch Bay(Str 1, Thunderhawk: 25 cm, -)
Starboard Launch Bay(Str 1, Thunderhawk: 25 cm, -)

Example Case #2: Retaliator Venerable BB (330 pts)

Hits: 10/Cruiser
Speed: 20 cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 2
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 2

Prow Torpedoes(Str 6, Speed:30 cm, F)
Port Weapons Battery(Fpr 6, 30 cm, L)
Starboard Weapons Battery(Fpr 6, 30 cm, R)
Port Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 3, 30 cm, L)
Starboard Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 3, 30 cm, R)
Port Launch Bay(Str 1, Thunderhawk: 25 cm, -)
Starboard Launch Bay(Str 1, Thunderhawk: 25 cm, -)

Personally, I think these vessels fit with the spirit and rule of the current space marine fleet better than the previous incarnation. ?Thoughts?

edit-It occurs to me that the Apocalypse should count its lances as range 45+ rather than 30 for the conversions above, but it loses it's 'range push' ability of course.

_________________
The Construction Worker Space Marines like to paint Yellow and Black Stripes on Everything. This is for Safety. They also like to Blow Up Stuff. This is for Unsafety. They are very complicated people. This is why they are very (x2) popular. ? Sneak Preview of Construction Worker Space Marines

Top

Xisor

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:54 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515

I'm entirely inclined to agree!

My only reservation is regarding the costs, but thats simply because I'm feeling "Is that right?" rather than "That not costed right!!"[ie reserved about them, not up in arms... :80:

)

By these regards, you'd have the Desolator become:

"Whichever Chapter You Pick's" Venerable Battle Barge

335pts
Hits: 12/Battleship
Speed: 25cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 3
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 3

Prow Torpedoes(S6, 30cm, Front)
Dorsal Weapons Battery(Fpr 6, 60 cm, F/L/R)
Port Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 8, 30 cm, L)
Starboard Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 8, 30 cm, R)

So essentially, a bit of a light brawler ship? I quite like it actually! I may do a conversion now! This could apply, similarly with Venerable Strike Vessels, or rather, simply a different costing(as I'm not sure +35 is appropriately the same for the Grand Cruisers, call the GC variants Venerable Strike Vessels)

245pts
Hits: 10/Cruiser
Speed: 20cm
Turns: 45
Shields: 2
Armour: 6+
Turrets: 3

Port Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 10, 30 cm, L)
Starboard Bombardment Cannon(Fpr 10, 30 cm, R)

Hmmm....Impressive...

I'm quite liking this new format for them. Very much so. Especially the Lance to BC conversion. All that said, the Venerable Battle Barges were from before the time of the Codex Astartes, ie from before the time that Lances + Marines = Howls from all corners of the Imperium(which I'd gladly howl with I may add). The point of the VBBs though was they were from before...then again...I don't like the SO and I don't like the old style VBB Desolators.

I suppose, we can get around this somewhow, and I suspect it's quite easy, but I'm tired and can't think of it.

EDIT!: Danger Danger!!! What about Nova Cannons!?!?! I'm tempted to suggest an optional swap for Torps or BCs(BCs seem the way to go IMO). S6?

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:20 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

One thing to keep in mind. The definitions you have for the SM are the ones that were given them after what happened at the Heresy and the question of the shields and turrets are even questionable at best.

There aren't really that many SMs per Chapter and you put them in a ship that can have it's armor easily breached by long range lance fire or bombed the hell out of them by their traitor brothers? I don't think so.

I think of them as having the best armor and shields that can be provided by the Imperium but at a cost of efficient weapons and AC availability. Torps can be kept in this case. This way, they can survive the approach phase and be able to bring the battle to the enemy. Now some Chapters are siege type and have long range weapons. Maybe some allowance can be given them but not by much.

The way I see it, it's ok the VBB keep their current stats with the addition of cost for the SM crew and rules. They are 0-1 anyway and limited to more than 1,000 point fleets so not unbalancing and count towards one of the three battle barges allowed the SM.

What I would suggest is, however, is limit the access to the pure gunships like the Desolator, the Retribution, and Apocalypse and the Vengeance, Avenger, Executor and Repulsive GCs and the Hades and Acheron HCs and the Overlord and Armageddon BCs. They can have the Emperor and Oberons and the Exorcist and the Retaliator and the Styx and Mars while the Despoiler variants replace their dorsal lances with WBs. Actually I think they really should focus on the ships that have launch bays since they are a deployment fleet primarily. Limiting the access to gunships would solve the problem Xisor presented with the Apocalypse and the dislike for the Desolator. One doesn't need to change the weapons anymore except for the Despoiler variant.

Now if one wants to replace the lances with bombardment cannons, it can't be on a 1:1 basis. The thing is, BCs are in between lances and WBs when it comes to effectivity. The firepower should then be between those two. A strength one lance translates to firepower 3 weapon batteries. BCs should then be at firepower 2. Now if one takes into account the battleship ranges, then there should even be more of the BCs since they are limited to 30 cm. An Apocalypse should be able to take around FP18 of them, same with the Ret but since there is no ship with more than FP16 WBs of the Avenger then it should be around FP14 BCs at least.

Top

rowanalpha

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:20 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:31 am
Posts: 88

The other thing to consider is that, as the blue book states, armor is partially a function of the CREW survivability, hence SM's normally high armour. Afterall, Battle Brothers, Techmarines and Servitors are far more resilient that the emaciated and exhausted ratings on your average imperial warship.

The Nova cannon presents a concern, yes, but the biggest problems with NCs are when they are taken en masse. Singlely, they will more often than not simply knock a shield down or miss entirely.

D'Artangan: The lance exchange is on a ratio better than 1:1.

Top

Xisor

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:55 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:11 pm
Posts: 515

The Nova cannon presents a concern, yes, but the biggest problems with NCs are when they are taken en masse. Singlely, they will more often than not simply knock a shield down or miss entirely.

And that concern should be enough. Would it be reasonable to put S1 60cm Lances on a SM ship 'just because'? I'd say no. Lances are part of the thing Marines shouldn't be doing.

For seige chapters, why would they bother seiging a planet when a couple of IN Nova Cannons would do the trick just as good?

The real trick, as I see it, to making the Marines a properly viable fleet in BFG and keeping them true to themselves is to limit the stuff that the Codex Astartes wouldn't want them to have. IMO this is conventional torpedoes, Lances and Nova Cannons. VBBs are a discrete case, but I think generally there are benefits to really keeping things 'within the limits'.

You do both make very good points, but since VBBs aren't simply 'converted Navy Ships' then we have a good cause to change the stats directly, eg swapping BCs. These were precursors and variants of these ships when it was still possible to change things on a 'whim'. Thus, IMO, it's fine for the VBB rules to change the stats of the ship, as we aren't trying to just represent 'Space Marines onboard an Emperor class Battleship', I think we're trying to look at what the ancient skills that are now lost to the Imperium did with the plans of an Emperor Class BB when they outfitted it to transport and be run by the Legions Astartes.

Xisor

_________________
"Number 6 calls to you
The Cylon Detector beckons
Your girlfriend is a toaster"

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:31 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

Primarily, the function of SMs are to assault a planet and in some cases exterminting one. As I said, limiting the access of VBBs to those with launch bays are the simplest solution. It even restricts the access to the Apocalypse. For the Mars, I suggest a swap for torps at -10. Maybe even 20. See? Less of design problems since if you do it with one ship, then one has to do it for the others. Limiting the type is things simpler, reduces the variety and limits the weapon changes to a few choices.

The lances do seem like it's a more than 1:1 exchange but I think you fail to take into account the ranges. A str 2 lance at 60 is around a str 4 lance at 45 which should become a str 8 lance at 30 cm on a battleship platform. Now think about how the BCs come into play here.

As to the NC, well, it's really an unreliable weapon system to lay siege on a planet. To kill it, yeah probably but get close to land the Marines then the NC becomes useless due to range limits. And BCs are more flexible in they can support the landings but kill a planet also if the situation changes for the worst.

And while the armor does represent crew survivability, their first and primary defence, against direct fire weaponry anyway, are still the shields. I cannot understand why they limited them on the ships that carry the cream, the elite of the Emperor's forces especially when there are so few of them.

Top

rowanalpha

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:14 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:31 am
Posts: 88

And while the armor does represent crew survivability, their first and primary defence, against direct fire weaponry anyway, are still the shields. I cannot understand why they limited them on the ships that carry the cream, the elite of the Emperor's forces especially when there are so few of them.

Here we get into the fuzzier realm of game balance. A standard battlebarge is more heavily armored than a battleship, but mounts less shields and turrets. The reality is that the battlebarge is not any more or less fragile than a battleship, its just that it makes barges better tagets for lances and battleships better targets for weapons batteries.

Comparatively, imagine if 40k spacemarines had a 4+ inv save instead of 3+ armor. Heavy weapons would have a harder time cracking them, but massed small arms would become more effective. The same principal of balancing vulnerabilities applies here.

Also, I believe your lance conversions are skewed. It should be closer to Str 1,60 cm = Str 1.5,45 cm = Str 2,30 cm.

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:15 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

Unfortunately, there are no str 3 lances at 45 cm so usually, we follow whole number conventions. That means 1.5 lance will translate to 2. The Executor or Acheron would be fairly representative.

Now as to saving throws of SM, this is a case where 40k does not translate well to BFG. In 40k there is a to hit roll and a to save roll and there is where the armor/invul save comes in. In BFG there are no saves other than BFI and those inherent to a race like the Necrons or Eldar. When something hits in BFG, damage occurs immediately.

Hence there really is no invul save in BFG . The only protection one has against direct weapon fire are first the shields and second, the armor. Even the shields are not that effective against lances as they will get hit on a 4+ compared to WBs fire that will depend on the armor facing them. If this is the case then, why would SMs have weaker shields than IN? We have no issue with the armor anymore. Just the shields. They are supposed to have the best and making them at par with IN's shields will not in any way make them more powerful than the IN especially since IN have sturdier vessels (more HP) and have more weapons especially at longer ranges.

The balancing factor to my suggestion for SM having better shield is that the SMs weapons are inherently inefficient (having equal or lesser broadsides or fewer AC or no access to lances) and notoriously short ranged. They can't shoot back for 2 turns on an average sized table. It is the approach phase where they are decimated. Even if one ups the shields of the BB to 4 and SC to 2, mass enough ships with lances and those shields will go down. This doesn't even take into account the AC. So, better defenses in exchange for weak offense. Seems like a fair trade off for me.

Top

Hellebore

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:04 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:20 am
Posts: 50

I think if you lowered the cost of the VBB upgrade and changed the conversion of lances to BC from 1.5 to a straight 1 it would be better.

When doing points conversions making it as simple as possible makes it more easily acceptable.

hellebore

_________________
Torpedoes a Go-Go Cap'n!

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:32 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

Can't be 1:1. A lance is much better at hitting, especially at long ranges and while the BC may be as good, they are not that efficient, hence it follows the WB table and short ranged. To get the equivalent of Str 2 lances, it must have FP3 on closing and moving away cap ships and FP5 for abeam. For Escorts, one needs FP3 for closing, FP5 for moving away and FP8 for abeam. So it cannot really be a direct conversion.

Top

rowanalpha

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:45 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:31 am
Posts: 88

Now as to saving throws of SM, this is a case where 40k does not translate well to BFG. In 40k there is a to hit roll and a to save roll and there is where the armor/invul save comes in. In BFG there are no saves other than BFI and those inherent to a race like the Necrons or Eldar. When something hits in BFG, damage occurs immediately.

I apologize, I don't think my metaphor was clear. Consider shields as the "invulnerable save" and armour value as the "armor save". By increasing one and decreasing the other, the ship (or Space marine) does not become that much more or less tough, it(he) just survives some attacks better and some attacks worse than previously. Its a probability adjustment. The reason I say there should be a reduction in shields and turrets when we raise the armour value is that if we did not, the ship would become prohibitively expensive.

Remember, the ships armour value directly affects how many shields will be knocked down by weapons batteries and how many bombers will actually hit the ship. For gameplay, you don't WANT to make a ship that is completely invulnerable because that would be no fun to play against.

True, it does make logical sense that the imperium would want its shock troops to be as well protected as possible, but the guys who designed the game decided the battlebarges would be too tough for play with 4 shields and turrets.

Look at it this way: The standard barge is 425 points with 3 shields and 3 turrets. If it went to 4 and 4, the ship would have to sustain 33% more damage befor taking hull damage, and ordnance would be 33% less affective against it. This means that, to balance, the ships cost would have to increase 100 points, if not more.

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:22 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

I don't think the Barge would be tough to play against having 4 shields and 4 turrets. Armor here is misleading. The massed lances that people use against it makes sure the barge (or SC) will take damage because lances roll 4+ to hit no matter what the armor. Unbalanced? Maybe but that is the experience of any SM player. They get hurt in the approach phase. 3 shields for the Barge and 1 for the SC are not enough. Also note the invul save here are not the shields. It's the BFI save but that comes with a price, halving your weapons.

Consider also that the Barge is around 105 overpriced as it is (Xabre and I have done the math. The SC comes out ok). With the 4/4 upgrade, it would be "only" 90 points over. The 4 shields and 4 turrets should be included in the existing standard battle barge. 100 points is what you claim should be added right? Well there it is.

Why the discrepancy? Because the SM weapons are notoriously short ranged. At the proper 60 cm ranges for the battle barge which is a battleshio sized vessel, that would cover the 90-105 points but since the WBs are only 45 cm and the BCs at 30 cm, that's where the difference lies primarily.

Adding those will not make the ship invulnerable and in the end a player with good tactics will either concentrate his fire in the approach phase on the SCs first or the Barge. When either is gone, the player can then concentrate on what's remaining. By the way, that is standard anti-SM tactic.

Making the 4 shield and 4 turrets standard for the barge and 2 shields for the SC will then balance out the playing field, letting the SM player at least enjoy his BFG experience (especially since High Admiralty will never be given their own 8hp cruiser). As it is, currently for an SM player to be competitive, he either has to use the Armageddon fleet list or the severely broken Dominion list so he can include IN cruisers. He already has shorter and fewer weapons. To balance it out, they should be able to defend themselves better. It's that logical.

Top

Hellebore

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:24 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:20 am
Posts: 50

Yeah, but I am a big advocate of EASE of use, making conversions of 1.5 simply puts people off, as it is (slightly) more difficult than using whole numbers.

If you lower the UPGRADE cost, that should artificially balance the inequal conversion.

I think that it would probably just be easier if you wrote new ship designs instead of attempting a messy conversion system- simply convert them first, then write them up, calling them Emperor class Venerable Battle Barge etc.

hellebore

_________________
Torpedoes a Go-Go Cap'n!

Top

rowanalpha

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:37 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:31 am
Posts: 88

Also note the invul save here are not the shields. It's the BFI save but that comes with a price, halving your weapons

Actually, a shield is a form of invulnerable save. A Battlebarge will automatically save the first three wounds it suffers each turn before it is actually damaged. Take this into consideration.

If a ship has 5+ armour and 4 shields, it should take (statistically) 12 weapons battery dice to knock down the shields and then the ship will suffer one point of damage for every 3 dice after that. The battle barge, by comparison, with its 6+ armour and 3 shields needs 18 battery dice to knock all of the shields down and 6 more to cause each point of hull damage.

Now what if the barge had 4 shields? It would take 30 dice to cause 1 point of damage, where the average battleship would take 6 points of damage from the same 30 dice.

Next consider lances, the math here is easier. A 5+ armor, 4 shield battleship suffers 1 point of damage if 10 lances are fired at it, where the barge will suffer 2 from the same attack. But increase the shields to 4, and it takes the same damage. By taking the barge to 4/4, it retains double the standard battleship's resilience to weapons batteries but matches the battleship's capacity for lance damage.

The crux of the arguement it this: The SM fleet, as a matter of being different than the Imperial Navy has different strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that it is less vulnerable to weapons batteries but its weakness is that it is more vulnerable to lances. That's not bad news, and its not good news, its just the news. If you're not willing to play within the contraints for a fleet's design, don't play the fleet.

Its the same reason necrons have no ordnance, that eldar ships are made of tissue paper, and that Tyranid ships all move 15 cm. The SM fleet is not defecient, it simply requires more awareness of its facets to play than the Imperial navy. If you look at this as a challenge to be overcome rather than a problem to be fixed, you will be more successful.

Top

Admiral d'Artagnan

Post subject: Venerable Battle Barges

Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:08 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:56 pm
Posts: 238

Sorry, we have a different view of the saves. The shields in the game are, to me, not a form of invul save. It just depends on how easy one can get hit. WBs are affected by armor, lances aren't affected by anything. Think of it as one having a better AP value than the other. They both do damage when they hit however. It's just easier to do with lances. And this is the reason why SMs are easy to defeat. Their opponents just bring lances. Unless you can change that trend, SMs will always be at the short end of the stick. As I said, BFI is the equivalent of the Invul save here because it will save against any damage much like the Invul save in 40k.

If people would bring a balanced fleet, I would only have a problem with the costing. However, against a Chaos opponent that can bring a whole slew of lances, the Barge will take heavy damage by turn 2 or 3 unless it BFIs.

This is one of the problem. Another is the cost. As I said, the barge is overcosted by 105 points. What to do with the overcosted barge? Might as well give it the extra shield and turret. Why? Because even if you do so, it's still overcosted by 90 points. If you really want to retain the 3 shields and 3 turrets, then better lower the points to something reasonable.

Now when you say don't play the fleet if you don't like the constraints, this is what turns people off. BFG is supposed to be a balanced game. When a fleet loses majority of the time, there obviously is a problem (just like Orks have a problem and DE have a problem). It is not as simple as saying the SMs are better vs WBs and vulnerable to lances. You also have to take other considerations into account.

Fact: SMs do not and will never have 8 HP cruisers as standard. An SM cruiser will get crippled after 3 hits. They have short ranged weapons and not enough of them. The IN while it may have weaker armor have more survivable cruisers, not to mention the NC which while inaacurate will do damage when it does hit.

Fact: SMs are not as resilient as the Necrons. Sure they both may have 6+ armor but Necrons have a built in armor save. The Necrons have an 8 HP cruiser. The Necron's BFI save also improves to 2+ when used. The Necron's weapons are more efficient, even if they don't have AC. The Necrons move waaaaaaaay better than any SM could hope to be. The Necron can decimate the SM if it wanted to. There is not much chance of SM defeating the Necron. The best the SM can hope for is to drive it off. There is no comparison between the SM and the Necrons. Do the necrons have any other problems other than their VP table? Uh no.

As for the other races you mention, sure, Nids move at 15. But when you go up against a monstrosity with 14 HP and 6 spores (or was it 7) that also act as turrets and are not reduced in anyway when absorbing damage and taking down AC, what are you going to do? And all those ordnance and escorts. Nids counter the weakness of their slow speed with numbers. When a table is flooded, there isn't much place for an SM to go. Any other problems the Nids have? Uh no.

Eldar. Sure tissue paper. But can you hit them? The move, shoot and then move back to hide behind celestial phenomena. You do play with phenomena right? If not, then, try it and see how badly SM fares against Eldar and their notorious pulsar lances. Any other problems Eldar have? Uh no.

Fact: SMs have shorter ranged weapons. The farthest they have is a 45 cm FP12 WB. The BCs while efficient, are also weaker than the WBs in firepower yet are affected the same as WBs when it comes to BMs and one has a priority fire problem with them. Which do you fire first? WBs or BCs? The other races do not have this problem. [Edit: I forgot, there is one other race that has this problem: Orks and their Heavy Gunz.]

Fact: The TH, while on paper should be at par with the other races when it comes to total squadrons, the truth is they die half the time because of one needs to roll 4+ for it to survive. They are also more of H&R so will not really do direct damage to a ship unless it rolls a 6.

Fact: The SMs cannot match their opponent when it comes to number of ships on the table. Sure SC are cheap at 145 but not really that cheap as well. Less than an Escort difference between it an IN regular cruiser. Much less when it comes to Chaos. Bring in a barge and the amount of ships become a lot worse because of its price. But what can you do? Either you bring in a lot of SCs which die easily or the Barge which while survivable is not even that survivable.

This is the crux of the matter: The SMs have a lot of problems. A lot more problems than the other races have in total. The stats of their ships are not reflected in their fluff as "heavily armored and well shielded". Their "primarily role is to transport, deliver and provide suppression to facilitate planetary assault". How can they do this when they are dead by the time they reach the planet? The Barge is supposed to be "comparable to an Emperor class battleship, its lower acceleration and closer ranged weapons weighing off against superior armor and shields". Explain to me how 3 shields are superior to 4. It's not so much to ask for the additional shield for the SC and BB and additional turret for the latter.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

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

Jump to:

Venerable Battle Barges

Who is online