Jump to content

Sky_Admiral

Member
  • Content Count

    2,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Sky_Admiral

  1. That is correct. Unless something changed since I have been gone. Given that you are wanting to play primarily with a Veydreth force, you certainly can and should do so. The added Vulnerable trait for the gunships shouldn't be too much of a deterrent; it isn't that overpowering/defeating. And I strongly encourage you to field full squadrons whenever you can, and even more so with these gunships. By design, these ships have double mines which can further be impressed upon and buffed up, which would allow them to be overly effective at what they are designed to do - lay mines, or double mines against small ships, and then unleash fire in 3 directions. This is why I believe them to be the most effective flankers that the True Alliance forces have access to. These ships come more into their own when you field larger fleets, say 1,200pts and above. The frigates can also lay mines, up to a Mine 12 if I am correct, but are rather costly per ship for that one trait. (something like 30pts apiece, right?) Anyways, have fun, put your roster together and roll some dice. And kill Zenian scum wherever you encounter them. Kill first, ask questions later. No problem. I ain't selling nuthin'. PS: good to "see" you around.
  2. If you are aiming at gaming 1,200pts, I would strongly encourage you to go with a Dreadnought from another ally. You will be seriously handicapped if you run a fleet without a heavy hitter, and a single BB will not stand up that well against an equally sized fleet with a Dreadnought+BB+other capitals.... As I posted above, I don't believe that Alliance races are able to stand on even ground against Core races (or other Alliance races as well) if they go mono-Alliance ships. My experience told me that they aren't able to shine, other gamers in my group were of the same opinion. In our campaign we made several tweaks to the rules and added notable changes that helped us, for example, have varied sized fleets go against one another and rules that attempted to address the inequalities of the Large ships vs Mediums and Smalls. I will PM those to you if you care to read them, but I will not post them here because a self-righteous beta tester will surely come on and cry foul. (something that has occurred several times on these forums) You can always take any game, including this one, and add or remove various rules to make it more compatible to a higher denominator; your gaming group. This was certainly our case and our tweaks worked out nicely. Not perfectly, which is a standard high to reach, but nicely. (for example, gaming battles where 1,200pt fleets went up against 800pt fleets with a simple Victory Point modification that allowed the smaller fleet to achieve victory is simply beautiful to see on the tabletop. Believe me)
  3. @AD While both fleets you posted seem plausible, I strongly believe that all of the Alliance races, regardless if they are Kurak or Zenian or whatever, need to combine forces with other Alliance races in order to be effective as compared to the Core races. Let me explain a bit: When I played the Kurak Alliance, I gamed with Tarakian, Xelocian, Hawker and Ruyshi squadrons, at various point levels ranging from 400 - 1800pts, in various scenarios (we had 8 different scenarios in our campaign). When I did field a single Alliance race (for instance all Hawker), the fleet was missing something. That "something" was the loss of variety that robbed me from better utilizing my squadrons against my opponents in the longterm. All of my opponents played Core races, with Terrans, Relthoza, Dindrenzi and Aquans being the most common opponent that I went up against in nearly 20 battles. In all of those battles, when I did bring a variable Alliance force that consisted of squadrons from many Alliance races, I tended to do much better and secure at the very least a tie if not an outright win.... In other battles, when I fielded a single Alliance race, I tended to do poorly and generally lost the battle irrespective of the size (point value) of the battle. In my strong opinion, the Alliance races need all types of playing pieces (think of it as chess pieces of sort) in order to befuddle, confuse and ultimately force your opponent to keep guessing as to your force composition and its battle goals throughout the game. By simply having a number of different races on the tabletop, you are able to (through forced or unforced means) exert more pressure and sow more discord among your enemies. At least that was my experience. Your all Veydreth force is good (while I would yell at you for not taking Gunships which are the ultimate flankers afforded to the True Alliance forces), but to make them more competitive try looking toward a more combined race approach in this matter. Just a few thoughts.
  4. As of 3 February, 9 posters have urged me to "come back to the forums"... and I still don't care to share thoughts with those quiet ones and those who are not a fan...

  5. As of 3 February, 9 posters have urged me to "come back to the forums"... and I don't care to share thoughts with those quiet ones and those who are not a fan...

  6. As of today, 9 posters have urged me to "come back to the forums"... and I don't care to share thoughts with those quiet ones and those who are not a fan...

  7. As of today, 9 posters have urged me to "come back to the forums"... minus quiet ones and those who are not a fan....

  8. Farewell Firestorm! I am going to miss you all!!! :)

    1. Kaptyn Krys

      Kaptyn Krys

      We'll miss you Sky! I'm sending another email, don't know if you got my last. Or email me (chris_smith2289@hotmail.com)

  9. No reddwarf, I am not arguing that he didn't write everything down. I wish I had better writing skills to write wheat I think or how to approach some topics. clearly, this is a great example of it. 100% possible. My argument was of..... never mind man. I just can't even see straight right now. MajorMcNicol- I will never post in any of your threads, nor argue any matter with you. And I never called you a liar or said your were incompetent in any given way. I am truly sorry for all of this.
  10. I had to go back and post my quote so that I can be sure what I stated. And as I reread this portion of my post, I clearly see it as the following: > I'm not attacking the messenger, the poster, nor calling him a liar > I'm not arguing the flow of battle by both sides and their ship movements or targeting, or some such > The Battle Station did have a role in the battle, and its role (in my opinion) was larger than I believe it had since in my experience, a Sorylian BB w/cruiser support cannot comfortably take on a heavy force such as an RSN DN and BB without heavy support from another element... and in my opinion, that must have been furbished by the battle station. While I can certainly be wrong in this instance and in other instances, I don't believe that my postings above qualify for someone being placed on an ignore list or being called a liar. I cannot even begin to imagine this, and even more so when you go read some of the most heated debates on these forums that we have witnessed in the last few months. Man.... I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing paint.
  11. Anything is possible. Did the Sorylians get lucky? Of course they did and that is pretty much stated by the author of the thread. (Im not attacking that nor am I attacking MajorMcNicol, nor am I calling him a liar in any given way) Did he have some good dice rolls? Absolutely possible, and again, he stated so in his bat rep. Is he a good tactician? Most definitely.... And Im sure that he can crush me like a grape if we ever went head-to-head.... But I was never attacking him or his gaming. (this is going to become a crazy set of arguments based on circular logic.... I'm too stupid to engage in a comprehension argument as I will always lose due to my lack of writing skills.... ) However, what did set you off?..... I have never seen so much emotion from you aimed at anyone on these forums. Ever. So what was the cause of your anger reddwarf? (You are probably having poll withdrawal and need another Sky poll) And what is equally baffling to me is that not even 2 weeks ago you agreed with me, as well as 2 other posters, that battle stations are underpriced by a certain percentage (I believe you posted something along the lines of 10-20%, though I may be wrong as I didn't commit that to memory), yet here you are excluding my angle of argument (that battle stations are undercosted) and attacking my opinions and my stance on the abilities of the Sorylian BB, and then saying that I am calling him (MMN) a liar...... Again reddwarf, I have yet to see the same level of productivity out of a Sorylian force that had an equivalent composition of force: A BB, squadron of medium cruisers, and a squadron of 5 frigates..... unless you include a battle station, which is more than capable of taking on a DN single-handedly and give it a run for its money.... I had no intent to hurt, call names, or assault anyone over this. I try to compartmentalize my thoughts (concerning the BB and its faults), but some posters seem to relish an opportunity to take a swipe at others and "get back at them" for holding said opinions. And oh my reddwarf, I thought we were buddies. I'm hurt.
  12. Obviously my English escapes me and I'm not speaking English today. There are so many layers that I must peel back in addressing the confusion that is currently being growing on this thread is many. Let me see if I can give it a shot. Guys, I am not calling anyone a liar. Period. (talk about being blindsided) I honestly don't understand where anyone is getting that from. I don't understand where MajorMcNicol is getting that, assuming that he believes I am calling him a liar, nor did I attempt to paint him as someone who is presenting a one-sided story for the some unfathomable gain. He gamed a battle, posted a bat rep, and those who read it (as I did) form their own opinions. I formed my own opinion as well, as others I'm sure did. (am I the only one who holds an opinion?) However, I am not calling him a liar or someone who is furthering an agenda. I've played Sorylians and I have a good understanding of the fleet and the tactics that the race uses. Add to this the 4 different battles that I have witnessed When I stated above What are you talking about??? I stated, as I began my post, that the BattleStation did more damage than we could imagine. Why? Because a single BB, in combination with a 3-ship cruiser squadron, cannot take on and defeat an RSN DN and RSN BB. Why do I state that? In my experience, I have never seen a Sorylian BB accomplish I understand that the MajorMcNicol was the one who gamed the battle, I understand it went down as it went down. My only point of contention was that the battle station, during the heat of combat and record keeping and gaming, might have played a larger role than posted by MajorMcNicol. (note; that is not equivalent to calling someone a liar. Not in my book and not in the English department in most colleges) The RSN ships are well designed. The RSN DN is well designed. The RSN BB is more than capable of handling a Sorylian BB, and has done so in at least one bat rep on these forums. (ask an RSN player about the abilities of their ships and you might get a counter opinion that might not follow your own opinion... it's possible) And yes, there is certainly a large amount of cognitive dissonance in my brain because the Sorylian BB can NOT commonly do this. I know because I have tried, against various races, and have failed. Unless I am a 100% idiot (which is a high probability, since I am obviously itching to pick a fight with persons that I haven't met on a gaming site), I just can't see how a battle station didn't contribute more than it did; that is such a high level of uncommon belief as a Sorylian player that I must degrade the capabilities of the BB due to my own experience. (and thus, in my mind, the battle station must have had a larger role than the poster recounts.... remember, he is gaming and is in the heat of combat, in the thick of it.... is it possible that he might have placed a higher emphasis on the abilities of the mobile fleet as compared to the battle station?) But Jesus Christ, I am not calling him a liar. Lastly, just when did some of us come up with this "holier than thou" attitude? I was told to go to hell in a post and nothing came of it.... I was told that my opinion didn't matter in a post and nothing came of it.... Now, I express an opinion that a given composition of ships aren't commonly capable of taking on and defeating an enemy force as presented in this bat rep (in my experience, thus the missing element - the BattleStation, must have lent more support to the battle), and what happens next? ..... Incredible. Then we have zaknafan, who out of nowhere comes on and quotes a single line and attacks my opinions of battle stations, since he has continually argued that battle stations are "well balanced," decides to ignore me. Wait, what? I am lost as to.... well, he has decided that someone who holds a counter opinion must be ignored.... (I should have told him that I didn't care what he said first...) Baffling.
  13. What??? Ok. Do as you seem fit. It seems that presenting an opinion counter to yours is out of bounds.
  14. Ok, we are talking over one another here. Please re-read my post above, especially the part where I said I am not wishing to attack the messenger in any manner. I am saying that the BattleStation's abilities seem to have been understated. (I can't see a single BB taking on an RSN Dreadnought and RSN BB single-handedly and coming out on top....)
  15. It wasn't meant as a disparaging point of criticism. It's just that a single Heavy Cruiser commonly acts as a magnet for AD when the given squadron is being shot at.... so, what's the point? If I am going to shoot at a squadron and have maneuvered to do so, what does it matter if the target is either a heavy or 'regular' cruiser? Yeah, the heavy commonly has an additional point of Hull and a higher CR, but, in the larger scheme of things, if said heavy gets 'blowed up' or seriously crippled by a volley, it doesn't make a difference in the larger picture. (again, in my opinion) I feel that SG should have allowed for cruiser mixing which would have actually added another layer of strategical thought. But, whatever.
  16. Which will take it into the realm of broken. If any of my opponents (well, there is only one Terran player) tried pulling that &@#! with me, I won't be a model of tranquility at the club that given night.
  17. I suspect that the BattleStation did more damage than we are being led to believe. (direct and indirect) Simply stated, if a DN and a BB went up against a composite force of a Sorylian BattleStation and a BB, I find it hard to believe that the role of the BattleStation is not elevated above merely doling a few Hull Points of damage and sponging up a number of hits. A psychological weapon it is, and it can be, but I just have trouble understanding the true effects of the BattleStation since the Sorylians clearly "won" the battle versus a tough, well designed Dreadnought + BB. Let me be clear and state that I am not wishing to attack the messenger, nor am I wanting to split hairs over this report and dissect each ships' movement/targeting or such. This report, in my mind, further solidifies the overbearing abilities (which might have been "psychological" as well in this battle, sure) of Battle Stations in games under 1,200pts. Call it what you will, but this game is even more "proof" that BattleStations are undercosted. (even though I don't find the Sorylian BattleStation offensively overly capable at long ranges due to its weapons layout)
  18. Since there have been so many questions asking about the length of games, I thought we might throw up a poll to gauge some feedback. As always, multiple answers are allowed.
  19. Have you gamed or have you seen a battle in which a pure fleet went against a lone BattleStation? If so, can you briefly discuss the battle?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.