Charg'H weapon change

posted on December 6th, 2010, 5:30 pm

I'd like to start a discussion about the Charg'H, a ship class I rarely see in online games. I thought: what's so bad about that ship, that it isn't used? It has a nice special, a nice passive and stats and costs are okay, too.

I made two observations:
first, the Vor'cha has an anti short range passive already and gets less increased damage from long range than Charg'H. Hmm, well that's the way it is, I don't think it could be changed that easily and I'm okay with it, so the Charg'h is some kind of cheap Vor'cha that is earlier in the tech tree and TaQ'Roja only.

second, and that's what I'd like to discuss, is the torpedoes only weaponry. Many short ranged ships are rather small(Intrepid, S-2, Defiant, Scube, B'rel, K'Vort ...). Larger ships, the Charg'h really is useful against are the B-5, the Lus'pet, the Bor'taS and the Negh'Var. Don't know what you think but I don't see those very often, they are all late game stuff. If I do I am usually able to build Vor'chas already.

So, I suggest to change the weaponry to something else than torpedoes.
What would happen?
if it is a beam:
positive arguments: nice against all kinds of stuff, never misses
negative arguments: even closer to Vor'cha, maybe too strong

if it gets pulse weapons(and that's what I'm thinking of):
positive arguments: nice against BoP's, S-2's , partly Intrepids, Scubes
negative arguments: bad against the mentioned large stuff(but you may take the Vor'cha against those )

The result would be a Taq'Roja only anti short range ship, that is quite unused right now.
What do you think about this?

posted on December 6th, 2010, 6:29 pm

I doubt there's anything inherently 'wrong' with the ship (not counting any balance complaints that may appear). It's most likely unused because people prefer the other ships more. I like the little Torp-centred ship, though maybe getting a passive to help with small ships with rank would help?

Where did Charg'H come from, anyway? It's Chargh. People are too obsessed with random capitals in Klingon names... The avatar is also called TaQ'roja.

[RedEyedRaven]

posted on December 6th, 2010, 6:48 pm

Last edited by RedEyedRaven on December 6th, 2010, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Char'gh is a powerful vessel in fact. I often use it when I play klingon, and it does extremely well against bigger ships (heavy torps) and because of it's passives it deals alot of damage to most short-ranged vessels. They are vulnerable themselves though, but usually they take out any short-ranged ships early enough to escape. Use them against Intrepids, Monsoons, Kvorts, Brels, Susa's, Leahvals. Also use them against big battleships which aren't medium-ranged (especially when your Chargh has reached the officer rank).

The miss-rate really doesn't hurt the Chargh against small short-rangers. Every single hit is painful to them.

Edit:

first, the Vor'cha has an anti short range passive already

Dude, the Vor'cha-passive only increases the defense against short-ranged attacks. The beam-weapon of the Vor'cha doesn't deal extra-damage to short-rangers, but the Chargh's torpedoes do. The Vor'cha is a backbone, the Chargh is a good attacker with low defense.

if it gets pulse weapons(and that's what I'm thinking of):

If it gets pulse-weapons I'd like to never build it again. It would do reduced damage to cruisers and battleships and would lose the value of it's current officer-rank-passive (increased damage to battleships which would be eliminated by giving it pulse-weaponry).

posted on December 6th, 2010, 9:24 pm

@Tyler: I took the writing from the guide, is there anything wrong with it? And by the way, capital letters really matter in Klingon, I read the dictionary a little bit.

The Char'gh is a powerful vessel in fact. I often use it when I play klingon, and it does extremely well against bigger ships (heavy torps) and because of it's passives it deals alot of damage to most short-ranged vessels. They are vulnerable themselves though, but usually they take out any short-ranged ships early enough to escape. Use them against Intrepids, Monsoons, Kvorts, Brels, Susa's, Leahvals. Also use them against big battleships which aren't medium-ranged (especially when your Chargh has reached the officer rank).

The miss-rate really doesn't hurt the Chargh against small short-rangers. Every single hit is painful to them.

Hmm, interesting. Intrepids and K'Vorts are antimedium, small and fast, I must say I'm sceptic if you are really successful with Charg'H here.
Edit:

Dude, the Vor'cha-passive only increases the defense against short-ranged attacks. The beam-weapon of the Vor'cha doesn't deal extra-damage to short-rangers, but the Chargh's torpedoes do. The Vor'cha is a backbone, the Chargh is a good attacker with low defense.

Of course the Vor'Cha has a defense passive, I know that. It was pointed out somewhere that defensive passives work better though, due to the fact that they are considered before offensive passives. Plus its beams do always hit, everything.


If it gets pulse-weapons I'd like to never build it again. It would do reduced damage to cruisers and battleships and would lose the value of it's current officer-rank-passive (increased damage to battleships which would be eliminated by giving it pulse-weaponry).
You have a point with its officer rank passive though.

[Tyler]

posted on December 6th, 2010, 9:32 pm

Last edited by Tyler on December 6th, 2010, 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Tyler: I took the writing from the guide, is there anything wrong with it? And by the way, capital letters really matter in Klingon, I read the dictionary a little bit.

They're spelt Chargh and TaQ'roja in the game, making that how to spell them correctly.

And I know all about the Klingons weird lettering style, and they don't have it in every word (B'rel isn't spelt B'rEl for example). 'Following the dictionary' and 'random capitals all over the place' aren't the same thing.

posted on December 6th, 2010, 9:55 pm

Of course the Vor'Cha has a defense passive, I know that. It was pointed out somewhere that defensive passives work better though, due to the fact that they are considered before offensive passives. Plus its beams do always hit, everything.

I proposed this, but it's not quite correct.  Anti-long and anti-short defensive passives reduce damage by 50%, or divide the damage they would take by 2.  Their offensive counter parts increase their damage by 50%, or 1.5.  So defensive passives are stronger numerically in terms of their quantitative effect.  There are certainly some vessels, like the Brel, where it wouldn't hurt to increase their damage bonus to long ranged vessels by a factor of 2 instead of 1.5.  I'm hoping that weapon fatigue would do something like that sometime, as I'd much prefer them to be really really good vs anti longs than they are currently, even if for a short duration.

As far as the chargh goes, keep in mind that pulses and torpedoes do 20% extra base damage than beams do, so they're not terrible.  Remember that the passives don't immediately mean that a vessel is a direct counter, but sometimes shore up a weakness that a unit has.

Take Monsoon vs. Chargh, for example.  Normally, a torpedo vessel will miss 40% of the time.  So the Chargh is only 60% effective vs the monsoon.  But with Fast Tracking weapons, it's at least 90% effective in terms of hit rate. (150% x .6 =90% effective).  It's actually a little better than this when you add in the damage comparisons.  Contrast this to the Sang, which will not handle the monsoon at all.   Also, it has a tractor beam that will halt fleeing ships in their tracks, so you don't actually have to be faster than anything.

Try doing KBQ + Chargh.  With some KBQ's tanking for your Charghs, things tend to work out quite nicely.  And getting the tractor beam opens up the possibility of making Vorcha and doing Qawduj research.  

posted on December 6th, 2010, 9:58 pm

"Chargh" is "(to) conquer" in Klingon.. or is it Klingonese?

And TaQ'roja is a name. Capital letters have to do with pronounciation

Qapla'!

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:01 pm

"Chargh" is "(to) conquer" in Klingon.. or is it Klingonese?

It's 'klingonese'.

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:03 pm

So long as when you say it, it's as guttural as possible, then it doesn't matter how you spell it.

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:03 pm

Just a few corrections - Scout Cubes, Defiants, and Intrepids are medium sized, not small

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:06 pm

I'm glad to be referring to short-ranged and not small-sized targets. Why didn't Janeway face a dozen of Charghs when Voyager returned home? Makes me feel unsatisfied with the ending <.<

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:10 pm

Haha, Voyager should have ended with a nanoprobe infecting Janeway, in a similar manner like it did for Picard in his dream during First Contact.  Then immediately cut to black.

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:11 pm

Haha, Voyager should have ended with a nanoprobe infecting Janeway, in a similar manner like it did for Picard in his dream during First Contact.  Then immediately cut to black.

Agreed. Who needs cool klingon torpedoes which kill Intrepids fast when you can get Borg-nanoprobes and blackscreens. 

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:15 pm

Nanite infection and cutting to black leaves more room for sequels.

posted on December 6th, 2010, 10:18 pm

Nanite infection and cutting to black leaves more room for sequels.

Oh my moth... a Voyager-sequel? How awful could that actually become?