you missed the part where they only were a sticks-and-stones civilization 6,000 years ago.
if you were in pre-civilization era vs. intergalactic superpower era you would ally to.

besides, you wont admit that they require more talent.

In the table top game?

Not exactle MORE skill, but different skill. Just as the Eldar take skill, the Guard take skill and the CSM take skill and, though some might say otherwise, even the space marines take skill. It's just a different strategy.

well here we go, someone who always insists that everything is equal

What game?

DOW or the table top?

I'd be the last person to agree with GW's "balancing".
there's a reason they're up to (I think) 5th edition with WH40k and 7th with WH, and it's not the extra content... Every WH40k player knows that, while all sides are equal, some are more equal then others



firstly, the tabletop, but I guess the same goes for DoW.

Crawling back on topic...
Wait, I don't have anything to add about the topic.....

Well in the tabeltop I would say everything is equal, though I personally think that Eldar do take the most skill to play in that game.

Boy this thread is turning into a veritable Animal Farm.

i think ive forgotten what the topic was.........

What was it again?  

Mwahahahahaha!!! Look at the direction I've made this thread go in!

OK. Someone should man-up and put this thread back on track. To sum up the relevant notion in this thread simply put it is general opinion that the Kol suffers from GID and the developers have responded with guarded interest and are likely considering a makeover. It has also been suggested to allow the players to add fleet numbers to the ship in the same fashion as scaring is done.

I know that this is an older post, and I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I was thinking about it while I was constructing Kol battleships on the beta the other day and wondered if anyone out there was still thinking it should undergo a design change. I once would have agreed that it needed a change, but after actually seeing it ingame, I feel that it should be left as is (although everytime I say that a ship design is good, it gets changed (  )

As it is, its appearance balances both grace and power, demonstrating that it was designed from the ground up not just for combat, but as the flagship of the TEC fleet. It's decidedly plain and functional look shows that it was created by a civilization that had to quickly come up with a very efficient warship during a time of crisis. Last, but not least, I view the Kol as the iconic ship of the TEC fleet. I'm sure, although I could be mistaken, that I'm not the only one who thinks so. For me, when I think of TEC, I think of the Kol. That sillouett over the sins logo is (if you watch the trailer that was released long ago you'll see) the Kol.

I know that the design may still be changed, and each new ship design is seems better than the last, but I hope that there is very, very careful consideration before anyone changes the Kol battlecruiser, flagship of the TEC fleet!

Your opinion is irrelevant. Unless its on the Kol's... "sissyness"

I totally agree that the KOL model is lacking. I suspect that most of us really don't like those 4 'laser' prongs/antenna on the front. I also don't like how they look like spinal mounted lasers, but can fire at full power in all directions (sometimes even through their own hull?!?). If they are going to work like turreted lasers, maybe they should be replaced by something that would look like 4 actual turreted lasers.

The KOL hangers are also a bit crappy. Maybe it should only have 1 or 2 more sleeker hangers on the side.

Of course, they could just rip off that ultra cool looking Starship Troopers model shown in one of the above posts and slap on some armor and guns. Now that would be a drool worthy replacement for either the KOL or the Sova Carrier.

Sova is fine, actually looks like a carrier, leave it alone. The marza on the other hand could definately use a sleeker look.

You are right, the Sova is alright. My only tiny complaint is that it should be a little bit wider.

I think they have a perfect model for the Light Carrier though.

Yes and Yes, good points!

id love to see the Kol as something a little bigger with something similar looking and sounding to the gauss cannons mounted on the spine...make it look like a true battleship

The kol has a kind of resemblance to a B5 Omega with out the rotating segment, Complete with a win of smaller craft, beam weapons and the like.
Not bad, but I still do not get the weapon differential, Energy weapons and projectiles and missiles have Very different characteristics and what we get is just really different graphics.

But I really do not understand why BIG and “nasty” looking = powerful . . Possibly I am too old and have found out long ago it is the ones that do not “look” nasty are the ones you may have to look out for.
Technologies change . bigger does not necessarily mean nastier. In the time where a gun was a gun and to scale up one meat more room for the warhead of normal explosive, or range, penetration etc. Now a days when weapon tech is going in all different directions. A bigger explosion may mean just a wasted explosion (much better to focus a smaller explosive on the target. Instead of a big gun warhead, replace that with a super hard and dense material launched a many times the speed (kinetic weapon) Size is not important Speed is. Missiles extend the range of combat greatly, and beyond the range of guns of ANY size with as much or more hitting power, etc etc etc

I have gotten rather sick of every space game being WWII in space (I guess I have George Lucas to thank for that since he based all of his space opera ships/fighters on WWII and made that idea popular) I predict that any true space combat (if we ever get there) will be as unlike Naval combat as Naval combat is entirely different from ground and air. (sorry my little rant)

Anyone with half a brain knows that Problem is, until we actually have to deal with space combat, we have NO CLUE what tactics are going to end up effective. We can theorize... but without any real purpose / funding behind it, its not going to be very good.

I don't like the 4 feeler cannons too.

Perhaps it should be made like Tyber Zann's ship from Empire at War: Forces of Corruption:
It's basically a ship with a big cannon in it's hull!

I dont know if this was mentiond before, but the KOL looks like it was based on the Colonial Marine ship in Aliens.
I love the Kol design, it looks primitiv, which is what i like.

I like the look of the Kol, it reflects the Trader mindset: 'Right, we're in our first war for a millenium. NOW WHAT THE HELL DO WE DO???'

Hahaha, love it.

"Anyone with half a brain knows that Problem is, until we actually have to deal with space combat, we have NO CLUE what tactics are going to end up effective. We can theorize... but without any real purpose / funding behind it, its not going to be very good."

But, really do they? Why do people latch onto Strangely romantic / Pop fiction WWII naval combat ?? people assume what is will be . . . the military is always relearning that one.
Tech at the time makes ALL of the difference and we can make guesses (for one 2d water is different from 3d space in size, viscosity, freedom of movement etc ). We could be quite sure space combat will have NO resemblance to naval combat. . Which my point was that most games (and movies after star wars) seem to model it after .. Heck they do not even model it after modern naval warfare . . which is all about Sensors, stealth, stand off weapons (planes, missiles). . Fleets would never get close though to use guns. It is like portraying Roman legion combat to modern armor and mobile cav combat of today there are some similarities but they are more in vague ground war concepts then real practice.

Also, in space size has nothing to do with top speed (unless some strange tech drive is used ) The biggest and smallest ships could easy hit the same speeds, Acceleration though . . that is the problem and that has more to do the mass then size. And ships will need to use energy to slow down also not something Naval ships would need to do . . Tactics then change even with these small differences. Battleships could match the speed of fighters if given an opportunity to build up speed A fleet with enough speed could blaze through a system too fast for even the fastest ship to catch (the main problems here is having fighting ships enter a similar relative vector “window” where they could get more then one snap shot off as they pass each other at crazy speeds) and so on . . . rather interesting stuff . .but all dropped for WWII.