Official Errata from Mongoose?

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
Nerroth
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nerroth » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:23 pm

FC has no Command ratings; there is no overt rule stopping you from taking as many ships (of whatever class) as you like.

That said, if players in that game want to follow the "historical" command structures, the best recommendation is to turn to the setup you see in the likes of SFB and F&E. (In the latter case, the issue of each unit's command rating is crucial; no matter how many ships you deploy into a given hex on the strategic map, the amount that can actually take part in a given battle force is restricted based on various factors, not least the flagship's CR value.)

It's in those games where the likes of the D7C, C7 and C8 are so notable, in terms of their increased command-and-control facilities. As you can see in this Klingon Ship Information Table for F&E, the CR of the D7C is 9 (as compared to the D7's 8), while the C7 has a CR of 9 and the C8 10. These values are exactly in line with their equivalent units in Star Fleet (where the CC, BC and DN have CRs of 9, 9 and 10 respectively).

Had there been no use for a command bonus in ACtA:SF at all, it wouldn't matter; but since the effort was made to put it into the game, it's not in keeping with the source material for the likes of the D7C to provide a higher command bonus than the C7. Not least since part of the whole point of the C7's construction in the first place was to act as an improved command platform (which, while more expensive than a D7C, was still cheaper than another C8).
The above post is 100% unofficial.
User avatar
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Da Boss » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:40 pm

hmm ok - I can see exactly where you are coming from and its a pretty compelling argument :) Is it the same argument with the Kzinti Dreadnought

the C7 with Command+1 at 235 pts - might be interesting.
the C8 with Command +1 at 345 pts - again probably useable

In an ideal world I would prefer to have the option to have it with and without (and the D6 Command at 175pts 8) )
Sgt_G
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Sgt_G » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:41 pm

What Nerroth said, but with some history. The command rating was invented for F&E to make its combat system work, and then inserted into SFB where it accidently solved some issue in that game. All three games (SFB, F&E, FedCmdr) and also the background info for Prime Directive have been kept 100% consistant. If a ship in one game has "x" amount of phasers, it's the same in all games. F&E doesn't count phasers, obviously, just as FedCmdr doesn't use command ratings, but things that do translate over are kept same-same as much as can be achived. Some things in SFU are "set in stone", other things can be adjusted. The Fed CL having more hit-points in ACTA to simulate Armor in SFB / FedCmdr, for example. Once you explained that to SFB players, few if any have a problem it it.
Garth L. Getgen

The above post is my personal opinion; I do not work for ADB or Mongoose.
_______________________________________________________________
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:30 pm

In a game without boresight weapons where no-one has more than a basic +1/-2 initiative modifier, is a +1 initiative modifier all *that* important?

It seems fair that, to be consistent with the source materiel, *everyones* Heavy Battlecruisers and Dreadnoughts - and Battleships, when they appear - should have an initiative bonus.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see a 'race to the bottom' with each fleet trying to drag in cheaper and cheaper 'command ships' just because a handful of, for example, Kzinti or Gorn Command Light Cruisers existed as 'historical' footnotes in SFB.

On another thread, there was a discussion of a 'Limited Deployment' trait. If that is adopted, Command ships might be a suitable case for treatment.
Women and Captains first!
Asguard101
Mongoose
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:02 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Asguard101 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:58 pm

I'd think all Command Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Dreadnoughts, Battleships should have a command trait. But I don't think this is going to happen. What I would like to see happen is have the command trait to become a static value /w maybe 1 or 2 PH-2s becoming PH-1s or adding a PH-1 to ships that don't have PH-2s. And allow this to be purchased for one ship in your fleet when you are selecting ships. This would even work with low point games since there are FF and DD leaders in the SFU that have not crossed over to the Fed Com.
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:11 am

Asguard - the various Command (and other) variants already exist in the SFU. Some have enhanced weapons or shielding compared to their 'line' sisters. That's what the variant stat lines in the ACtA rulebook represent.

As I understand it, the contract between ADB and Mongoose specifies that the ships in ACtA:SF reflect their ADB originals (otherwise Paramount will become upset).

AFAIK that means there can't be any arbitrary 'let's bolt a few extra phasers on for 25 points' type modifications to ships in published Mongoose materiel.
Women and Captains first!
Asguard101
Mongoose
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:02 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Asguard101 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:10 am

Nomad wrote:Asguard - the various Command (and other) variants already exist in the SFU. Some have enhanced weapons or shielding compared to their 'line' sisters. That's what the variant stat lines in the ACtA rulebook represent.

As I understand it, the contract between ADB and Mongoose specifies that the ships in ACtA:SF reflect their ADB originals (otherwise Paramount will become upset).

AFAIK that means there can't be any arbitrary 'let's bolt a few extra phasers on for 25 points' type modifications to ships in published Mongoose materiel.
I'm aware they are there. I'm trying to suggest a way to get more command ships into ACTA. As it stands now, the Klingons have 1 ship the D7C that has any command, none of the heavy ships, C7 & C8, have a command trait.
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:41 am

Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game - please see my post on the Brainstorming thread.
Women and Captains first!
starbreaker
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:31 pm

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby starbreaker » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:27 am

Nomad wrote:In a game without boresight weapons where no-one has more than a basic +1/-2 initiative modifier, is a +1 initiative modifier all *that* important?
Many ships gain significant single-target firepower increases by positioning with a target on the line between two firing arcs. The boresight effect is less absolute than it was in B5, but it's still a factor.
Sgt_G
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Sgt_G » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:38 am

Over on the other board, Tony (ScoutDad) said it's his understanding that Command trait was based on whether or not a ship has Flag Bridge in FedCmdr because that game doesn't use command ratings.

In SFB and F&E, ships have a command rating ranging from 3 (for frigates and police boats) to 10 (for most heavy battle-cruisers and up). The Command Cruiser / D7C have a rating of 9, whereas most heavy cruisers / D7 have a rating of 8.

I don't have a huge problem with the way it's done now, but if one were to re-look at it, perhaps one could say that any ship with a F&E command rating of 9 or 10 gets the Trait, and those with a rating of 8 or less don't.
Garth L. Getgen

The above post is my personal opinion; I do not work for ADB or Mongoose.
_______________________________________________________________
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 15163
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby MongooseMatt » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:50 am

Nomad wrote:Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game
I agree. That's why there aren't many :)
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Da Boss » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:04 am

Don't the Romulans have about 6 or 7? Quite a high proportion?

I still think it would be cool to use the Pentacon leader rule to boost CQ for squadronned (or nearby) ships for squadron leader style command ships rather than actual Command bonus?
Asguard101
Mongoose
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:02 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Asguard101 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:27 pm

msprange wrote:
Nomad wrote:Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game
I agree. That's why there aren't many :)
I agree also, but the Klingons need more than 1. And that one only being a cruiser class.
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:44 pm

It's not really a matter of how many different *types* of command ship each fleet has, though I agree the Romulans seem to have more than enough.

It's whether *each and every cruiser* in a particular fleet is upgraded as a command ship to gain a cheap and unrealistic boost in firepower.
Women and Captains first!
User avatar
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Da Boss » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:53 pm

hmm not sure about this:

you pay the cost - its not like the difference between two Raid level ships? You sometimes (and not always) get a couple of extra AD - although this is usualy an extra cost. At present rather than buy 2 D7C's I would look at the other heavy cruisers - like the D5W, I'd seriously consider one as Command +1 is good but I would not get two unless its a really big game.

It might not be fluffy in every case but its valid. Also Matt did post earlier that he did not want to restrict choice of ships with regard to the Unique trait so it looks unlikely to be an official rule.

It would work well as a optional one for campaigns and tournaments.......as well as [ossibily unique/ rare ships.......which is equally valid restriction for fluff reasons?
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:12 pm

IIRC in ACtA:B5, Command variants were generally a priority level higher than their base hulls (Command Hyperion - Battle, Command Omega - War).

Which was a pretty big disincentive to using them at all, leading to the Command Omega getting a huge firepower and damage boost in 2nd edition to make her viable.

I dunno, maybe that was just EarthForce.

In SFB/FC the points difference between Command and Line versions isn't that great - precisely because there are other mechanisms (rule S8.0, Command Ratings et.c) to prevent abuse.

I certainly won't turn up to KotSB with all of my Kzinti NCAs upgraded to NCCs - lots of extra phaser-1s for less than the cost of a frigate! - but I know gamers who would.
Last edited by Nomad on Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Women and Captains first!
User avatar
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Da Boss » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:24 pm

It varied: Some Command ships were variants and some were just better than the vanilla ship for the same cost - Command Ochlivita? +1 Command AND a bonus CQ to other ships in its squadron for a few less weapons IIRC. Not all fleets had dedicated Command ship - I relied on my carriers as Centauri - but then it is one of the best in the game 8) EarthForce I played against tended to use the Avenger or Explorer to get +1 - although the Command +2 Hyperion was sometimes used.

re the ships getting a bit more bang for their buck - its certainly debatable why some ships get Command +1 and extra guns for 25pts, some get just Command +1 and some Command and extra guns for 30pts..............
User avatar
Nomad
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1002
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Nomad » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:33 pm

Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.

EDIT - clarification, that's a Kzinti fleet made up entirely of New Command Cruisers (NCCs), the (historically rare) command variant of the (common) NCA. The (gamesy) reason for doing this would be to gain the NCC's extra phaser-1 attack dice.
Last edited by Nomad on Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Women and Captains first!
Asguard101
Mongoose
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:02 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Asguard101 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:45 pm

Nomad wrote:Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.
For a campaign no; for a tournament yes, as long as there are no tournament rules disallowing them.
Builder
Mongoose
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:50 am
Location: Try not to die because of lack of oxygen and enjoy the eight month trip across the space.

Re: Official Errata from Mongoose?

Postby Builder » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:56 pm

Nomad wrote:Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.
I know very little about the SFU background, why wouldn't an all NCC fleet be accetable?
Down the street, third door on the left.
Up the ladder, third floor, right hand corridor, 6 doors down.
Through the door, across the field with the space cows to the lamp post.
Climb the lamp post and jump directly upwards.
Land on the bicycle.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests