ACTA & Fleet Action?

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
M1ndr1d3rs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Indonesia

Postby M1ndr1d3rs » Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:28 pm

Galatea wrote:The Marathon is Minbari, Drakh and Shadowtech, as is the Nemesis (and yes, I still do field a Nemesis, no matter what the rulebook sais about this friggin Psi Corps Fleet).
Sorry, Drakh? :?

I hope to see your Nemesis, since you're evidently quite good in modding ships. :)
What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
TalosX
Cub
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:39 am

Postby TalosX » Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:32 am

The Warlock was underdevelopment and Ivanova did get one of the early ones yes. However, Earth did get gravity tech from the Minbari! This was clearly stated and was one of the reasons President Luchenko agreed to the ISA charter. The tech was then used aboard the Warlocks which were just coming off the assembly line.

For those that would argue to the contrary, Earth has produced ships in the past with no rotating section (which appeared to be unique to the Omega in the show). The Warlock clearly is designed to use the ion thrusters as well. Is it so hard for people to concieve that the Warlock was not orignally designed for grav tech. Come on people, its already been stated that Gravity Drive tech came from the Minbari. I don't understand why people have such trouble understanding that point, its cannon straight from the show!
User avatar
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:52 am

Once they've made the leap to rotating sections they're not going to be stupid enough to go back to zero-g ships. Rotating sections were by no means unique to the Omega-class, the O'Neil space stations used them, the Cortez-class used them, the big commercial liners used them...
User avatar
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Postby locarno24 » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:07 am

Bear in mind that, like most sci-fi shows, technology development cycles are miraculously close to zero.

Things are sometimes reverse engineered over the course of a single show; entire dead languages recovered on a laptop in a few minutes, entire gunship fleets can be built without affecting anyone's economy detectably....etc, etc.

Strictly speaking a fleet capital ship on that scale would, for a first-of-class, probably take a couple of years to build so the concept of the warlock design's existance not being common knowledge even in Santiago's presidency, let alone Clarks, is pretty ridiculous. But that's TV sci-fi for you.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
User avatar
darklord4
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Chandler, AZ

Postby darklord4 » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:24 pm

I'm not familiar with the FA system, but certainly I would rather the ACTA minis were in the FA scale. When a ship needs 2 stands, you have to start to wonder if maybe it is too big...
TalosX
Cub
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:39 am

Postby TalosX » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:13 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:Once they've made the leap to rotating sections they're not going to be stupid enough to go back to zero-g ships. Rotating sections were by no means unique to the Omega-class, the O'Neil space stations used them, the Cortez-class used them, the big commercial liners used them...
I think your mistaken on them not be willing to switch back to zero-g vessels. The Omega design in general is a very flawed design, I'll explain:

1) The large section that rotates on an Omega actually leaves some small blindspots that fighters can get into and do some major damage. Their are ways to fix this with some extra weapon mounts or changing the style of the rotating section, but obviously the Omega's designers were oblivious to to this.

2) Build large rotating sections like this can and usually will be expensive and require a fair amount of maintenance. This doesn't even account for the fact that it would also likely weaken overall structural integrity.

3) I can't remember the number, I know its a 60/40 split. But only 60% of the crew (or 40%) of an Omega actually work in the rotating section. It doesn't matter what you do, some people will always have to work outside that section.

4) Probably the biggest flaw, rotating sections generate inertia. Even in space, you would require stabalizing thrusters to prevent yourself from drifting offcourse. Another maintenance factor that could have drastic effects if they were to fail in dangerous Nav environments like hyperspace or planetary orbit.

In general, spinning sections aboard ships cause alot of problems. While I'm sure the technology advancement of B5 Earth could deal with these problems, they are basic problems that could never be fully mitigated. Clark also seemed to prefer more capable warships regardless of the cost, I can easily invision him marketing a Warlock with its heavy weaponry but lacking grav tech (he really didn't seem to care about those beneath him as long as the job was done). Sorry for the long winded post, but this is just how I see things at the moment. That combined with the cannon from the show are what I base my opinions on.
User avatar
M1ndr1d3rs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Indonesia

Postby M1ndr1d3rs » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:24 pm

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
TalosX
Cub
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:39 am

Postby TalosX » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:02 pm

Well I haven't read on the Omega yet, but the 5th paragraph down on the Warlock states clearly that the grav tech came from the Minbari. I've been using this site lately to conduct some point-based modifications of ACTA. I also use another site (can't see it since I'm at work) that theorizes on weapons damage output based on how much they were able to destroy over given periods of time on screen. Something thats always bothered me is if the Minbari Neutron Laser damage. It seems pretty obvious that a Neutron Laser is far more powerful then the standard Heavy Laser used by several other races, so why is it that B5 Wars, Fleet Action, and ACTA all have Heavy Lasers rated with higher damage values. Seems odd to me, but maybe its because they don't want the Minbari wiping out entire races (like what nearly happened with Earth). Ah well, can't win them all I suppose.
User avatar
Lord David the Denied
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4260
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:39 am
Location: Northampton, UK

Postby Lord David the Denied » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:05 pm

That site doesn't get much of anything right. It really can't be relied on.
User avatar
M1ndr1d3rs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Indonesia

Postby M1ndr1d3rs » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:34 pm

TalosX wrote:It seems pretty obvious that a Neutron Laser is far more powerful then the standard Heavy Laser used by several other races, so why is it that B5 Wars, Fleet Action, and ACTA all have Heavy Lasers rated with higher damage values. Seems odd to me, but maybe its because they don't want the Minbari wiping out entire races (like what nearly happened with Earth). Ah well, can't win them all I suppose.
Yeah, they cant have Minbari ship slicing through EA ships like crazy. By the same token, how do you think any ship of the younger races can hope to survive a Shadow slicer beam? Or worse, a Vorlon lightning cannon :twisted: if the game does reflect the show perfectly?

As said by many others before me, games such as this require balance. Otherwise, you'll end up buying hundreds of the of lesser ships, while a couple of 1st 1 ships can do the same job better. :wink:
What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
User avatar
B_Steele
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1352
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: The United States Mongoose's Lair

Postby B_Steele » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:01 pm

That site doesn't get much of anything right. It really can't be relied on.
Correct. As a rule I avoid it.

-Bry
User avatar
Da Boss
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7221
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: UK

Postby Da Boss » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:05 pm

IIRC - pretty much anything that got hit by a beam died.............. :)

I have seen Minbari ships slice through ships - double damage / triple damage coupled with precise can cause some serious damage.

:)
User avatar
M1ndr1d3rs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Indonesia

Postby M1ndr1d3rs » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:15 pm

Mongoose Steele wrote:
That site doesn't get much of anything right. It really can't be relied on.
Correct. As a rule I avoid it.

-Bry
Which site would you guys recommend then? And how do we check a site for accuracy? So many of them out there... :?
What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
User avatar
Triggy
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3239
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: Nottingham, UK

Postby Triggy » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:18 pm

Lord David the Denied wrote:That site doesn't get much of anything right. It really can't be relied on.
The biggest thing B5Tech get wrong is taking single instances of ships doing something and taking it as infallible when basing all their calculations off of it. It's widely known that the Sharlin was seen on screen in at least three different sizes (about 400m, 700m and 1600m tall). The trouble is the CG department (quite rightly) wanted to make the CG shots look as cool as possible rather than worry about a few of the more minor details. That and some misinformation (e.g. it was meant to be a Primus, not a Vorchan attacking the G'Quan in In the Beginning) don't help build a reliable picture.

That said, B5Tech are good at collating information, just not so good at processing it - precision doesn't mean accuracy :)
"Sir, the enemy have us completely surrounded."
"Excellent, then we can attack in any direction!"

ACtA Playtester

Triggy's Fantasy Formula 1
User avatar
BuShips
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3858
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:51 am
Location: Near Mt. St. Helens (that volcano)

Postby BuShips » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:02 pm

Triggy wrote:That and some misinformation (e.g. it was meant to be a Primus, not a Vorchan attacking the G'Quan in In the Beginning) don't help build a reliable picture.
Ah, now THAT makes more sense. I've always wondered if that Centauri ship had a weapons officer that had the reborn soul of a dead Klingon that was very good at "lucky shots". :lol:
©2002 Thomas Schmid, with permission. Visit http://www.3dhistory.de/.
Image
User avatar
pasuuli
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53 pm

Postby pasuuli » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:19 pm

Triggy wrote: The biggest thing B5Tech get wrong is taking single instances of ships doing something and taking it as infallible when basing all their calculations off of it. It's widely known that the Sharlin was seen on screen in at least three different sizes (about 400m, 700m and 1600m tall). .... That and some misinformation (e.g. it was meant to be a Primus, not a Vorchan attacking the G'Quan in In the Beginning) don't help build a reliable picture.
<de-lurk>

Wow thanks for the prescriptive. Perspective. Corrective. Whatever.

I'm watching this thread enthusiastically. I love these kinds of meta discussions.

<re-lurk>
User avatar
M1ndr1d3rs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Indonesia

Postby M1ndr1d3rs » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:23 pm

BuShips wrote:
Triggy wrote:That and some misinformation (e.g. it was meant to be a Primus, not a Vorchan attacking the G'Quan in In the Beginning) don't help build a reliable picture.
Ah, now THAT makes more sense. I've always wondered if that Centauri ship had a weapons officer that had the reborn soul of a dead Klingon that was very good at "lucky shots". :lol:
I really didnt know that. :shock:

As to what actually made it to the screen... How does that get explained? Other than just "the luck of the Centauri"? :lol:
It's widely known that the Sharlin was seen on screen in at least three different sizes (about 400m, 700m and 1600m tall). The trouble is the CG department (quite rightly) wanted to make the CG shots look as cool as possible rather than worry about a few of the more minor details.
This is the case in many scifi, but IMO, how those inconsistencies are dealt with is just as important. Star Trek canon explained the Klingon bird of prey size duality by placing them in two separate classes, for example.

So... How big is a Sharlin? :? Canon-wise, officially (if there is indeed such information)
What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
captainsmirk
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Limbo

Postby captainsmirk » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:06 pm

Well, if were talking actual stated size, not just measuring against something else of known size, then, erm....

300m long

As stated on B5 scan read out in season 1 episode "Legacies".

It also has 600 crew, a weight (who the hell designed this system?) of 200 M Tons, and can reach .2 lightspeed. Interestingly its weapons also consist of Fusion Lasers and Neutron Cannon, oh and some 20 megaton nuclear missiles...


Nick

PS. And somewhat impressively has a cargo capacity some 100 times its own mass!
Captain Sheridan you're under arrest for a clear violation of the laws of physics!
User avatar
Sky Captain
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:44 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Contact:

Re: ACTA & Fleet Action?

Postby Sky Captain » Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:25 pm

TalosX wrote:I was just curious if anyone has tried to splice these two games together. ACTA is built well, but IMHO they took the balancing to far. I understand why, they use FAP which isn't the same as a point based system. Lets be honest though, the B5 universe isn't balanced. A Sharlin Warcruiser could turn its stealth jammer off, and still kick the crap out of any EA, Centauri, or Narn ship with relative ease. A Warlock advanced destroyer wouldn't stand a chance against a Sharlin. I also prefer the actual weapon stats in Fleet Action.

Anyways I was considering splicing Fleet Action with ACTA to try and re-balance the system. Has anyone ever tried or considered this?
I find that B5:ACTA straight up meets my needs the best.

I was a B5 Wars player in 1997 when it came out. When Fleet Action came out in the early 2000's I was done. I was pretty irrate about the scale and price change. I EBay'd my fighters thou, and got the smaller Fleet Action ones.

I appreciated the attempt to change the game to be more player friendly, but it was too much, too quickly.
Jason Coffey
Coordinator LasVegas NV
"There are a dozen ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships and missiles of one sort or another...What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the nose" -Heinlein
GhostRecon
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:23 am

Postby GhostRecon » Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:20 pm

I only utilize B5Tech on information that it clearly cites information from "Canon" sources, such as the series. Data such as specific weapon names, energy values, etc., I find is all BS anyway, so ignore it.

For example, on the White Star, anybody can clearly see from the series that it has the two wing-mounted Pulsars, the under-prow mounted beam, and the two prow mounted cannon. B5Tech adds names and "energy" damage values to these, but its generally good to ignore them. B5Tech collates and cites canon data to say the White Star has these weapons, then goes on to uncited and unsupported supposition to add data values like energy weapon values to it.

As for the Warlock and ship production. Why is it so hard to believe that a ship such as that could be produced in a relatively short period of time?

You gather that 1) They were already laying down the hull and 2) It would be "relatively" simple to remove specific systems and add in the artifical gravity systems that were given to EarthForce by the ISA/Minbari, and you assume that ISA engineers and specialists go to EA Shipyards with copies of artifical gravity systems to implement in "First Block" Warlock-class Advanced Destroyers, to both show EA how the systems work, and help the EA engineers learn to manufacture and adapt the technology to their specific needs and purposes.

For those who dispute that:
The Alliance, which among other things promises to share advanced technologies like artificial gravity with Earth...
(The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/087.html)

Further, Ivanova was given command of the one of the _First_ Warlocks to roll off the production line.

Like the "first series" of any ship, you assume they'll spend another year or so getting systems added in, shaking down the ship and "exploring" the intricacies of the new ship-class. In fact, every naval vessel has a "shakedown" period. You can assume the Warlock gets its artificial gravity added in during production and this "shakedown" period. So in reality, the Warlock underwent an additional year of "Sea Trial" which is the "last phase" of construction.
Although sea trials are commonly thought to be conducted only on new-built vessels (referred by shipbuilders as “builders trials”), they are regularly conducted on commissioned vessels as well. In new vessels, they are used to determine conformance to construction specifications. On commissioned vessels; they are generally used to confirm the impact of any modifications.

Sea trials can last a few hours or many non-consecutive days.
Further citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakedown_(testing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_trial

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests