A Call To Arms Star Fleet question

Is the game going to focus more on ship vs ship combat like you would see in an episode of one of the shows? Or is it themed more towards bigger battles like the other ACTA games have been?

I know you CAN play with as few ships as you want, I am just wondering what the target engagement level is going to be. One or two ships each, about half dozen, dozen or more?
 
Not a play-tester just a interested party. And I am sure someone with a lot more authority will be along sooner or later. But the implied intention is to bring the Star Fleet Universe setting into the A Call to Arms style Fleet on Fleet engagement.

That said I do not see why you couldn't play with as many or as few ships as you would like.
 
You can go from one on one ship duels up to full on fleet battles.

Given fleet sizes in Noble Armada then 6-10 ship fleets still allow for a fairly quick game (bearing in mind you'll be throwing down plenty of ships below cruiser size).
 
Historically A Call to Arms is not a good game one on one - the best games tend to have a resonable number of ships on each side - 5-6 minimum I should think.

Again previously I would say it has been intended to balance fleets more than indivudal ships.
 
Agreed - Federation Commander would be the best to use - although if you're only using a couple of ships, you won't be using anything too large, so SFB would also be an option...

Capital ships rarely (practically never) go unescorted, after all - they always have at least one accompanying ship with them (in modern terms, at least a few frigates or destroyers and a submarine or two...). That's to act as a picket line as much as anything else so you have time to prime weapons and bring them to bear on the enemy (or to run if you need to). An example of what happens to unaccompanied capital ships can be seen in the fate of the Bismarck (after detaching the Prinz Eugen), Yamato and Shinano cap-ships...

On the other hand, I'd be interested, after reading the NA and VaS rulebooks, just how large a fleet you could hold a battle with on each side... :)
 
except capital ships often do fly alone in starfleet, the enterprise spends 99% of its time alone in any series.
i guess during a war it might have escorts but otherwise they seem to not mind, after all they can go just as fast as any other ship but not turn as well.
 
katadder said:
i guess during a war it might have escorts but otherwise they seem to not mind, after all they can go just as fast as any other ship but not turn as well.

I guess the turning thing is a SFU thing as I don't think there is anything in the show about how much they can turn in comparison to say a Klingon Cruiser? ST OS (and to soem extent later shows) seemed to me fairly Age of Sail - with squadrons only being formed for specific reasons / in times of war? In B5 ships were seen as often alone as in groups - I think only the Centauri Emperor had obvious Escorts for his cruiser? but I thinking both cases - show budgets play their part?
 
katadder said:
yeah turning types are SFB/fedcom and will be represented to some effecte in CTA

Ok, well that should be easy enough so:

Federation Constitution Class Cruiser
1 45

Klingon (don't know their class name) D7 Class Cruiser
2 45 or
1 45 and Agile

Gorn (don't know their class name) Cruiser
1 45 and Lumbering?

not sure about the rest.............but along these lines?
 
katadder said:
except capital ships often do fly alone in starfleet, the enterprise spends 99% of its time alone in any series.
i guess during a war it might have escorts but otherwise they seem to not mind, after all they can go just as fast as any other ship but not turn as well.

Don't forget the Federation CA has no rear-facing weapons - the rear arc of a Fed CA is a kill-zone where the ship is very weak (including shields)... and I tended to use either destroyer packs or a Kzinti carrier when playing SFB, so that rear arc is very hard to cover... unless you have an escort to help cover it.

Of course, the CC overcomes that to a degree, but the phaser I's aren't all-powerful and you can usually reinforce the shield enough to compensate for even that, to a degree, compared to the large amount of damage you can pump out with overloaded weapons.

And don't forget - the original series was made on a shoe-string and wasn't set during war... two reasons why the "Big E" wasn't escorted - the other being that the Fed CA is designed to be a multi-role vessel, not just a warship like other races' ships or classes can be.

On the flip side, you do NOT want to be behind the D7... those boom Phasers can fire directly behind it...

One last thing to note also - Cruisers tend to be built to be able to operate on their own without an escort or as the centre of the fleet, depending on size and are also built for peactime use... the battleships are usually built to take on other large ships, so tend to forgo the agility and secondary systems of the smaller ships and also cost a fortune to build and run, making them too risky to allow out on their own, very often. They're usually mothballed until wartime. Light Cruisers especially make good patrol ships or destroyer leaders, being agile, usually reasonably armed and a lot more plentiful than the battleships...
 
Hmm - all comments taken in consideration, I have definite mixed feelings about this game - I love the idea of using the SFU and having fleets of Federation or Klingon ships engaging each other, but what I think would be a mistake would be to copy SFB/FC across into ACTA. What I mean is that B5 ACTA took the B5 Wars ships, kept the flavour of each one and the flavour of the individual fleets but built it into a new game where the fleets were individually distinctive. ACTA NA copied the ships across from NA and there just wasn't enough of a distinctive flavour to each fleet. What I would very much like to see is a different game from SFB/FC, where the ships were changed enough to give a different feel and flavour to each fleet - so that a Klingon fleet played very differently to a Federation fleet, for example. I'm just not really getting that from what SFB players are saying.
 
Da Boss said:
katadder said:
yeah turning types are SFB/fedcom and will be represented to some effecte in CTA

Ok, well that should be easy enough so:

Federation Constitution Class Cruiser
1 45

Klingon (don't know their class name) D7 Class Cruiser
2 45 or
1 45 and Agile

Gorn (don't know their class name) Cruiser
1 45 and Lumbering?

not sure about the rest.............but along these lines?

Da Boss: D7 is the class name, as far as SFU is concerned (they'd probably be K'tinga if you went ST Canon, but hey) :)

OK, according to the SFU name registry the D7 would be a Klodode class heavy cruiser... and the Gorn Battle Cruiser would be the Chimericon class... not so keen on the Klingon name, but the Gorn one's pretty cool... :)

The D7 isn't more agile than the Fed CA - just has a better spread of firing arcs (indeed, in SFB, all phasers can fire directly behind the ship). That's one of the weaknesses of the Fed CA (ie Consitution class)... if you can get behind it, it suddenly becomes a whole lot less threatening...

Incidently, I tried to find a War Eagle (ie warp-modified Warbird) class name, but I guess it's just War Eagle... similarly no class name for the KR (ie Romulan D6) ships...
 
part of the deal is it has to be a good crossover afaik.
obviously klinks are better at turning, with crazy arc phaser, plus disrupters. feds have good phaser coverage but have photons to front etc etc.
the arcs for weapons should be pretty much what they are in fedcom.

its hard to diversify when everyone has phasers. mostly it comes in the heavy weapons, photons/disrupters/plasma/hellbores/webs etc
 
Rick said:
Hmm - all comments taken in consideration, I have definite mixed feelings about this game - I love the idea of using the SFU and having fleets of Federation or Klingon ships engaging each other, but what I think would be a mistake would be to copy SFB/FC across into ACTA. What I mean is that B5 ACTA took the B5 Wars ships, kept the flavour of each one and the flavour of the individual fleets but built it into a new game where the fleets were individually distinctive. ACTA NA copied the ships across from NA and there just wasn't enough of a distinctive flavour to each fleet. What I would very much like to see is a different game from SFB/FC, where the ships were changed enough to give a different feel and flavour to each fleet - so that a Klingon fleet played very differently to a Federation fleet, for example. I'm just not really getting that from what SFB players are saying.

Actually, on the contrary - a klingon fleet plays very differently to a federation fleet...

The Fed ships tend to be very good at short-range alpha strikes, but then need to reload their photons before being able to hit again with the same strength, so need to hang back or take their punishment. The Federation ships are, at least initially, built partly for peacetime use - so have more labs and other non-warfare systems on board, but tend to be slightly (and I do mean slightly) weaker in all-out battle... but then have the advantage in the non-warfare scenarios and the anti-monster scenarios. They also get to pretty much cripple an enemy in a point-blank attack through overloaded photons, with the newer ships being probably some of the best ships in the game...

The Klingons get to shoot their disruptors each turn, so are better at the sustained shot battle, with their phasers also being arranged in more arcs than the earlier Federation ships (blame Paramount for that btw...). They tend to be weaker on the non-battle scenarios (Klingons aren't exactly renowned for their scientific skills).

Romulans basically got left behind in the arms race, so the earliest ship (the Warbird) is a non-warp ship, but it was upgraded to the War Eagle class. They're pretty weak, but get to play with the cloaking device and have an awesome homing plasma torpedo which takes a very long time to arm and a lot of energy to hold, but does a fair amount of damage, so Romulan ships tend to decloak, fire, cloak and recharge, making it a very tactical game. Modern Romulan ships are based on Klingon technology with Romulan tech added to it... so is better.

The Gorn ships are slow, heavy and incredibly tough... but can also deal a decent amount of damage.

Kzinti rely on fighters and drones (missiles)... and lots of them... they're pretty fun to play if you like watching your opponents face as they try to work out how to bypass the waves of drones and fighters you're launching at him in order to get into range of his own weapons... without getting blown up in the process. Not too tough when you do get them into range though... but tough enough after you've done some damage to other races' ships...

Tholians get to play with their webs, which can immobilise enemy ships (can't remember if they can turn or not - but they're pretty much defenseless when trapped). This can lead to some fun scenarios, but not really encountered them in my games.

The new races also add more, but I didn't get to play with or against those (we only had the basic set when I played) but I know that the Andromedans get panels which absorb incoming energy and (I think) make it available to the ship, but I'm not too sure on that...

But each race is unique as it can be without having a "mysterious master race that's just retreated from the galaxy" in the background... :)
 
katadder said:
obviously klinks are better at turning

My bad - misread the turn mode chart - yes, the Klings are slightly better at turning than the feds...

Kat: one question - will we see labs in use for non-warfare and monster scenarios? Those were fun in SFB and should only add an extra stat to each ship... the advantage is that sometimes in a campaign (we made up our own rules) there could be a monster (just like the series) that needed dealing with or (even better) a monster that two opposing sides had to deal with... (combat AND science in one scenario). :)
 
Ah - while I wasn't fishing for another SFB race summary - that was much more useful :wink:

But - what I want from an ACTA game is to be able to look at the ships in the book and say "Yes - THAT is a Centauri ship!" or "THAT is a Decados ship!" without needing to look at what colour it's painted! :lol:

If the fleets have enough differences that I can do that (with Feds and Klingons, obviously!), then I'll be very happy with the game (all other things being equal :twisted: ).
 
Rick: oh yeah...

Most of the klingon ships look similar, the feds all (with the exception of the old pre-warp ships (those were Terran-designed)) have saucers... the romulans are either warbird-shaped, klingon-shaped (they bought them off the klingons) or are a really nice (but currently poorly-detailed, so looking forward to the Mongoose redesign) sleek design that looks unique... the gorns have a ball somewhere in the design and look like bricks otherwise (in a nice "I'm armoured to the head" way) and the Kzinti look like abstract cats if you look carefully... oh and the Tholians look like crystals... like their builders.
 
BFalcon said:
Rick: oh yeah...

Most of the klingon ships look similar, the feds all (with the exception of the old pre-warp ships (those were Terran-designed)) have saucers... the romulans are either warbird-shaped, klingon-shaped (they bought them off the klingons) or are a really nice (but currently poorly-detailed, so looking forward to the Mongoose redesign) sleek design that looks unique... the gorns have a ball somewhere in the design and look like bricks otherwise (in a nice "I'm armoured to the head" way) and the Kzinti look like abstract cats if you look carefully... oh and the Tholians look like crystals... like their builders.

Whoops - not what I intended to ask for! :oops:

I mean that the stats for the ship should have enough differences, sorry - not the look of the ship, lol! If you look at the B5 ACTA game, most of the ships have a common 'flavour' in each fleet, so a Centauri ship's stats are different enough from an Earthforce or Narn ship so that you should be able to tell the difference between the races without seeing a picture of the ship or the name of it. Put it down to different design philosophies, perhaps - in the same way that a modern US warship is different from a modern Russian warship - but all of the ships in a fleet follows a similiar pattern and is a different pattern to another fleet's.
 
Back
Top