A New Universe for ACTA's

[Nerroth]

Fed BCH: Bismarck class for the drone variant, New Jersey class for the one with six photons. Named for battleships.

Bismarck is the plasma variant; Kirov is the drone-heavy sub-class.

NCL: not sure, but most were named after revolutionary battles (e.g. Dien Bien Phu, various French Revolution battles, various American Revolution battles)

You're thinking of the Vincennes-class advanced technology cruiser (CX); the NCL is the Kearsarge-class.

If you like naming your ships, there is a looooooong list of ship names available for download. Entries there for just about every ship class of every Empire.

Well, not quite every ship, but close enough for now.



Oh, one thing about some of the Fed ship designs; the reason why the old CL and POL (police ship) look the way they do is because they each inherit a design template laid out by the old Terran navy.

The CLs, in some cases, were literally built in the days prior to the onset of tactical warp power (as were some of the Romulan Eagles); they were rugged and prevalent enough for Star Fleet to keep using them decades after the other "National Guard" fleets had been mothballed or scrapped.

The POL, on the outside, has the same hullform as the old Terran destroyer; in this case, the "modern" POL looks entirely differently on the inside, and is a "new" ship that happens to look exactly like the old Terran ship on the outside.

The NCL took a long time to get built, in part because the Federation Council preferred to spend less money (yes, they do use money in the SFU) on upgrading the older CLs than phasing them out in favour of a whole new class; the key aspect of its design was that it could be built in the same shipyards that were already capable of building DDs.

Plus, as the General War ate up many of the older CAs, a further advantage of the NCL was the ability to turn it into a New Heavy Cruiser, by attaching a larger secondary hull and a third warp engine. The NCA might not be as balanced or elegant a design as the CA, but it served Star Fleet well in the struggle against the Coalition.

 

[BFalcon]

Nerroth beat me to it on the ship registry pdf link - a very useful document to have.

For those who say they prefer the class names... consider this: would you, for example, prefer to type "Kzinti Thunderstrike class Heavy Scout Carrier" or Kzinti NSV?

I agree fully that a fuller ship description with the class name would be better (the fact that SVC is an engineer actually rings true in the layout of his products - they seem to lack the "gloss" and presentation of other designers but the content is often far superior), even going so far, once the whole of the current range is concerned, as to bring out a few "duplicate" classes for the most commonly-used ship types - eg NCL, FF, DD etc - with purely aesthetic differences, but using the same SSD and stats (assuming here that these models will be also used in SFB once complete and we'll see appropriate bases available for use on the hex mapsheets).

After all, over the years, ship design may change slightly with weak points found or more fuel efficiency found in a slightly different design or maybe just that different shipyards prefer to build their own styles... either way it opens the door for more variation in ship designs without needing to invent new classes (a pretty tough prospect in SFU since there's just SOO many of them). Being able to tell the difference between a D7 and a D7C (command cruiser variant) by looking at the model would be a nice touch though - I'd prefer to see them tackle the basic hulls first though just purely because we can proxy sub-classes initially, but would likely want those sub-classes eventually (once hooked).

In most games I get hooked on, I eventually get more models than I field, often from different fleets - I own Kzinti, Federation, Romulan and Klingon ships and may have a Gorn ship somewhere if memory serves me... as well as being a Trek fan since age 4 (I used to read my mum's James Blish novels) - so I'll be getting back into the habit of buying these as much as possible.

One problem I always found with ADB minis were the availability - something I'm hoping will be a lot better with these, being a joint Anglo-American product.

Edit: a thought - it'll be sad to see squadrons of smaller ships less effective in ACTA, but if that's how it ends up, I'll just have to get used to getting beaten more.

 

[Nerroth]

Personally, I'd like the idea of there being a bit more variety in the civilian designs.

With the military ships, the kind of templates the various star navies use have a built-in degree of commonality, for various reasons.

However, the civilian hulls, in some cases, could be considered to be abstractions of a whole array of comparable ships from various empires (or even various shipyards within certain empires).

A Free Trader built at one particular yard at Vulcan may look different to one made at Veltrassa; though both would (in game terms) be sub-sumed into the "generic" FT template.

I imagine that the regular Free Trader mini, whenever we get one, would almost certainly look like the "generic" pre-existing design; but, further down the line, could the interest be there for a little more variety?


(That could be something to offer the Traveller crowd, if any of them wanted minis to represent alternate civilian designs...)

 

[BFalcon]

True - that would be the best way to go - I was just thinking that it'd give the designer a bit of a treat when all the other work's done to be able to add one or two different classes later on... the civilian ships route is by far the safer and more sensible (it's not like we're short of warship designs...).

Oh and people forgot to mention the Tech manual Tug too - which I believe, from (rusty) memory was the Ptolemy class, wasn't it?

 

[Nerroth]

Far be it from me to want to deny a man like Robert Glass a chance to make a further contribution to the SFU setting...

...and yes, it is the Ptolemy.

 

[Da Boss]

I don't know how they will do it for AcTA: SF, but in the other games there is usually a little background info on each ship (2-3 paragraphs). There has also been published "class histories" in Captain's Log, detailing the careers of all the ships of a particular class.

What normally happens in ACTA is you get a short paragraph such as:

One of the largest ships in the Centauri Republic, a Balvarin carrier was an effective warship in its own right and capable of commanding an entire battle with its extensive control deck. In fact, some Admirals of the fleet preferred to take their command tours aboard a Balvarin instead of the Primus or Octurion most were assigned. When a Balvarin opened its
bay doors and released its fighter compliment, the entire tide of a battle could change in the Centauri’s favour

On occassion additonal fluff has been put into fan supplemetns such as:

The Balvarin class fleet carrier was the epitome of Centauri strengths and weakness. A huge vessel, luxuriously appointed, its ability to co-ordinate battles with sophisticated communications equipment in comfort, meant that senior officers, who had often lost their lust for charging the enemy, could frequently be found using them as flag vessels. Consequently its formidable ability to carry fighters to support and defend the rest of the fleet became increasingly secondary.
Stories were also told of at least one Centauri admiral converting one of the two cavernous hangers into a grand ballroom. This was in stark contrast to the integrated carrier, warship and fighter operations that were such a hallmark of Dilgar and EarthForce fleets. With only major capital ships carrying their own fighters, it was fortunate that the Royal Navy had not had to engage in any conflicts with either race.
This glaring issue would not be fully addressed until well after the war and this was due significantly to good relations with Earth and some horribly embarrassing joint manoeuvres.
The Centauri were not alone in using the Balvarin, several ageing examples had been sold to the Balsoians and the Narn had captured one Balvarin intact when they liberated their homeworld.
Whilst it had hanger bays full of fighters which would serve the Regime well, the carrier previously known as the Exultation of Kiros was ripped apart by its badly maintained jump engine whilst attempting to leave the home system on manoeuvres. The Narn blamed Centauri spies and claimed it was sabotage, whilst the Centauri predictably countered by pointing to Narn ineptitude. In truth, whilst the Narn had trouble with some of its systems, the engine had been in a terrible state ever
since they had seized it.

 

[Da Boss]

Nerroth beat me to it on the ship registry pdf link - a very useful document to have. For those who say they prefer the class names... consider this: would you, for example, prefer to type "Kzinti Thunderstrike class Heavy Scout Carrier" or Kzinti NSV?

Well to be fair when we discuss B5 ships we never went - oh the Earth Alliance Heavy Destroyer or the Minbari war level Cruiser you would simply say the Omega or the Sharlin

and normally fluff (see above) would refer to it in the same way....

And yes I would prefer to type the Kzinti Thunderstrike rather than Kzinti NSV - esp since not familiar with standard naval abreviations for designations.

Note to designers: If its going to be used alot in ACTA I would highly recommend a glossary of terms for us non military types

 

[BFalcon]

hehe well, to be fair, if you'd used that example without the descriptor, I'd have been just as glassy eyed as you... I had to look it up... :lol:

But the designation is useful also as it gives you a clue as to what the ship type is. CVA, for example, is a carrier (Carrier Vehicle Aircraft, I seem to recall). The Frigates and Destroyers are easier - FF and DD - it's the subtypes that start to complicate things... so yeah, I'd love to see an appendix with a glossery of all ship classes. I think people can work out what "DN" and "Tug" are...

I agree, though, that the class names would be nice to see - but there we may be back in the lawsuit territory again since we'd need to use the Constitution Class and some of the other names that may have cropped up in TOS (pretty sure that only the Constitution class was ever shown though...).

But yeah, as an outsider, I do find myself trying to remember from the series, the Sharlin or Omega were...

The abbreviations aren't so bad when you get used to them, to be honest, and the Klingon ships are always referred to (AFAIK) as their names (eg D7), sometimes with a subclass suffix, so it's not too bad. I've not counted the ship classes/subclasses in SFB, but it must be an impressive figure... the abbreviations also serve to keep SFU players sane... or at least less insane than they otherwise would be... (I've only met a few though... so not too sure about that last bit...)

My "wishlist" solution would be to have something as an entry like: (in the Federation section): Constitution class Heavy Cruiser (CA)... that way everyone would, eventually, come to associate both the abbreviation, the name and the class with the ship... so after a while ACTA veterans would learn that CA is a heavy cruiser and the SFU players would probably get used to the names...

Sidenote: When talking about classes, are you supposed to italicise the word "class" or not?

 

[Greg Smith]

CVA, for example, is a carrier (Carrier Vehicle Aircraft, I seem to recall).

Heavy Cruiser (CA)...

So CVA is an acronym, but CA isn't. :?:

 

[Rick]

As far as the licence goes, calling that ship a Constitution class might be allowable. SFU is based on what appeared in the Franz Joseph books and it was referred to as such in there.

 

[BFalcon]

I stand corrected, if this wiki entry is correct - CV stands for Cruiser Voler (french for "to fly"). The A in CVA stood for "Attack".

CA is Cruiser (Armoured)

Blame the US Navy, not me

As for the copyright - I suspect that you're right - it's the only potential snag I can see, so it looks like it'd be ok.

Forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol

Edit: Thought I'd better point out - due to limitations and the huger number of ships in the SFU, I think SVC went beyond the historical USN designations and invented a few - BC for Battlecruiser, being one (historically it used CC, the same as the Command Cruiser).

 

[Rick]

But the designation is useful also as it gives you a clue as to what the ship type is. CVA, for example, is a carrier (Carrier Vehicle Aircraft, I seem to recall). The Frigates and Destroyers are easier - FF and DD - it's the subtypes that start to complicate things... so yeah, I'd love to see an appendix with a glossery of all ship classes. I think people can work out what "DN" and "Tug" are... Smile

If the SFU follow the same convention as the hull numbers of the US Navy (it's what they're based on I think), then the CVA code is derived from Cruiser, aViation or Voler, Attack.

(edit) - ok looks like we both had the same idea, lol!

 

[BFalcon]

If the SFU follow the same convention as the hull numbers of the US Navy (it's what they're based on I think), then the CVA code is derived from Cruiser, aViation, Attack.

Yeah, that's the other explanation for it on that wiki I listed. Personally, I believe that one more (the A from "aviation" was already being used, so they moved to the next letter) than the French word reasoning... but either way...

Edit to match your edit: lol... not being US or Naval, I had to go look it up...

 

[Rick]

Yeah - I used to do Modern Naval wargaming, so I had an idea what it was, but I still had to look it up to get the specifics, lol! Having said that, the US system is still much more intuitive than the more common NATO/UK Pennant Number system!

 

[AdrianH]

But the designation is useful also as it gives you a clue as to what the ship type is. CVA, for example, is a carrier (Carrier Vehicle Aircraft, I seem to recall). The Frigates and Destroyers are easier - FF and DD - it's the subtypes that start to complicate things... so yeah, I'd love to see an appendix with a glossery of all ship classes. I think people can work out what "DN" and "Tug" are...

I recognise some of them because I used to build model warships, and I recognise "DN" because I've been looking at web pages showing the Starline miniatures.

I agree, though, that the class names would be nice to see - but there we may be back in the lawsuit territory again since we'd need to use the Constitution Class and some of the other names that may have cropped up in TOS (pretty sure that only the Constitution class was ever shown though...).

Will we as players be under the same legal restrictions? For comparison, Mongoose currently has no rights in the B5 universe, which doesn't stop us discussing it here, nor do I believe anyone is going to reach for lawyers if someone talks about or even posts a photo of their Omega class destroyer Agamemnon. So will there be a problem if I paint or put decals on my Federation Heavy Cruiser showing the "E" word?

But yeah, as an outsider, I do find myself trying to remember from the series, the Sharlin or Omega were...

That may be because those names were invented for role-playing and war games. We might not call the ship a Minbari War Cruiser, but that's what it was on screen - individual ships were sometimes named, classes generally weren't.

My "wishlist" solution would be to have something as an entry like: (in the Federation section): Constitution class Heavy Cruiser (CA)... that way everyone would, eventually, come to associate both the abbreviation, the name and the class with the ship... so after a while ACTA veterans would learn that CA is a heavy cruiser and the SFU players would probably get used to the names...

Sounds good to me. It also means different groups of players can use either name, class or abbreviation as they wish.

Sidenote: When talking about classes, are you supposed to italicise the word "class" or not?

Not if this Wikipedia entry is to be trusted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships
But it is unlikely anyone will get upset whether you italicise the ship name, the class name, the word "class" or anything else. :lol:

 

[MarkDawg]

I hear from people that played it that the old SFB was super slow and complicated to play and took forever. I hope that Mongoose had the latitude to shape a fun and streamlined game that has tactical depth and give off the Star Trek Flavor that we all crave.

 

[Jean]

Will we as players be under the same legal restrictions? For comparison, Mongoose currently has no rights in the B5 universe, which doesn't stop us discussing it here, nor do I believe anyone is going to reach for lawyers if someone talks about or even posts a photo of their Omega class destroyer Agamemnon. So will there be a problem if I paint or put decals on my Federation Heavy Cruiser showing the "E" word?

That is murky water. On our boards, I'd be suggesting it come down. It certainly could never be our "Mini of the Month" in Hailing Frequencies. Only SVC can give a binding answer, though.

Sidenote: When talking about classes, are you supposed to italicise the word "class" or not?

At ADB, we do not italicize "class." We do italicize the hyphen in this type of usage "The hull appeared to be one of a Constitution-class ship, but never had we seen one painted purple and marked HPMS Purple People Eater." 8)

 

[Jean]

MarkDawg, we already have SFB for those people who want that sort of nitty-gritty game. The whole purpose of the joint venture is to meld the Star Fleet Universe background with the ACTA style of play, this creating more people who want to buy "stuff" from both companies. Everyone wins. It's what I call a Good Deal.

 

[BFalcon]

Mark: SFB is slow because you have allocate all the power available to your ship to the various systems, before you use any of them, each turn, per ship... so if you used multiple ships, it got very slow...

Being able to think about what you were going to do was a good thing - but it depends a lot on the various players' abilities to add up and make decisions. I had one opponent who, although bright and capable, was terrible at making decisions, so slowed the game down a lot. Federation Commander was brought out to simplify the whole process.

As for complicated, the rulebook was layed out like a technical manual or a book of law - with rules numbers, paragraph numbers and so on... and numbered a LOT of pages (anyone with the master rulebook able to come up with a page count, feel free - mine's still packed:roll.

Nobody's asking for that much depth (quite the opposite) - merely the feel of the game. SFB had so many rules because, over the many years it was in development, people were finding loopholes or wanted clarifications and so these were written in - in many ways, it was a better solution that in some cases where games producers relied on errata for years. The fact that the rulebook was designed to fit into a three-ring binder (something that is as rare as hen's teeth over here in the UK) allowed (in theory) players to insert corrected pages or errata as needed in the right place in the rules.

Adrian: re: the names of the B5 ships... doh! That'd explain it then...

Edit: Jean just summed it up for me and better, too... thanks Jean.

 

[AdrianH]

Will we as players be under the same legal restrictions? For comparison, Mongoose currently has no rights in the B5 universe, which doesn't stop us discussing it here, nor do I believe anyone is going to reach for lawyers if someone talks about or even posts a photo of their Omega class destroyer Agamemnon. So will there be a problem if I paint or put decals on my Federation Heavy Cruiser showing the "E" word?

That is murky water. On our boards, I'd be suggesting it come down. It certainly could never be our "Mini of the Month" in Hailing Frequencies. Only SVC can give a binding answer, though.

I suppose I'd better not put up a photo of the plastic cruiser I got ages ago. Since I didn't know anything about the legal situation at that time, or for that matter much else about SFB, no prizes for guessing what name and number I painted on it. It also means yet another reason for going either Klingon or Romulan, as there probably aren't any off-limits names on their ships. Do I get into trouble if the eagle painting on the underside of my Warbird looks too similar to the one which appeared on TV? (No smiley there. If I'm going to be entering a legal minefield when I put markings on my models, I'll reconsider even getting into this game. And I'll definitely have to think more about whether I want to buy any Federation ships.)