A New Universe for ACTA's
- Thread starter godsgopher
- Start date
Cloaking devices will be a trait in ACTA at a guess, like Think Machine. Which means it could get knocked out when the ship is crippled. The Romulan Warbird/Wareagle was so delicate anyway that when significant damage starts coming in it's pretty much toast.
I think representing them as traits is probably the best way to do it.
Will fighters make it in? Are they in Fed Com?
I think representing them as traits is probably the best way to do it.
Will fighters make it in? Are they in Fed Com?
Why not have the normal stealth mechanic for them while they are cloaked, no shields, interceptors when cloaked. The issue i would have is when do the shields go back up, after they have fired?
I'd probably go for a Romulan fleet myself but only if i could avoid the Klingon built ships. I did that when playing Starfleet Command. Hate ships having the same as anothers race. So glad when the Gaim got there own, not so glad with E Mines.
I'd probably go for a Romulan fleet myself but only if i could avoid the Klingon built ships. I did that when playing Starfleet Command. Hate ships having the same as anothers race. So glad when the Gaim got there own, not so glad with E Mines.
Rick
Mongoose
Target said:
Well, thats the problem, I guess - I would imagine that a ship would engage and disengage it's cloaking device in the movement phase, when you nominate your ships to move.
If it's a Special Action to engage/disengage cloak, for the first turn in which you are visible, you'd not be able to use any other SA's and you'd want to have the Initiative so (hopefully) you can move to a position where you won't be fired at!
No idea at present whether it will need a SA to use it, but my 2p worth is that it should be - it might be a bit more restrictive, but it should encourage Romulan players to use it sparingly! :twisted:
The Hydrans are the only ones to officially have fighters in Fed Com.
There is a separate set of playtest stuff that is designed to be used with Fed Com called "Borders of Madness." In BoM, hypothetical carriers and fighters were done for every empire.
I don't know of any players who use the BoM fighters in Fed Com except for the Hydran fighters.
Target said:
No Shields on a Romulan in Cloak would be really bad... As was pointed out they are over pointed because of their Cloaks and because of that, they are almost too small for their size class. One luck shot and a Wareagle will probably be down for the count without ever getting a shot off.
Target said:
Looking at the list ADB is kicking around you are going to see Romulans from all 3 Eras. Eagles (BoP), Kestrals (Klingon reffited ships), and Hawks (these were the crash build program the Romulians started once they finally had Tatical Warp figured out/sold to them.) So yeah you will have a variety of non Klingon Ships to play with.
MikeB said:
Like Mike pointed out yes there are Fighters (Hydran Stingers) in Fed Com but, in the SFU all races do use and deploy both Fighters and Gunboats. That said who knows when you will actually see them in ACTA:SF. I am sure you guys would be a lot less hostile to them than the Fed Com players are. And for the record yes I do use fighters with BoM rules and I think they are way to weak as presented but that is a fight for another day :lol:
MarkDawg said:
One last link if you want a little light reading on the SFU modern history. Be fair warned this is not you father's Trek...
http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/general_war.htm
And yes the Andros SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nerroth said:
The easiest way of doing Orions is to take the 2 points of built in ECM they had and make it the minimum level stealth rating from B5 but universally available. Then, for simplicity, make cloak capable Orions a listed variant for major Orion vessel types like the Raider series.
Its the multi-option mounts I think might be difficult - unless you simply have a fixed set of limited options for the option mounts, or do them as defined variants which loses some of the flavour.
Renny
Mongoose
I guess Rambler was pointing out that even though this game is not set in, nor allowed to use, the DS9 era stuff, the Star Fleet Universe has plenty of war to go around 
. Also, nothing stopping you from grabbing a Negh'Var miniature and using it instead of the D7. Another company, well known for their clickable base minis, are bringing out as game at some point this year which i'm betting will include the Klingon flagship and there are a few minis floating around on ebay.
. Also, nothing stopping you from grabbing a Negh'Var miniature and using it instead of the D7. Another company, well known for their clickable base minis, are bringing out as game at some point this year which i'm betting will include the Klingon flagship and there are a few minis floating around on ebay.Iron Domokun
Mongoose
The Star Fleet Universe background has many different kinds of fighters. Many of them are armed with drones or plasma torpedoes, so in a game of SFB a heavy carrier (CVA) can launch two squadrons of fighters (24 counters), each of which can launch 2 drones per turn (sometimes more), each of which lasts for 3 turns and has a counter... In a really big game with the Federation using carrier battle groups and the "Third Way" they can have up to four squadrons... so the number of counters on the map quickly gets to "the complexity is making my brain explode" levels. Like 100+ counters just for the fighters and drones.
Obviously, that many things on the map is just not practical in AcTA. Hydran fighters (the Stinger-II) don't have any seeking weapons, they are just direct fire. They do add to counter clutter, but they are really necessary for Hydrans to feel right. Mike West compared Hydrans sans fighters to a peanut butter jelly sandwich without the jelly. Or the peanut butter. Or the bread. So I'm sure you'll see Hydran fighters. I don't know if you'll see other fighters.
That said, however, Steve Cole has repeatedly said that he is all about giving his customers what they want. I'm sure Matt has the same attitude. If enough AcTA: SF players want fighters, and Matt is able to find a way to fit them in that makes them playable and fun in AcTA, then you'll get fighters.
Obviously, that many things on the map is just not practical in AcTA. Hydran fighters (the Stinger-II) don't have any seeking weapons, they are just direct fire. They do add to counter clutter, but they are really necessary for Hydrans to feel right. Mike West compared Hydrans sans fighters to a peanut butter jelly sandwich without the jelly. Or the peanut butter. Or the bread. So I'm sure you'll see Hydran fighters. I don't know if you'll see other fighters.
That said, however, Steve Cole has repeatedly said that he is all about giving his customers what they want. I'm sure Matt has the same attitude. If enough AcTA: SF players want fighters, and Matt is able to find a way to fit them in that makes them playable and fun in AcTA, then you'll get fighters.
One thing that ACtA veterans may find interesting to note, in terms of planning your on-table tactics; the forward-oriented arcs on the seven starter empires' fleets.
I was looking over the six currently-available fleet lists for ACtA:NA, and noted that all of them are heavily oriented towards "broad-siding" ships; the P and S arcs are, in most cases, much stronger than the F arc in most cases. (Which I personally find a bit odd when looking at the pics of minis for ships like the Nightwing, Mantis and Mujahidin; each of those ships look to me like they really ought to be firing the bulk of their weaponry forward.)
Star Fleet, in contrast, has forward-oriented heavy weapons on its ships, plus phaser suites which tend to overlap most heavily in the forward arc. Most of the other SFU empires have a similar dynamic.
If the same dynamic is ported over, that would make the way ACtA:SF works that much removed from what people may be used to with ACtA:Noble Armada.
I was looking over the six currently-available fleet lists for ACtA:NA, and noted that all of them are heavily oriented towards "broad-siding" ships; the P and S arcs are, in most cases, much stronger than the F arc in most cases. (Which I personally find a bit odd when looking at the pics of minis for ships like the Nightwing, Mantis and Mujahidin; each of those ships look to me like they really ought to be firing the bulk of their weaponry forward.)
Star Fleet, in contrast, has forward-oriented heavy weapons on its ships, plus phaser suites which tend to overlap most heavily in the forward arc. Most of the other SFU empires have a similar dynamic.
If the same dynamic is ported over, that would make the way ACtA:SF works that much removed from what people may be used to with ACtA:Noble Armada.
Stormrider
Mongoose
Nerroth said:
Drazi in our star fleets, excellent
Nerroth said:
NA is a bit odd in this respect - the B5 fleets had a variety which is more in tune with the SFU ships you describe. Many races favoured heavy frontal firepower - Centauri, Drakh, Minbari, Drazi, whilst the Dilgar almost exclusively used vast amounts of heavy weapons in their frint arc - almost neglecting their other arcs. The other named races tended to have other ships that could cover flanks. EarthForce was probably the most broadside orientated fleet. It was a suprise to me how similar the NA ships are in terms of weapon placement...........
Whilst the main rules are oop - check out my fleet packs (in sig), Esp The Dilgar War to get an idea of how B5 worked - I think it will be more familiar
Da Boss said:Does look pretty good
Might have to get a couple - although I am intrigued to see how the in universe designs match up - is there a good gallery of cool SFU ships anywhere - only seen the counters and well they are not what i would call inspiring........
The ABD site - has some examples.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=41&sid=85b4fdb40ac4dd9e2263c12f40f98e1e
MarkDawg said:
Give it a couple of months after the official release and there will be an unofficial fan conversion for TNG/DS9 floating around the interwebz, and if there isn't I will personally write one.
The issue will be ships, as the popular trek scales are the 1/4000 (current scale for the ADB ships and some of the micro machines match that scale) and 1/7000, and very big ships at 1/2500.
1/3200 is a new scale and should allow for detail closer to the 1/2500 ships (which are like mini display models and impractical for anything bigger than duel type scenarios unless you have stacks of cash and a big table) while still being practical for gaming.
The renders we've seen so far have been very impressive. Given the detail I think we'll start seeing some TNG style ships in 1/3200 on Shipways soon.
However I've bought a micro machine reliant (which may well be slightly out of scale with the 1/3200 ships) and I will either come up with Miranda stats or use it as an NCL. If anyone decides to complain about it, I'll just say 'Wrath of Khan dude, Wrath of Khan.'
Even if you are just going to game TNG/DS9 you'll still need the rules and plenty of D7s, which I think are in the top 3 ship designs in the Star Trek Universe.
Give it a couple of months after the official release and there will be an unofficial fan conversion for TNG/DS9 floating around the interwebz, and if there isn't I will personally write one.
Excellent look forward to it let me know if you want any help - also know some very nice poeple who do awesome full colour images on renderosity
However I've bought a micro machine reliant (which may well be slightly out of scale with the 1/3200 ships) and I will either come up with Miranda stats or use it as an NCL. If anyone decides to complain about it, I'll just say 'Wrath of Khan dude, Wrath of Khan.' Even if you are just going to game TNG/DS9 you'll still need the rules and plenty of D7s, which I think are in the top 3 ship designs in the Star Trek Universe.
The D7 is cool but the Brid of Prey is also very nice. We have played quite a few games using micro machines - Eldar vs Federation/Klingons, Imperium of Man vs the Borg, etc using BFG and that was good fun and the ships worked fine.
Excellent look forward to it
let me know if you want any help - also know some very nice poeple who do awesome full colour images on renderosity However I've bought a micro machine reliant (which may well be slightly out of scale with the 1/3200 ships) and I will either come up with Miranda stats or use it as an NCL. If anyone decides to complain about it, I'll just say 'Wrath of Khan dude, Wrath of Khan.' Even if you are just going to game TNG/DS9 you'll still need the rules and plenty of D7s, which I think are in the top 3 ship designs in the Star Trek Universe.
The D7 is cool but the Brid of Prey is also very nice. We have played quite a few games using micro machines - Eldar vs Federation/Klingons, Imperium of Man vs the Borg, etc using BFG and that was good fun and the ships worked fine.
I think it far more likely one of the playtest group will come out with it, as they'll have advance access to the rules for months.
I'm currently working on a Galactica conversion purely out of boredom, and I've written the additional rules and am currently doing the ships. It isn't as big a change as SFB, and I'll shove an alpha test pack out the door in the next six weeks if someone would like to host it.
I'm currently working on a Galactica conversion purely out of boredom, and I've written the additional rules and am currently doing the ships. It isn't as big a change as SFB, and I'll shove an alpha test pack out the door in the next six weeks if someone would like to host it.
Similar threads
