About ACTA bases

[tneva82]

Quick reminder since it's been long time I bought the models but what size bases ACTA ships have? I have 3 size flying bases, big, medium and small ones. Do ACTA use all three or only 2?

And what sort of ratio would roughly be good to have for 2 fleets total? I have centauri, EA, vorlon and ISA. As I'll be using separate flying bases and models with magnets holding them I don't need to have 1 to 1 ratio as I won't be fielding them all anyway at the same time.

 

[Burger]

You can use whatever size you think is best for looks and stability. There is no rule about base size. In fact minis sometimes came with different size bases depending on what day of the week it was!

 

[l33tpenguin]

Which is a real PITA when they have rules written that takes base size into account...

 

[Iain McGhee]

Don't find it much of a problem myself. Model size is often more of a factor for ship placement than base size, rules that require direct contact (other than breaching pods) use the stem and an inch or so either way rarely matters if you're moving fighters into contact to defeat ship's stealth.

 

[l33tpenguin]

I think using base sizes as a rule mechanic (or ship foot prints, bases don't have to be a specific size) was something that Mongoose didn't take advantage of that could have helped a lot of problems. Bigger ships are bigger targets. A rule mechanic to reflect this would be nice. It should be FAR easier to bore sight an Explorer (est. 6+km) than an Olympus (est. under 500m), yet its not.

 

[AdrianH]

I would imagine that the rule about not allowing ships to overlap was to protect the models from banging into each other. Fighters can safely overlap capital ships; they sit on the ship's base and the fighters themselves are below the ship model. Fighters can't overlap fighters because the top fighter's base would be sitting on the bottom fighter models, not something you want to happen if the top fighter's base is one of the metal hex types. Counters must follow the same rule because otherwise counters could have a tactical advantage over models, which would not have done Mongoose's miniatures sales any favours!

Current boresight rules don't make allowances for target size, and using base size or model size would not work. My Sunhawks and Warbirds all came with 2" diameter bases, as did my Vorchans, and there's no way you're going to tell me they're easier to boresight than an Avioki sitting on a 1" diameter base. Besides, the models are nowhere near the same scale - that same Sunhawk model ("real" size 350m) is not much smaller than the Hyperion ("real" size 1025m). (Sizes taken from B5Tech.)

 

[l33tpenguin]

Current boresight rules don't make allowances for target size, and using base size or model size would not work. My Sunhawks and Warbirds all came with 2" diameter bases, as did my Vorchans, and there's no way you're going to tell me they're easier to boresight than an Avioki sitting on a 1" diameter base. Besides, the models are nowhere near the same scale - that same Sunhawk model ("real" size 350m) is not much smaller than the Hyperion ("real" size 1025m). (Sizes taken from B5Tech.)

I understand. As bases are now, a size rule wouldn't work. However, I think using one has its advantages but would require more base sizes. I think even 1", 2", 3" and 4" would work well. To be a rule, specific ships would have a specific sized 'foot print' that affected rules like ramming, bore sighting, fighters, etc. Its one of those 'would be really easy to do and fix some problems while adding 'some' realism' type of rules that, sadly, I don't see being taken advantage of.

 

[AdrianH]

I understand. As bases are now, a size rule wouldn't work. However, I think using one has its advantages but would require more base sizes. I think even 1", 2", 3" and 4" would work well. To be a rule, specific ships would have a specific sized 'foot print' that affected rules like ramming, bore sighting, fighters, etc. Its one of those 'would be really easy to do and fix some problems while adding 'some' realism' type of rules that, sadly, I don't see being taken advantage of.

It wouldn't work with base or model size unless someone were to produce a whole new line of ships which, if not exactly all to the same scale, were at least in the right order of size - that is, if "real" ship A is larger than "real" ship B then model ship A is larger than model ship B, across all fleets.

Fighters are already covered by P&P - the maximum number of fighters which can be in base contact for stealth breaking, or suicide runs by Dilgar or Gaim, is the ship's starting damage divided by ten, plus two. The same number, perhaps scaled down e.g. divided by ten again, could be used as the ship's "footprint" for the purpose of boresighting and ramming. But I'd be wary of making it too much easier to boresight because that risks making those ships limited by boresight weapons significantly more powerful.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Going with a 'footprint' would work the same, without changing the bases. I.e. an omega has a 3 inch diameter footprint regardless of the base size. It wouldn't matter how big the model or base was, the footprint would be the same. I like this because it does make bigger ships easier targets (as they should be) but isn't a MASSIVE change. It helps boresight out while not helping it out a lot. With most ships likely falling into the 2-3 inch range (remember, I said 1 to 4 inches, thus not a lot of difference) the mechanic would be pretty standard and allow a small degree of flexability especially when it comes to such a restrictive mechanic as boresight.
Something along these lines -
Most patrol and some smaller raid ships @ stem
Most raid and some battle ships @ 1 inch
Battle and some war ships typically @ 2 inches
War and arma level ships generally @ 3 inches
Select massive ships (like the explorer) and space stations @ 4 inches

Regardless, its just an idea