ACTA: SF Balance Option

[andypalmer]

I think one way of balancing the ships better, as well as getting more of the miniatures in use, would be to define the ships by "era."

For "era" I think we can classify four different eras or periods in which the ships fought.

MY. Middle Years. Around about Y150 in SFU terms, but by using an era model instead of a year model we can fudge some here. Key points would be speed 8-12 drones (range 20?), practically no dreadnoughts, and none of the new snazzy war designs. The only fighters would be the Hydran ST-1. Romulans would be sub-light only.

EW. Early War. This would be about Y160-Y165. This would introduce the early fighters and Dreadnoughts for all. The warp-capable Romulan ships get introduced in this era.

GW. General War. The height of the General War - around Y168-175. It would see the introduction of speed 20 drones (range 36), more advanced fighters, and all of the "war" designs.

LW. Late War. The late stages - around Y180-185. Speed 32 drones (range 48?) get introduced as well as Fast Patrol ships and the most advanced ship designs.

Each ship would have a different point value based upon the era, and might have slightly different capabilities as well (due to drone speed, refits, etc.). This should allow for better balance and more use out of the "vanilla" ships.

This would be some work to set up but I think would lend itself to better distribution of ship sales, better balance, and would be well suited for tournament play. You will likely get some dispersion of the player base preferences across the different eras, but at least those players who like the D7 and Fed CA would have an environment to use them in for which they are designed.

 

[billclo]

I like it as well. But I also think you are right in that it may result in player fragmentation. Seems like many folk just want an X points pickup battle, and that's fine.

But having earlier eras during which the "uncool old ships" are all you have available could be fun too.

 

[Nerroth]

As a point of comparison, Federation Commander divides the eras set in the Alpha Octant into the Main Era (from the General War through to the Andromedan Invasion), the Middle Years (from the dawn of modern tactical warp in the 2520s through the Four Powers War of 2558-2562; where the "pre-refit" ships hold sway) and the Early Years (pre-2520; which is not formally published, but does have material available for playtest in Captain's Log).

The only real sub-division in the Main Era is to do with the option to use late (speed 32) drones; it's corralled off into the post-2580 (Y180) period, but you have to pay extra to outfit ships so equipped.

The Middle Years as represented in FC: Briefing #2 streamlines some details, and fudges a few others. Some of it is similar enough to SFB (no plasma-S launchers, Hydrans get Stinger-1s, no ESG capacitors, etc) but others are either abstracted down (pre-refit hulls are split into distinct Ship Cards, rather than combined into a single SSD; drones go to speed 16 instead of 24; etc) or handwaved in (the Romulans get their first wave of post-Smarba ships; the sublight hulls are shifted to FC's Early Years instead).


Given that FC seems to be the primary basis for conversion to ACtA:SF, it might be worth taking that game's treatment of each era into consideration.

 

[andypalmer]

FC doesn't officially support fighters for every race, which I would expect to eventually see in ACTA, given the better fit for the scale of fleet, rather than squadron actions. For that reason as well, I created the additional splits.

I think also that, due to the mechanics of ACTA, "war" ships perform relatively better, compared to the pre-war versions, than they do in FC (which is still basically the SFB combat system); this creates a greater divide than exists in FC, so a further break down of era to show these ships at their height appears to be a need.

 

[LimeyDragon]

FC doesn't officially support fighters for every race, which I would expect to eventually see in ACTA, given the better fit for the scale of fleet, rather than squadron actions. For that reason as well, I created the additional splits.

I think also that, due to the mechanics of ACTA, "war" ships perform relatively better, compared to the pre-war versions, than they do in FC (which is still basically the SFB combat system); this creates a greater divide than exists in FC, so a further break down of era to show these ships at their height appears to be a need.

Sounds like the way Babylon 5 was written.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

just a throught, but as far as Spd 32 Drones go, after all the issues we've had getting them set within the current system, won't an 'Accurate +1' trait work for faster drones, rather than increased range (they travel so quickly you get less chance to shoot them down). This means that the current drone rules, as i the latest errata, don't change.

As for the Early (early ?) Period with the sub-light Romulan - whilst it's cool to play (the Gorn Sub-light Battleship (CA) was always a favourite of mine), it basically takes a Faction/Empire out of play if only sub-light (spd - 1" ?). Better to go with the 'War of the Four Powers', then 'General War' option ?

 

[Nerroth]

FC doesn't officially support fighters for every race, which I would expect to eventually see in ACTA, given the better fit for the scale of fleet, rather than squadron actions. For that reason as well, I created the additional splits.

But there is the pre-production Borders of Madness project; which would itself allow for streamlined carrier operations in the FC game engine (even if the resulting rules and ships wouldn't be formally included in "vanilla" FC).

For the time being at least, there has been no sub-division stating which part of the Main Era such ships would work in; though there could be one in principle, it's up for debate whether or not one would be introduced in practice.

(But then, it could be said that the very nature of BoM as a product would make for a balancing factor, since players would have to agree on all sides to make use of these units and rules; whereas it seems that should carriers arrive in ACtA:SF, they would be considered part of the full game proper.)

I think also that, due to the mechanics of ACTA, "war" ships perform relatively better, compared to the pre-war versions, than they do in FC (which is still basically the SFB combat system); this creates a greater divide than exists in FC, so a further break down of era to show these ships at their height appears to be a need.

But is that so much of a divide that you need to slice the refitted ships out altogether?

Should there be a conversion of the Briefing #2 material to ACtA:SF, there would already be one setting which the pre-war hulls would have all to themselves; do they need a second before they have to face with the onset of the "war" classes?

(Also, in some cases, the older ships don't go away completely; the Fed CA evolves into the CB, the Gorns can "grow" their BCs into BCHs, and so forth.)


One thing I'd be concerned about is that, if the Main Era gets split too finely, the encouragement to go for "sub-optimal" fleet builds would be even less present. In the case of the Romulans, a fleet of pure Hawks would perform differently from one with only Eagles (or only Kestrels) in it. But is the current setup such that fleets drawn up from each design type would end up needing to be separated into different sub-eras in order to work? Not least when, if B2 were to be converted, the Eagles and Kestrels would be getting their "early Smarba" variants shoe-horned into the Middle Years.

 

[LimeyDragon]

It may be easier to print a supplement books that cover each era separately and gives points for said era. This could allow for more ships to be made or thought up for each era. And possibly add more content to the universe.

 

[andypalmer]

A bunch of topics, I'll just answer by topic rather than quoting.

FAST DRONES: My thought was range 48" but move the to-hit die roll out to 24"+. Costs would be increased appropriately. (even in SFB, fast drones are nasty and hit decently often).

SUB-LIGHT ROMULANS: My thought was something like speed 4 with some extra advantages when cloaking. They still wouldn't be super-exciting, but would be playable. Only applies to one era.

REFITTED/WAR SHIPS: Looking at the builds people are posting on this forum, there is a huge divide between use of the "war" ships and the pre-war ones, even if fully refitted. This is a bigger gap than exists in SFB and FC. Looking at the mechanics and the ship characteristics, I can see why. Better weapon arcs and more efficient phaser arcs matter more in ACTA than FC/SFB, whereas system redundancy matters less.

REFITS: Yes, for some ships, like the Fed CA, there would be a different version for each era, each with its own cost and ship card, representing the refits that happen over time, along with the drone speed increases. Most importantly, though, they would all use the same mini.

MIX OF SHIPS: In each era, you would have a list of diverse ships to pick from, with costs balanced for that era. In LW, for example, the older hulls would tend to have a lower relative cost, making their inclusion valuable for costing reasons, so I actually think it would result in more diversity in later eras, rather than less.

 

[Greg Smith]

Just out of curiosity, what technological improvements are there, going from early through to war eras? I appreciate X-ships are vastly improved.

As far as I can see, a phaser-1 is a phaser-1, a plasma R is a plasma-R etc.

 

[Nerroth]

The main difference is between each jump in technology level (as laid out in GURPS Prime Directive and elsewhere) rather than within each technological era itself; but there are still differences to consider.

In GURPS terms, the modern era is classed as Tech Level 12; non-tactical ("sublight") warp is TL 9, the W-era (with the first warp-refitted tactical warp ships) are TL 10, and the Y-era (the first ships built from the ground up to incorporate tactical warp technology) is TL 11. (First-generation X-tech is TL 13.)

For example, the "unrefitted" Middle Years version of the Klingon D7 looks like this in Federation Commander; compared to the Main Era version, its prow phaser array has phaser-2s instead of phaser-1s, it can fire from only one of its drone racks per turn (and the drone fired is Speed 16, instead of Speed 24), it has no ADD, and the rear shield facings are much weaker. Both, however, are considered to be TL 12 designs. (Bear in mind that the Middle Years D7 is not intended to be used in the same setting as the Main Era version in FC; as opposed to in SFB, where there is a more gradual degree of overlap.)

The later DX is an X-technology upgrade to the D7 (or more specifically, to the interim D7W heavy command cruiser), though X-tech is currently beyond the scope of FC.

In contrast, the D4 (the main Klingon cruiser during the TL11 era) was slower, had only two disruptors (which could not be overloaded) and was unable to be refitted into true modern ships. In the TL 12 era, the surviving D4s could be upgraded to the LD4, giving it (overloadable) disruptors and other improvements; but the resulting ships were unable to operate more modern warp engines, so ended up with a slower tactical combat speed that renders them uncompetitive in the modern era.

 

[Rambler]

Technolgy wise there is not a huge change in the way weapons function. Phaser 1 is still a Phaser1 true but there are usually twice as many of them and Phaser 2 and 3 pretty much disappear. Another trick Phasers pick up is a burst effect ineffect every Phaser 1 can be fired as 2 Phaser 3s. Add to this Drones and plasma speeds increase so they hit thier targets sooner and harder. Disruptors gain accuracy and usually carry 50% more mounts. Photons lose the reload penalty so they can be overloaded and fired every turn. Plus the bump in Electronic Warfare capabilities is a huge boon.

Typically a X-cruiser is suppose to be able to beat 3 normal cruisers.

 

[Greg Smith]

Thanks.

Since ships are pointed appropriately, ie the middle years D7 is less than the current D7, would separating the eras out help balance at all? Particularly in ACTA where the more subtle differences make little difference?

 

[andypalmer]

Since ships are pointed appropriately, ie the middle years D7 is less than the current D7, would separating the eras out help balance at all? Particularly in ACTA where the more subtle differences make little difference?

That is my hope (and intent).