[ACTA:SF] Brainstorming about X-Ships

[Nerroth]

Sorry for the double-post; but I wanted to give the drones a fair airing.

-----

In Module X1, three new drone types are presented; the single-space type-VII, the double-space type-VIII, and the half-space type-IX. Of those, it's noted that only the type-VII is the "standard" type expected to be found in an X-ship's drone racks; so, in keeping with the FC-inspired simplicity of Main Era drones, I feel this should be the only kind we try to work on here.

The "basic" type-VII has an 18-point warhead, takes six points of damage to kill, travels at a maximum speed of 32, and has an endurance of five turns.

Now, if you assume that the current 36" range for drones is based on the ability of a speed-24 drone to travel three turns' worth of movement in FC, that would mean an increase in range of 4 inches per "turn"; which would lead to a staggering 80 inches if you translated it directly! So, it may be as well to assume that, in ACtA:SF, the type-VII "only" goes the equivalent of three turns' worth; which is still a revised range of 48".

As for damage output, the current Multihit D6 and Devastating Traits are based on a 12-point warhead. So, for an 18-point warhead, that might go up to, say... Multihit D6+3?

So far as anti-drones go; it's worth noting that while ADDs should work as normal against Type-VIIs, no X-ship actually has a separate ADD rack. Rather, they all have an advanced version of the combined drone/anti-drone G-rack; the same as the Feds do. This is worth bearing in mind for Klingon, Kzinti and Orion players making the jump to advanced technology.

Oh, and instead of calling them "Type-VII" drones, it might be an idea to simply go with:

Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Advanced Drones 48 T - Devastating +1, Multihit D6+3, Seeking

-----

If these look okay, I can add them back into the CX and DX; but in the meantime, I wanted to try them out on one ship of particular interest for myself.

-----

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY GALACTIC SURVEY CRUISER - 350 POINTS (GSX)

The first advanced technology version of the venerable Byrd-class galactic survey cruiser hull was built in Y182, as the advanced medium carrier NCC-1783 USS Field Marshal Colin Powell. The success of the Powell, both during and after the General War, encouraged Star Fleet to build dedicated advanced survey cruisers, with the same base hull, from Y186 onwards.

These ships served to establish a number of key firsts on behalf of the Federation. The NCC-1821 USS Sakharov was the first Star Fleet ship to succesfully travel to the Omega Octant and back again; setting out from the Lesser Magellanic Cloud in Y212, it reached that distant region of the galaxy on Y214, where it gathered a wealth of knowledge it was able to impart upon its return to the Federation in Y219. One of its sister ships, the NCC-1824 USS Feynman, was the first ship to alert Star Fleet Command of the impending Xorkaelian assault of Y210; the ship survived this encounter, and would go on to fight in action against the invading forces of the Xorkaelian Empire.

Ships of the Class: NCC-1820 Einstein, NCC-1821 Sakharov, NCC-1822 Teller, NCC-1823 Fermi, NCC-1824 Feynman.

Turn: 6
Shields: 32
Damage: 32/11
Marines: 8
Craft: 8 Advanced Shuttles
Traits: Enhanced Bridge, Fast, Labs 10, Probe 2, Scout 4, Tractor Beam 2, Transporter 7

Weapon Range Arc AD Special
Phaser-1 18 PH 2 Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 18 SH 2 Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 18 T 4 Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Photon Torpedoes 15 F 2 Devastating +1, Multihit 4, Reload
Advanced Drones 48 T 4 Devastating +1, Multihit D6+3, Seeking

-----

If you want a ship class that can take Star Fleet into two new regions of the SFU, and help uncover the big bad guys of the X2 era, it's hard to go wrong with the GSX!

(The front cover of Captain's Log #40 shows the Powell discovering a Space Manta in Y206. The "standard" GSX would look more or less like her.)

 

[billclo]

Nerroth, I would think that being more advanced drones with better guidance/seeker heads, that X-Drones would either have a longer auto-hit range, or a bonus on the "retain lock-on die roll of a 5 or 6".

 

[JohnDW]

48" range, accurate +1 or +2 maybe? Would pretty much do what you're thinking should happen.

 

[Rambler]

Just leave the drones as they are you gain a +1 to hit none Xships anyway why mess with it? Aginst another Xship they work like normal.

 

[locarno24]

WRT Torpedoes - the ACTA Babylon 5 had 'ignore slow-loading* unless crippled' (*i.e. reload) on advanced missile racks. It worked well and was a nice, simple mechanic.

I don't think X-Ships should be unique - it's more a matter of in service dates.
Again, purloining from ACTA B5, there were in fact three 'Earth Alliance' fleet lists - one mostly built around hyperions for the dilgar and minbari wars, one with the omega destroyer covering the bulk of the series, and one with the warlock and derivatives that covers crusade era.

I believe a similar logic applies - you might have one 'era' fleet where X-Ships are unique, and another where they've become the core of the fleet (whilst, I guess, you in turn get X2s and X3s starting to appear).


Immunity to shield burnthrough seems characterful but be careful as it's a big thing to remove.

 

[JohnDW]

Having not played SFB, what is the justification for wanting to have ACTA x-ships be immune to shield bleed? Is there something similar about the shields of an x-ship in SFB?

 

[Rambler]

Xships tend to have about 40% more power than the base ship they are based on. This power is fed into the shields reinforcing them causing them to appear stronger than normal shields. I am not convinced that this justifies them being immune to burn through. Instead why not give Xships an innate Stealth 6+ to cover burn through and the +1 to be hit?

 

[Nerroth]

The shield bleed-through is derived from the shield burn-through rules in FC; which in turn are derived from the leaky shield rules in SFB. (The main difference there is that, in SFB, the leaky shield rules are optional; whereas in FC, they are mandatory.)

While there are no X-ship rules in FC to compare to, I don't see anything in those from SFB to say that, were leaky shields to be used, this would then mean first-generation X-ships would get a higher tolerance than non-X shields in that regard. So, unless FC does end up giving X-shields a different burn-through factor at some future point, I'd just as well advise leaving the rules they way they are.

-----

Now, one thing I wanted to address is the way that X-phasers work.

As noted in the errata, the "phaser overload" concept that X-phasers used to have is long dead; they can be safely ignored here.

However, what is still in play is the rapid-pulse mode; which allows a phaser-1 to fire as two phasers-3 (or a phaser four to fire as 4 phasers-3), but only against attrition units (fighters, gunboats, seeking weapons), not against enemy ships. The addition of gunboats to the list of viable targets is a key reason why X-ships are bad news for PFs.

So, to cover this, an X-ship could be given the option to turn each phaser-1 AD into two phaser-3 AD when using defensive fire; or if shooting at non-ship targets when using the Intensify Defensive Fire! special action.

 

[JohnDW]

If their shields are stronger, would a higher number of shields represent that accurately? Or give them something similar to the klingon shields where they take half (rounded up) damage.

 

[Greg Smith]

Or simply allow them to boost shields as a non-power drain special action.

 

[Nerroth]

In SFB, the main advantage of X-shields is that they are only half as expensive to repair per shield box; which in ACtA:SF would perhaps translate into a doubling of the Boost Energy to Shields! special action (either 2D6 per 10 starting points, or 1D6 per 5; whichever worked as a better threshold balance).

I would still oblige it to suffer Power Drain, though; loaded with power a first-generation X-ship may be, even it has to draw the line somewhere.

-----

I went back and added the advanced drones to the CX and DX, by the way.

 

[Nerroth]

Depending on whether the Damage score for the Gettysburg-class CB is adjusted or not, the base score for the Vincennes-class might need to be adjusted to match. (I'm still hoping the CB will be brought back down to 32/11, to make things tidier all round.)

One thing that might be worth considering is whether or not X-ships should be assumed to possess the Escort Trait, to account for the limited Aegis tied into their advanced fire control systems. X-squadrons tend not to bother with dedicated escorts, even when supporting X-carriers or X-tenders, since the base variants are effective anti-attrition platforms as it stands.

(Fighters and gunboats might be vulnerable if taken against other X-squadrons, but an X-ship carrying them can be quite effective at hunting Andromedan satellite bases.)