[ACtA SF] Fed Fast Cruiser vs New Fast Cruiser

[phoenixhawk]

What is the reason to take a New Fast Cruiser over the regular Fast Cruiser, other than aesthetics? The New Fast Cruiser costs more points, has less damage points, and less weapons, so what is the plus side to this ship? Thanks!

Chris

 

[dix]

The new fast cruiser also has turret arcs for its rear phaser-1s and an extra drone rack. It is better at medium to long range than the Wolverine. Depends on your preference, I guess.

 

[JohnDW]

The new fast cruiser can pump out a few more phaser-1 shots in the front because of its AH PH1 being turned into a T PH1. The addition of 1 more drone does make it a little more safe defending against drone attacks, but removal of the ph3 banks makes it a little more voulnerable to other stuff that it would otherwise have to divert its PH1's to stopping.

 

[billclo]

Brief foray into the strategic game F&E: Initially the Feds get CA-based fast cruisers, but as time goes on, they have better use for the few CA hulls they can build (carrier, X-ship conversion) and more NCA-based fast cruisers tend to be built. If they build any at all.

Though there is something to be said about a group of Fast ships acting as a reserve; they can move 7 hexes to take place in a battle vs 6 hexes for regular warships. That and said Fast ships can keep up with a fleet that has X-ships in it, which also move 7 hexes.

This is not particularly relevant to ACTA:SF unless you are playing some sort of campaign game, naturally.

 

[Myrm]

There's a fair number of fixed map wargames scenarios that allow for the use of a flank march and give bonuses to swifter troops - such a scenario for ACTA could and should include such features. Tactically you can do it on a large enough board and its quite handy to be able to plow away from drones and get a save vs their attack without using a special action or depleting phasers, especially with the typical Fed all around phaser 1 suite developed fully in the NCA hull.