ACTA SF Ship appearance discussion

[Greg Smith]

My problem main problem is that an F5 looks like an F5W. The Fed Strike Cruiser looks like a Battlecruiser. The Gorn are pretty much one disc, two discs or three discs. And there is a whole bunch of Romulan ships that look like the ship from the show.

Now I'm sure size will be a factor in being able to tell them apart, but really I would like to see more differentiation. Although, it does occur to me, that since weaponry is pretty similar, visually you can assume bigger is badder.

Also - spicing up is needed, specially on the Gorn and Kzinti. Surface detail makes painted models look better.

 

[McKinstry]

Also - spicing up is needed, specially on the Gorn and Kzinti. Surface detail makes painted models look better.

Amen. The Kzinti could certainly use some spicing up. The spruced up Gorn that Jean posted the link to are significant improvements.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Some interesting ideas here - I don't suppose you could post some of the designs even if they were unused to show people want could of been /could be?

Sorry, they never got further than verbal concepts.

 

[Jean]

Jean, can you explain to me why their is such resistance to change, we aren't asking for a complete distruction of SFU history, just some more ship variation. the fed fleet is "ok" and ships like the C8 and F5 look different enough but we have a whole raft of D's that all look similar, or just have a warp engine stuck on. now i LOVE the D6 design, but lets see it expanded
and I feel their is no hope for the Kzinti

First, you have to realize that I find "mini love" baffling. I understand that it exists, but it isn't something that I participate in. The folks at Origins will tell you that I know the minis are pewter and that roughly "These are Feds and these are Klingons (unless they are Romulans) and these are Romulans (unless they are Klingons) and ..." This isn't because they cannot be told apart within the empires, but because I just haven't taken the time to learn what each of the little things are.

That being said, I can see the differences for the most part. Sort of like seeing those corded dogs in the dog shows. I know they are Hungarian, but half the time I cannot remember their names.

The resistance comes in part from the SSD outlines and art within the established books. People "know" what the ships look like and you're asking them to "know" that a Toyota pickup truck is a Chevy pickup truck. If you've always bought a Chevy, then a Toyota flies in the face of tradition. And sometimes you're asking them to have one of those Jaguar hood ornaments added. People are most likely worried about where it stops -- do they have Hydrans that look like baseballs and Tholians that look like cricket bats? Now, I'm pretty sure that isn't where they are going, but people worry.

Plus you have the history that drives what the ships look like. You have to realize that you haven't bought into a game with kewl minis. You've bought into a universe with a well developed history and reasons for how the ships developed. Comparing it to WWII games isn't that far wrong. People know what the British ships looked like and what the American ships looked like and the German ships looked like. Adding "stuff" to them that is historically wrong is upsetting.

Does that help you see where some of the folks are coming from?

Jean

 

[Ryueokami]

Hmmm as a question there (I don't know if it's possible from a production point of few):
IF there is a plan to modify a design, would it be possible to put enough "spareparts"
into the packs, so that one of both vaiants (old/new) can be built?

Like putting additional decor for gorn ships separately, or the optional broom of the new ship
as optional thing.


Even if it sounds strange to use another company as a showing case......there is a specific
tabletop manufacturer (ground battles, both fantasy and futuristic) that currently has switched
to produce boxes where you can build one of 2 variants out of the contents of the boxes (but never both variants at the same time).


That way NEW models would be possible while satisfying the "need" of those that want to stick to the old designs.

 

[scoutdad]

Another big part ofthe "resistence" to change and the overall similarity of design lies in the SFU strategic game, Federation and Empire.
In that game, you fight the entire 18 year General War while commanding the forces of an entire empire 9or alliance of empirs, if ou're unlucky enough to not have 7 local players).
Part of F&E is economy driven.
Your empire produces X income per year based on developed territory, colonized planets, etc.
That income goes towards repair of damaged ships, upgrading of planetary defenses, construction of new ships, and upgrading of old ships.

Many ofthe ships in a given empire can be upgraded to a newer version for a much lower cost than new construction of said class. I n some instances, this is accomplished by lengthening or widening the existing hull. Sometimes it means adding another engine (almost all built to 2 or three standard specifications). Sometimes it just means yanking the forward hull (suacer, boom, disc, what have you) and adding a different.

The existing ships in the SFU where designed with that philosphy in mind from the outset.
that makes it easy to convert them. It would not be so easy to explain away in the game fluff if for example:

The Grontian Krellep class light cruiser can be converted to the Grubyupo class Heavy cruiser by adding a third warp engine. If the Krellep has two two 17 gigacrump engines mounted aft of the ship, one right one left and the Grubyupo has threee 17 gigacrump engines mounted in the rear, one right, one left, and one below.. it's a pretty easy to imagine conversion.
Now if the Grubyupo miniature has a single 50 gigacrump engine with oversized bussard colletors and it runs the length of the ship (through the guts where a spine would be), it's a bit harder to imagine.

Now both of these sound like cool minis to own, paint, and fly; but unfortunately ACTA: SF does not exist in a vacuum. Everything must make sense in all of the games of the SFU.

that being said, I do understand Matthews desireto take the reins and run wild with the Starline 2500s. And I understand the "non-SFU guys [I really hate breaking it into an us vs. them format!!!] hopes for some really cool Star Trek type minis derived from what has gone before, but re-booted, as it were.

I can also understand SVC and ADBs desire to maintain the 30 year consistency that has gone before.
There are Starline 2400 version of many of these miniatures, there are 30 years worth of SSDs, there are counters, every product has line art depicting these ships in it, and there are laminated ship cards for Fed Comm with greyscale drawing of all the ships.
The new minis must maintain a resemblance to what has gone before. Changes for changes sake not withstanding, I like what has been done with the minis so far nd I really like what I see ofhte Lyran CA.
I'm looking forward to even more cool minis to collect and paint. As long as we can get past us/them and focus on creating a new line of minis that pays homage to the one what brought us to the dance while simultaneously creating a fresh design that will spark the interest of a whole new generation of gamer.

OK, rant mode off.
Somebody send me one of those new Lyrans to paint...... :wink:

 

[ErikB]

the one what brought us to the dance

Gene Roddenberry?

 

[Sgt_G]

That was well written by Matt, but I puked a little when he said "we want to be more like Ford"...I suppose it works for the purpose of his analogy, but personally I'd choose a manufacturer who is actually profitable and doesn't make shiat cars.

Hmm, make it Jaguar of a few years ago then - the XJ and X-Type formed the family line, but the S-Type and XK were obviously from the same manufacturer.

Ah, a man after my own heart. I happen to own a '78 Series 2 XJ-12L four-door saloon, but I also own an 1893 house. Which do you think gets the money and time?

Regarding ship designs, I'm kind of in the middle. I don't think you can change the Feds, Klingons, or Eagle-series Romulans much. On the other board, you said something about "perhaps an F5 without a boom". If you do that, most people from hard-core SFB players to the least interested non-Trek person will look at it and say it's not a Klingon. They expect to see the gull-wings and boom design.

I remember when the Hydran ships came out a couple decades ago, and some players wondered why they had three fairly different shapes in the same fleet. But they aren't so radically different as to not look like they belong together. Kind of like the XJ and S-Type. But let's say we get around to doing minis for the Sagitars and try to put flying pyramids and seven-pointed star-shaped ships in the same fleet. At first glace, they'll look like two different empires.

Regarding not being able to tell D6/D7/C7 apart, I think Sandrine did a wonderful job of making these twin-sister ships look distinct enough to be able to tell them apart at a glance. The D5 might be a minor problem. I'm all in favor of adding details for details sake, but there becomes a point when it goes from art to clutter. Thus far, Sandrine has kept it to art.

 

[Ben2]

There are a few ways to go for adding new ships to the universe.

The national guard ships in module R8 (basically the updated early years ships), which would give you another couple of dozen designs). This adds nothing new to existing SFB stuff, but supports both an Early Years timeline for players and gives additional light units to all fleets. I'd actually really like to see D3s and D4s knocking around, and with no existing miniatures and decades between those ships and the D6 it is pretty easy to justify a cruder looking design, that while recognisably Klingon isn't as sleek and graceful. Something that looks more like a bruiser.

There's plenty of scope in creating minis for early years ships, but if stats were given for them as 2nd line general war era ships then they can't carry a supplement on their own.

Add unique and trial ships to the middle years period (Y125-Y160ish). These either get scrapped or used up in combat in the intervening period, much like they did with the Federation Old Heavy Cruiser.

Add some more unique designs to the Andromedan war period.

Extend the timeline forward.

 

[archon96]

I still think the x ship era is ripe for ship evolution.

 

[Ben2]

Basically X2 breaks SFB or they'd have done it years ago. X cruisers beat dreadnoughts as it is, and they haven't added custom built X ships yet.

X ships are fairly unpleasant. The Klingon DXD has 7 forward phaser-1s, 6 disruptors and 6 GX drone racks, which will ruin anyone's day. That would be dreadnought firepower on an agile ship that might also qualify as fast.

 

[archon96]

dont need the actual system but the designs, and if you did put them in they would have to be pricey, this to represent the research investment. so expensive youd only want them in a big game.

 

[Dave773]

Plus you have the history that drives what the ships look like. You have to realize that you haven't bought into a game with kewl minis. You've bought into a universe with a well developed history and reasons for how the ships developed.

I guess I don't understand why these things have to be mutually exclusive. The whole point of a table-top miniatures game is aesthetics. In the same way some SFB players don't "get" the miniatures thing, I can't wrap my head around the cardboard counters. i'm not knocking it and I think SFB/FC are great games, but I would have absolutely no interest in playing them without the aesthetics of 3-dimensional miniature ships and terrain.

And I don't understand the suggestion that these ship designs are scarosanct. Designs change over time, get updated. Even glancing quickly at the FC box covers will tell you ADB's ship designs have evolved. I don't see why Mongoose couldn't balance "historic" designs with the updated capabilities of CAD and other techniques.

I understand the devotion to what has worked for years (ney, decades), but if you expect to reach a new audience, which I'm assuming is the reason for the ADB/Mongoose partnership, I suggest that making "kewl minis" becomes a real priority.

dave

 

[Jean]

Dave, the problem is they still need to keep the same basic hull design. After that, the ships' weapons must be able to fire in the appropriate arcs.

You do realize that SVC is in favor of the "Wild Gorn" and even suggested the concept, right? But when that change affects the basic hull, he has drawn the line.

Like it or not, this is a joint venture. The decision to develop the Star Fleet Universe was made for many reasons. Any partnership between established companies comes with baggage. Part of ADB's is that our ships are what they are. That consistency is part of what Mongoose bought into. The ships can be enhanced with more detail but the basic hull is the way it is for a reason. Maintaining a certain level of consistency is what I understand that SVC and ADB's customers want.

Jean

 

[McKinstry]

I don't think there are two sides here and the differences are really quite minor. The Wild Gorn change is ideal as an approach for all fleets. The basic theme has to be recognizable and consistent but tweaking the pattern and adding some frills satisfies the eye candy need without sacrificing the basic racial theme for each fleet.

 

[Greg Smith]

Personally, I'm not advocating a radical change in design. But I do want to be able to tell a Gorn Light Cruiser from a Destroyer (similarly the battle cruiser and battle destroyer). I want the difference to be more than just a few dots on the top of the saucer. Now both could be the same basic saucer, warp nacelles and wings, but there need to be a bigger difference somewhere.

Plus a little of the sexing-up that the Sparrow Hawk got wouldn't go amiss for the whole Gorn and Kzinti fleet.

 

[katadder]

I agree with what alot are posting. I have posted in the topic over on the SF boards:

I know people want to keep the same look but you only have to look at next gen type ST games to see what can be done.
people can tell an akira from a steamrunner from a galaxy class from a sovereign class however they can also tell they all belong to the same fleet.

with the SFU you cant tell the difference unless you really really know, and I play FC but with counters so couldnt tell you the difference between various klingons without something to tell me which is which.

I would love to see some changes rather than just additional nacelles etc. I know my gaming group is looking at the new wizkid models to proxy instead (mainly because they cant get the real ones in portugal as yet, although they are ordered)

 

[Dave773]

Jean,
I'm certainly not advocating anyone do anything outside the agreed confines of the partnership. And I understand both ADB and Mongoose have previously agreed to the boundaries they can operate in. My point is this: there has clearly been a decision made to expand the fan base of the SFB 'verse. This expansion, into table-top miniatures gaming specifically, means the partnership is targeting miniatures gamers, right? So, I would think, a successful foray into this hobby means selling miniatures (as selling rules alone isn't going to generate profit).

To that end, all you have to do is look at what other science fiction/spaceship gaming manufacturers are producing to see what you have to do to get people interested- take Spartan's resin models, for example.

In the end, I believe that ACTA:SF will succeed or fail based on how the miniatures look, along with how the game plays. And if that means fleshing out some of the designs (like the Gorn ship) to make them more attractive (or cool), then I don't see why that should be a problem. I guess there becomes a fundamental question- do you update/"spice up" some very old ship designs to attract new players to the universe, or do you do everything possible to keep the Old Guard happy? I suspect there's probably a happy medium.
dave

 

[Cyporiean]

Another example of updating a design from about 30 years ago, without changing the design.

Mobile Suit Gundam's Zaku II: http://images.wikia.com/gundam/images/f/f1/Ms_zakuii_a.gif
http://static.hlj.com/images/ban/ban08653.jpg

This is the original kit from circa 1979, low on details but very iconic, not unlike Star Fleet's metals.

http://static2.hlj.com/images/ban/ban953144_3.jpg
This is the same machine, but with 30 years of new developments in sculpting and casting. Same profile, same look, just better details.

Gundam is almost as old as Star Trek, and has just as many die hard fans who rage about how designs change. The Zaku II is on the same level of Iconic as the Klingon's D7, and Gundam has the same amount of 'its War time, we need function over form' as Star Fleet Battles. Its also incredibly easy to tell that the Gouf, Dom, and Zaku I are all from the same army but different enough to tell apart.

 

[Jean]

I honestly think that many of us are saying the same thing. Keep the basic hull, add details (within the framework of what the ship needs to function), and make the details distinctive on the various ships.

I think that is what I like about the 2500 Romulan and Klingon ships. I can see differences enough that they are distinct ships.

Jean