ACTA SF Ship appearance discussion

[adm]

I am a long time SFB player. This is how I see it, and is what I posted on ADB's boards.

The problem that "I" see here is that;

ACTA:SF is Chess, a simple rules set that has many variations on play with each piece being visually distinct.

SFB (Yes I know ACTA:SF is based on FC, but the basis of SFU is SFB) is Risk, the rule set is more complex but the pieces are simpler and more generic.

If ADB is going to work with an "eye candy" game company, the ships need to move in that direction. The Romulan Hawks were an excellent move in that direction.

If Mongoose is going to work with a traditional "rules heavy" war game company, that already has an established line of ship designs, they will need to respect those traditions. The "wild" Gorns are are a excellent step in that direction.

As to Matt's question about who will be buying Starline 2500s, I am not a miniatures gamer so I do not buy any miniatures. Although if I see LDR designs that I like, and can afford them, (personal finances, not what you charge) I would like a set of them.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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.

I do not believe that is quite right. To torture the analogy further, ADB has been making Ford F-150s all these years (re-reading this, that is a very apt analogy, but I won't go into it, as I think Steve might have one ). We are suggesting adding Galaxys and Fusions and Sierras and Fiestas. We are also suggesting a MkI Escort should look much different from a MkIV Escort.

You have to realize that you haven't bought into a game with kewl minis.

20 years ago, that argument worked. It does not even come close to flying in 2012.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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).

And how much more are you paying for those models, compared to a couple of years ago when you had less variation ut more minis in the box?

I am afraid that extra design has a very real cost.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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?

Going to go completely off-topic now...

That is _sweet_. That's the one with the 12 pot engine that is supposed to be the smoothest ever made, right? Have you done the 'coin test' on it, balancing a coin on its edge on top of the engine while starting it, and seeing it not fall?

Feel for you on the money front. I have a '99 X308 XJR, and a newer Jag can keep you poor just as effectively as an older one. Lucky to get 12mpg out of it, and it kicks you in the wallet during every service - there has been just one year when the service bill was less than four figures.

If you ever get a hankering for the supercharged Jags, go in with your eyes open. Yes, they are sublime, and the acceleration can be fairly described as 'epic' or 'Biblical', but they cost three times as much second hand and are they worth it? Well, you cannot keep them in sport mode as the slightest hint of moisture will mean the traction control forever kicks in, and you cannot just put your foot down at a junction to squeeze into a gap because, again, the traction control kicks in and you end up going nowhere. If you are going down a motorway slip road, sure, you can reach motorways speeds a second or two faster, but then you are going the same speed as everyone else. There is only one road round my town where it makes sense (over-taking _is_ good, as you just need the tiniest gap with the oncoming traffic), but I rarely need to use it.

Oh, and if you decide to 'cut back' and buy something more sensible, you can't, as a decent low mileage Mondeo or Focus costs way more than the £1,000-odd the dealer will offer you for your mechanically bulletproof and well-maintained Jag.

So, there you go. Valueable consumer advice on the Mongoose forums

Still, cannot be denied, even after a few years with the car, every journey is still an event, as the saying goes...

 

[Jean]

Matthew, when you take a sentence out of context, then the apparent meaning is lost. What I was trying to do is explain the resistance from the SFU crowd to the changes. I was doing that explanation by request.

Part of the resistance to change is that there is a history behind the ships that the minis represent and that history is important to the SFU fanbase. There is a reason that the ships look as they do. In the eyes of the SFU fans, some of the changes proposed are akin to giving the USS North Carolina extra towers because it looks cool.

What ACTASF needs now and what SFB needs are different, but the resistance is there for a reason. Until you understand what you face, you cannot shift public opinion.

Jean

 

[Dave773]

I'm just gonna give you my personal perspective and that of my miniature wargaming friends, who aren't terribly familiar with the SFB universe and its history. This isn't meant to be judgmental or critical, but I think it's important to realize that there are potential players for this game out there who don't have a stake in the 30 year old SFB family of games.

Again not being critical and understanding that these designs are beloved by many, the consensus of my friends/gaming group (players of such games as Battle Fleet Gothic and the various B5 incarnations) is that the rules look great, but the ship designs/miniatures look a little stale. "Outdated" was how one friend described the ship designs. Another thought the ships had a certain sentimental charm.

Now, obviously, they don't have any idea as to the depth of history the SFB universe contains. But, being honest, I don't think they particularly care. Everyone agreed that what the ship designs needed was a "reboot" (an appropriate term, I think, when talking about anything ST related). "Rebooting" the SFB universe with highly detailed, modern miniatures was what my group had hoped ACTA:SF would offer. And I think that maybe, hopefully, that's exactly what it will offer. I know, for a fact, that a group of gamers and painters (until now unfamiliar with SFB) would go bananas for those models, and these rules.

But maybe I'm wrong and maybe no one is willing to allow that to happen, focusing instead on a strict adherence to canon. Maybe I'm naive but these analogies to WWII seem heavy-handed. I mean, in the end, it's still a sci-fi game of spaceships, right? And people want spaceships to look awesome- they don't want a reference sheet to identify variants.

Again, this is TOTALLY just my perspective, as a long-time miniatures painter,
dave

 

[Nagato]

What a shock. SVC closed the discussion when he didn't get the answer he wanted... and declared his decision "correct" and final. :roll:

Fortunately he cannot close this discussion here; and we can only hope Matthew will continue to champion designs that don't look like they were made out of sheet styrene in 1966.

 

[Cyporiean]

Heres another great example of what I'd like to see happen:

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/PlasticHussar/News/2011BlogMay20.jpg
On the left is an 20 years old Ral Partha miniature, on the right is Great Endeavours sculpt from last year. Same scale, same unit, (Same sculptor too!) just better sculpting after 20 years.


And just to add another anecdote:
Before I saw the preview models at Gencon last year and started learning more about ACTA:SF, I'd always assumed Star Fleet Battles was a old out of print relic because of how poor the art and sculpts are compared to everything else that is out today.


One more thing..
Listening to SFB players moan about change is alot like listening to Historical Players rant that someone's Napoleonic troops are Blue rather then Blue, which in turn ends up turning off a great deal of new players to bother trying a new game; and if thats the sort that ACTA:SF is going to have then I'll just pick up a Tholian Squad box to paint and go play Noble Armada.

 

[katadder]

What a shock. SVC closed the discussion when he didn't get the answer he wanted... and declared his decision "correct" and final. :roll:

Fortunately he cannot close this discussion here; and we can only hope Matthew will continue to champion designs that don't look like they were made out of sheet styrene in 1966.

lol its quite amusing, its my ball and i'm going home.

 

[Star Ranger]

In SVC's closing post he stated:

The argument about recognition of different types is, frankly, spurious. Anyone can tell the existing Lyran CA and CL from each other, and anyone can tell that the D7 is bigger than the D5.

I need to reply to that because size should not be the only difference.

If just the D5 was on the table, can you tell if it is a D5 or a D7 quickly and easily? Sure if both are there you can tell that the larger one is the D7, but with just one ship and no other references, I think there should be enough design differences so you could know it was the D5 and not the D7.

The differences need not be radical but something like a different shaped command pod or a 33% narrower main hull would be enough. All the other design features would be the same but something other than size should make the D5 different than the D7.

The same applies for the Lyran CL and CA.

 

[Rambler]

Heres another great example of what I'd like to see happen:

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/PlasticHussar/News/2011BlogMay20.jpg
On the left is an 20 years old Ral Partha miniature, on the right is Great Endeavours sculpt from last year. Same scale, same unit, (Same sculptor too!) just better sculpting after 20 years.

And that is exactly what the SFB players expected to be done to the 2500s. The figure is still a human it wasn't changed to a Centaur. It is still wearing a Pith Helment and not a enclosed Space Helment. It still is holding a bolt action Battle Rifle and not a Squad Automic Weapon. It is still wearing a jacket, trousers and boots, not a Flackjacket with Chainmail Pants. What was changed was the texture of the clothing and helment. The additions were straps a fieldbag and belt pouches. Too top it all off it was done without a change in scale.

What I was expecting was alot more added hull detail but not a radical change up in in hull form. Perfect example is the Sparrowhawks. A little thickening here and a little thinning there, engines flared out instead of in but at the end of the day it is still a 90% match for the exsisting hull form.

 

[Da Boss]

What a shock. SVC closed the discussion when he didn't get the answer he wanted... and declared his decision "correct" and final. :roll:

Fortunately he cannot close this discussion here; and we can only hope Matthew will continue to champion designs that don't look like they were made out of sheet styrene in 1966.

hmm I wondered why i could not post any more replies there - especially about being a "non serious gamer" and the fact that no one seemed to want to answer the points I made about:

Why if the hull has to remain the same the Old Cruiser is totally different?

Why if the annalogy is drawn with WWII ships why ALL ships in the SFU do not follow a common theme and there are in fact differences in the different Empires Fleet design?

Oh well the drawbridge now seems to be up against "us"............ shame really.

 

[Sgt_G]

To be fair, it looked like Steve closed the topic mainly because people were talking AT each other more than TO each other, which is the first sign of a flame war about to start. At least, that's the way I read into it.

People are now saying they just wanted to jazz up the ships with cool details, but what I read earlier suggested that some people wanted to throw out years of SFU history and draft up all new designs, radically changing the shape of the ships.

I'm all for adding "cool" details as long as it's still art and not meaningless clutter.

As to the weapon mounts, of course there should be the right number of phaser bumps and whatnot, and reasonably close to the right locations. I do think a few people went overboard on saying "move that one two miilimeters left or it can't fire in the correct arc". There's perfect and then there's close enough.

 

[ErikB]

years of SFU history

Speaking of meaningless clutter...

I dunno. I like the Original Series aesthetic. It is a really good look.

These are classic starship designs. And the remastered episodes of Star Trek look great. The colours are so vivid.

So, like, lets have a sixties revival!

 

[Da Boss]

To be fair, it looked like Steve closed the topic mainly because people were talking AT each other more than TO each other, which is the first sign of a flame war about to start. At least, that's the way I read into it..

It actually seemed a good debate was going on - but that debate was brought to a close without any form of resolution..........

People are now saying they just wanted to jazz up the ships with cool details, but what I read earlier suggested that some people wanted to throw out years of SFU history and draft up all new designs, radically changing the shape of the ships.

I'm all for adding "cool" details as long as it's still art and not meaningless clutter.

I wanted new ships and new designs - freely admit that - still no good answer why you can make ships like the old light cruiser which bares no relation to anthing else in the Federation fleet and not make up others?

and this is a issue for me - people ask can we change the ships a bit and the reactions is instant "you are throwing out years of our game" Can we move the engine a bit "you are destroying our ships", can we make some new designs " you want to make gothic ships and you will destory our universe (somehow) and reason for being"....- massive overeactions and distortions of what people are saying.

One persons cool detail is anothers meaningless clutter - one persons need to make every tiny phaser bump is anothers nit picking waste of time.

I honestly wonder how long this partnership will actually last............

 

[archon96]

beginning to wonder the same thing dboss

 

[ctchapel]

The Federation CL looks different from the rest of the fleet because it is a hold over from the pre-Federation Earth fleet. These were sublight ships rebuilt over and over again to save money and were the first TacWarp class in the United Fleet of the Federation. The police ship is as old and was the Terran DD of the time.

 

[Nerroth]

Is there not much info on the old CL's history in the ACtA:SF rulebook, then?


The reason why that ship looks different is because of its heritage as a pre-Star Fleet design.

Originally, the first ships of this class (or of the Province-class, as it had first served) were part of the Terran navy, and had fought in the first Fed-Romulan War with non-tactical warp technologies (impulse engines, lasers, atomic missiles etc).

Earth was the first Federation member planet to pioneer tactical warp drive, and used its sublight CL as the testbed for conversion. Once the success of the new drive (and the new systems it facilitated, such as transporters, phasers and photon torpedoes) was proved, Earth refitted the rest of its sublight fleet with the new warp drive; and the other member planets (such as Vulcan and Andoria; which had let Earth take the risk on the unproven technology, and found themselves at risk of being wholly superseded as a result) followed a similar refit process with their own ships. These are known in SFB as the W-era hulls; the Terran light cruiser of the time is known as the WCL.

A few decades later, the next great leap was made when the Federation members agreed to not only establish a United Star Fleet, but to operate it using a common set of starship designs; the earliest saucer-and-nacelle hulls, such as the Republic-class early heavy cruiser. In most cases, it was impractical to try and further upgrade the old planetary hulls to the new standard; making them obsolete almost overnight. The Terran light cruiser was an exception; it could take to the new warp technology, and it was seen as cheaper to simply upgrade the pre-existing fleet of ships (now mostly transferred to Star Fleet service) than to design and field a brand new light cruiser design instead. This era's version of the ship is referred to as the YCL.

Then, at the start of the modern warp era, the adaptability of the hull shone through yet again, when it was able to be further upgraded into the Texas-class CL; now able to serve the Federation (and a certain lost colony in a more distant corner of the galaxy) for decades more to come. By that time, the other Y-series ships were refitted into "National Guard" variants and transferred to the planetary fleets of the member planets; replacing the last of the old pre-Star Fleet hulls in the process. (The only other modern ship with a pre-Star Fleet legacy is the POL; it has the same external layout as the old Terran destroyer, though was pretty much re-designed from stem to stern internally when the schematics for the modern police cutter were drawn up.)

The W- and Y-era hulls are shown in the Early Years modules for SFB, while the later National Guard hulls are mostly found in SFB Module R8. At this point, FC has only taken a brief glance at the Early Years, while the National Guard ships have been left out altogether.


As I noted in the other thread, I personally feel that once the "hump" of these first waves of releases are passed, the other time periods (and settings) in the SFU would likely offer a lot more flexibility in terms of miniature designs. Plus, just as the Age of Dreadnoughts material shows a different take on the wet-navy dynamic of Victory at Sea, the earlier (and later) eras could each offer a new and interesting dynamic for ACtA:SF players to sink their teeth into.

That might not be all that helpful in the near term; and I suppose that if the Main Era material doesn't work out, the odds of going further (forward or back) would be slim; but I am at least encouraged by Matt's response in the other thread (where he said he would be open to considering these other times and places at some future point).

Who knows; perhaps these alternate settings might end up finding a life of their own should they be given a chance to shine?

 

[Jean]

Folks, the conversation on the BBS was brought to a close because it was devolving. We've had customer complaints about the tone of the conversation. It began sounding as though people were talking past each other, repeating the same old things. Nothing was being solved and little in the way of compromise was happening. Positions on both sides were being hardened into "us vs. them." In addition, hyperbole doesn't tend to do well there as a part of board culture. If I misunderstood what Matthew was trying to communicate (and I did), then others would as well.

Furthermore, the recent tone of this thread points out the other reason our topic was shut down. It shouldn't be "mean old Steve won't let us do anything cool to our ships." It shouldn't be "young whippersnapper Matthew wants to mess up our ships." All that does is further polarize the fanbase on both sides.

What closing the thread does is prevent more polarization. It lets Matthew and Steve work this out behind the scenes and in private.

I would also ask that you tone down the negativity about SVC here. It does no good to the fanbase, it increases the "us vs. them" mentality, and I find it distressing. You don't know why SVC closed the conversation and to speculate and comment is mere gossip and does nothing but damage the joint venture's efforts. I won't allow the folks who post on our board to trash Matthew and I ask that you show the same courtesy to SVC.

With respect,

 

[Totenkopf]

I can't blame Matt for feeling the way he does about comparing the SFU models to similar products in the same market, and I think he's approaching it from the right perspective...as in, this is a business venture and the primary objective is to provide a space naval combat game that people want to play. In recognition of that fact then he must consider how best to provide that for the consumers, and part of that has to take into account the aesthetic appeal of the miniatures that come with this game. Matt rightly points out that this market seems to prefer more diversity in style and appearance, and this is evident in the game systems that lead this market. In the end it really comes down to doing what is best for this game system and to help it grow and expand...something that may require major changes.