ACTA SF

I've been watching this forum - and the ADB ones - with intrest on this topic - but frankly venturing on the ADB forums in an effort to either defend, encourage or discuss many of the new Starline 2500 designs is a pretty grim prospect!

Very few groups of gamers like change very much (you can feel the nostalgia for ACTA: B5 here can't you? To be fair, it was cool..) but the 'Mine! Mine! Don't touch it!' comming out of some of the posters over 'there' leaves me a little intimidated and a bit less excited about the ACTA: SF project than I'd like to be.

When presented in the SFB / Fedcom / Federation & Empire art work, the SFU setting stuff looks good, usually - and a certain air of 'Retro' is both part of the appeal and part of the liscene - hek I like the SFU and I wouldn't have it any other way - but the Starline 2400 line always left me a little flat - I came upon it after I'd seen the Old B5 miniatures, after GW's BFG and so on, and the range just 'lacks Jazz' by comparison.

A lot of the sample CAD designs are more or less straight ports of the standard designs - and that's fine - just picking out the detail with the new material and size will make them look 'the way they were meant to' - and on the ADB forums they seem to 'survive contact with the enemy'.

But as soon as anything gets tweaked at all - the (vetod?) Command Cruiser design, the Dreadnough..a phaser port.. anyone would think it had been suggested we start painting the hulls pink!

If it looks in danger of causing a copyright breach, yeah - that's an issue - although I get the slightly mutinous feeling that the accusation of 'it looks like its Paramounts IP' gets thrown about at something that isn't liked when all else fails (Kidding, mostly..) - but shouting it down just because it doesn't look exactly like the Starline 2400 version or the artwork is nuts.

I also don't have a problem with ADB themselves going 'Its my IP and I don't like what you've done' - but it does feel a but like there's a lot of peer pressure going on to try and ensure nothing changes!

ADB agreed to leave the Starline 2400 line on sale right? So it not like anything is being 'taken away' - but it feels like we're going to get NOTHING but exact copies of the old models, in the new size, with clean CAD designed lines.

I mean, that would be okay, but there's not much magic or excitement in it - and there's nothing there to make people look at the 'Old' style designs and see the inherant elegance that was there to start with, because it will just be 'same old, same old' - People expect more 'texture' on a minature now than they did even a few years ago, people want to see 'scale' - you can convey that with very simple lines in art work but its hard to do with those same simple lines in a miniature.

You want the new range to be something that can stand with its head held high againt the Firestorm Armada resins and Mongooses own Noble Armada range - you want the new range to be something that makes people look at them and go 'Wow, I wish they'd re-imagined the new 'Trek Movie ships to look like *that*' - and I think the potential for that sort of success fades a little bit everytime we end up with exactly the same design we had before.

I want to be able to go down my local club with a couple of fleets of nicely painted new ships and get people going 'Ooooh oooh ooh where do I buy some of those and how do I learn to play that?!' not
"Oh Look, he brought his old tatty SFB models, hey, aren't those bigger than I remember?'

But I feel like if I say that on the ADB forums somone might cross the Atlantic and strangle me! (or at least like my comments might get another outburst of 'Mine Mine!' which only further discourages any adventure in desgin land...)
 
Huskarl said:
I've been watching this forum - and the ADB ones - with intrest on this topic - but frankly venturing on the ADB forums in an effort to either defend, encourage or discuss many of the new Starline 2500 designs is a pretty grim prospect!

Very few groups of gamers like change very much (you can feel the nostalgia for ACTA: B5 here can't you? To be fair, it was cool..) but the 'Mine! Mine! Don't touch it!' comming out of some of the posters over 'there' leaves me a little intimidated and a bit less excited about the ACTA: SF project than I'd like to be.

A lot of the sample CAD designs are more or less straight ports of the standard designs - and that's fine - just picking out the detail with the new material and size will make them look 'the way they were meant to' - and on the ADB forums they seem to 'survive contact with the enemy'.

But as soon as anything gets tweaked at all - the (vetod?) Command Cruiser design, the Dreadnough..a phaser port.. anyone would think it had been suggested we start painting the hulls pink!

If it looks in danger of causing a copyright breach, yeah - that's an issue - although I get the slightly mutinous feeling that the accusation of 'it looks like its Paramounts IP' gets thrown about at something that isn't liked when all else fails (Kidding, mostly..) - but shouting it down just because it doesn't look exactly like the Starline 2400 version or the artwork is nuts.

ADB agreed to leave the Starline 2400 line on sale right? So it not like anything is being 'taken away' - but it feels like we're going to get NOTHING but exact copies of the old models, in the new size, with clean CAD designed lines.

You want the new range to be something that can stand with its head held high againt the Firestorm Armada resins and Mongooses own Noble Armada range - you want the new range to be something that makes people look at them and go 'Wow, I wish they'd re-imagined the new 'Trek Movie ships to look like *that*' - and I think the potential for that sort of success fades a little bit everytime we end up with exactly the same design we had before.

But I feel like if I say that on the ADB forums somone might cross the Atlantic and strangle me! (or at least like my comments might get another outburst of 'Mine Mine!' which only further discourages any adventure in desgin land...)

You have some valid points. People don't like change. I suspect that were the situation reversed and ADB was trying to reimagine some of the treasured ACTA fleets, there'd be some ruffled feathers here as well. :)

I used to play SFB, but sold off all my stuff, including minis back in the mid-90s. I grew up on the old ships and old series. I'm an old fart I guess. :shock: I am now seriously considering getting back into SFB and minis again, and it's an interesting situation. On the one hand I could get the traditional 2400 series ships that I grew up with. On the other hand, I could get the new 2500 series with much more detail and which are larger. Being as I don't have a bunch of ships already the issues of mixing scales is not a problem.

Frankly, I think I will likely be buying the new minis.

And since both lines can co-exist peacefully, one certainly can use the 2400 series minis with the new rules if the new minis are offensive, and vice versa.

By the way, if you want to see the reaction to a prized old school Battlemech being painted pink in a obscene paintjob, look at this:

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,9492.0.html

So it's not just a ADB/SFU reaction to something out of the expected. :D
 
Huskarl and the rest of the Mongoose fans,

You are welcome on the ADB boards and/or on our page on FB. SVC reads both. I've just given our guys a lecture about constructive criticism and not stamping feet (or whatever guys do) and shouting MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSS! (It's mixing genres, but you catch my drift :) )

We need your input. We need to hear what you like. And as long as it isn't demonstrably from TNG or the movies, it is something that is negotiable. We do need the weapons to be able to fire in the proper arcs and be somewhere near where they should be according to the charts, so adding a thingamabob that is really neat looking but blocks an arc isn't going to happen. But the shape of ship part or how much detail is shown is up to fans -- all fans -- and we need to hear that.

Please come and look. If anyone is rude to you on our boards, then they'll face the wrath of the WebMom and her mighty #8 Griswold cast-iron frying pan.

Understanding is a three-edged sword and right now we are missing the edge you could provide.

Thank you for coming to visit us.

Jean
 
Billclo;

I may have come over slightly more anti the ADB forum base group that I really meant to - I was trying to say I understand why there is such a negative reaction to change - I just get so dispirited everytime I go over there to check out the new CAD images and they are being savaged!

Pffff, that pink mech is nothing, there's even a B-Tech mercenary group that would consider that almost appropiate!

:)

Jean;

Thanks, I will attempt to screw my courage to the sticking place and all that and do so (and yes, I was aiming for a little Gollumn in my post so fair genre referance) - I don't have a problem with 'that doesn't make sense don't put that thingamy there!' comments - some of the appeal was always that the designs were sensible and a lot of the commentary on the ADB boards is really friendly and constructive - but sometimes it does seem to dissolve into squabbeling over whether a feature would restrict a tiny field of fire in a small bit of an SFB fire arc and that is a bit much - plenty of actual millitary vehicles end up with little blind spots and sub optimal features because of other design considerations - in the world of minitures those sub opitmal decisions can at least look funky!
 
We gamers and grognards can be a curmudgeonly bunch, especially when our own sacred cows are involved. And that works both ways :wink:

I've been one of the more vocal opponents of many of the designs, but I have also voted "Aye!" on some of the design tweaks that have been voted down. And as far as
billclo said:
But as soon as anything gets tweaked at all - the (vetod?) Command Cruiser design, the Dreadnough..a phaser port.. anyone would think it had been suggested we start painting the hulls pink!
See this image on my own site.

While it's true, we can be a vocal bunch... I do not want the decisions on what to produce based solely on the input of us 20+ year veterans of ADB and the old Starline line.
ADB has already stated hte ST2400 line will remain in production, so I can fill in my existing fleets with those and use the Mongoose stuff to showcase the system as I demo it at various venues.
And if that's the case and we want to attact new players - then we need new ideas and input.

While email and BBS often lack the personal interaction you get from a face-to-face discourse, we're all adult enough to interact in a friendly manner to accomplish a mutual goal. Or at least I hope we are.

Tony L. Thomas
Battlegroup Murfreesboro
and self-proclaimed ADB syncophant
 
the big problem I have is tracking down the pics of the prototypes - I've no idea what the current pics are like for any of the ships unless someone links them here - unless I go wading through my FB stuff (got too many friends on there - I can miss things if I'm even an hour late getting to them).

I'd ask Jean to keep us informed on here if you don't mind, Jean. I find the BBS at ADB to be a little annoying to use (which is why I don't think I've ever posted there in the years I've been dealing with the game).

The £18 limit btw - I can't believe they're dropping it!?!? For the non-UK members, once you hit the magic limit, they slap another £8 on for customs and start charging VAT at 20%... (that's a total of around $40 for $28 of goods). And you're supposed to include the postage too. Officially, lying on the forms is a federal offense for the seller and carries hefty fines for both parties and possibly jail time... so yeah, something I prefer to avoid. I managed to get some American Football gear from the US by getting a friend to send it over for me, since I couldn't find the right stuff over here, but even then it only increases the limit by 50% I think, not removes it completely... so if Mongoose are going to do their own, I'll be happy and if not, I've already got the paper and will be doing my own.

Still want to see a faint etching of the eagle though - I think it'd have the "wow" factor that will attract in some extra fans. Maybe release both and see which sell best?

And yes, I know I've been a bit outspoken, but I do get irritated by ACTA: B5 players when they complain that this was this way and that way, when it's not even a live game any more and NA has even done things differently, let alone the new game... but it sounds like Matt's got everything in hand... and my only complaint with SFB was that you had to have a lawyer's mind to play it properly (and not my tea-strainer that I call my mind). FC I never got to play - it came out not that long before I moved house and when I finally got my box, I got to open it, have a look and a read and then packed it. :(

But I don't want either side to comprimise too much - I want SFB to shed a whole lot of clunkiness and for ACTA to appreciate the nuances that make the SFB game great, but still retain its flavour (I liked the ACTA system so much that I've gone and bought both the Victory at Sea system and ACTA: NA (PDF version in this case though), btw).

What a lot of ACTA players also forget is that SFB players often recognise ships by their hulls when playing - so changing a ship too radically will throw off a lot of veteran players - and they're the main target market since they'll be wanting to possibly replace a lot of tired-looking models and need to be tempted over to the new scale if they're to buy. I see the secondary market as people who don't necessarily like TOS, but like the variation in hulls.

Lastly, I think a lot of people overlook the fact that Command Cruisers (CC) and Heavy Cruiser Refits (CA+) are often just refitted Heavy Cruisers (CA) and not new builds in themselves, so it quite possibly irritates the heck out of veteran SFB players if the new models were totally different, when in reality, there'd be very few changes (not least you don't want to broadcast to the enemy "Hey!!! Our Admiral's in this ship over here!!").

That having been said, I would like to see a BIG difference between some race's hulls - not in the layout so much, but in the details. I don't want to see so many changes that they look like another race built them though... and where we've seen the ships on the screen or detailed in the manuals, I'd sooner see them as they have always been, to be honest. I fell in love with the original designs and won't be buying any models that look too different from those, quite frankly, unless I'm wowed by the new designs - so any redesign is going to be a gamble. Much better to have the basic Fed ship designs as they have been (the Cruiser, Destroyer, Scout, Tug and DN) and do like ADB did, but maybe moreso, and have the "New" designs where you can have a little fun - you'll be likely to draw in both the classic design lovers and the new customers.

Just my 2p's worth. :)
 
I can let you know when SVC posts on the BBS and give you a link to the specific thread. I don't know in Mongoose wants a zillion pictures posted to its Forum.

However, one problem is that SVC isn't currently scanning these threads -- he has lots to assimilate on the BBS and our page on FB as well as trying to do "design stuff" and "CEO stuff." I also don't know how Mongoose will feel about me creating a new topic for each ship, but that would be the best way to not have your thoughts get mixed in so that "the saucer looks weird" doesn't go equally with the Fed ship put up yesterday and the Gorn ship put up the day before. :)

How do you want your information here, I think is what I am getting at.

Jean
 
I'm sure Matt would be fine - just send him the occasional pack of beer.... :D

Seriously, I hear where you're coming from and I do feel for the DNG sculptor, having read the comments (but not seen the pic, so can't comment), but I really think that Mongoose would benefit from showing the pics of the work in progress a little more, since they're already being shown elsewhere - it would help them to see the feedback a little more directly, but also from the ACTA crowd's perspective and not just the hardcore ADB crowd.

I do agree with the comments that TNG needs to be avoided like the plague though, but speaking for myself, I'd like to see something snazzy done with the post-Franz-Joseph designs - I'd just like to have seen them work with the basic designs first and then evolve them on a bit... get a little more arty, the more advanced they get...
 
"hardcore ADB crowd"

Oh my, to me this brings images of our guys in long raincoats, "Ya wanna check out a starship?" :shock: :oops:

Jean
 
Your mind scares me sometimes, Jean... :)

Mind you, my first thought after typing that, was a mob with torches and quoting from the holy Rulebook according to SVC and fights breaking out as to whether the old or the new master rulebook was the better...

I think I've been influenced by too many B-movies and the recent riots... :(
 
BTW can I just say, having actually tracked down and found the FFG and the other pics I'd not seen, that they look spot on - the top nacelle on the Battle Frigate is, to me, ideal, having had to put up with fiddly joints on minis in the past... I hope they use the same kind of join for all of the top nacelles and any that attach directly to the saucer.

Sadly, the original designs still mean we'll have a fiddly nacelles on those long pylons for at least some of the ships... (previous models of the CA/Enterprise (as the mini was) tend to be prone to them dropping off - I'm hoping that resin will solve that).
 
Ok, let's try a few images here.

Federation BCH Kirov, showing the phaser placement:

FedBCHKirovfinal.jpg




Federation CA, showing the phaser placement:

FedCAfinal.jpg




Comparison of the Klingon D7 to the Federation CA:

D7andCAcomparison.jpg


Jean
 
What's the BCH again? Heavy Battle Cruiser?

CA is the Heavy Cruiser, just to remind those who aren't up on the codes...


Jean: thanks - that really hit the spot... :)
 
Sorry, the DNG images have been removed. The images are now obsolete and there was no need for them to remain up.

Jean
 
In fact, let's have some fun.

Here is the Klingon F5.
Here is the Federation BCH. That's the Heavy Battlecruiser, the USS Kirov.
Here is the Federation CC. This is the Federation Command Cruiser, USS Lexington.
Here is the Federation FF. Standard, run-of-the-mill frigate class.
Here is the Federation FFB. This is the Battle Frigate.
Here is the Federation oCL. This is the pre-warp, Light Cruiser refitted to warp technology.
Here is the Romulan War Eagle. The most awesome Sandrine product yet! And I'm not even a Romulan fan!!
Here is the Romulan Snipe. The smallest warship in the Romulan navy.
Here she is, the venerable Federation Heavy Cruiser.


That's all the images to date. Enjoy.
 
Folks, I've been on the phone with SVC. He's suggesting that I put up the pictures of the renderings on the Fed Commander Forum (which works and looks like the older version of this one). Would going there suffice? It'd save a significant amount of time if it would.

Jean
 
The BBS isn't hard to navigate, but it is a bit clunkier to use. I think you might get more casual traffic passing through your php forum, mind you, so more visibility for the new designs. More likely you'd get comments there from ACTAers too, I'd expect. The BBS sometimes feels like a old-SFBers private club ;)
 
Back
Top