ACTA SF
- Thread starter Kosh127
- Start date
In addition to those 6 types the Mobile Base has a subtype that has 6 more pods connecting the ends of the first 6 pods of the core. I've seen the line art but don't remember if there is an entry for it in the data base.
Also there is the Operational Base. It's a war model that does not need a Tug to make it mobile, though a Tug will make faster at the strategic level.
Also there is the Operational Base. It's a war model that does not need a Tug to make it mobile, though a Tug will make faster at the strategic level.
ADM beat me to it, but he's correct.adm said:
this is the way we've done the Star Fleet Universe for almost 30+ years.
Steve Cole is a firm believer in listening ot his customers, and for the most part - it works.
Yes, the arguing over seeming minutia does get a bit extreme from time to time, but it also helps keep things consistent. When this many people are double checking things such as fire arcs, scaling issues, weapon placement, etc. - you can be certain that the final design matches 30 years of previously established history.
That's one of the reasons I bought SFB in 1980 and still play it to this day. The rules may have been changed a bit and errata integrated, but the basic consistency of the universe remains. Designs laid out in Nexus #1 and the SFB zip-loc bag game are still correct in 2011.
There are no rules for Starbases as of the current draft of the rules. Battlestations are the largest bases currently in ACTA: SF. Have no fear though, I'd be willing to bet that they will arrive in a some to be released expansion.Shadow Queen said:
Although in a pinch, you could just about double the BATS and be real close. :wink:
The Vulture and the Falcon are not in the current draft of the playtest rules, but the others are - as is the Condor Dreadnought.Ben2 said:
There are also 3 Kestrels: KF5R Destroyer, KR Heavy Cruiser, and K9R Dreadnought.
and,
there are 3 "Hawk" class, 3rd generation Romulan ships: SkyHawk Destroyer, SparrowHawk Light Cruiser, and FireHawk Heavy Cruiser.
But a caveat must be inserted, although all of these ships are in our most recent play test rules - that does not mean that Matthew will include all of them in the initial release.
I'm sure that there are expansion packs and fleet books planned that may have some of these units in them.
I was just thinking that if the first book is set to echo the first four FC modules (and the first two Starmada ones) they could perhaps consider drawing from the next four modules (Tholian Attack, Orion Attack, Distant Kingdoms and Hydran Attack) for the second book; and then you'd see starbases present and accounted for.
Well, they could go in an entirely new direction, of course, but we'll see.
Oh, by the way, might it be an idea to split the miniature stuff into a dedicated Starline 2500 thread, and leave this thread for discussing the ACtA:SF ruleset's development? While the new minis are a key part of the upcoming set of releases, they are there for more than just the one game system; plus they arguably deserve a space of their own for discussion purposes.
Well, they could go in an entirely new direction, of course, but we'll see.
Oh, by the way, might it be an idea to split the miniature stuff into a dedicated Starline 2500 thread, and leave this thread for discussing the ACtA:SF ruleset's development? While the new minis are a key part of the upcoming set of releases, they are there for more than just the one game system; plus they arguably deserve a space of their own for discussion purposes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm loving seeing some pics before I get models in my hands. I've even commented on some of them (on Facebook rather than the other forums)
My two issues are:
Minsicule detail changes are being asked for, as if the models are being designed by reference to the rules, when it is the rules which need to fit the models. Make the models look as good as they can, and then make the rules fit. It's about playing with cool toys, so focus on them rather than the rules in the design process. Worried about fire arcs? Those are a game mechanic, and have very little to do with poretty toys.
Design by mob. Only those with the loudest voices get heard. I get involved in far too many pieces of work where a committee tries to make decisions.
I trust Mongoose and ADB to get the models right without constant reference to the fans.
My two issues are:
Minsicule detail changes are being asked for, as if the models are being designed by reference to the rules, when it is the rules which need to fit the models. Make the models look as good as they can, and then make the rules fit. It's about playing with cool toys, so focus on them rather than the rules in the design process. Worried about fire arcs? Those are a game mechanic, and have very little to do with poretty toys.
Design by mob. Only those with the loudest voices get heard. I get involved in far too many pieces of work where a committee tries to make decisions.
I trust Mongoose and ADB to get the models right without constant reference to the fans.
Just to play devils advocate
Do we (ie you and me) care about the exact placement of the phasers or if the windows are slightly too large etc etc - nope not a bit - If the design people are happy to accomodate the perfectionists for every extremely minor detail to be correct AND it does not slow down the process / make the models cost more in the long term, does it matter?
Personally I don't like the look of most of the ships apart from the onscreen ones but thats not going to change so I don't often bother saying it. For instance the Gorn ships, rather than brutal resiliant ships that I understand they are supposed to be either look like delicate survey ships or in some cases giant sperm.....not very scary. In a similar vein to me far too many ships look the same except an extra engine bolted on one side or another or on the bottom with no obvious sense of "style". I really did not like the "old Light cruiser" when you look at what was done for the Enterprise ships.......yes I realise that the designs appearance are now sacred
But then some people were less than complementary about some of the B5 ship designs - so different strokes and all that.
Do we (ie you and me) care about the exact placement of the phasers or if the windows are slightly too large etc etc - nope not a bit - If the design people are happy to accomodate the perfectionists for every extremely minor detail to be correct AND it does not slow down the process / make the models cost more in the long term, does it matter?
Personally I don't like the look of most of the ships apart from the onscreen ones but thats not going to change so I don't often bother saying it. For instance the Gorn ships, rather than brutal resiliant ships that I understand they are supposed to be either look like delicate survey ships or in some cases giant sperm.....not very scary. In a similar vein to me far too many ships look the same except an extra engine bolted on one side or another or on the bottom with no obvious sense of "style". I really did not like the "old Light cruiser" when you look at what was done for the Enterprise ships.......yes I realise that the designs appearance are now sacred
But then some people were less than complementary about some of the B5 ship designs - so different strokes and all that.
Poi said:
You forget - these models need to work for SFB and FC as well as ACTA: SF and so, without rewriting a whole stack of books, so the models need (at least from SVC (the head of ADB) and some of the hard-core SFB players' perspectives) to be accurate, precisely for the reasons you state (namely the firing arcs, things being in the right hull section).
If it was a new rules system, I'd agree, but given that they're making models for a 30-year-old rules system, they do need to be more careful than most.
As for the design by committee - the hardcore SFB fans will be one of the core markets for the designs, but also represent a cross-section of the public - the whole thing with "maybe this should be longer/wider/further back/lower/etc" is all part of the design process and is, I suspect, very annoying for Sandrine, but on the other hand, does make for some stunning designs which are technically accurate for an existing ruleset and, by an additional couple of days per design, ensured that a greater percentage of buyers will be interested in the products.
Don't forget - some of these SFB players have 1,000's of dollars invested in their 2400 scale models and will have to decide whether to stick with 2400 or reinvest in the larger 2500 scale. By making them as attractive as possible to that market, you have a captive market that should provide a steady income stream, while at the same time, being attractive enough for external customers to be interested.
One particular ship of note are the Romulan Hawks - they're looking far better than the "lumps of lead" that my models are here and the others, thanks to the attention to detail, look to be approaching the same standard.
So I'm actually glad that some are showing the interest...
Da Boss said:
To be perfectly honest, and I just want to make this clear, I'm actually in agreement with you - I couldn't really care less about the precise placement of the weapons on the non-FJ designs... and that's only because the FJ designs (and hence the on-screen designs, since the FJ designs were derived from them) are so well documented and so well loved.
On the matter of the Gorn, I agree - I had originally imagined angle-sided "slabs" of ships - ugly, yet mean looking, instead of the rounded, almost delicate ships we see... my only guess (from an in-game perspective) is either a subrace or the females of the Gorn are smaller and more delicate and do all the designing... :?
Poi, I'm writing while wearing my marketing hat...
In order to sell the most minis, we need them to work with ACTA SF, Star Fleet Battles, and Federation Commander. ADB isn't going to go back on its 30+ years of games and change the SSDs or ship cards to match the minis. Our customers would be furious (and rightly so) if that were to happen. That means the ships must match existing gaming materials.
ADB has always been fortunate to have exceptionally talented fans who are passionate about "their" game and we count ourselves lucky that they share their knowledge base and skills with us. We feel we come out with a better product and everyone gains. Because we have such a close relationship with our SFU "family," we tend to know how to balance the input we receive.
We are so fortunate that Sandrine is so very talented and professional. She's making gorgeous renderings that are firing up people and that is all to the good.
So now you have maybe a little glimpse into the corporate culture that is part of the joint venture. I hope this helps.
Jean
In order to sell the most minis, we need them to work with ACTA SF, Star Fleet Battles, and Federation Commander. ADB isn't going to go back on its 30+ years of games and change the SSDs or ship cards to match the minis. Our customers would be furious (and rightly so) if that were to happen. That means the ships must match existing gaming materials.
ADB has always been fortunate to have exceptionally talented fans who are passionate about "their" game and we count ourselves lucky that they share their knowledge base and skills with us.
We feel we come out with a better product and everyone gains. Because we have such a close relationship with our SFU "family," we tend to know how to balance the input we receive. We are so fortunate that Sandrine is so very talented and professional. She's making gorgeous renderings that are firing up people and that is all to the good.
So now you have maybe a little glimpse into the corporate culture that is part of the joint venture. I hope this helps.
Jean
I explained my view poorly previously. Regular readers won't be surprised to read that :mrgreen:
Are we playing a game or a simulation? IMHO ACTA is more game, whilst SFB is more simulation, but neither can ever be perfect, as both can only ever be an approximation.
Models should reflect decisions made by (in-game) ship designers, and the real world designers' aesthetic. But the rules can't ever match that exactly. I've seen naval and tank rules which make detailed calculations about armour penetration which would make you toes curl.
If a ship designer puts a gun turret on it with a 190 degree arc of fire, 180 degrees in any game rules will be just fine.
For me at least.
All just my opinion. Thank you for reading, and thank you for being so eloquent in your replies. The ADB insights are very... insightful. (Struggling for different word)
BTW, none of this is putting me off buying anything. Each Romulan design is getting me more and more excited, even the triple dildo is looking great now.
The boss has said I can have the fleet box as a Christmas present. As soon as the pre-orders are online, I'll be here with my plastic, eager to sign over my golden nuggets.
Are we playing a game or a simulation? IMHO ACTA is more game, whilst SFB is more simulation, but neither can ever be perfect, as both can only ever be an approximation.
Models should reflect decisions made by (in-game) ship designers, and the real world designers' aesthetic. But the rules can't ever match that exactly. I've seen naval and tank rules which make detailed calculations about armour penetration which would make you toes curl.
If a ship designer puts a gun turret on it with a 190 degree arc of fire, 180 degrees in any game rules will be just fine.
For me at least.
All just my opinion. Thank you for reading, and thank you for being so eloquent in your replies. The ADB insights are very... insightful. (Struggling for different word)
BTW, none of this is putting me off buying anything. Each Romulan design is getting me more and more excited, even the triple dildo is looking great now.
The boss has said I can have the fleet box as a Christmas present. As soon as the pre-orders are online, I'll be here with my plastic, eager to sign over my golden nuggets.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Tucking in another subject for a second.
WHile lurking on the FC boards I noticed Scoutdads comments on defensive fire, the intensify defensive fire order.
I agree it seems very wrong that in order to switch your phaser fire to incoming seeking weapons you suddenly lose the ability to fire heavy weapons.
Has anyone looked at that or considered amending it so that it either removes the limit on seeking weapons or you give all phasers the ability to fire defensively. It does rather stand against all the other versions where seeking weapons were simply another target to be fired at by phasers.
Against someone like the Kzin where you will have significant seeking weapons incoming every turn it shuts down all firing on one of more of your ships. If the kzin go for one of your bigger ones you either take the hits while firing back or protect the ship but suddenly lose a lot of heavy weapons. The plasma side of the universe have enough problems against drone waves without being unable to fire plasmas as well. Save the Gorns from those evil drone users :lol:
WHile lurking on the FC boards I noticed Scoutdads comments on defensive fire, the intensify defensive fire order.
I agree it seems very wrong that in order to switch your phaser fire to incoming seeking weapons you suddenly lose the ability to fire heavy weapons.
Has anyone looked at that or considered amending it so that it either removes the limit on seeking weapons or you give all phasers the ability to fire defensively. It does rather stand against all the other versions where seeking weapons were simply another target to be fired at by phasers.
Against someone like the Kzin where you will have significant seeking weapons incoming every turn it shuts down all firing on one of more of your ships. If the kzin go for one of your bigger ones you either take the hits while firing back or protect the ship but suddenly lose a lot of heavy weapons. The plasma side of the universe have enough problems against drone waves without being unable to fire plasmas as well. Save the Gorns from those evil drone users :lol:
The Romulan FireHawk album is complete: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150321739938280.360742.231728653279&l=3895756b86
You can read the BBS topic here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/28328.html?1317301541
Enjoy!
Jean
You can read the BBS topic here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/28328.html?1317301541
Enjoy!
Jean
Nerroth, I only heard one person who expressed any concern and that wasn't with having the pictures show up, but more of a worry about the process. Considering that, I'll just keep posting here as sort of a consolidated topic until I hear otherwise.
And so as not to add more clutter, I'll use this space to announce that the Federation police ship (preliminary draft) album is now complete: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150322488853280.360893.231728653279&l=f76c921931
The discussion on the BBS has been lively and can be read here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/28339.html?1317309901
Enjoy!
Jean
And so as not to add more clutter, I'll use this space to announce that the Federation police ship (preliminary draft) album is now complete: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150322488853280.360893.231728653279&l=f76c921931
The discussion on the BBS has been lively and can be read here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/28339.html?1317309901
Enjoy!
Jean
Similar threads
