CA vs CB - a question for the SFB/FC knowledgeable

[McKinstry]

What is the difference between the classic NCC-1700 Constitution class I see listed as a CA on SFU OOB's and the NCC-1728 Gettysburg class I see listed as a CB? How would the 1728's be different in ACTA?

 

[Rambler]

Very little in fact you could say the Gettysburg is a subclass of the Constitution. The progression of Heavy Cruiser developement is in improving power systems and adding firepower. From a fluff stand point minimalzation of technologies allowed the capabilities of a Kirov to be shoehorned into a Connie.

 

[Sgt_G]

The CA to CC adds the Flag bridge, and changes the aft Ph-1 to 360. The CC to CB adds a few (very few) shield boxes to the front, a drone G-rack, and a small emergency warp engine on the saucer (can't be used for movement unless the saucer is separated from the ship).

 

[Nerroth]

You can see the difference in the Federation Commander versions of the (Main Era) CA and CB if you compare the low-toner Ship Card for the one from the online Commander's Circle, and to to page 9 of Communique #71 for the other. (In both cases, stick with the Squadron Scale version only; the Fleet Scale is an abstraction of the above.)

I should note that in FC, there is no restriction on the use of power drawn from the saucer warp engine (or from anywhere else on the ship); the ability to draw, and use, power on a ship is more streamlined for the most part than it is in SFB.

 

[McKinstry]

So what would the ACTA stats look like on a CB as opposed to the basic CA?

 

[Iain McGhee]

Not certain of the CB's stats, but if you go off the Communique card (which is the CCH, think that is intended to go with the Mongoose freebie and is a little more powerful) and the other translations from FC it'd perhaps be the same as the CC but with 2 drone racks and 4 FH phaser-1s, an extra marine and transporter and 4 more shields. I'd guesstimate 220pts.

 

[McKinstry]

Not certain of the CB's stats, but if you go off the Communique card (which is the CCH, think that is intended to go with the Mongoose freebie and is a little more powerful) and the other translations from FC it'd perhaps be the same as the CC but with 2 drone racks and 4 FH phaser-1s, an extra marine and transporter and 4 more shields. I'd guesstimate 220pts.

That sounds like an interesting ship. I'm assuming sooner or later they will show up as an official ACTA ship.

 

[Rambler]

Not certain of the CB's stats, but if you go off the Communique card (which is the CCH, think that is intended to go with the Mongoose freebie and is a little more powerful) and the other translations from FC it'd perhaps be the same as the CC but with 2 drone racks and 4 FH phaser-1s, an extra marine and transporter and 4 more shields. I'd guesstimate 220pts.

The current freebie ship is a Command Cruiser but Mongoose has done a Heavy Command Cruiser CADD model.

 

[Sgt_G]

The Feds don't have any ship called a CCH. The CB is the closest thing they have. But I have given a little thought to the idea: what could be done to make a true CH that fits between the CB and BCx? What could be done to explain the extra quarter-deck on the top of the saucer?

Another option is to make it better than the BCx, but then you need to explain why the warp engines aren't mounted flat like the BCx but rather are back in a "V" like the CA/CC. (Perhaps the quarter-deck messed with weight-&-balance and the only way to fix it was to change the engines.)

And yet another option is to make this a carrier of some sort, but most Fed carriers have the fighter bay in the secondary hull, so again why would they move it to the saucer?

 

[Nerroth]

Technically, the CB is the CCH; it's even referred to as a Heavy Command Cruiser on the FC Ship Card.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'm probably mixing up the terminology between the card name and the code right enough. I'd done conversions for a bunch of ships there isn't ACTA stats for yet (but I've models for) and wrote it up as such.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

Not certain of the CB's stats, but if you go off the Communique card (which is the CCH, think that is intended to go with the Mongoose freebie and is a little more powerful) and the other translations from FC it'd perhaps be the same as the CC but with 2 drone racks and 4 FH phaser-1s, an extra marine and transporter and 4 more shields. I'd guesstimate 220pts.

I think they need to keep it at 210 points otherwise it will probably get passed over by most for the BCJ (215pts) which has more hull, shields and of course the extra two photons!

-Tim

 

[Sgt_G]

Four more shields is too much. The SSD shows a total of ten boxes added (two on #1, four each on #2 & #6), so in ACTA it should only get 2 added to the shield rating.

 

[Rambler]

Garth ACTASF seems to use the #2 shield values so I feel the +4 shields is warrented.

 

[Sgt_G]

My understanding is that ACTA uses total SFB shields divided by 6.

 

[AdmiralGrafSpee]

My understanding is that ACTA uses total SFB shields divided by 6.

I'm not sure if it does, but every ship I've compared has the same ATCA shield value as the #2 shield in SFB/FC.

 

[billclo]

Doesn't a D7 have a 22-box #2 and #6 shield? (going from memory as I don't have SFB to look at anymore). The D7 in ACTASF has a 18 shield rating, which seems a bit low.

 

[Rambler]

Klingons are just screwy because of their front shield rule. I feel they are low too but if their shields were 22 they would be too tough.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Klingon’s come across as fragile from behind and tough from the front which seems to me to be about right. If you catch one from behind even the cruisers and up die fast.

On the other hand they are agile and hard to catch with anything except a front shot.

Bumping Klingon shields gives the cruisers stronger front shields than Dreadnaughts which is getting to the point where they stop sabre dancing and just charge in with overloads. After all if every Klingon Cruiser has shields stronger than your DNs why would they not just get in your face.

Charge you, break through your formation and turn hard to get onto your rear arcs taking maybe a single lose.

Nope Klingon shields do not need to be any stronger. :lol:

 

[Da Boss]

Klingon’s come across as fragile from behind and tough from the front which seems to me to be about right. If you catch one from behind even the cruisers and up die fast.
Bumping Klingon shields gives the cruisers stronger front shields than Dreadnaughts which is getting to the point where they stop sabre dancing and just charge in with overloads. After all if every Klingon Cruiser has shields stronger than your DNs why would they not just get in your face.

Nope Klingon shields do not need to be any stronger. :lol:

I agree they are fine as is

I would not want to try rushing a Federation fleet - if Photons slip by the shields, especially overloaded ones, the amount of damage taken can be huge.