Carriers

[Myrm]

Myrm - so what do you do with a Hydran Dragoon with three fighters, or a Cheyanne with two?

Well since my best option was three not a lot - part of the reason said three was workable is that minor tweaks for two or three is easier. Precise numbers become less important when you abstract so small changes are easier to blend

Or you could simply exclude the Hydrans from the game, which is fast becoming my preferred option.

Heavens no....if Hydrans are dropped you miss out a major race in the game - if there is an expression of the SFU that can handle fighters its ACtA, so they have to come in.

 

[Myrm]

I really dislike carriers/fighters in a game. Unless the game is played as a pure fighter/bomber game. That is why I pretty much don't play WW2 and up. The advent of the fighter effectively eliminates the big ship and even the best case drags the game out with mind numbing and ungodly boring detail.

Well it didn't have that effect in B5 ACtA.....

 

[Nomad]

Finlos wrote:

Regarding that other thread, I don't think there have been enough games played to prove (not theory-craft) that mass drones are, in fact overwhelming

+1. However, groupthink is in full swing, and the nerfbat is swinging too.

The theory-crafters may well be right, but I think that Kzinti, and to a lesser extend Klingon and Federation, fleets will do better with a mixed-arms fleet.

+1 on this as well. My 1,000 point Kzin fleet was going to be 3 x NCA and 3 x CM. 24 drones, but the kill mechanism would have been the 21 disruptor AD.

Oh well. Pity about the kitties. I'm a Klingon now.

 

[Da Boss]

I really dislike carriers/fighters in a game. Unless the game is played as a pure fighter/bomber game. That is why I pretty much don't play WW2 and up. The advent of the fighter effectively eliminates the big ship and even the best case drags the game out with mind numbing and ungodly boring detail.

Well it didn't have that effect in B5 ACtA.....

THIS 8) Worked really well -

although I concede that as ACTA:SF is not SFB its not ACTA B5 either.

 

[Nomad]

Myrm - that still does not answer what to do about Hydran ships with two (Iroquois, Buffalo Hunter, Gendarme) or four (Lancer) Stingers, or the Mohawk with eight.

Spence is right about big carrier battles in SFB - the amount of paperwork and record keeping - which flight were these drones launched from? what configurations of frame, payload and engine do they include? how long have they been flying for? who is controlling them? - rapidly became insupportable, and about as much fun as a tax return.

Utterly inappropriate in ACtA.

 

[Da Boss]

Myrm - that still does not answer what to do about Hydran ships with two (Iroquois, Buffalo Hunter, Gendarme) or four (Lancer) Stingers, or the Mohawk with eight.

Spence is right about big carrier battles in SFB - the amount of paperwork and record keeping - which flight were these drones launched from? what configurations of frame, payload and engine do they include? how long have they been flying for? who is controlling them? - rapidly became insupportable, and about as much fun as a tax return.

Utterly inappropriate in ACtA.

I don't know about the actual stats but if it followed previous editions:

you would have stat for a Stinger flight
Speed: X, Damage:1, Dodge: (similar to Stealth rules) X+, Turns: SM,
Weapons (one line for most fighters - two for heavy)

Need certain of abstraction so if it followed previous versions

Iroquois, Buffalo Hunter, Gendarme, Lancer: 1 flight
Mohawk: 2

Job done

 

[Nomad]

Dragoon 1.5 flights.

Ranger 4.5 flights.

Try again :|

 

[tneva82]

Dragoon 1.5 flights.

Ranger 4.5 flights.

Try again :|

That assumes Mongoose is interested in micromanaging things to last detail rather than concentrating on grand scale. So we could have instead:

Dragoon: 1 or 2 flights(depending on which they choose)
Ranger: 4 or 5 flights.

Spare fighters being assumed to be part of other wings.

So for example ship with 7 fighters would launch wings of 4 and 3 but on fleet scale effect of that extra fighter isn't enough to alter stats.

This ain't SFB. This is fleet scale action. Micro managing ain't name of the game.

 

[Da Boss]

Agreed:

the Ranger would either be 4 or 5 flights
the Dragoon would be either 1 or 2 flights

both would be pointed to represent this

easy 8)

 

[tneva82]

Myrm - that still does not answer what to do about Hydran ships with two (Iroquois, Buffalo Hunter, Gendarme) or four (Lancer) Stingers, or the Mohawk with eight.

Spence is right about big carrier battles in SFB - the amount of paperwork and record keeping - which flight were these drones launched from? what configurations of frame, payload and engine do they include? how long have they been flying for? who is controlling them? - rapidly became insupportable, and about as much fun as a tax return.

Utterly inappropriate in ACtA.

This is why you abstract things. ACTA is PRECICELY right for big fighter battles since it abstract things.

No paperwork. No record keeping. No flying time. No controller. You have simple stat line.

Speed, dodge value, weapons, some other stuff. Just look at the noble armada. You can have 6+ carriers filled in fleet and it's still quick(albeit inefficient ATM seeing how weak they are in that game).

You really think Mongoose is going to dumb already working ACTA rules in their newest ACTA game(which follows principle of little book keeping) and create new complex book keeping fighter subrules just for SF

Fighters _works_ in ACTA(well they are inefficient in NA but that's something that can be adjusted if by nothing else then by point values).

 

[Nomad]

Re Da Boss' last post - that's just exactly why I hope the Hydrans don't appear in ACtA.

"We cant be bothered to do them properly, so here's a bodge for you to put up with."

Pavlov Grenadier's suggestion - essentially that each fighter flight has a 'score' that reflects how many initial or surviving fighters, up to six - is the best idea I've seen so far.

This isn't B5. There are fewer fighters, but each one is more powerful.

 

[Nomad]

Tneva - you misunderstand my point. Big CV games were a bust in SFB, period. They worked OK in ACtA:B5.

But if you just port the B5 mechanic to SF you have B5, *not* SF. Fighters work very differently - there are fewer of them - most SF carriers have 12 or fewer, with a handful (converted battleships) at 24-30, not 96 or whatever the Poseidon had.

Hydrans apart, SF line warships don't carry fighters at all, unlike Omegas, Primuses or Sharlins casually throwing a dozen or two into the fight, each.

Most non-Hydran types carry missiles and fight - at least initially - at long range.

They are *slower* than ships (they are jazzed-up shuttlecraft).

They are also more surviveable - it takes at least two phaser hits to disable most (individual) SFU fighters, some (Tholian Spiders) can take more, or even run over a mine and keep going.

 

[Da Boss]

Re Da Boss' last post - that's just exactly why I hope the Hydrans don't appear in ACtA.

"We cant be bothered to do them properly, so here's a bodge for you to put up with."

Sigh, Its obviously foolish to use a system that has been proved to work :roll:

You can make flights as weak or powerful as you like, as fast of slow as you like.

Keep it simple and it will work with the rest of the rules.......

anyway its not supposed to happen till 2013

 

[Captain Jonah]

Finlos wrote:

Regarding that other thread, I don't think there have been enough games played to prove (not theory-craft) that mass drones are, in fact overwhelming

+1 on this as well. My 1,000 point Kzin fleet was going to be 3 x NCA and 3 x CM. 24 drones, but the kill mechanism would have been the 21 disruptor AD.

Oh well. Pity about the kitties. I'm a Klingon now.

I'm curious here. You say that the theory crafters (and the guys at mongoose and ADB who played the games that led to Matt confirming there was a problem have over reacted and that Drones are not a problem.

Then you say that because Drones are being limited to 3 ships per target you are dropping the Kzinit fleet. Does that not say that the only reason you were going Kzinti is the Drones. If you take a race because of a single (secondary) weapon does that not say that there is a problem with that weapon.

3 x NCA, 3 x CM is a fine fleet, good mobility, 21 Disruptors, 24 shields all round, a bit short of Phasers but most Kzinti are. Because your fleet no longer has the ability to kill an enemy cruiser at 36" and is now required to use tactics and actually fight you are dropping them while saying that Drones were not over powered.

To me that says that Drones were very overpowered and is simply proof that us theory crafters were right to push Matt and co into play testing to prove us right, and provide a neat solution.

 

[Nomad]

your fleet no longer has the ability to kill an enemy cruiser at 36"

No, because their primary weapon system will now lack the ability to kill anything of significance.

The reference to 'disruptors being the primary kill mechanism' might have given you a hint that I had no intention of fighting at 36". The size of the table and presence of terrain would have made that impractical in any case.

Kzinti disruptor firing arcs require an approach, ending in a knife fight (the agility of the CMs would have been critical here, and the NCAs ph-3s would have been useful, too).

Dancing about at medium range is, conversely, Klingon shtick. That's what the disruptor firing arcs in the C7, D5W, D5 (and, when it appears, the F5W) are all about.

However, I am no more likely to use a fleet that has been nerfed due to forum groupthink than I am to pick up a ten pound note that has been urinated upon by a dog.

BTW, love the ad hominem stuff.

Keep up the good work!

 

[billclo]

your fleet no longer has the ability to kill an enemy cruiser at 36"

No, because their primary weapon system will now lack the ability to kill anything of significance.

The reference to 'disruptors being the primary kill mechanism' might have given you a hint that I had no intention of fighting at 36". The size of the table and presence of terrain would have made that impractical in any case.

Kzinti disruptor firing arcs require an approach, ending in a knife fight (the agility of the CMs would have been critical here, and the NCAs ph-3s would have been useful, too).

Dancing about at medium range is, conversely, Klingon shtick. That's what the disruptor firing arcs in the C7, D5W, D5 (and, when it appears, the F5W) are all about.

However, I am no more likely to use a fleet that has been nerfed due to forum groupthink than I am to pick up a ten pound note that has been urinated upon by a dog.

BTW, love the ad hominem stuff.

Keep up the good work!

As an old-school SFB player, in medium to large battles, we noted that the drone hit rate was 3-5%, due to all the defensive fire. Nobody expected those drones to hit; they were there to tie up phasers and run him low on drones/ADD while you closed to heavy weapons range. If you got in some hits that was just a bonus.

 

[Nomad]

As an old-school SFB player, in medium to large battles, we noted that the drone hit rate was 3-5%, due to all the defensive fire. Nobody expected those drones to hit; they were there to tie up phasers and run him low on drones/ADD while you closed to heavy weapons range. If you got in some hits that was just a bonus.

Exactly. I just made the same point on 'that other' thread.

 

[tneva82]

Re Da Boss' last post - that's just exactly why I hope the Hydrans don't appear in ACtA.

"We cant be bothered to do them properly, so here's a bodge for you to put up with."

Pavlov Grenadier's suggestion - essentially that each fighter flight has a 'score' that reflects how many initial or surviving fighters, up to six - is the best idea I've seen so far.

This isn't B5. There are fewer fighters, but each one is more powerful.

So because Mongoose doesn't want to micro manage things they aren't doing it properly?-)

Okay so let's add full energy allocation, different shield angle's, electronic warfare and whatnot to the game. Oh and let's divide each turn into 60 subphases too where each ship moves 1/60 of what they can do while at it.

It's a fleet scale game! To simulate FLEET scale action you need to abstract things or you'll end up in horrible book keeping system.

You want to play detailed game that tracks everything go ahead and play SFB. It's still available. ACTA is intended for fleet scale actions and ergo abstractions are to be expected.

 

[tneva82]

Tneva - you misunderstand my point. Big CV games were a bust in SFB, period. They worked OK in ACtA:B5.

But if you just port the B5 mechanic to SF you have B5, *not* SF. Fighters work very differently - there are fewer of them - most SF carriers have 12 or fewer, with a handful (converted battleships) at 24-30, not 96 or whatever the Poseidon had.

So? Amount of flights simply drops. Point being?

And hell 1 fighter per stand, 3 fighter per stand, 6 fighter per stand. IRRELEVANT! Point is game is not going to devolve into book keeping system that's slow as hell to play. Because ACTA fighter rules are QUICK. They also won't overpower any more likely than the ESG(or whatever the weapon was called) will do. Do you want to ban the ESG ships from being developed?

Why not ban disruptor's then? Plasma's? Have just one fleet and one thing. After all every addition can potentially break them...

There's nothing inherently evil in fighters. They aren't going to slow down game and odds are if past records are looked if anything they are going to be UNDERPOWERED rather than overpowered. So why the hate?

 

[Nomad]

You want to play detailed game that tracks everything go ahead and play SFB

I do. 8)

You want to play detailed game

No. What I actually do want is to play a game that reflects the SFU I've been gaming in for the last twenty or so years.

If it gets taken over by Klingon cruisers with dreadnought main batteries and no drones, or Gorn ships that can turn with those Klingons, or Federation ships designed to look like butterflies, then good luck to you.

But please don't call it Star Fleet.

PS Thanks for making me laugh!