Difference between CS, CA and BCH...

[Halfbat]

I can't see any difference between the CS and BCH other than a slight change in the pylons. Has anyone got a couple of photo's that show any differences, please?

 

[Ben2]

The engineering hull on the BC is quite a bit longer.

The bridge on the BC is bigger.

The engines on the saucer on the BC are bigger.

The ridge running from the engines on the BC goes all the way to the bridge.

 

[McKinstry]

The radiators/heat exchangers on the top of the pylons that support the nacelles are much smaller on the CS.

 

[Red-24]

Here are some shots. The CS and BCH aren't that easy to tell apart on the tabletop.

CA, BCH, CS

CS, BCH, CA

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I don't have any trouble telling the CS and BCH apart myself. The way I look at them is that the smaller ship (CS) has the thin nacelle struts, whilst the larger ship (BC) has the more substantial looking nacelle struts.

 

[hdan]

They do look pretty "same-y" though. You have to be an expert on Federation starship engineering to really tell them apart. (In less snarky tones, I mean that you can't really tell them apart with a quick glance, but have to study the models some.)

It might be worth giving them different paint jobs, like maybe make the BCH a darker grey or use paint to highlight the impulse engine "ridge" on the BC somehow.

 

[Greg Smith]

If you saw just one of them on the battlefield could you immediately tell which one it was? I couldn't.

 

[Halfbat]

@red-24: Thanks loads for those photos. Exactly what was needed!

 

[Iain McGhee]

If you saw just one of them on the battlefield could you immediately tell which one it was? I couldn't.

In the flesh, yes. Even if both types aren't on the table. The CS has a significantly slimmer profile from above, not to mention the obvious bridge, secondary hull and strut differences on closer inspection.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

If you saw just one of them on the battlefield could you immediately tell which one it was? I couldn't.

Yes, but I will admit that I made a point of noting the nacelle strut difference when I first looked over the fleet. Fortunately, this is the only ship pair where I've had to pay attention to relatively minor differences, unlike a fleet such as the Klingons for example.

 

[Sgt_G]

this is the only ship pair where I've had to pay attention to relatively minor differences, unlike a fleet such as the Klingons

You get used to it. Early on, a couple people complained about the D6/D7/C7 looking "too much alike". Once they caught on to the difference, they don't have a problem anymore. And as someone already pointed out, the paint job makes a world of difference.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

this is the only ship pair where I've had to pay attention to relatively minor differences, unlike a fleet such as the Klingons

You get used to it. Early on, a couple people complained about the D6/D7/C7 looking "too much alike". Once they caught on to the difference, they don't have a problem anymore. And as someone already pointed out, the paint job makes a world of difference.

Indeed. I'm just pointing out that the CS/BCH issue in the Federation fleet, is nothing compared to some other fleets. Considering the Klingons seem to get over the problem that quickly, I consider the Federation equivilent to be very much a non-issue

 

[scoutdad]

If you saw just one of them on the battlefield could you immediately tell which one it was? I couldn't.

Yes. I could tell them apart and within moments, too. Same as with the various Klingons and Romulans, and Gorn/Kzinti when they come out.

 

[Da Boss]

If you saw just one of them on the battlefield could you immediately tell which one it was? I couldn't.

Yes. I could tell them apart and within moments, too. Same as with the various Klingons and Romulans, and Gorn/Kzinti when they come out.

I can't and could not at the torunament - hence me often asking - which model is that Klingon ship - some players painted the different classes different colours which is a massive hlep but yes, to many of us, the ships are extremely similar in appearance.

however this is usually a sore point and perhaps its best not to start this discussion............

 

[scoutdad]

I understand that many people haven't had the advantage of growing up with the SFU and are at the same disadvantage in a game of ACTASF that I would be in in a game of VAS.

That's why most of my minis (and all of the ones used at NashCon) have the ship ID (class and unit number) on the bases. It saves a lot of time.

 

[archon96]

not new to star trek but fairly new to starfleet and the difference between ships especially klingons is not to bad especially with the extra hull graphics in the 2500 model design.

 

[GamerDude]

not new to star trek but fairly new to starfleet and the difference between ships especially klingons is not to bad especially with the extra hull graphics in the 2500 model design.

Hi, I'm new to ACTA:SF and reading this thread I have to ask... is there a guide in the rulebook (or in the boxes) that help you in identifying what goes to what type ship?

Thanks

 

[Greg Smith]

The rule book has pictures of the models, (although I don't think the small free book does). The models in the boxes are individually bagged.

 

[GamerDude]

The rule book has pictures of the models, (although I don't think the small free book does). The models in the boxes are individually bagged.

YES! Putting everything together and painting them with my shaky hand will be hard enough without having to run an inquisition to figure out what is what goes where (I have my demo kit for ACTA:SF and boy are those connections small and highly tenuous for the most part, but still looks like fun!

 

[djdood]

Maybe this will help.