Fed bombardment variants: splitting the drone racks?

[Nerroth]

First off, I'm still watiing to see if the FLGS can get the rulebook; I can't say I'm overly confident at this point, but we'll see. (it took almost a year for the distributor to get a copy of ACtA:NA to the store, and that was after they had already said they wouldn't carry it at all.)

From what I gather, all of the Fed drone racks in ACtA:SF are the equivalent of SFB type-G racks (or the Fed-specific racks most Star Fleet ships have in FC); with the dual-mode drone/anti-drone option that allows a certain degree of flexibility to a Fed ship, for a price, anyway.

However, one thing that is worth noting is that even in FC, Fed ship variants with large numbers of drone racks (such as the Fed BCG and NCD) do not all use the same rack type. In the case of the Kirov, only the same two drone racks shared with the Bismarck and New Jersey are dual-modes; the third and fourth racks are the same drone-only racks used by the Klingons and Kzintis. And so forth. (You can see this for yourself by comparing the low-toner Ship Cards for the BCG, BCF and BCJ.)

I'm gathering that the drone-heavy options that already are in ACtA:SF have a bit too good a degree of anti-drone options from their current sets of racks; while on the other hand, they have a bit too easy a time of losing their entire drone complement (if they roll badly enough). Neither fairly reflect the role which drone bombardment ships are supposed to play in FC; and while this is a different game, of course, it seems that simply side-stepping the matter may not be working too well either.


So, what if the racks on such Fed ships were split; to have one entry for the "type-G" drone/anti-drone racks, and another for the "type-A" drone-only racks?

So, to go back to the Kirov, instead of 4AD for its current drone set, it would have two sets of two; but with only one of the two using the Fed drone rules. (A similar change would be in play for the DWD, and presumably for any future NCD conversion.)

That way, the anti-drone options of these ships would be scaled back to their "normal" levels, while the Feds would have ships which, in ACtA:SF, wouldn't have to worry about running out of drones altogether.

And in terms of complexity, having 2AD for the "standard" drones in the Kirov's gun house is no more in-depth than, say, the line showing the 2AD of plasma on the Bismarck would be.


Does this sound like it might be an option to consider?

 

[Sgt_G]

that was suggested and rejected. But who knows? The people that can make that it happen might change their minds and do it.

 

[Rambler]

The key to the game is SIMPLICITY.

Wait till you actually play a Fed to worry about creating a system to start tracking different drone rack types. Yes if you constantly use your multi drone racks as antidrones you damn near make yourself bullet proof but you also deprive yourself of that offensive capability.

It is overall a pretty balanced special rule and for the few exceptions present it is not really worth the headaches you are proposing. Aginst Drone Using Empires you go defencive and aginst non drone users you use it as a extra attack. Pretty much the way it works in FedCom.

 

[Nerroth]

Maybe I'm missing something, but while I could understand leaving the matter be if it turns out not to be an issue for Fed fleets, I don't see why it would somehow be a headache for players to have their drone bombardment variants keep their drone racks in two lines, raher than just the one...

 

[TJHairball]

I would disagree on the balanced part. Because of the way the special rules work, i.e., unlike regular anti-drone, Federation drones used as anti-drones are only depleted if they are all used up in one round, this means that Federation ships effectively have much more ammunition per rack the more racks they have.

This in turn means that Federation ships with more AD of drones get more mileage per drone. A Federation ship with 1 AD of drones runs a real risk of running itself out of drones while using them for anti-drone defense; a Federation ship with 4 AD of drones will probably never run out, even when being shelled by 900 points of Kzinti ships.

The Federation ships that carry more drones are in general not paying that much for them, but they gain much more resilience against drones, since they can use their drones as ADD without worrying about depleting their resources. A Federation ship with 1 AD of drones has to be careful about using it as ADD, since doing so risks losing your drones for the rest of the battle, but a Federation ship with 2 AD can re-use each round it until it hits one depletion result before starting to worry about drones, and a Federation ship with 4 AD is effectively permanently immune to drones in turns that it doesn't use them offensively.

Since two popular Federation ships with 4 AD of drones (Kirov and DWD) are pretty clearly underpriced, that's problematic. I can't see a Federation player losing to a Kzinti player when both know what race their opponent is using.

 

[Rambler]

Maybe I'm missing something, but while I could understand leaving the matter be if it turns out not to be an issue for Fed fleets, I don't see why it would somehow be a headache for players to have their drone bombardment variants keep their drone racks in two lines, raher than just the one...

The built in Weakness to putting all your drones on one line is the "Lose One Random Weapon" effect. By spliting the DWDs, BCGs, and DNGs drone Racks up you are actually armouring the systems.

The big advantage to have a 3 or 4 Drone Block is that it forces people to close to wepons range to try to knock out those units. If all you are doing is splitting the Racks in to 2 lines of 2 you actually just made the Feds job a little easier becasue now he doesn't have to worry about losing the drone block all at once. I have had that happen 3 times to me in 4 months it does present a intersting situation.

I would disagree on the balanced part. Because of the way the special rules work, i.e., unlike regular anti-drone, Federation drones used as anti-drones are only depleted if they are all used up in one round, this means that Federation ships effectively have much more ammunition per rack the more racks they have.

This in turn means that Federation ships with more AD of drones get more mileage per drone. A Federation ship with 1 AD of drones runs a real risk of running itself out of drones while using them for anti-drone defense; a Federation ship with 4 AD of drones will probably never run out, even when being shelled by 900 points of Kzinti ships.

The Federation ships that carry more drones are in general not paying that much for them, but they gain much more resilience against drones, since they can use their drones as ADD without worrying about depleting their resources. A Federation ship with 1 AD of drones has to be careful about using it as ADD, since doing so risks losing your drones for the rest of the battle, but a Federation ship with 2 AD can re-use each round it until it hits one depletion result before starting to worry about drones, and a Federation ship with 4 AD is effectively permanently immune to drones in turns that it doesn't use them offensively.

Since two popular Federation ships with 4 AD of drones (Kirov and DWD) are pretty clearly underpriced, that's problematic. I can't see a Federation player losing to a Kzinti player when both know what race their opponent is using.

And as I stated that Bullet Proofness forces you enemy to close to kill those units instead of sitting back and sniping at them all day long.

 

[McKinstry]

Fed ships cannot use their drones offensively versus the Kzinti. The combination nature of the ADD/Drone rack means the Fed has to reserve all of his drones for defense while the Kzinti can fire every turn since they have both ADD and drone racks, not a one or the other but not both device.

 

[TJHairball]

And as I stated that Bullet Proofness forces you enemy to close to kill those units instead of sitting back and sniping at them all day long.

Which, for long-ranged fleets running up against Federation opponents, means losing horribly. The Federation is a close-range fleet; it carries as much or more Phaser-1 power, the primary offensive phaser, as anyone else at every weight class. It also carries photon torpedoes, which have the steepest damage curve. If you're forcing a long-ranged fleet to close with you, it's an incredible advantage; they don't have anywhere near the close-range firepower that you do.

The way a long-range fleet wins against the Federation is by sitting back and sniping. The fact that the Federation is nearly immune to drones makes this more difficult, but closing to short range with the Federation remains a horrible idea.

 

[Rambler]

And as I stated that Bullet Proofness forces you enemy to close to kill those units instead of sitting back and sniping at them all day long.

Which, for long-ranged fleets running up against Federation opponents, means losing horribly. The Federation is a close-range fleet; it carries as much or more Phaser-1 power, the primary offensive phaser, as anyone else at every weight class. It also carries photon torpedoes, which have the steepest damage curve. If you're forcing a long-ranged fleet to close with you, it's an incredible advantage; they don't have anywhere near the close-range firepower that you do.

The way a long-range fleet wins against the Federation is by sitting back and sniping. The fact that the Federation is nearly immune to drones makes this more difficult, but closing to short range with the Federation remains a horrible idea.

No only certain units are immune to fire and what are you forced to do really? Move from range 36" to range 24" or 18" which is still out of range of the Feds Photons? Once you manage to score a wepon hit or 2 you have a good chance of taking out those drone racks and killing a fed heavy unit.

 

[McKinstry]

And as I stated that Bullet Proofness forces you enemy to close to kill those units instead of sitting back and sniping at them all day long.

Which, for long-ranged fleets running up against Federation opponents, means losing horribly. The Federation is a close-range fleet; it carries as much or more Phaser-1 power, the primary offensive phaser, as anyone else at every weight class. It also carries photon torpedoes, which have the steepest damage curve. If you're forcing a long-ranged fleet to close with you, it's an incredible advantage; they don't have anywhere near the close-range firepower that you do.

The way a long-range fleet wins against the Federation is by sitting back and sniping. The fact that the Federation is nearly immune to drones makes this more difficult, but closing to short range with the Federation remains a horrible idea.

So you snipe from 24" with Accurate +1 disruptors where the relative clumsiness of the Feds makes it hard for them to close to an F arc within 15" (and really need to be 7.5" as photons are the most inaccurate weapon in the game) plus every Kzinti ship has a minimum of 4 drones plus ADD while only two non-dreadnought Fed types ( the BCH and DWD) have 4 and only two others (the NCA and CS ) have two with all others at one. The combo rack gives a great defense but at the cost of making the Feds the only non-plasma fleet that will play the first 2/3 of most games without ever firing a drone, having to reserve them for ADD duty consistently against the Kzinti and most of the time versus the Klingons and Orions.

 

[Nerroth]

I don't have a DWD Ship Card to hand, but double-checking the low-toner DNG Card shows that its four racks are all type-Gs even in FC. So it at least would not be a candidate for line-splitting, even if the BCH and others were at some point.

 

[Nerroth]

Apologies for the double-post; but I managed to dig up the Squadron Scale Ship Card for the DWD (on page 13 of Communiqué #54), and if its dice were split, only one of the four AD on board would use the Fed "type-G" rules.

Given the complaints about this ship class elsewhere, that might significantly adjust the amount of anti-drone fire it can put out, while keeping it able to use the three "normal" racks for regular drone work.

 

[TJHairball]

So you snipe from 24" with Accurate +1 disruptors where the relative clumsiness of the Feds makes it hard for them to close to an F arc within 15" (and really need to be 7.5" as photons are the most inaccurate weapon in the game) plus every Kzinti ship has a minimum of 4 drones plus ADD while only two non-dreadnought Fed types ( the BCH and DWD) have 4 and only two others (the NCA and CS ) have two with all others at one. The combo rack gives a great defense but at the cost of making the Feds the only non-plasma fleet that will play the first 2/3 of most games without ever firing a drone, having to reserve them for ADD duty consistently against the Kzinti and most of the time versus the Klingons and Orions.

You missed the Manta Ray (NCF); counting variants, that's CS + NCA + NCC + BCJ + BCF + DNF = 7 ships with 2 drones, and DWD + BCH + DNG = 3 ships with 4 drones, leaving 8 total CF+CC+CA+NCL+OCL+WD+FFB+POL with 1 drone each, actually a minority of the available options.

The Kirov is both very common in the packaging and has a full three variants available. At the current point values, competitive Federation players will be building many or all of their fleets around battlecruisers. Less competitive Federation players will still often be building their fleets around a dreadnought and often accompanying the dreadnought with a battlecruiser.

 

[McKinstry]

So you snipe from 24" with Accurate +1 disruptors where the relative clumsiness of the Feds makes it hard for them to close to an F arc within 15" (and really need to be 7.5" as photons are the most inaccurate weapon in the game) plus every Kzinti ship has a minimum of 4 drones plus ADD while only two non-dreadnought Fed types ( the BCH and DWD) have 4 and only two others (the NCA and CS ) have two with all others at one. The combo rack gives a great defense but at the cost of making the Feds the only non-plasma fleet that will play the first 2/3 of most games without ever firing a drone, having to reserve them for ADD duty consistently against the Kzinti and most of the time versus the Klingons and Orions.

You missed the Manta Ray (NCF); counting variants, that's CS + NCA + NCC + BCJ + BCF + DNF = 7 ships with 2 drones, and DWD + BCH + DNG = 3 ships with 4 drones, leaving 8 total CF+CC+CA+NCL+OCL+WD+FFB+POL with 1 drone each, actually a minority of the available options.

The Kirov is both very common in the packaging and has a full three variants available. At the current point values, competitive Federation players will be building many or all of their fleets around battlecruisers. Less competitive Federation players will still often be building their fleets around a dreadnought and often accompanying the dreadnought with a battlecruiser.

What's a DNF? I don't recall any Fed ship by that designation. I'd also consider the BCJ/BCF the same ship since it is just a 2 drone swap and nobody bothers with the useless F. I don't consider any Dreadnoughts relative to the discussion since their lumbering status leaves them as pariahs at 1500 points and under.

The problem remains that nobody uses the most basic and iconic of ships, the CA and the CC, as they are completely unattractive not only for cost but for the one drone/ADD doomed versus mass drones issues although if the three limit sticks, and the costs drop, they may get used.

 

[TJHairball]

What's a DNF?

It's right there in the ACTA rulebook. Replaces drones for plasmas just like the BCF.

I don't recall any Fed ship by that designation. I'd also consider the BCJ/BCF the same ship since it is just a 2 drone swap and nobody bothers with the useless F.

That would be a bad idea, the BCJ is priced at a serious discount.

The problem remains that nobody uses the most basic and iconic of ships, the CA and the CC, as they are completely unattractive not only for cost but for the one drone/ADD doomed versus mass drones issues although if the three limit sticks, and the costs drop, they may get used.

I agree that the CA and CC are totally non-viable in ACTA right now. There just isn't much reason to take a Constitution.

 

[McKinstry]

I don't think there is any pushback on the DWD and the BCJ being underpriced.

I think the BCF (or DNF) doesn't matter one way or another as swapping drones for plamas under the current rules is just ludicrous and won't occur.