Fed DD
- Thread starter Lincolnlog
- Start date
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Had to bust out my dad's old SFB SSD binder from the top-shelf and it would appear you are correct! How interesting. Well, a drone one way or another isn't too big a difference, but overall CTA:SF is based more on FedCom's take on things, so my personal preference is to throw in the Drone for the heck of it.
Lincolnlog
Mongoose
The Drone rack is there in FedCom.
starbreaker
Mongoose
The AWR alone made the DD a lot more viable. Even then, not unusual to see people leaving one torpedo tube empty after the first volley anyway to keep speed up - having an empty tube as damage padding tended to work pretty well IME. Hurts a lot less than losing one that you'd spent power on already. 
I think the BCJ example should only be kept for ships which have the same kind of shock restrictions; since it's less about available power than what kind of bad thing happens to the hull when too much of it is used at any one time.
In any case, of the variant DDs offered in FC (which would presumably be on the table for conversion here), only three of them (the DD+ in the Commander's Circle, plus the DDG and DDL in Booster #91) would be viable for the Main Era anyway; the DDM and "vanilla" DD are intended more for use in the Middle Years setting featured in FC: Briefing #2, which may or may not show up in ACtA:SF any time soon (if ever).
So you could likely assume that, for use with the Main Era fleets already available, any DDs still in service have the reactor refit integrated into them already.
In any case, of the variant DDs offered in FC (which would presumably be on the table for conversion here), only three of them (the DD+ in the Commander's Circle, plus the DDG and DDL in Booster #91) would be viable for the Main Era anyway; the DDM and "vanilla" DD are intended more for use in the Middle Years setting featured in FC: Briefing #2, which may or may not show up in ACtA:SF any time soon (if ever).
So you could likely assume that, for use with the Main Era fleets already available, any DDs still in service have the reactor refit integrated into them already.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I think giving it Underpowered would be overkill. It's not THAT under-powered. BCJ rule ditto. I think, for ACTA purposes, you don't have to be too simulationist. (Yes, I know I picked on the bloated hull size of freighters and extra weapons on D7Cs. That's easy to fix by simply changing a number or two on the ship's statline. Not adding new rules to remember in the heat of combat.) It's a destroyer, it's got cruiser firepower, it's got a target painted on it right from the word "go". In practice, you'll see these dying a lot before they can get a second shot off anyway.
In SFB, the original Fed DD had 8 Labs, but with the "+" upgrade, four of those were converted to Auxillary Warp Reactors (provides warp-enhanced plasma to feed Photons but cannot be used to move the ship), so the under-powered problem went away (mostly). Seeing as FedCmdr uses the DD+ and not the DD, and ACTA:SF follows FedCmdr, I don't see that it needs any special rules.
Running the Power figures there is no way around that the DD is underpowered. If you ran just standard Load Photons you could move 16 Hexes (Roughly 8" in ACTASF) but, the second you overload you are dead in the water.
With Standard Loaded Photons
+15 Warp
+ 4 Impulse
+ 4 Reactor
23 Total
- 8 Standard Load Photons
- 7 Phaser
8 points of power for movement so it would be 8" rounded down to 6"
With Overloaded Photons
+15 Warp
+ 4 Impulse
+ 4 Reactor
23 Total
-16 Overload Photons
- 7 Phaser
0 points of power for movement.
With Standard Loaded Photons
+15 Warp
+ 4 Impulse
+ 4 Reactor
23 Total
- 8 Standard Load Photons
- 7 Phaser
8 points of power for movement so it would be 8" rounded down to 6"
With Overloaded Photons
+15 Warp
+ 4 Impulse
+ 4 Reactor
23 Total
-16 Overload Photons
- 7 Phaser
0 points of power for movement.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I'm beginning to understand the long-time ACTA players' frustration with the detail-mindedness of the SFU crowd. Seriously, folks, attempting to make ACTA too much like SFB/FC will hinder players' enjoyment of the system.
On the other hand more difference between ships makes for more interesting games. Without an underpowered rule you'd never pick a DW over a DD, because it has the same armament as a cruiser, moves just as fast, etc etc. With underpowered there are good reasons why you'd pick a DW, because it can keep up with the other ships, has it's basic firepower available all the time while going speed 12, etc.
All the SFB maths will get edited out for final publication, ACTA will just have a two line rule that is already very like one in the basic rulebook. However looking at the source material and making ACTA a faithful representation makes it a more interesting game.
All the SFB maths will get edited out for final publication, ACTA will just have a two line rule that is already very like one in the basic rulebook. However looking at the source material and making ACTA a faithful representation makes it a more interesting game.
Lincolnlog
Mongoose
Same armament as a cruiser, but cannot absorb the damage. But I would agree, Underpowered: May not overload Photons. (you could say may only charge and overload two photons, but that would be the same as using 4 in standard config.)
Also remember, the DW will turn tigher than the DD also. I rated the DD as the same as a CA since CA components.
Also remember, the DW will turn tigher than the DD also. I rated the DD as the same as a CA since CA components.
Ben2 said:
Isn't that why we have points costs so ships can be assessed on their value and chosen accordingly
If the ship in question is better it just costs more? The ship comparisions were more of an issue in B5 due to the PL system but points should reduce these issues?You can balance advantages with specila rules but probably best to do so only if you really need to do so?
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I think adding in special rules for each ship will make the game less playable. It's a game of fleets, these considerations are too micro.
Iron Domokun said:
This is becoming my feeling, ACTA:SF is based upon the SFU stuff but it needs to stand on its own as well. Trying to recreate the complexity here won't work and isn't th place for it, ACTA has long being a game aiming for a stylistic simplicity. When I did some play testing for NA it was alll about making things fun and simple while retaining the feel and capability of the game.
Iron Domokun said:
Your right, having special rules for each ship will slow down game play becausw of the referencing and will make things more difficult for your oppanent. The last thing I want in a game is too referance my stuff all the time and be confused by the other guys raft of special ruless.
Different games for different people and different games doing different things.
Nobody is saying add a special rule to every ship and, if some did I would be shouting them down just as loudly as the ACTA crowd would be. That would definitely destroy the game.
But at the same time if a ship has a know design flaw ACTASF should not just suddenly make the ship better in the name of simplicity. The under powered disadvantage explains why they built variations that removed the power hungry torpedos there by removing the disadvantage. And it explains why they stopped building lollipop DDs at together and started building less heavily armed DWs. This is not a SFB or FC rule thing, it is a Star Fleet Universe setting thing.
But at the same time if a ship has a know design flaw ACTASF should not just suddenly make the ship better in the name of simplicity. The under powered disadvantage explains why they built variations that removed the power hungry torpedos there by removing the disadvantage. And it explains why they stopped building lollipop DDs at together and started building less heavily armed DWs. This is not a SFB or FC rule thing, it is a Star Fleet Universe setting thing.
