Fleet Update #2 - Ready for Free Download

[Myrm]

Well, this makes me feel a bit more optimistic about the eventual implementation of carriers and fighters in ACTA:SF. I still like multi-element manuver units for purposes of modeling miniatures as small as fleet-scale fighters, but the fact that the game doesn't break down dealing with dozens of separate fighters is the important thing.

Yes as well as ammo control (or rather not having it) multi fighter stands look prettier - B5 uses a 6 fighter wing, but 6 would be too many for balance in the SF version with things like ADDs and phasers. This is the main SFU problem although Dodge, shields and so on can be used to abtract this to let you do 3 or so.
As a Hydran player I have always been acutely aware of the limitations of every ship and their shuttle having a fighter wing hovering about and the very first thing that went through my brain when I heard about ACTA:SF was the thought that I could at last I could play an SFU game with several carriers and without the need to plan it around the player's birthday parties during the course of it...this was driven by my experiences in both B5:ACTA and carrier battles in Victory at Sea which uses the same core rules at its heart. Since I had seen this work, I felt much more confident.
For me its two mechanisms - first is the simple dogfighting system that ties up multiple fighters by wanting you to engage in dogfights for many tactical reasons but not take huge time outs for it, the second is that you activate an entire sides fighters in one go, so things move about rapidly. FOr me those two features need to be preserved.

 

[locarno24]

Noble Armada does pretty well with a reasonable number of ships.

I agree that bookkeeping will be key - the NA fighters have weapons with either unlimited ammo or (at most) one-shot weapons. Equally, shields are annoying but generally they have at most one each (barring really big things like the Mumit). Tracking damage will be the key thing.

First question:
How big are fighters in SFU? Spacegoing spitfires like B5 starfuries, pocket warships like Honorverse LACs or something in between?

Do they carry 'capital ship calibre' guns?

Also, one other concern re dodge as a trait; if a phaser-1, which is the SFU equivalent of a 16" gun, can swat a missile out of the sky on a 2+, are fighters really that much harder a target?

 

[Myrm]

First question:
How big are fighters in SFU? Spacegoing spitfires like B5 starfuries, pocket warships like Honorverse LACs or something in between?

They are pretty much carrier aircraft to a modern flattop, so shuttle size. Single seat or two seat specialist shuttles. Most will be armed with a phaser 3 and 2-4 seeking weapons - drones or plasma D. Dogfighters will be lighter in damage and armament (be that less drones, or the same number but Type VIs). Heavies carry single shot charges for their racial heavy weapon - and either 1 or 2 of them. Some heavies carry phaser 2s, some fighters carry PhaserGs. Damage is in the 8-12points for most fighter from memory with heavys taking more.

Also, one other concern re dodge as a trait; if a phaser-1, which is the SFU equivalent of a 16" gun, can swat a missile out of the sky on a 2+, are fighters really that much harder a target?

They have more damage points but a solid hit from a phaser 1 will cripple most fighters at short range, but most can survive a couple of hits at range. Dodge can be used to represent the variability of the dice at range, or simply to represent the ability to absorb damage abstractly without having to record keep hits on fighters (bad idea in my opinion) - that means you can have multi fighter stands by adjusting the dodge rating for a 2 vs 3 vs 4 stand fighter base, or a light vs a heavy in game design terms (not during a game).

 

[mdauben]

First question:
How big are fighters in SFU? Spacegoing spitfires like B5 starfuries, pocket warships like Honorverse LACs or something in between?

There's another unit class in the SFU known as PFs (IIRC these were originally called "pseudo-fighters" but ADB later changed to "Fast Patrol" ships). These are similar to the LACs in size and capability, and in games could be deployed independently or as attached to a PF carrier.

These came even later in game-time than fighters, so I imagine it will be a while before we see them in ACTA:SF.

 

[Da Boss]

There are several discussion and suggestion threads for ACTA: Sf fighters:

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=51651

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=54849

 

[adm]

PF's were renamed Gunboats about five years ago. In WWII terms think PT/MTB/MAS that can reload their torpedoes.

 

[Myrm]

PF's were renamed Gunboats about five years ago..

They were? Missed that one....so does that terminology also include Interceptors and what about the small ships like the G2 that was called a gunboat already?

 

[Nerroth]

I've been thinking that gunboats could be considered in a not entirely different vein to the raider and explorer classes over in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, such as the Stalker-class Explorer for House Hazat, or the Mujahidin-class Raider for the Kurga Caliphate.

Those are relatively small in size compared to frigates or other ships, but still work differently to fighters. Plus, they use the smaller Mongoose flight bases, which could be a neat way of distinguishing gunboats from both ships (which all use the larger bases) and fighters (which would presumably use the same coin-sized bases as admin shuttles).

 

[adm]

PF's were renamed Gunboats about five years ago..

They were? Missed that one....so does that terminology also include Interceptors and what about the small ships like the G2 that was called a gunboat already?

Interceptors are still called Interceptors, and their rules still fall under the K section for Gunboats. G2s, and variants, are still called Gunboats, but like E4 "Escorts" that are not Carrier Escorts, G2s are not "PF" Gunboats.

 

[drneuro]

Matthew Sprange, when can we expect to see Fleet Update#3?

 

[OrneryRooster]

I'm not holding my breath for anything new for ACTA:SF. Unless it's Judge Dredd related we're in for a long wait.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I am afraid that is not the problem.

We have put several proposals forward to ADB as to how to proceed with CTA:SF but, I am afraid, we have yet to have confirmation of any of them. We obviously cannot proceed without ADB's okay, so we are waiting to hear back - we have been told this should happen within the next few days.

 

[mdauben]

we have been told this should happen within the next few days.

I'll be keeping all my fingers crossed! :lol:

 

[billclo]

I am afraid that is not the problem.

We have put several proposals forward to ADB as to how to proceed with CTA:SF but, I am afraid, we have yet to have confirmation of any of them. We obviously cannot proceed without ADB's okay, so we are waiting to hear back - we have been told this should happen within the next few days.

This is nice to hear, because I was thinking the game system was pretty much dead, gone, kaput.

 

[OrneryRooster]

I agree. At least there is something which has been put forward to add to the game.