I'm getting sick of "Lumbering"

[deadshane]

Basically, here's the deal....

If you have a ship with the "Lumbering" trait in a straight up battle with no particlar objectives, and you're up against something with better maneuverablity and a larger initiative sink (i.e. Klingons), your goose is cooked.

You just lost.

Lumbering is so terrible of a trait I cannot see any reason whatsoever for taking a ship that has that disadvantage.

You can maneuver and cover your flanks, sure, but the fact is that no matter what you do, no savvy opponent is going to oblige you and step 'willy-nilly' into your dreadnoughts forward sights at any sort of decent range.

Three games ago, I was playtesting against Klingons and got lucky with a photon shot with 3 6's on a Klingon cruiser at long range. It ultimatly exploded after the phasers were done too....

Never again.

The fed dreadnought is so terribly bad that your entire fleet begin's covering for it. That puts other ships "out there" to be picked off one by one by the more agile and longer ranged Klingons.

What you have to do is play objective games where you can predict where your opponent is going to HAVE to be eventually to be able to effectivly use lumbering ships. Fed's are very powerful and easily a match for Klingons but bringing the Dreadnought against them is asking for a loss while you scramble to keep the Klingon ships off of it's flanks.

I think I'm done with the ship. I'll be sticking with the CA's, BCJ's, and FFB's from here on out.

Lumbering sucks....BAD.

 

[Stu--]

Whilst the in-game trait may be extreme - and personally I think it is - I dont think 'agile' or 'lumbering' really needed to be in the game at all. The straight 'turn 45 degrees when you hit your turn number' seemed to work just fine..

But anyway.. DN's should really only be in a fleet of at least a dozen and more likely 20+
A federation fleet is built around a dreadnaught and one or more battlecruisers / carrier groups (yeah they are not in the game yet)...

 

[Captain Jonah]

Welcome to the World of the Gorn :lol:

Hey you guys have one lumbering ship, everything in our entire fleet above light cruiser size is lumbering. :shock:

We have the wider fire arcs but getting a centreline alpha strike with the Gorn is just as hard as with the Fed DN and your phonons have a much longer viable range.

Leave the DN home unless you are facing another DN or going for a target like a base or world.

Us poor Gorn of course cannot leave our BCs, CMs, BCHs, FCAs etc at home so I find it a little bit hard to feel sorry for the flat tops with shield piercing 15" photons, never ending ADDs etc :wink: :lol:

 

[deadshane]

Yes, poor poor Gorn.

I'm glad it's going to be a while before their ships are availiable in the U.S. Gives me time to get masterful with the Feds b4 going back to them. (used to always play them in SFB)

You have to learn to love the Heavy Destroyer.

At 145pts its an awfully good purchase. Bigger in hull than your average Klingon cruiser and with the sheilds of a Fed Cruiser it's quite the little powerhouse. I'm fairly certain that when my gorn fleet is built it will be based on them....not all the lumbering garbage. I'm thinking a 'Rex and heavy destroyers.

Lumbering is crap and Gorn certainly have an uphill battle in the maneuvering section. Learn to retrograde....

 

[Captain Jonah]

Lumbering is crap and Gorn certainly have an uphill battle in the maneuvering section. Learn to retrograde....

Retrograde in ACTA-SFB stikes me as hanging out a sign that says beat me please, I lost. :roll:

The 4" move backwards combined with the 8" death range of the plasmas means the average enemy can start outside of 8" giving you poor plasma shots and then if you retrograde they can almost get behind you anyway. With a full speed ahead or what ever its called move of 16" an agile ship can start at 9" in front of you facing you and get behind you. With most ships they end up with only a plasma F in arc of someone who gets to the rear flank and agile or low turn mode enemies can just about get there with you in thier F arc.

You surrender any kind of initiative, you are entirely predictable and since all the big gorn stuff is turn mode 6 a 4" move doesn't allow you to even make one 45 deg turn

BDDs, 3 from the fleet set, 2 more from the border box. 5 should do for most battles. :lol:

 

[andywatkins1963]

I have bought 2 squadron boxes of feds and 2 of klingons. I now dump the fed dreadnought all together and just field a pair of Kirov's as heavy firepower. With 30 shields and plenty of firepower they are excellent value for money.

Agree Lumbering is terrible, suggest for any moderate sized battle just don't take lumbering ships.

 

[billclo]

Deadshane,

How are you using the Fed DN? I mean are you trying to get close to a target and use overloads, or are you hanging it back with a few ships to cover it's flanks?

I think some of the problems with Lumbering would be helped if you could count movement on a previous turn as distance travelled before turning. So you wouldn't have to go 9" straight before making one 45 degree turn, you could turn NOW if you went at least 9" straight last turn. Easy to track; put a couple small dice behind the ship with how far it's travelled or a chit saying turn mode satisfied would do and not be a record-keeping burden.

 

[Stu--]

Really, in terms of a comparison with the source material (SFB/FC) is lumbering/Agile even justified?

A D7 is more maneuverable than a constitution, but to the extent represented in this game?
I just don't think so..

 

[Reynard]

Maybe this is why it's called Star Fleet, not Star One-on-one. Ships should not just be bigger or smaller versions of a standard cruiser.

In naval warfare, battleships were clunking monsters every frigate, destroyer and cruiser should be able to harrass and destroy. I think Bismark was an unusual case about sending one vessel with little to no escort and that proved to be Germany's Deathstar moment. Normally battleships (dreadnoughts) are part of a fleet. It's all-big-gun concept made it the unit to take out enemy ships at range while smaller ships provided a screen against enemy small ships who could exploit a battleship's manueverability, speed and short ranged deficit. This should be the same tactic in Star Fleet.

So, if you can't take out that frigate or destroyer with a large array of phasers then you might think not to take a dreadnought. Don't change the rules, change your tactics.

 

[Stu--]

In naval warfare, battleships were clunking monsters every frigate, destroyer and cruiser should be able to harrass and destroy.

Sorry, but that's completely innacurate.
WWII era battleships had the big guns for everything down to cruiser size and the little secondary guns for frigates and destroyers.
They were certainly vulnerable to torpedo attacks from smaller ships but other than that they were the unrivalled big hitters of WWII surface warfare and taking one down took a major concentrated attack.


What turn number does the Fed DN have compared to a CA?..

 

[deadshane]

Lumbering is crap and Gorn certainly have an uphill battle in the maneuvering section. Learn to retrograde....

Retrograde in ACTA-SFB stikes me as hanging out a sign that says beat me please, I lost. :roll:

The 4" move backwards combined with the 8" death range of the plasmas means the average enemy can start outside of 8" giving you poor plasma shots and then if you retrograde they can almost get behind you anyway. With a full speed ahead or what ever its called move of 16" an agile ship can start at 9" in front of you facing you and get behind you. With most ships they end up with only a plasma F in arc of someone who gets to the rear flank and agile or low turn mode enemies can just about get there with you in thier F arc.

You surrender any kind of initiative, you are entirely predictable and since all the big gorn stuff is turn mode 6 a 4" move doesn't allow you to even make one 45 deg turn

BDDs, 3 from the fleet set, 2 more from the border box. 5 should do for most battles. :lol:

You totally missed the point of the retrograde.

The backwards move is done during your reload turn making it more difficult to dodge out of the offending ships arcs of fire.

When you've got other ships in the fleet in support, it actually works pretty well and is about the only thing that lumbering ships that are reload dependant have going for them.

"sure, fly behind my reloading/retrograding ship with a full speed ahead move. I've several 'S' Torp toting destroyers back there waiting for you to speed up and catch what they throw at you!"

 

[Reynard]

"WWII era battleships had the big guns for everything down to cruiser size and the little secondary guns for frigates and destroyers.

They were certainly vulnerable to torpedo attacks from smaller ships but other than that they were the unrivalled big hitters of WWII surface warfare and taking one down took a major concentrated attack."

They were huge, very expensive and very rare spenting most of their time as part of a fleet group because they were very cost effective targets so they did mostly shore bombing or anti-aircraft defense of carriers. They were obsolete as the central fleet vessel. What did it? Small manueverable vessels, submarines and aircraft and their weapons. (In Star Fleet, that would be frigate/destroyers, romulan ships, suicide shuttles plus drones and plasmas.)

ACTA:SF gives a similar feel to the big hitters. They have devastating armament but are... lumbering. It is a simple game mechanic so they're not just a super-cruiser. If you must send a dreadnought out on it's own then try the german tactic using their battleships, with maybe a cruiser escort, as commerce raiders. See how escorts for a convoy of freighters fare. Otherwise a dreadnought is the core vessel of a fleet since there are no carriers. Please leave carriers out! Dreadought are exellent as the big guns for a game that prides on simple fleet play. If you need the visual, treat suicide shuttle as an expendable fighter since they do nothing else.

 

[Stu--]

"Please leave carriers out!"

Why? People are already looking forward to maulers. I would be very surprised indeed if ADB didn't port across their IP wholesale. SFB has Hydrans, Lyrans (soon to be in) and a variety of other non-show species which I am sure will make it into this game, I can't imagine they sill stop short when core ACTA rules already support fighters very well.

 

[Nerroth]

There's a big difference between looking out for new fleets to show up (of which there are a great many in the wider SFU to draw from) and wanting specific types of weapons or attrition units to be added (or not to be, in some cases).

This very issue has been a significant point of debate in the ongoing development of Federation Commander; where do you draw the line between introducing weapon/unit types from Star Fleet Battles without turning the younger system into a carbon copy of the old? There are players who want to see all sorts of SFBisms brought into FC, but there are others who are opposed to seeing the likes of "true" carriers show up at all.

The current compromise for FC is to have three tiers of conversion. A relatively small subset of weapons and ship types have been integrated into the core, or "vanilla" FC engine; though a handful of systems (such as simplified versions of Aegis and special sensors) have been added in through recent revisions to the Reference Rulebook. A second subset of the SFB legacy has been corralled into the "Borders of Madness" project; an in-development, and strictly optional, set of rules intended to govern the use of certain items (true carriers, battle tugs, etc) without forcing them into the core game (and without the myriad of options availabel to said units in SFB). So, for example, a BoM take on carrier operations includes a (relatively) streamlined set of rules, plus a handful of sample carriers and fighter types. And even then, there would be a portion of the SFB database which would basically never show up in either "vanilla" FC or BoM altogether; since doing so would basically turn that game into another SFB, rather than let it be its own thing, for good or ill.

Personally, I'm very much on the fence as to whether or not I'd consider true carriers (or PF tenders, for that matter) to be a welcome addition in ACtA:SF; though I would sincerely hope that, should they end up appearing at some point, they do not end up overwhelming the game engine to the point that thaey make the actual ships themselves obsolete.

(But then, that in itself might make a Middle Years variant of ACtA:SF more appealing to some, since there are no true carriers in that era anyway.)

 

[Kirksfolly]

I'm new to this system (games that is, not solar!) but when I was planning a Romulan 1000pts force, I quickly realised that there was no way I could effectively use a Condor. The enemy would have far too much space on the table to simply out-manoeuvre it and I would be relying on a considerable stroke of luck or major enemy mistake (which knowing my opponent was most unlikely), to get a really good shot off. Having said that, when we progress to 2500-3000pts games, I'd seriously consider taking 2 for such a target rich environment. From the limited number of games I've played I think the Cruiser is King at 1000pts! :lol:

 

[storeylf]

"They were huge, very expensive and very rare spenting most of their time as part of a fleet group because they were very cost effective targets so they did mostly shore bombing or anti-aircraft defense of carriers. They were obsolete as the central fleet vessel. What did it? Small manueverable vessels, submarines and aircraft and their weapons. (In Star Fleet, that would be frigate/destroyers, romulan ships, suicide shuttles plus drones and plasmas.)"

Go back to WW1 - plenty of destroyers and submarines, but DN(BBs) were still queen of the seas.

Those smaller ships/subs had nothing to do with the demise of the BB, it was pretty much entirely down to aircraft. Had aircraft not turned up then those battlewagons would still have been the premiere naval unit. After Taranto, pearl, coral sea and midway carriers were cleary the major naval unit, and BBs that couldn't keep up with them were relegated to secondary functions in the main.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe I'm not the best gamer or a moderately good ACTA:SF gamer but I don't think the game is about min/maxing. Using the term "realistically" loosely, a fleet would not have two of the largest ships unless it was some sort of planet assault. The fleet would be based around a battlecruiser or dreadnought and act as fire support to the other ships in the fleet. Good tactics would have the other ships corral the enemy for the flagship to alphastrike while also keeping enemy ships at bay. Huge ships in the game are ment to fire foreward without flying circles. They hang back and the fleet make opportunities for them.

I do believe these huge ships are in fact built correctly for their function.

 

[Greg Smith]

Personally, I'm very much on the fence as to whether or not I'd consider true carriers (or PF tenders, for that matter) to be a welcome addition in ACtA:SF; though I would sincerely hope that, should they end up appearing at some point, they do not end up overwhelming the game engine to the point that thaey make the actual ships themselves obsolete.

B5 ACTA did fighters really well. They certainly didn't overwhelm the game. Even Gaim hordes of fighters didn't (when their numbers were toned down), although dealing with large numbers (30+) slowed down the game.

I don't know how fighters work in SFB. But if they don't swamp the game, then similarly balanced fighters should be ok in ACTA.

 

[storeylf]

SFB was to much into piddly detail, that is what made things like carriers and fighters such a pain.

In particular most SFB fighters carry seekers, and with SFB/FedCom seekers are all moved indivudually 1 hex at a time. Large number of fighters (all moved and tracked individually) can result in very large number of drones which can result in very long turns. Fed Com is too tied to trying to be like SFB in too many ways, though it is currently vastly better than SFB (IMO of course). There are a lot of old SFB players in the Fed Com crowd who are still wanting fighters (and their drones) to be like SFB ones, so I don't have much hope for them in that game as and when they start turning up for everyone.

That is not to say they might not work in this game. This game really does seem to be about simplicity, and seems much better placed to ignore the SFB baggage. The fact that this game already has seekers resolved instantly is a big plus should they introduce fighters. Hopefully it will also do some sort of fighter group/wing to make it even simpler, rathe than handle each one seperately.

On the other hand Carriers in Trek just doesn't do it for me, I'm not a fan of them just on that principle.

 

[Nerroth]

Actually, one thing I picked up on over on the old RedBrick boards was how some of the Fading Suns RPGers weren't overly happy with the presence of so many carriers in Noble Armada (in any incarnation); in their view, only the Kurgans (of the larger powers, at least) are supposed to be known for carrier ops, with CVs rare within the Phoenix Empire proper.

But then, both the RPG and tabletop game aim to view the common setting through their own distinct lenses, so. (That said, I'd imagine any kind of "historical" orders of battle for each faction would be useful in both systems, to one degree or another.)