I'm getting sick of "Lumbering"

Myrm said:
so Im looking for an SFU-based ruleset that gives me slick big numbers fleet actions with fighters akimbo - those epic games I could never do in FC or in an achievable time in SFB.

That is fair enough - but remember, we are rooting CTA:SF in the SFU, _not_ replicating SFB or FC. There _will_ be differences. However, the outcome of any selected battle should be more or less accurate.

Look at it this way; if we really were trying to replicate SFB or FC, we would have 60 degree fire arcs and hexes.

And then where would we be? :)
 
msprange said:
Myrm said:
so Im looking for an SFU-based ruleset that gives me slick big numbers fleet actions with fighters akimbo - those epic games I could never do in FC or in an achievable time in SFB.
That is fair enough - but remember, we are rooting CTA:SF in the SFU, _not_ replicating SFB or FC. There _will_ be differences. However, the outcome of any selected battle should be more or less accurate.

Very much so, that was essentially the theme of my reply - similar enough outcomes to feel SFU but not necessarily done the same way. Or at least, that's what I was aiming for. A different system wil require that - the entire impulse system is gone from ACtA and energy allocation/control is abstracted to a much lower level of detail with special actions - with the fleet carrier battles, I don't want you to replicate SFB and FC because in one case it wouldn't happen, and in the other I'd cry over the time taken - because its where I think ACtA is strong I raised it as an undeveloped (as yet) area of the SFU I really want to see an ACtA implementation because if my B5 and VaS games are anything to go by, it will be soooo much better done ACtA stylee...
 
crosswiredmind said:
Not sure why esthetics should trump gameplay. If my Constitution spends a turn moving 12" forward, it seems odd that I need to move 6" more before I can turn. Heck a six-sided die placed next to the ship is all you really need. Guess I just added house rule number one to my book.

That extra 6" is part of the turn. You can't turn your car 90 degrees on a dime doing 90mph just because you drove an extra 600 feet before you made the turn.

Basically, you're arguing that speeding up into a turn should make you turn better.
 
Captain Jonah said:
Erm playing on a hex mat :lol:

The problem I have with this is that I have spent a long time in my life looking up at the night sky and not once have I seen a hex grid :)
 
msprange said:
Captain Jonah said:
Erm playing on a hex mat :lol:

The problem I have with this is that I have spent a long time in my life looking up at the night sky and not once have I seen a hex grid :)

Matthew, the problem is that you forgot to turn on the hex overlay switch while you were looking up. Unfortunately the location of the switch is classified -- even telling you there is a switch is dodgy...

:D

Jean
 
msprange said:
Captain Jonah said:
Erm playing on a hex mat :lol:

The problem I have with this is that I have spent a long time in my life looking up at the night sky and not once have I seen a hex grid :)

...and that is why they built the Hubble....damn atmospheric interference
 
Which is why the Hubble pictures need to be photoshopped before release to the public.

The Hubble is able to see those faint hex lines across the universe that people down here cannot.

Thats why Nasa has a whole team of photoshop experts who erarse the lines, did you never wonder what the delay is between Hubble taking the pictures and Nasa releasing them :lol:
 
Finlos said:
Captain Jonah, you do realize that information is classified. :D

"There are no hexes!"

Classified, I had no idea. I would never reveal secrets Honest Officer. :shock:

Besides, Jean told me about them :P :lol:
 
Anyway back on topic.

Lumbering. Why???

Federation CA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Strike Cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Battle cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed NCA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Gorn BC Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn BCH Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn CM Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Why is it with the same turn modes the feds are NOT lumbering and the Gorns are lumbering.

Anyone???
 
Maybe in next errata it will change - in some ways this is an opportunity to look at lot of things before the relaunch.

From your post it seems you have a strong case here - not sure why people were / are so concerned about getting right number of transporters and labs which are are or reletivley little importance in ACTA(*) but this "has to be the same in SFU" element does not matter? :?
 
Captain Jonah said:
Anyway back on topic.

Lumbering. Why???

Federation CA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Strike Cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Battle cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed NCA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Gorn BC Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn BCH Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn CM Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Why is it with the same turn modes the feds are NOT lumbering and the Gorns are lumbering.

Anyone???

Interesting.

However...are the breakdown values for HET's the same? That's also a hugely important factor....since Gorn Cruisers are generally incapable of making them (barring of course the CL).
 
If thats the case regarding HET's, just put in a fleet rule to cover it, say :idea: any ships over 'X' damage is unable to HET order take double damage from failed HET's. Who says fleet rules have to provide a positive :twisted:

And i still want my Gorn ! :!: ! :?
 
Captain Jonah said:
Anyway back on topic.

Lumbering. Why???

Federation CA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Strike Cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed Battle cruiser Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Fed NCA Turn mode D ACTA turn 6

Gorn BC Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn BCH Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn CM Turn mode D ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Why is it with the same turn modes the feds are NOT lumbering and the Gorns are lumbering.

Anyone???

Is there any comparison of other turn modes. Is there a direct correlation, or is there some other factor at work in the conversion?
 
I cannot see the HET failure chance on the ship cards and I'm at work so do not have books handy.

The cost to perform a HET is basically the same for everyone. Only the Fed strike cruiser pays less than 5 power to HET.

Federation CA Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6

Fed Strike Cruiser Turn mode D HET cost 3 ¾ ACTA turn 6

Fed Battle cruiser Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6

Fed NCA Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6

Gorn BC Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn BCH Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

Gorn CM Turn mode D HET cost 5 ACTA turn 6 Lumbering

I seem to remember Gorn’s were a complete disaster when it came to HETS.

As I suggested before and others have mentioned. Make Lumbering mean no HETS, ever. That’s it. No limit on turns, that is what the turn number is for.

The fanatical adherence to SFB SSDs is seeing the Gorn striped of Phasers and the Romulan’s given more of them, where then is what seems to be a completely arbitrary attempt made to cripple the movement of the poor Gorn’s coming from. SFB/FC doesn't stop Gorn cruisers from turning more than once in a move.

Play testers, ADB, Msprange. Can someone say what the conversion was that left every Gorn Cruiser lumbering while other ships with the same turn modes have no such penalty please.

If you can give me a logical and reasonable reason I may even stop complaining about it, well I will make less posts on that specific subject anyway :lol:
 
I tend to agree, but for different reasons.

I think lumbering should be changed but not due to any comparisons of ssd's to ACTA ship dossiers....

Lumbering needs to be changed simply because ships with the 'lumbering' trait are TOO unmanueverable.

This wargame is about maneuvering for favorable position against your enemy. 1 45 degree turn per turn WITH NO OTHER OPTIONS makes ships completely vulnerable in this game.

When a lumbering ship takes an entire game to turn 360 degrees...I've got a problem with that. ESPECIALLY where there are no options for any sort of maneuvering otherwise.

Why would you want a ship like this in a battle. A ship that is THAT predictable and that DEFENSELESS? It is defenseless you know. There are no tricks you can pull, no celestial phenomena to take advantage of...nothing at all you can do to get people off of your tail.

I've played lots of wargames over the years...and maneuvering your game peices on the table is what wargaming is about, not rolling dice, not choosing peices, wargaming is about MOVING things against your opponent. It is the HEART of what wargaming is. When you know and understand that little fact, it makes lumbering ships in ACTA: Star Fleet completely unusable. There is no reason whatsoever to take any of the dreadnoughts (save the Klingon) when you could take two ships which are not lumbering. I'm not saying that movement 'hits' against certain ship types are bad in a wargame...but lumbering is simply TOO severe, and there is NOTHING in the game a smart player can do to increase or manipulate his maneuverability.

Lumbering means if you make even ONE mistake in your movement...you've lost the game. That particular ship is UNRECOVERABLE as it's pointing in the wrong direction for the rest of the game. Combine the Lumbering trait with the low Gorn initiative and it's even worse...just a little worse...but how bad does it need to get? Oh yea, the heavy weapons are short ranged as well....yea, unuseable.

I think one turn a turn could be ok for lumbering, BUT, HET's SHOULD be allowed. Perhaps at a higher crew quality check. (9+?) That is still a severe penalty to movement, but it makes for possible course changes and your ships are actually able to be MOVED.

As it stands, I dont think any fleet featuring lumbering ships at this point CAN be competetive in any way. Not unless a scenario specifically has parameters that enhance them.

Any scenario that requires maneuvering of ships is instantly lost by fleets featuring multiple lumbering vessels.
 
Captain Jonah said:
Play testers, ADB, Msprange. Can someone say what the conversion was that left every Gorn Cruiser lumbering while other ships with the same turn modes have no such penalty please.

As an ACTA playtester, I never saw any conversion material. We playtested the ACTA stats and suggested changes to points based on those.
 
I suppose in playtesting, Klingon ships happily pranced right up to Gorn ships and allowed good plasma shots at them....and never fired drones.

As they are...I would never...NEVER take Gorn into a competetive environment. It's asking to be frustrated. Best fleets are Feds and Klingons...I would say in that order.

Gorn in this game remind me of:

Vampires in Bloodbowl
Tanks in classic Battletech
Tau Hand to Hand armies in 40k.
All pawn armies in chess.

If you win it's like "damn! you must be good!"...and amazement abounds.
 
Back
Top