New for Federation - the Big Ships...
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
The designs which Taldren used for the Starfleet Command PC games were either taken from the Franchise directly (such as the Excelsior and K'tinga) or re-imagined under their own steam (such as the ISC ship designs they drew up for SFC2); neither group of images are available to ADB, according to the terms of their licence.
In the case of the Mars-class BB, the SFC version of the hull would not work in its current form anyway; since, in SFB, two of the nacelles need to be attached to the saucer, so as to allow it to fly under its own warp power in the event of a saucer separation.
In the long run, it's worth bearing in mind that we are still less than a hundred ships into a cast of thousands; and that there are a whole load of ships, or even entire fleets, which have no pre-existing miniatures available (or even proper line art, beyond the silhouettes shown on some of their countersheets).
That said, it's going to take time to get through the list; there is still a lot of ground left to cover before the line is crossed between those ships and fleets which are more firmly grounded design-wise (and which have more momentum behind them) and those which are more readily up for grabs (in terms of cooking up new designs from whole cloth).
To put a long story short, the nature of the licence means that ADB and Mongoose aren't going to be able to please everyone; but rather than lament those things which the Star Fleet Universe cannot be, a little persistence (and patience) can help unlock the areas which the SFU can do that no other setting, Franchise or otherwise, can match.
Oh, and I might add that A Call to Arms: Noble Armada is not entirely at Mongoose's discretion either; it's based on an intellectual property that is owned by Holistic Design (who also sub-licence that universe to FASA 2.0, who currently run the Fading Suns RPG).
In the case of the Mars-class BB, the SFC version of the hull would not work in its current form anyway; since, in SFB, two of the nacelles need to be attached to the saucer, so as to allow it to fly under its own warp power in the event of a saucer separation.
In the long run, it's worth bearing in mind that we are still less than a hundred ships into a cast of thousands; and that there are a whole load of ships, or even entire fleets, which have no pre-existing miniatures available (or even proper line art, beyond the silhouettes shown on some of their countersheets).
That said, it's going to take time to get through the list; there is still a lot of ground left to cover before the line is crossed between those ships and fleets which are more firmly grounded design-wise (and which have more momentum behind them) and those which are more readily up for grabs (in terms of cooking up new designs from whole cloth).
To put a long story short, the nature of the licence means that ADB and Mongoose aren't going to be able to please everyone; but rather than lament those things which the Star Fleet Universe cannot be, a little persistence (and patience) can help unlock the areas which the SFU can do that no other setting, Franchise or otherwise, can match.
Oh, and I might add that A Call to Arms: Noble Armada is not entirely at Mongoose's discretion either; it's based on an intellectual property that is owned by Holistic Design (who also sub-licence that universe to FASA 2.0, who currently run the Fading Suns RPG).
Trying to be a voice or moderation here, so please... don't anyone on either side of the discussion be offended... at least not too offended. :wink:
Also, please note that I do not work for either ADB or Mongoose and am not privy to any corporate secrets. The opinions stated below are just that... opinions. And they are mine only.
But they are based on 30+ years of knowledge of the SFU and how it works and evolves.
There are two distionct points of view here, and both are valid, and both are almost mutually exclusive.
Federation and Empire: the strategic level game of the SFU
Star Fleet Battles: The original starship combat game, highly detailed and best at 3 ships a side or less
Federation Commander: a simplified starship combat game, best at 3 to 6 ships per side.
SFU Starmada: Small scale combat in the SFU (never played, so no detailed description here
Star Fleet Battle Force: The beer and preztels, card game of the SFU.
Prime Directive: Role playing in the SFU (and available in 3 flavors)
and...
ACTASF: the game that we're discussing.
Each of these games is a separate system in its own right, but they all have to play together. You can't have an invading empire of robotic beings flying around in polyhedral ships in one, without having them in all.
Now does this mean that there can never be an addition to one game and not the others? Only kinda. Take for example Module E4 - the Borak. This is a playtest module for SFB only. Eventually it will filter down to the other systems.
Can Mongoose ever produce an ACTASF only ship? I doubt it.
Can Mongoose ever produce a ship that starts in ACTASF and eventually works its way into the other systems? Probably. I know there was some interest at one time in doing a whole set of Klingon D17 type ships. Hopwfully, that has not fallen by the wayside but is still being worked on.
The overall feel must be similar to SFB/Fed Comm.
The empires must be relatively balanced against each other... etc.
1) I completely agree here. It is a joint venture and its still in its infancy.
ADB has indeed always had very strict requirements for ships... just look through back issues of Captains Log to see some of the rejected proposals.
2) That is probably a knee-jerk reaction that I must admit I am guilty of as well. Most of it comes from years of newcomers to SFB / Fed Comm doing just that. Asking for stats for the Excelsior, the Enterprise D, the Reliant, a borg Cube, the Vor'Cha, the Galor, etc. And then getting beligerent when told why it can't happen.
I (as a SFU veteran) and partial to the old designs and was quite taken aback by some of Sandrines early proposals... The "pregnant guppy-looking" Dreadnought... the half-Reliant, half- Enterprise Command Cruiser. But the later stuff has been awesome.
She's taken the Romulan 'Hawks in a direction I never envisioned - but that I love.
The prelimenary designs for the Lyrans are just as nice. The old, slab-sided cruisers are now detailed and begging for paint (if only I had some in my possession to paint!!!).
EVen the Klignon D17 has grown on me. I originally hated it, but now wish I had a couple. Of course, I'd paint them in Romulan colors as I think the nose of it looks rather like a beak... but I'd still like to have one.
We have a large group of Fed Comm players (probably 20 or so) within driving distance,so it does get played rather frequently. Heck, I've got photos on my Photobucket page of 19 people in my gameroom at the same time playing Federation Commander.
There has never been much interest in ACTA in this area. All three of the nearby gaming meccas refuse to carry either ACTASF or ACTANA. You can special order rulebooks and minis, but you can't just walk in and browse a shelf full of them. I'm trying to change that line of thought - but there's only so much shelf space and gaingin some of it for a "niche" game [meaing not DND, 'Clix, M:tG, of WH] is an uphill struggle.
Mark, on a side note - are you located in the US or the UK?
Just curious as to the relative availability of the ADB products versus the Mongoose products between the US and UK.
[EDIT: Never mind. I just saw that you are in Washington. Hmmm. No Fed Comm but ACTASF... weird. Funny how things differ from region to region, isn't it?]
There is a proper procedure for doing that though, and the new unit has to:
Be balanced...
Fit in the existing structure of all the SFU games... (it doesn't have to be converted to all of them right away, but the future conversion requirements should be kept in mind during the initial design. Otherwise you end up with an ginormous ACTASF ship that ends up as a samll ship in SFB)...
There are playtest modules for other empires in SFB (The Peladine, The Borak, The Triangulum Galaxy... and so on), as well as an entire module of simulator empires. Not saying it would happen, but it would be pretty cool if Mongoose was able to design a separae and distinct empire. Then they could design / create all of the ships from scratch.
There are several issues that prevent that design from being possible... mostly the fact that the overall appearance of the Mars has already been established in 6 other games of the SFU.
Although, in retrospect - if we'd had you around in the early 90's when the Federation BB was designed - this one might have had a chance. Using two dreadnought secondary hulls in a catamaran layout is much more economically efficient than building a new, larger hull from the ground up.
The game that image comes from (Star Fleet Command) kinda used their own ideas of what was proper for many of their designs. And then many others created custom skins for the ships that often went even farther astray.
I had the original SFC, but never went beyond that as playing SFB face-to-face was more enjoyable,l so I can't efven begin ot comment on the provenance of this design... it may be an original Taldren design or it may be a fan created 'skin.
Also, please note that I do not work for either ADB or Mongoose and am not privy to any corporate secrets. The opinions stated below are just that... opinions. And they are mine only.
But they are based on 30+ years of knowledge of the SFU and how it works and evolves.
There are two distionct points of view here, and both are valid, and both are almost mutually exclusive.
Actually its continuity in 7 different systems, each with a differnt focus, but set in the same 'verse:MarkDawg said:
Federation and Empire: the strategic level game of the SFU
Star Fleet Battles: The original starship combat game, highly detailed and best at 3 ships a side or less
Federation Commander: a simplified starship combat game, best at 3 to 6 ships per side.
SFU Starmada: Small scale combat in the SFU (never played, so no detailed description here
Star Fleet Battle Force: The beer and preztels, card game of the SFU.
Prime Directive: Role playing in the SFU (and available in 3 flavors)
and...
ACTASF: the game that we're discussing.
Each of these games is a separate system in its own right, but they all have to play together. You can't have an invading empire of robotic beings flying around in polyhedral ships in one, without having them in all.
Now does this mean that there can never be an addition to one game and not the others? Only kinda. Take for example Module E4 - the Borak. This is a playtest module for SFB only. Eventually it will filter down to the other systems.
Can Mongoose ever produce an ACTASF only ship? I doubt it.
Can Mongoose ever produce a ship that starts in ACTASF and eventually works its way into the other systems? Probably. I know there was some interest at one time in doing a whole set of Klingon D17 type ships. Hopwfully, that has not fallen by the wayside but is still being worked on.
ACTASF doesn't have to be just like Fed Comm, or SFB, or Fed and Empire... but it does have to be similar.MarkDawg said:
The overall feel must be similar to SFB/Fed Comm.
The empires must be relatively balanced against each other... etc.
Here, here!DaBoss said:
1) I completely agree here. It is a joint venture and its still in its infancy.
ADB has indeed always had very strict requirements for ships... just look through back issues of Captains Log to see some of the rejected proposals.
2) That is probably a knee-jerk reaction that I must admit I am guilty of as well. Most of it comes from years of newcomers to SFB / Fed Comm doing just that. Asking for stats for the Excelsior, the Enterprise D, the Reliant, a borg Cube, the Vor'Cha, the Galor, etc. And then getting beligerent when told why it can't happen.
I (as a SFU veteran) and partial to the old designs and was quite taken aback by some of Sandrines early proposals... The "pregnant guppy-looking" Dreadnought... the half-Reliant, half- Enterprise Command Cruiser. But the later stuff has been awesome.
She's taken the Romulan 'Hawks in a direction I never envisioned - but that I love.
The prelimenary designs for the Lyrans are just as nice. The old, slab-sided cruisers are now detailed and begging for paint (if only I had some in my possession to paint!!!).
EVen the Klignon D17 has grown on me. I originally hated it, but now wish I had a couple. Of course, I'd paint them in Romulan colors as I think the nose of it looks rather like a beak... but I'd still like to have one.
Actually, I have too.MarkDawg said:
We have a large group of Fed Comm players (probably 20 or so) within driving distance,so it does get played rather frequently. Heck, I've got photos on my Photobucket page of 19 people in my gameroom at the same time playing Federation Commander.
There has never been much interest in ACTA in this area. All three of the nearby gaming meccas refuse to carry either ACTASF or ACTANA. You can special order rulebooks and minis, but you can't just walk in and browse a shelf full of them. I'm trying to change that line of thought - but there's only so much shelf space and gaingin some of it for a "niche" game [meaing not DND, 'Clix, M:tG, of WH] is an uphill struggle.
Mark, on a side note - are you located in the US or the UK?
Just curious as to the relative availability of the ADB products versus the Mongoose products between the US and UK.
[EDIT: Never mind. I just saw that you are in Washington. Hmmm. No Fed Comm but ACTASF... weird. Funny how things differ from region to region, isn't it?]
Yes... they would. However; as has been previously stated - they are less than 100 models into a game that at last count actually had over 3,000 different ships available to play. Sure lots are variants, but you're still looking at over 1,000 different base hulls from over 30 different empires. Surely not everyone is going to be enthralled with every miniature.MarkDawg said:
I'm sure they can... and probably will eventually.Zarathustra Suicune said:
There is a proper procedure for doing that though, and the new unit has to:
Be balanced...
Fit in the existing structure of all the SFU games... (it doesn't have to be converted to all of them right away, but the future conversion requirements should be kept in mind during the initial design. Otherwise you end up with an ginormous ACTASF ship that ends up as a samll ship in SFB)...
There are playtest modules for other empires in SFB (The Peladine, The Borak, The Triangulum Galaxy... and so on), as well as an entire module of simulator empires. Not saying it would happen, but it would be pretty cool if Mongoose was able to design a separae and distinct empire. Then they could design / create all of the ships from scratch.
While it is cool looking, simply adding round naceels does not exactly make it SFU.MarkDawg said:
There are several issues that prevent that design from being possible... mostly the fact that the overall appearance of the Mars has already been established in 6 other games of the SFU.
Although, in retrospect - if we'd had you around in the early 90's when the Federation BB was designed - this one might have had a chance. Using two dreadnought secondary hulls in a catamaran layout is much more economically efficient than building a new, larger hull from the ground up.
The game that image comes from (Star Fleet Command) kinda used their own ideas of what was proper for many of their designs. And then many others created custom skins for the ships that often went even farther astray.
I had the original SFC, but never went beyond that as playing SFB face-to-face was more enjoyable,l so I can't efven begin ot comment on the provenance of this design... it may be an original Taldren design or it may be a fan created 'skin.
Not sure this is 100% accurate. That's the way it usually happens, but there have been many exceptions to the rules.
Some ships are designed to fill a hole in the F&E roster and then converted to SFB / Fed Comm.
Some ships have been created for Fed Comm and then imported into SFB / F&E.
While it hasn't happened yet, never is a long time to say a ship couldn't get its start in ACTASF and move backwards from there...
Nerroth"}In the long run said:I never thought I'd see the day when I'd think Gary was being the voice of reason! :shock: But here he is...
Wow! This may be the longest post I've ever made on any forum.
I hope I've added to the discussion and not detracted from it in any way.
In the end, it all comes down to fun. Are we having fun? I am. I love this game and hope it lasts for as long as Star Fleet Battles has before it.
Do I like the existing designs... for the most part.
Do I want to see new and exciting designs... yes, but not at the loss of the iconic units I've gamed with for over 30 years.
Is there room in this system for both camps? I certainly hope so.
And I thin the relatively calm discussion held over the last two pages of this thread shows that while we differ in opinions, we can at least do so civally.
And I do thank you for that.
Some additions to scoutdad's epic detailed post -
My understanding of ADB's polcies regarding their copyrights on their creations is that the Star Fleet Universe setting and designs needs to be consistent, regardless of where it is depicted. If I recall correctly (and Jean from ADB can correct me, if I am wrong), this policy is an outgrowth of contractual requirements from their legal agreement with Paramount.
A Mars-class battleship, for example, needs to have fundamentally the same attributes and the same look and feel, regardless of what game system is depicting it. Minor changes to facilitate proper simulation in different game mechanics, a degree of artistic-license on the exterior designs, etc., are common, but the basic designs must be common.
There absolutely can not be any "movie era", Next Generation/DS9/Voyager, ST:Enterprise, or JJ Trek visual elements, characters, etc. That is a restriction of ADB's contract with Paramount.
If ADB is going to cooperate with another company to allow use of their setting and designs, that agreement requires that it be the existing package of intellectual property. Without ADB's setting and designs, there is no window into a "Trek" setting that doesn't require dealing with Paramount, directly. That would likely be prohibitively restrictive (the franchise and licensing is biased towards their JJ Abrams movies right now) and expensive.
For the Starfleet Command PC games, Taldren had their own separate contracts, both with Paramount for the ships and name, and with ADB for the SFB game mechanics and elements of the SFU setting. ADB has no rights to anything Taldren did, nor anything "Trek" that isn't already in-use and covered by their existing contract. They cannot allow a partner to use anything they do not own or have permission to use themselves.
Folks are certainly entitled to their opinions, but the legal realities aren't going to change, regardless of how much some folks might want them to.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the SFU designs and the huge amount of work that goes into the consistency in the SFU. I still remember all the awful cut-and-paste kitbash designs FASA kept pumping out, with engines that seemed to magically inflate and deflate, saucers that looked exactly the same regardless of if they were a cruiser or a tiny corvette, etc.
My understanding of ADB's polcies regarding their copyrights on their creations is that the Star Fleet Universe setting and designs needs to be consistent, regardless of where it is depicted. If I recall correctly (and Jean from ADB can correct me, if I am wrong), this policy is an outgrowth of contractual requirements from their legal agreement with Paramount.
A Mars-class battleship, for example, needs to have fundamentally the same attributes and the same look and feel, regardless of what game system is depicting it. Minor changes to facilitate proper simulation in different game mechanics, a degree of artistic-license on the exterior designs, etc., are common, but the basic designs must be common.
There absolutely can not be any "movie era", Next Generation/DS9/Voyager, ST:Enterprise, or JJ Trek visual elements, characters, etc. That is a restriction of ADB's contract with Paramount.
If ADB is going to cooperate with another company to allow use of their setting and designs, that agreement requires that it be the existing package of intellectual property. Without ADB's setting and designs, there is no window into a "Trek" setting that doesn't require dealing with Paramount, directly. That would likely be prohibitively restrictive (the franchise and licensing is biased towards their JJ Abrams movies right now) and expensive.
For the Starfleet Command PC games, Taldren had their own separate contracts, both with Paramount for the ships and name, and with ADB for the SFB game mechanics and elements of the SFU setting. ADB has no rights to anything Taldren did, nor anything "Trek" that isn't already in-use and covered by their existing contract. They cannot allow a partner to use anything they do not own or have permission to use themselves.
Folks are certainly entitled to their opinions, but the legal realities aren't going to change, regardless of how much some folks might want them to.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the SFU designs and the huge amount of work that goes into the consistency in the SFU. I still remember all the awful cut-and-paste kitbash designs FASA kept pumping out, with engines that seemed to magically inflate and deflate, saucers that looked exactly the same regardless of if they were a cruiser or a tiny corvette, etc.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was simple asking for some more imagination using the TOS SFU universe standards to crate new and better ships. Are you guys saying that this can't happen?!?!
look so many of the ships they make now like the Manta are going in the right direction. The mars is a pile of shite.
Good Day
I was simple asking for some more imagination using the TOS SFU universe standards to crate new and better ships. Are you guys saying that this can't happen?!?!
look so many of the ships they make now like the Manta are going in the right direction. The mars is a pile of shite.
Good Day
And what we've been telling you, is yes it can happen but not after a very long process and it has to not only be playable in ACTA:SF but it also has to fit in all of the other games of the SFU. So I would look for them to attempt any original pieces until they flush out the some other 1000 of ships that already exist first.
MarkDawg, if we do as you ask and make minis that are too much like TNG or the movies, then Paramount will SHUT DOWN both ADB and Mongoose's operation. Part of ADB's contract with Paramount (and Mongoose is bound by this as long as it is producing ACTASF) is that our entire line must be consistent. We can add some greebles and things, but the ships MUST resemble the ships that already exist in ADB's line. We CANNOT just throw on a cowl and hope Paramount doesn't notice.
As for just adding ships for ACTASF, that cannot happen. They must also exist in ADB's line or we break that contract with Paramount.
EDIT: To clarify -- the ships may start with a "need for them" in ACTASF. However, they also need to exist in ADB's other lines.
Now FASA had a contract with Paramount that allowed different things. FASA lost that license in five years. And if you aren't aware, Paramount has a great deal of interest in what happens to their property -- even things that are out of print. This is shown by their recent efforts (documented on other sites) to shut down pirated downloads of FASA materials.
Neither Mongoose nor ADB wish to draw down the Wrath of Paramount. Therefore we BOTH adhere to the strict terms of ADB's contract with Paramount.
Does that help explain just why we cannot use our imagination on ships for empires that exist in Paramount's universe? We'd like to be in business for many more years.
Jean
ADB Director of Marketing
As for just adding ships for ACTASF, that cannot happen. They must also exist in ADB's line or we break that contract with Paramount.
EDIT: To clarify -- the ships may start with a "need for them" in ACTASF. However, they also need to exist in ADB's other lines.
Now FASA had a contract with Paramount that allowed different things. FASA lost that license in five years. And if you aren't aware, Paramount has a great deal of interest in what happens to their property -- even things that are out of print. This is shown by their recent efforts (documented on other sites) to shut down pirated downloads of FASA materials.
Neither Mongoose nor ADB wish to draw down the Wrath of Paramount. Therefore we BOTH adhere to the strict terms of ADB's contract with Paramount.
Does that help explain just why we cannot use our imagination on ships for empires that exist in Paramount's universe? We'd like to be in business for many more years.
Jean
ADB Director of Marketing
I could ask the same thing, but I wont. :lol:MarkDawg said:
I'm really not trying to be snarky, just trying to engage in a civil discussion without turning it into a flame war.
I do understand your point of view, and truly hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Not saying it can't happen... just saying its highly unlikelyto happen with many of the existing ships.
Part of it goes back to that dreaded word, continuity. There are 25+ years of published data for multiple game systems that show mulitple views of most of the existing ships. The miniatures need to resemble those illustrations. And a couple hundred of them already have existing miniatures, so the new miniature must physically resemble the original miniature.
Another part of it goes back to multiple systems. I realize that the placement of nacelles on the Mars-class battleship have exactly ZERO effect in ACTASF. But in the other games, two of them need to be attached to the saucer to allow for separation. Again... continuity across the systems.
I agree with you there. I love the way the Manta Ray looks (and the Two Moons-class fast destroyer, if you haven't seen that one). But these are late war designs, created entirely by ADB.
The earlier designs (CA, DNG, DD) were designed by Franz Joseph for the Star Fleet Technical Manual and then the variants of those were logical extensions of the pre-existing designs. Since the Command Cruiser is an ungraded variant of the Heavy Cruiser - it has to look like it started life as a Heavy Cruiser. Same with the battlecruiser. It's a converted CA, so it has to look like the CA.
There are still entire classes of ships to come that have not had miniatures / artwork created yet. Personally, I'm looking forward to the X-Ships (Advanced Technology Cruisers) developed near the end of the General War and later (in the official SFU history) instrumental in the fight against the extra-galactic invaders. Sandrine should be able to really jazz those up.
Again... see above. There are reasons why it has to look as it does.
Love it or hate it- it is what it is.
please remember while it is great to have a gorgeous looking ship. They need to preform there designed function. personally i have not been a fan of the look of any of the BB's but these are "war time construction" which means build it fast, build it in large quantities, build it to be the biggest bad*#* in known space.
then add to that Paramounts rules/restrictions that have to be followed or we all are out of a great game in all of it's versions.
so i suggest you watch the ADB boards for the 2500 designs because they are posted for comment/input before they are made.
then add to that Paramounts rules/restrictions that have to be followed or we all are out of a great game in all of it's versions.
so i suggest you watch the ADB boards for the 2500 designs because they are posted for comment/input before they are made.
MarkDawg said:
Its not hard to understand what you are asking Mark in the slightest, people have got that - they have given fairly detailed answers as to why these things you ask are not just a simple 'do and sell it for ACTASF' but you do not seem to want to accept/like the answer.
Short answer is not without a great deal of care to make sure Paramount cannot pull the license on ADB, and not without making sure they do not have to do a complete retcon on several existing properties. ACTA is a different system and game ruleset yes - but it is in an existing universe and must fit into those other games - the license limits NEW, the universe as laid down limits retconning.
ACTA could start something that spread into the other games theoeretically (Ask Jean)- thats OK with universe development issues....
Yes it is a royal pain in the butt at times....so I understand your frustration, but please accept that the reasons are real.
There has been some design tweaking on ships - the Gorn and Orions have had some reimagining but its MUCH MUCH easier with them than a Federation vessel - because the Federation stuff has so much Paramount new stuff it could trip over on - and as I understand the license from assorted statements made by SVC and others over the ears (and Jean or other ADB should correct me here) - ADB got a non-time limited license for a relatively small royalty fee when Trek was unpopular - the massive explosion of the Trek Franchise has made the license something that would probably never get negotiated as is these days and cost a fortune if it could be forced to renegotiate/restart on even limited terms. ADB will therefore not do any teeny tiny thing that could give a bored lawyer at Paramount even the sniff of a cause to wobble the license.
SOmething thats a bit new in the Fed line made to prettify things up that, that looks a bit more like Star Trek and isnt existing in Star Fleet is exactly tat sort of teeny tiny thing. I agree there is plenty of scope in design terms to improve things but those things fall foul of other issues - its an annoying set of constraints by any stretch but no matter how much we might wish otherwise - they are there. Thats without considering the universe stability issue, which is also a problem.
If ACTA moved to say the Omega sector stuff later then there is MUCH more scope to play as this is entirely ADBs stuff and much less well defined than the 30year history of SFB etc that the core ACTASF stuff has to deal with. Expect much more fun for Sandrine there
One thing I have suggested in the past is that as very many of the current ships appear to be basically the same hull with minor weapon placement variations or similar - the vast majority of these these could bed quikcly added to the game with supplements etc. I would be hugely suprised if MGP want to produce 30 dfferent versions of the Constitution /D7 with just a small change to the bridge, different pahser bumps and the odd other thing.
So producing a regular update with a full page of already approved variant ships for each Empire with a couple of lines for each in description, stat changes and points. This would get us through the "basic" ships quickly, allow for some variations of fleet deisng, help fill those annoying gaps where you have points left over.
This would then allow MGP to start making shiny new ship designs for new races / eras - ie before or beyond the present timeline ships. This would help appeal to other NEW people - which is presumably why ADB wanted the partnership - if they wanted just their present player base they would not need it?
In an ideal world I'd like to see dual use ships which coiuld be stated and used in both NA and SF - or if MGP release the rules as a generic space ship fighitng game
So producing a regular update with a full page of already approved variant ships for each Empire with a couple of lines for each in description, stat changes and points. This would get us through the "basic" ships quickly, allow for some variations of fleet deisng, help fill those annoying gaps where you have points left over.
This would then allow MGP to start making shiny new ship designs for new races / eras - ie before or beyond the present timeline ships. This would help appeal to other NEW people - which is presumably why ADB wanted the partnership - if they wanted just their present player base they would not need it?
In an ideal world I'd like to see dual use ships which coiuld be stated and used in both NA and SF - or if MGP release the rules as a generic space ship fighitng game
The reason for the caps lock is you people keep saying I want a TMP-TNG looking ship and I never ever said that not even once! I just want better cooler looking ships that's all. The Manta ray is cool looking and the war destroyer is too all I am asking is for more detailed cooler looking ships any one that plays any mini war game wants that.
I just get told I want TNG ships and get told to play hero clicks. I understand the Paramount issue but it didn't stop you from making several cool looking ships.
So please I don't want to hear about how the license can get pulled. I get it. The fact is you guys make mini star ships I want cooler ones just sayin.
I just get told I want TNG ships and get told to play hero clicks. I understand the Paramount issue but it didn't stop you from making several cool looking ships.
So please I don't want to hear about how the license can get pulled. I get it. The fact is you guys make mini star ships I want cooler ones just sayin.
MarkDawg said:
We are working on just that!
Just a quick bump on this thread b/c I'm waiting to see if Mongoose is able to stand by Matt's previous statement that the new models would be available towards the end of November.
C'mon guys! Let's step up that casting/packaging, us greedy gamers need our toiz! 8)
I can be placated btw (maybe for a week or so) with stats and rules for the two new Fed ships.
HAND 'EM OVER!
C'mon guys! Let's step up that casting/packaging, us greedy gamers need our toiz! 8)
I can be placated btw (maybe for a week or so) with stats and rules for the two new Fed ships.
HAND 'EM OVER!
Production moulds are being made right now, and I have a few in my hands - all going well, they will indeed be made available this week!
