'New' Ship ideas

[TJHairball]

However put those 4 Photons inside a Klink Agile turn mode 4 cruiser with doubled shield and what happens to the balance.

What happens is that the Klink must now close to short range to deposit its [highly effective] punch. It is more able to do so just in the same way that it formerly was more able to maintain a long range. Movement is a force multiplier, and a good pointing system will accommodate that fact.

The min-maxers going gangbusters trying to break the pointing system is how you fix it and discover mistakes. There are, right now, definitely some badly pointed ships. I don't think a War Eagle is worth as much as a Battle Hawk, let alone 20 points more - yes, it carries more plasmas, delivering 7/6/4 instead of 6/4/0 dice, but its inability to fire phasers in the same round means it's unlikely to net as much damage.

The BCJ is 215 points and the NCC is 220 points (that's the Kirov downgrade and the Chicago upgrade, both are command+1 ships with the same movement profile competing for the same role).

The two have the exact same phaser count with the BCJ having an edge in better arcs (4/2/2/2 vs 2/3/3/2 on the -1s, T vs SH/PH on the -3s).

The BCJ also has 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 more drones, 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, 2 more shuttles.

The only thing the NCC has in its favor is Enhanced Bridge. Which is only has an effect in games where you've chosen to randomize crew quality or work with lower-than-normal crew qualities, perhaps in a campaign setting.

I rather doubt that a ship construction system available to us poor min/maxing munchkins - the results of which would probably never be usable in tournaments, only private house games, to judge by the precedents I've seen with other games - would produce quite so striking a difference in the quality of two ships of the same point value.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Well you could look at it this way.

It's a miniatures game, its all about the models and the fleets. Getting the ships out to people.

Version 1 of the rules is the Beta testing set where us players are play testing them, version 2 reprint and pdf available for the summer global re-release will have cleaned up the rules, repointed probably half the ships, DROPPED Lumbering from the GORN hint hint, etc etc.

Some ships and weapons need a serious look at, some need to be cost changed seriously. Its not just a matter of them being 1.25 times the FC cost and tweaked a bit from there. Thw whole dynamic of the game is changed. The poor Snipe is 1.6 times its FC cost, anyone know why? The ships need to be balanced against each other within that fleet, the example you give above is a prime case. How can the NCC cost more than a bigger tougher better shielded BCJ that has more weapons, more shuttles etc etc.

I know you cannot balance the races against each other perfectly but the costs should make some sort of sense within a race and 1000 points of one fleet should be roughly equal to 1000 points of another race. Saving points in your fleet by fielding bigger more powerful ships seems a bit odd somehow :lol:

Think of it as the ACTA version of Traveller books 5 and 6. Needs some serious revision, new improved version will be released later on :roll: :wink:

 

[MongooseMatt]

The poor Snipe is 1.6 times its FC cost, anyone know why?

Use a couple and you will soon see why!

 

[Captain Jonah]

The poor Snipe is 1.6 times its FC cost, anyone know why?

Use a couple and you will soon see why!

But it’s Romulan. That would mean I was being seen playing a Romulan fleet. I have my Pride you know. People would talk, rumours would spread. :roll: :wink:

"Playing Romulan’s now is he, tisk tisk."
"Oh well, he used to be a Gorn player"
"Is that Captain Jonah's Zimmer Frame by the door"

Oh the shame, the humility. To be SEEN playing Romulan’s. No thanks. I’ll let some Romulan player defend the Snipe. :lol:

 

[MongooseMatt]

Heh

Okay, I'll put it another way - when you see them in use against you, you may start thinking they are still underpointed

 

[billclo]

The BCJ is 215 points and the NCC is 220 points (that's the Kirov downgrade and the Chicago upgrade, both are command+1 ships with the same movement profile competing for the same role).

The two have the exact same phaser count with the BCJ having an edge in better arcs (4/2/2/2 vs 2/3/3/2 on the -1s, T vs SH/PH on the -3s).

The BCJ also has 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 more drones, 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, 2 more shuttles.

The only thing the NCC has in its favor is Enhanced Bridge. Which is only has an effect in games where you've chosen to randomize crew quality or work with lower-than-normal crew qualities, perhaps in a campaign setting.

One way to make the NCC more desirable would be in a game/tournament setting wherein you can only use ships up to a certain date. The NCC is available starting Y175, but the BCH isn't available until Y177. So if your game/tournament is set in Y175 you would not be able to pick the BCH, and as such the NCC becomes a better option.

Being as Mongoose has not included dates of availability in it's book, it won't be easy for a player to determine what the year of availability is without a little work. They could use the Federation and Empire SITS, available on ADB's website, to determine date of availability.

 

[gord314]

As a house rule, we changed the BCH to 270 pts and the BCJ to 245. It made the NCC a viable option without the need to add further restrictions.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Heh

Okay, I'll put it another way - when you see them in use against you, you may start thinking they are still underpointed

Until I get a couple of Natural 6s to hit and cripple them with a single photon hit or a couple of phasers through. Then I'll chuckle at them :lol: :wink:

 

[Da Boss]

A promising thread over at ADB on making "exciting" neo Tholian ships

check it out and maybe try and influence

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/29978.html?1331064523

 

[Totenkopf]

The BCJ is 215 points and the NCC is 220 points (that's the Kirov downgrade and the Chicago upgrade, both are command+1 ships with the same movement profile competing for the same role).

The two have the exact same phaser count with the BCJ having an edge in better arcs (4/2/2/2 vs 2/3/3/2 on the -1s, T vs SH/PH on the -3s).

The BCJ also has 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 more drones, 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, 2 more shuttles.

The only thing the NCC has in its favor is Enhanced Bridge. Which is only has an effect in games where you've chosen to randomize crew quality or work with lower-than-normal crew qualities, perhaps in a campaign setting.

Hate to burst your bubble again, but the BCJ only has two drones.

 

[gord314]

Totenkopf, it sure sounds like you are saying the NCC is for some reason a better choice than the BCJ, please enlighten us.

 

[TJHairball]

Hate to burst your bubble again, but the BCJ only has two drones.

Oh, right, I forgot that's what it lost. So it has the same number of drones.

So it's only superior phaser arcs, 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, and 2 more shuttles on the one side, and Enhanced Bridge with 5 extra points on the other.

The Constitution command variant, at 205 points, also looks pretty bad in comparison. As gord314 has noted [in this thread, even] the command cruisers just aren't viable if you take the Kirovs at their current point value. The Kirov is easily worth the 270 points he's decided to price it at. (Within our first couple games, he posed the rhetorical question "Why would I want to take anything but Kirovs?" Since the Kirovs are command vessels, and command is a high-value property that doesn't stack, you know something's wrong right there...)

Systematic pointing does sometimes get off based on very good synergies (or, more often, anti-synergistic elements, like bad choices for weapon arcs) but it avoids major gaffes like that. In standard play, where CQ = 4 by default, there's no reason at all to take the NCC over the BCJ.

This has not IMO been a big issue for the Klingon fleet, but there seem to be some serious pointing issues in the Romulan and Federation fleets.

 

[Totenkopf]

Totenkopf, it sure sounds like you are saying the NCC is for some reason a better choice than the BCJ, please enlighten us.

LOL

 

[Totenkopf]

Hate to burst your bubble again, but the BCJ only has two drones.

Oh, right, I forgot that's what it lost. So it has the same number of drones.

So it's only superior phaser arcs, 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, and 2 more shuttles on the one side, and Enhanced Bridge with 5 extra points on the other.

The Constitution command variant, at 205 points, also looks pretty bad in comparison. As gord314 has noted [in this thread, even] the command cruisers just aren't viable if you take the Kirovs at their current point value. The Kirov is easily worth the 270 points he's decided to price it at. (Within our first couple games, he posed the rhetorical question "Why would I want to take anything but Kirovs?" Since the Kirovs are command vessels, and command is a high-value property that doesn't stack, you know something's wrong right there...)

Systematic pointing does sometimes get off based on very good synergies (or, more often, anti-synergistic elements, like bad choices for weapon arcs) but it avoids major gaffes like that. In standard play, where CQ = 4 by default, there's no reason at all to take the NCC over the BCJ.

This has not IMO been a big issue for the Klingon fleet, but there seem to be some serious pointing issues in the Romulan and Federation fleets.

Point to where I said or otherwise stated or implied that the Kirov and its variants are either appropriately priced or that for the points the NCC or CC is competive with a Kirov and its variants.

 

[gord314]

Sorry, I was kinda being a smart ass there. But when you said I hate to burst your bubble, that to me implied some bubble bursting, or in this case his argument that the BCJ was a better value for the points then the NCC falling apart, which it clearly hadn't.

 

[Totenkopf]

Sorry, I was kinda being a smart ass there. But when you said I hate to burst your bubble, that to me implied some bubble bursting, or in this case his argument that the BCJ was a better value for the points then the NCC falling apart, which it clearly hadn't.

I actually agree with your house rule for a points increase for the Kirov, and any Fed Fleet I design would be built around as many BCJs as I can squeeze in and still have a good number of escorts - the reason being for 215 points it does too much and loses out on next to nothing compared to CAs, NCAs.

The other fix I would try for the BCH/J/F is to make it Lumbering.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Sorry, I was kinda being a smart ass there. But when you said I hate to burst your bubble, that to me implied some bubble bursting, or in this case his argument that the BCJ was a better value for the points then the NCC falling apart, which it clearly hadn't.

I actually agree with your house rule for a points increase for the Kirov, and any Fed Fleet I design would be built around as many BCJs as I can squeeze in and still have a good number of escorts - the reason being for 215 points it does too much and loses out on next to nothing compared to CAs, NCAs.

The other fix I would try for the BCH/J/F is to make it Lumbering.

Be very carefull doing that. Lumbering is a right pain for the Gorn who have some ships with a 360Dgree Plasma arc if you count the Fs. On the Fed with F arc photons who are looking at a lot of agro :roll: :wink:

 

[Rambler]

Besides a Year in Service Date. There are 2 more piece of the puzzle missing in ACTASF. Production Rarity and the S8 Fleet Composition rules. To simplify this all Dreadnoughts, Battleships or Heavy Battlecruisers should have had a unique trait tag added to them. Since that was left out it is possible to build really lopsided fleets that in the rest of the SFU would have been illegal. Like a fleet with multiple BCJs in it. Or a Romulan Fleet with more than one K9R.

If you want a house rule that roughly simulates the SFU place a Max limit of one Dreadnought or Battleship per fleet. One Heavy Battlecruiser per fleet. Also limit Command Cruisers to a ratio of 3:1 with Heavy Cruisers. Furthermore Alternate Regular Heavy Cruisers (CAs or D7s) with New Heavy Cruisers (NCAs or D5Ws).

 

[tneva82]

Besides a Year in Service Date. There are 2 more piece of the puzzle missing in ACTASF. Production Rarity and the S8 Fleet Composition rules. To simplify this all Dreadnoughts, Battleships or Heavy Battlecruisers should have had a unique trait tag added to them. Since that was left out it is possible to build really lopsided fleets that in the rest of the SFU would have been illegal. Like a fleet with multiple BCJs in it. Or a Romulan Fleet with more than one K9R.

Unique? You mean there's literally only one dreadnought, battleship and heavy battlecruiser in the whole fleet?-)

0-1 limitations stink unless they literally are one of the kind in background thing(and then there better be very good reason why there's only one). That's so '80's game design!

(oh and it would cause some serious uproar about cash cowing putting 0-1 ships on boxed sets by aplenty)

 

[TJHairball]

Besides a Year in Service Date. There are 2 more piece of the puzzle missing in ACTASF. Production Rarity and the S8 Fleet Composition rules. To simplify this all Dreadnoughts, Battleships or Heavy Battlecruisers should have had a unique trait tag added to them. Since that was left out it is possible to build really lopsided fleets that in the rest of the SFU would have been illegal. Like a fleet with multiple BCJs in it. Or a Romulan Fleet with more than one K9R.

If you want a house rule that roughly simulates the SFU place a Max limit of one Dreadnought or Battleship per fleet. One Heavy Battlecruiser per fleet. Also limit Command Cruisers to a ratio of 3:1 with Heavy Cruisers. Furthermore Alternate Regular Heavy Cruisers (CAs or D7s) with New Heavy Cruisers (NCAs or D5Ws).

That doesn't remove the need to fix point values that aren't on the money. It's still a balance issue.

The balance issue also fixes your main complaint there - if ships with the Command trait are appropriately priced, you won't generally see people take more than one, since Command doesn't stack, and it's not a cheap trait when you actually pay for it.

I certainly haven't felt any need to pack multiple C7s or C8s (or even D7Cs) as a Klingon player - the Klingon fleet has better point costs than the other fleets, at least in terms of internal consistency, probably because there isn't very much diversity in the list.

I'll have some more to post on the topic later. Been running some numbers and thinking about point values.