'New' Ship ideas

[billclo]

I would be adamantly opposed to adding the S8 limits. I want a game where I can put together LARGE fleet battles. I WILL NOT use the S8 rules in my games.

There would basically be no real need for more than a Fleet Box and a couple blisters per race, since you can't field more than that with S8.

It would also hurt the Lyrans. For them, DN and BCH are quite common since they can convert so many per year. (5 DNs a year as I recall). It is not unusual in F&E for there to be up to 6 DNs on the line with a Battlegroup to absorb casualties.

For other races, yes it wouldn't be all that common to have more than 1 DN on the line at a time, but not impossible by any means.

I would like to see the Year in Service implemented though. It makes sense, and allows scenarios to have some restrictions in ship selection.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Imposing a broad rule to solve a less broad problem just has unintended consequences for every fleet.
Matt has stated there will be NO limits on ships and I am 110% in agreement. I is for the players to decide what they field in THEIR fleets. If you want to field a late war fleet of nothing but war cruisers or an earlier era fleet of all pre war ships that should be up to you.
The problem is points costing within each fleet. Balancing the points should be done with the ships in a fleet balanced against each other. Having a situation where variants of the BCH in the Fed fleet are cheaper to use than the smaller, less capable command variants of a war cruiser is where the problem is.

As has already been said the Command ships are more expensive for something that doesn’t stack. One is useful, two gives you a cover if one is lost in larger games. You are not going to take 3 CCs in a 1000 point fight and yet you do just that when you take 3 BCH and 3 NCL or 3 BCJ, 2 DW and an FFB.

I was thinking 270 maybe a tad high, it puts the BCH very close the DN, but what does the DN have to make it more expensive. Phasers are about the same, both centre line 10AD, BCH has better FH, DN has better sides. DN has 2 extra Photons, 24 more hull and 8 more shields but is lumbering.

Are 2 Photons, 24 hull, 8 shields and a presumable negative from Lumbering worth 45 points difference. Just about I reckon, when you consider that Lumbering should be a BIG negative to the entire ships costs since it significantly limits its ability to use its firepower (more so in shorter range fleets).

Don’t think about imposing rules to limit the ships a player can take, balance the point’s costs so the players judge a ship by its relative worth and chose a fleet that way.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Could understand it with things like the KC9R, as as far as i remember they only converted one, and if you can have 'many', why would anyone choose a Condor (or the Late Hawk series Dread's), as the KC9R is such a good ship.

Too go further down that line, are we going to see 'ships that never were' ? A KB10R ?

 

[tneva82]

Could understand it with things like the KC9R, as as far as i remember they only converted one, and if you can have 'many', why would anyone choose a Condor (or the Late Hawk series Dread's), as the KC9R is such a good ship.

By Condor/etc being equally point effective? If that's not the case then obviously solution is to adjust the points NOT make artificial limits like "you can only take 1 of this underpointed ship regardess of fleet size and if you want anything similar you have to take these overcosted ships instead".

THAT will result in fleet balances being out of whacko in smaller games.

0-1 limit != excuse to lower point cost or justification of lower point cost. Ship needs to be balanced whether you can take 1 of them only or 10.

One reason I hate bonuses that are good when you have just one or 5 of them. Makes balancing them in bigger games nightmare.

 

[adm]

Long time SFB player here (mid 80's). YiS would be nice as a way to quickly parse fleets. Rarity could be a nice optional rule, and I do not mean the full RPU LPU stuff, just only one or two made type notes. S8.0 should NOT be ported over. ACtA:SF is supposed to be a "grab and go" game, it does not need the nit picky rules of SFB.

 

[locarno24]

Rarity could be a nice optional rule, and I do not mean the full RPU LPU stuff, just only one or two made type notes.

As noted, there's never been ship limitations (aside from carrier limits on fighters) in ACTA to date, and personally I prefer it that way. The closest you'll get is the Unique trait for specific named ships (such as a slightly upgunned Constitution with a particularly maverick captain, for example).

 

[Da Boss]

ISD /YIS dates was somehting that I and others thought would have been a good inclusion from the start - althought its easily added in supplements. It then gives players/organisers an Optional way of constructing events and scenarios.

Ships should be as balanced as is possible against each other.......... which was one of the issues that caused and is apparently still causing problems with the errata......

I liked the Unique Trait especially given that there seems to be a fair few SFU ships that it would cover??

 

[Nerroth]

One thing that might help is if the concept being put into Victory at Sea 2.0 could be considered for ACtA:SF (and for ACtA:NA, for that matter); to offer "historical" Orders of Battle for the various fleets involved, but not to directly integrate them into the actual on-table fleet lists.

That way, players with more of an eye towards how the various empires did things in-universe would have data to hand that can support it, while others can go with non-historical options and see where it may lead them.


(Yes, there are online pdfs at the ADB site with a handful of OOBs from Federation and Empire listed; but it might make more sense to have something offered more directly in this case.)

 

[Totenkopf]

House rules...

 

[ErikB]

It would seem they are also 'Entertaining Ideas' for feddie saucers:-

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/27411/30058.html?1331602399

So have at it people!

Really like the Hammerhead design.

 

[McKickaha]

Thanks EricB, your post fired me up to have a go, so I very roughly sketched up a few ideas yesterday, some more serious than others.

Da Boss has kindly posted them up on the ADB forum as I am not yet a member there.

To complete the circle tho; here they are;

Carrier Saucer

Melted Cheese Saucer

Double Saucer

Chopped Double Saucer

Protected Bridge Saucer

 

[H]

Protected bridge looks good, but a bit too modern for the SFU, I like the double saucer and carrier though. *this statement removed as possibly to sarcastic*

 

[McKickaha]

Protected bridge looks good, but a bit too modern for the SFU, I like the double saucer and carrier though. *this statement removed as possibly to sarcastic*

Too sarcastic, could never believe that from you Hiff.

 

[billclo]

I added this to the list of potential Fed ships:

 

[archon96]

at this point its probably very hard to come up with something new that doesnt infringe on the licensing agreement. Just this of all the designs that came post tos. good or bad. a more realistically achievable change may be in the nacelles or the engineering section.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I added this to the list of potential Fed ships:

snip

Sorry, nice design but you might want to Google "Intrepid", "Cheyenne" and "Sovereign", mate

I'd have to agree with Archon that it's very hard to come up with something that's not already too similar to an existing design somewhere in the Trek IP while keeping to the saucer and nacelle configuration (and still have it make some kind of engineering sense). I was sketching cut-outs myself but then I saw the "Perimeter Action" ships :roll:

 

[billclo]

I added this to the list of potential Fed ships:

snip

Sorry, nice design but you might want to Google "Intrepid", "Cheyenne" and "Sovereign", mate

I'd have to agree with Archon that it's very hard to come up with something that's not already too similar to an existing design somewhere in the Trek IP while keeping to the saucer and nacelle configuration (and still have it make some kind of engineering sense). I was sketching cut-outs myself but then I saw the "Perimeter Action" ships :roll:

Hi. I looked at those ships, and while there is a resemblance in the saucer, and one of them had 4 engines, none of them had 4 engines on the secondary hull. Also, what defines the Trek IP? Only ships in the movies, TV shows? Or are fan-created ships "official IP"? I'm no IP expert, so I'll leave it to them.

If we use too conservative standards as to what can be used (ie, don't step on some obscure fan's art), then there isn't much point in even trying to improve the standard SFU Federation ships at all, since there is a small possibility of a "resemblance to someone else's work". Matt and Steve will have to decide what's too close to "official Trek", not us.