Reality Check ship costs for update 1 (and 2)

B

bcantwell

Mongoose
There are a number of the ships that are published in the two updates that have obviously whacked ship costs. What would the forum hive mind put as reasonable and balanced costs for these ships?

Fed New Jersy BC
Fed Gettysburg Heavy CC
Klingon C9
Kzinti Drone DN
Kzinti Scout Frigate

Thanks

Brian
 
What happens with all that drone update Type 2-6, armored etc. has a tremendous impact on the values and over on the ADB Board, SVC indicated a bunch of those will not fly. That said, and assuming current (ie, no update 2 silliness on drones)..

BCJ New Jersey - 230
CB Gettysburg - 220
Kzinti Drone DN - 330 (per SVC, the ship can only fire 12 of the 18 in any one turn)
Kzinti Scout FF - 110

I have no feel for the C9.
 
McKinstry said:
What happens with all that drone update Type 2-6, armored etc. has a tremendous impact on the values and over on the ADB Board, SVC indicated a bunch of those will not fly. That said, and assuming current (ie, no update 2 silliness on drones)..

BCJ New Jersey - 230
CB Gettysburg - 220
Kzinti Drone DN - 330 (per SVC, the ship can only fire 12 of the 18 in any one turn)
Kzinti Scout FF - 110

I have no feel for the C9.
Click to expand...

Is that cost of the Drone DN based on the 330 cost of the standard Kzinti DN in the errata or the 305 cost in the rule book. Just wondering as the DNH is listed in the update at 310 - which is fine if the std DN is 305 and obviously too low if the std Kzinti DN is 305.

Thanks for the input.
 
Standard at 330. But again, I can't stress enough how the Update#2 drones could goof it up. Allow Type2 Armored drones and allow it to fire 18 at once and 510 all in on an ugraded Kzinti drone DN may still be too low.
 
McKinstry said:
Standard at 330. But again, I can't stress enough how the Update#2 drones could goof it up. Allow Type2 Armored drones and allow it to fire 18 at once and 510 all in on an ugraded Kzinti drone DN may still be too low.
Click to expand...


Agree.

I seem to vaguely recall from the dark recess of my limited SFB play that making a drone armored halved the warhead strength. That little balancing factor seems to have been lost in the translation. If armored drones only did 1d3 damage, they'd be less over the top
 
That would ft with the upgraded Gorn Dreadnought (DNH), which has more weapons, better shields and a lower critical/crippled threshold - and is 10 points cheaper :?: :shock: :?
 
The armored drone rules got more complicated that that. If the drone armor was internal, it reduced warhead strength. You could mount the armor externally, which didn't reduce warhead strength, but reduced speed. The custom design drone rules were a tad too complicated to easily port over to ACTA:SF unless you really dumbed them down.

I wonder if Matt is taking suggestions for re-doing Drone Strike, or is he more likely to be doing it all himself?

I could see armored drones, Spearfish, Swordfish, Type-III long range. Type 4 drones, don't see the point under this system.

Type 4 drones that took 2 hits each, but did 2D6 damage could be neat, but you'd have to counter-balance them somehow. A typical B-Drone rack could hold 3 Type-4s before running out of ammo, but then it'd be a good idea to track ammo to offset that. But I know that tracking Type-4 ammo is not going to happen.
 
How about keeping it simple and just leaving drones as drones? The Baskin-Robbins hundred flavor o'drones slows play, adds complication, adds record keeping and causes severe play balance problems without adding anything positive besides a bit of unwanted chrome.

Is 32 pulse movement next?
 
having given this a little thought i have to agree, drones shound be left as just drones . the game dose not need the complication
 
Agree re Drones

Would rather see more ships, variants and even more varied weapon systems any thing to make the Drone less the weapon of choice and help in differential between ships of different Empires.
 
There's some drone stuff that doesnt want to come over (IIs and Vs are totally redundant for example), there's some that doesn't need to come over - Spearfish, Swordfish, Armoured, and double space drones for example - but could do as a fleet update for the completists (and I kind of fit myself in there), and there's some that need to come over.

For me the needs of drones are Type VIs, Type IIIs as they will affect how fighters work and as older periods are getting statted an understanding of what racks affect the game - Jump Racks is the one that leaps to mind immediately, we have G already and the rest that I can remember are ammo changes so abstracted out ACTA already.

Anything brought in needs to fit the ACTA mould of simplicity - so for example for heavy drones that take more damage I'd prefer to see them done by forcing rerolls rather than taking multiple hits that need to be tracked. Type IIIs being better as long range rather than items put on the table and so on
 
Could not older versions be respresented by just having less range and / or damage in the ship stats? What else would you need to do?

Drones have arguably one of the most difficult areas to try and get right - lets just leave them well alone for the moment and do other stuff.
 
Agreed on the keep it simple part. I took a look at the drone rules in the Fleet Update 2 and immediately thought 'too much hassle for too little benefit'. I would much rather the powers that be directed their efforts into bringing new ships / empires into the game.

If I wanted to use complex rules like those I might just as well go back to Star Fleet Battles.
 
Da Boss said:
Could not older versions be respresented by just having less range and / or damage in the ship stats?.
Click to expand...

Jump racks you drop the dire rate so drop the AD, nice and simple.

Slower drones still have the range over 3 turns to effectively work andod the same damge and take the same defensive fire, for them Id just drop the speed you have to go to qualify for an evade roll - its the only place I can see realtively speeds making a difference in the existing rules, and honestly the game wouldnt notice if you ignored that minor difference.

Type VIs are vital to fighter interactions and actually I think they did them quite well in the update.

Type III are the only significant type that is very difference - range is the big difference and isnt ATG a second common on IIIs - for me that means IIIs simply get long range for ease and actually I think the whole ATG thing can be ignored by the range time multiple launch drone management that is totally abstracted in ACTA - you just say ATG is common on those long range shots and is what allows the vessel to fire and keep firing from those ranges (and can slide that over to any drone given that feature thus neatly eliminating the need for complication).

So yes I think we can add a lot of the drone variety simply - assuming its needed or wanted. Frankly I think you could make a lot of the 'we want' drone rules part of the historical rules due to their limited nature - eatly bundling them into the more SFU oriented players interest and keeping the complexity down bylimiting the things ot the odd vessel rather than making them open play where every Kzinti and its dog have special drones up the wazoo.
 
I'm agreeing with most of the comments here, these more detailed Drone types should be left for a product like to proposed FC 'Borders of Madness' which will include lots of rules from SFB for those players wanting all the little details which may be excellent for small squadrons and 1vs1 fights but have no place in larger games.
I stopped playing SFB much once we had maps with hundreds of Drones around, I'm liking ACTA:SF due to the simplicity, reminds me of SFB when I started playing in '79. I think Matt should have rules like this in the backroom and using FC as the source game leave it for a Borders of Madness product like FC will be bringing out sometime. As Myrm says Type VI (small drones not intended for anti-ship usage) will be needed when fighters come out, otherwise Keep It Simple

Lord Hastings
 
riftsinger said:
having given this a little thought i have to agree, drones shound be left as just drones . the game dose not need the complication
Click to expand...
I admit I've not had a chance to really playtest the new drone rules, but my first impression is just this. Any benefit of adding all the new drone types does not off-set the increased complexity in play. IMO its just an unessessary level of detail for a game like ACTA:SF
 
Agreed.

Variant drones should be at most an optional rule used by people who want to fight more complex games that involve tracking which drone racks are loaded with which drones.

And not used in tournaments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Fleet Update 2 - Questions, issues etc
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
Nerroth
N
N
Fire in the Deep: an unofficial Juggernaut Empire discussion
Replies
14
Views
21K
Nerroth
N
Back
Top