Romulan War Eagle Question
- Thread starter krashreed
- Start date
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Shuttles, tractors (and transporters) match their FC equivalents. Skyhawk has more marines than both the older ships (a direct translation from FC, ignoring any balancing or other alterations, would be 2 or 3 apiece for them and 4 for the Skyhawk).
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
krashreed said:
Short answer: War Eagle Marines/Tractors/Transporters are correct.
Long/Fluff Answer: In the fluff, the War Eagle is a pretty old design. Modern amenities like transporters and omni-directional tractor beams were added pretty late in it's service life. For example, the sole transporter room is actually a converted cargo hold! (and the transporter itself is a Klingon-manufactured transporter)
Its also a pretty small and cramped ship, so there aren't many marines.
And you'd be right.
Labs, Tractor and Transporter are correct, but it only has 2 Shuttles, not 4, and it should have the same number of marines as the War Eagle, as in FC/SFB they've got exactly the same number of boarding parties.
I've started putting together a spreadsheet for hull damage as well, and including number of SSD boxes from FC/SFB in it makes it look like Hull x 2 for damage is not a particularly good relationship compared to how much damage a ship can take in SFB/FC. For instance the War Eagle and King Eagle have the same damage score in ACTA despite the King Eagle having 17 more SSD boxes in SFB/FC and so being able to take more damage.
The Vulture early dreadnought is also as big as a cruiser, but only has 8 hull boxes (so 16 damage in ACTA). I'm not sure people will want a 16 damage dreadnought.
Labs, Tractor and Transporter are correct, but it only has 2 Shuttles, not 4, and it should have the same number of marines as the War Eagle, as in FC/SFB they've got exactly the same number of boarding parties.
I've started putting together a spreadsheet for hull damage as well, and including number of SSD boxes from FC/SFB in it makes it look like Hull x 2 for damage is not a particularly good relationship compared to how much damage a ship can take in SFB/FC. For instance the War Eagle and King Eagle have the same damage score in ACTA despite the King Eagle having 17 more SSD boxes in SFB/FC and so being able to take more damage.
The Vulture early dreadnought is also as big as a cruiser, but only has 8 hull boxes (so 16 damage in ACTA). I'm not sure people will want a 16 damage dreadnought.
Ben2 just remember when counting those boxes do not include;
1) Impulse Engines or Reactors, these are damaged on Dilithium Chamber critical hits,
2) Warp Engines, as these are Damaged on Impulse Drive hits. (Yeah they seem backwards but Impulse cover movement)
3) All Weapons since these are handled by Criticals to the Weapons System.
4) Labs, Tractor Beams, Shuttles, or AntiDrones as all of these are rolled for damage when you hit a Crippled Threshold.
In the end it really does come down to just using the Hull to determine how tough a ship really is.
1) Impulse Engines or Reactors, these are damaged on Dilithium Chamber critical hits,
2) Warp Engines, as these are Damaged on Impulse Drive hits. (Yeah they seem backwards but Impulse cover movement)
3) All Weapons since these are handled by Criticals to the Weapons System.
4) Labs, Tractor Beams, Shuttles, or AntiDrones as all of these are rolled for damage when you hit a Crippled Threshold.
In the end it really does come down to just using the Hull to determine how tough a ship really is.
No, not in SFB / FedCmdr. If one ship has Labs-2 and another has Lab-8, the second ship has six more internals than the first. But in ACTA, Labs on both ships count the same ... ONE hit. Likewise, the weapons in ACTA are not equal. The Fed POL has one Photon but the DNG has six, and yet both are one-line weapon systems.Rambler said:
I,too, wish they had based Damage off the total number of internal boxes and not just Hull & cargo. However, comma, I'm not going to get rapped around the axle over it. On "most" ships, the number of Hull goes up relatively proportional to the overall number of internals.
There are a few that are tweeked. Example, I love the Fed POL, but it should NOT have more damage than the FF.
Here's an example.
The Fed CA has 95 damage boxes, 16 of them hull, and gets damage 32.
The Klingon D7 has 91 damage boxes, 11 of them hull, and gets damage 22.
Another example, the War Eagle has 54 damage boxes and the King Eagle 71, and they both have damage 12.
Dreadnoughts have proportionately far more damage than they would have because dreadnoughts get more hull boxes (as there is only a certain amount of extra systems and weapons they can have).
Meanwhile the Klingon F5, noted in the book as the largest frigate, is not the largest frigate by a long way, that honour goes to the Kzinti Frigate, which has more hull boxes but less internal volume. On the K5R, where security boxes are replaced with hull, they have the same number of hull boxes.
Going by hull boxes has caused a great deal of inconsistency in the damage scores.
The Fed CA has 95 damage boxes, 16 of them hull, and gets damage 32.
The Klingon D7 has 91 damage boxes, 11 of them hull, and gets damage 22.
Another example, the War Eagle has 54 damage boxes and the King Eagle 71, and they both have damage 12.
Dreadnoughts have proportionately far more damage than they would have because dreadnoughts get more hull boxes (as there is only a certain amount of extra systems and weapons they can have).
Meanwhile the Klingon F5, noted in the book as the largest frigate, is not the largest frigate by a long way, that honour goes to the Kzinti Frigate, which has more hull boxes but less internal volume. On the K5R, where security boxes are replaced with hull, they have the same number of hull boxes.
Going by hull boxes has caused a great deal of inconsistency in the damage scores.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Ben2 said:
Both have 2 shuttles according to the FC SSDs.
Ben2 said:
But has resulted in balanced fleets.
You have to remember, we were _never_ trying to create a facsimilie of SFB or FC. If that is what someone is after, they already have those games.
We are not trying to model every little nuance of SFB (that would be madness), and we are not trying to replicate every little detail.
What we have done is create a game in its own right that hits all the major SFU goals and, importantly, reflects the end result of what would happen in a fleet game of SFB and FC. In other words, if you set up six Klingon D7 and five Federation Heavy Cruisers in CTA: SF, the end results over several games will match the end results over several games in SFB or FC.
There _will_ be differences in how you get there. And that is fine. CTA: SF is its own game that just happens to share a universe with SFB and FC. Direct translations will _not_ always work.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
That's a mis-translation from the Klingonese, which uses a word with no direct equivalent in English. You can get closer to the original meaning by substituting "large" with "phat". :lol:
TBH I think the best thing to do at this stage is to play the game.
After a year or so of tournaments we can revisit this. If one fleet is winning (or losing) disproportionately, or is being taken by everyone (or no-one) then measures may need to be taken.
The good news is that in SFB the fleets were *very* balanced, and in FC they were still mostly pretty well balanced, so hopefully we're looking at tweaks not wholesale Sky Full Of Stars style re-writing.
After a year or so of tournaments we can revisit this. If one fleet is winning (or losing) disproportionately, or is being taken by everyone (or no-one) then measures may need to be taken.
The good news is that in SFB the fleets were *very* balanced, and in FC they were still mostly pretty well balanced, so hopefully we're looking at tweaks not wholesale Sky Full Of Stars style re-writing.
