Romulan War Eagle
- Thread starter McKinstry
- Start date
No, I'd go King Eagle for another 4 dice of plasma from 2 F torps and 4 phaser-1s or Battlehawk for 20 points less for the loss of one dice of plasma. War Eagles have no drone defense the turn they fire the R-torp for a start. The Snipe-B has 7 dice of plasma and is agile as well, so better able to actually sneak in behind the enemy.
I'm very interested in how the Vulture will be done. It has two R torps, 2 F torps, 6 phaser-1s (so a possible 18 dice of plasma salvo backed with a decent number of phasers). However the SSD only has 8 hull boxes, so unless an exception is made you'll have a dreadnought (admittedly with armour) with less damage than the Kzinti frigate.
I'm very interested in how the Vulture will be done. It has two R torps, 2 F torps, 6 phaser-1s (so a possible 18 dice of plasma salvo backed with a decent number of phasers). However the SSD only has 8 hull boxes, so unless an exception is made you'll have a dreadnought (admittedly with armour) with less damage than the Kzinti frigate.
Rambler said:
The thing is that in SFB the number of hull boxes isn't necessarily related to how much damage a ship can take.
The SFB damage allocation table means pretty much all the SSD boxes need to be crossed off before a ship is destroyed, and a Vulture has as many SSD boxes as a heavy cruiser for another race.
It's one of those things that bother me a bit about the conversion. I'll just redo the 1st gen Romulans and repoint them for club games.
For adjusted damage I'll go Snipe 9, Battlehawk 14, War Eagle 18, King Eagle 24, Vulture 28.
In F&E the War Eagle is a light cruiser analogue, as it is in SFB. It's a small light cruiser, but because it's built around a R-torp with 4 phaser-1s it has a pretty big alpha strike, it just can't take the damage other light cruisers can.
King Eagles are basically the command/battle cruiser versions of war eagles, with 50% bigger engines, double the shuttle capacity, a flag bridge and an auxiliary reactor to go with 2 extra F-torps. It has the same plasma load as one of the Romulan Hawk series command cruisers (which come awfully close to being battlecruisers, given the Hawk series ships that are the next step up are basically hitting the light dreadnought threshold.
In SFB the Romulan Eagle ships basically have nothing much in the way of labs etc, so for any science based mission even Klingon ships have far better facilities. In SFB labs end up as padding half the time. War Eagles aren't there to explore strange new worlds or new civilisations, but to pop out of cloak, launch a huge torpedo and fire phaser batteries, and then pop back into cloak to reload the torpedo.
The Eagle ships in SFB justify low damage scores, and the scores I've generated are low (standard frigate 12-14, Destroyer 18-20, Light Cruiser 20-24, Cruiser 28-32, Dreadnought 55-65) compared to their class. I think the fragile eggshells armed with hammers perhaps went a bit far.
I might put this all in an article for the ACTA e-zine when that's got it's feet under it.
dinnermeat
Mongoose
Not a fan of the war eagle, rather take a snipe for cheap fast plasma or a KR or sparrow for mid range ships. I'll take the king if I need a cheap command ship or max damg vs endurance.h
Ben2 said:
So whats the Difference A Snipe Damage 6/2 with Armour and a Snipe 9/3 without Armour? or a War Eagle 12/4 with Armour or 18/6 without Armour?
The King Eagle and Vulture are both going to be extremely Crunchy on the Outside, Chewy on the inside. Yes the Box Count went up because of Larger Engines but the System boxes stay abysmally small so it will be effectively crippled faster than other ships of comparative classes once you burn through those small Center Hulls the Weapons start dieing real fast.
War eagle in SFB were always a Opportunistic Ship. They make great Raiders with the Cloacks and the R Torpedoes but in fleet actions they take it in the shorts real fast.
Ben2 said:
But this isn't SFB!
ACTA doesn't reflect a lot of the mechanics of SFB, be it the whole power allocation or damage allocation or movement and shooting etc. SFB/FC doesn't even reflect the mechanics and play of F&E in many areas, nor the fiction that has come out about it.
The ships as they currently stand are a pretty good representation of the SFU ships. The old Eagles are glass cannons, and ACTA represents that, the hawks are not that much more robust than the eagles in terms of boxes, but they take damage better. This game doesn't get into that, so the lower hull ratings are a good way of doing it.
storeylf said:
This is true. It is also important to remember that Damage in CTA does not equal hull boxes in SFB because they do not represent the same thing. At all.
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face because it's obvious that ACTA Damage equals SFB/FedCmdr Hull boxes times two.
I for one think the ships would have converted over better if instead you had used the total number of internal SFB boxes and diveded by three or four.
I for one think the ships would have converted over better if instead you had used the total number of internal SFB boxes and diveded by three or four.
Sgt_G said:
That may be the way they are converted, but it doesn't mean they represent the same thing at all. In fact it is obvious they do not, a ship in SFB does not die when its hull boxes are gone, yet in ACTA the damage rating is precisely that, the point at which your ship falls apart. Clearly ACTA damage and FC hull boxes do not represent the same thing.
In FC the amount of hull you have does affect how well you take damage, once you are out of hull you start losing the all important power/weapons a lot faster, even if you do not actually die when its all gone. I like the way they have used that to give a different feel to the various ships that does reflect an important aspect of the original FC ships.
Your suggestion would seriously reduce that aspect as most ships of a similar class are also fairly close in terms of internals, Using divide by 3 a Fed CA would be 32 (or 31 rounding depending) as it is now, but a D7 would be 29 (or 30 rounding depending), significantly more robust than now, yet in FC the D7 is seen as a ship that does not take damage well due to lack of hull (and labs).
Remember this is not SFB. Direct representation of every minute detail from that game is not neeeded, and would be counter productive IMO.
Sgt_G said:
Sorry mis-spoke - they are not the same thing as internal boxes.
I would argue there should be some wiggle room in the 2xhull = damage for the ones where you have fewer hull boxes on a bigger ship than a smaller ship - the Tholian destroyer (5 hull boxes) vs the Tholian PC (7 hull boxes).
That wiggle room is then used so that things can be adjusted for balance purposes.
That wiggle room is then used so that things can be adjusted for balance purposes.
Ben2 said:
Actually the tholian DD does have the same hull rating as the Corvette in ACTA - maybe that needs errrata'd.
I don't see an issue with the difference (that I expected). Yes the DD is a bit bigger, but again that lack of hull and relatively lower power compared to the smaller Corvette means it degrades a lot faster. The DD gains a lot in ACTA from the way it can fire all weapons moving at speed. In FC that is not the case as it is to power starved to keep that up, and even a couple of power hits will cause it issues. There is a reasonable trade off in that the DD should? have lower damage rating reflecting the way it loses capability faster in FC.
Note that another possible errata is that the DD has 20 shields, should that not be 27 shield (The tholian DD in FC is very nice with 27 all round shield).
As far as the Tholian DD goes you gained 4 Damage and lost 7 shields. At most it might be argued it should gain 3 shields but since 20 gives it that step allowing 2d6 boost I am not sure its worth errattaing at this point.
As far as wiggle room look at the Kzinti CM , NCA, and Gorn BCH all were errattaed to make then tougher.
As far as wiggle room look at the Kzinti CM , NCA, and Gorn BCH all were errattaed to make then tougher.
Rambler said:
Can't see any errata for the kzniti ships, they seem as expected?
[edit: nvm, never looked at the 'ship cards' at the bottom of the errata, that is a bad layout a section of textual changes and then another section with new ship cards]
The gorn BCH does have errata making it tougher than 'expected'. Freighters have also been tweaked.
