Shield suggestion

Nerroth

Mongoose
There is a lot of debate over the Klingon (and Kestrel) forward shield rule, and whether or not it (or something like it) is a good thing to have in A Call to Arms: Star Fleet. On the one hand, it provides a degree of character to those ships which have it, but on the other can be argued as going too far in the wrong direction.

My thinking was that, if nothing else, it makes conversions somewhat awkward - not just for the Klingons and Kestrels, but for other potential candiadtes in the future.

By and large, the Shield score is based on the number of boxes in the #2 shield facing on the relevant Squadron Scale Ship Cards (as can be seen for comparison's sake over here). The Romulan SparrowHawk has a 24-point #2 shield on its Ship Card, go gets Shields: 24 over here. However, despite having a 22-box #2 shield on its Ship Card, the adjustments obliged by the current forward shield rule has seen it dropped to Shields: 18 in ACtA:SF terms.

(If you want to think of a potential future candidate, the Paravian War Cruiser shown in SSD form in the SFB Module C6 preview PDF has a 34-box front shield, and 20-box shields in facings #2 through #5. If that empire were not given a Klingon-esque front shield rule, it would get Shields: 20 in ACtA:SF. But, if it were deemed that the Paravians' heavy emphasis on their front shields was worth accounting for, it would get the Klingon front shield rule, but have some lower Shield score to compensate.)


However, rather than stick with the two options above - of leaving the rule in place and working around it, or deleting it and taking that dynamic out altogether - I was wondering if a third option might not be possible.

What if, instead of halving the incoming shield hits, the F arc offered only one-quarter protection instead?

Say in this case that the "regular" #2 shield values are converted over (so the D7 goes "back" to Shields: 22), but gets a reduced, but still notable, bonus in the F arc (which in this case would have an effective rating of 30 in the F arc if dropped to one-quarter). And since the D7's #1 facing in FC has 30 boxes, the one-quarter rule lands it in the sweet spot.

It wouldn't just have to be the Klingons, either. Other empires which have stronger front shields in FC, such as the Federation, could get a similar one-quarter rule; while those fleets with a tendency to put equally thick shields in all six arcs (such as the Archeo-Tholians or Eagle-series Romulans) would be left as they are instead. So, a Fed CA with the one-quarter rule would have an effective F arc of 32, which is close to the 30-box #1 arc it has in FC.

And in the above Paravian example, their CW would keep Shields: 20 and get an effective F arc of 27 with a one-quarter rule; a bit below its original, but a fairly reasonable approximation.


This sort of rule would better match the historical ship layouts, and really show the difference between those ships with all-around arcs (such as the Tholian CA or Romulan King Eagle) and those which historically rely to one extent or other on their front shields (like the Klingons and Federation).


Would that be an idea worth considering?
 
It's a step in the right direction, but it complicates things a little too much. When do you count the extra shields? If I fire from the port or starboard and do 22 shield to your hypothetical D hull, then what happens to the extra eight? Do we need to track them separately? I don't think I'd want to do that. Frankly, I don't see the reason for anyone having stronger shields in any given direction. The difference isn't usually that extreme. Rarely is the difference more than 6-8 boxes. If you really feel the need for something, why not make it a bonus or penalty to shield leaks? Maybe on the forward shield they force the opponent to reroll shield leaks and they only actually leak on a 4+. Or, you could make it a 4+save vs shield leaks. That requires no tracking and probably cuts down on damage about half as much as double forward shields.
 
The klink front shield rule was definitely too big of an advantage for them in the vanilla game.
I'm not sure they needed to carry it over in the first place.
It does of course stack with their ridiculous agility.

Some small bonus to the front would have been better, if necessary to carry it over at all.
 
To clarify, I meant to say that the one-quarter rule would still be written the same way the current one-half rule is (only with the new ratio of dropped hits), so attacks in the P, S, and A arcs would remain unaffected.

Something like:

*So long as it has a Shields score above 0, a ship of this class suffering an attack from within its Fore arc will have the number of hits it sustains reduced by one-quarter, rounding up, with the exception of any hits that penetrate the shields. These are treated as normal.

The numbers I posted were to try and gauge the effective bonus in the F arc from the one-quarter rule, not to say that the ship explicitly has a different Shield value in the front.
 
It clearly has a basis in SFU - When I started playing SFB, however long ago, the D7s and other klingon ships had front shields that were about 2-3 times greater than their rear shields. The ACTA front shield rule achieves that feel.

True, it may not be appropriate for the later ships that they are representing, but that is not the same as saying there is no basis for it in the SFU. ACTA was trying to give each empire certain characteristics that they were well known for albeit it in a maybe caricature way, not a slavish representation of minutiae.

I would like to see it become a trait rather than an empire wide rule, and then only apply to the older hull ships like the E4, F5, D6, D7. Whilst not strictly accurate for the time period it would provide a nice distinction between old and new hulls. Anything without it gets the normal shield score (base on shield 2 from FC).

A further re-adjustment of shield scores could possibly also happen for those ships with it. Most other ships have a shield score equal to their number 2 shield. That would mean a D7 without the rule would have 22 shield. Reducing the D7's shield score down to about 13 or 14 would better represent that (rounding etc means it is never really doubled in strength) whilst making it more a case of having a very weak back end which is what those older klingons were known for.

Or as others have said before, you could just represent the weak rear by giving them their normal shields and have them take double damage on shields outside the front arc. Though this means klingons get better shield boost, which some what mitigates against having the weaker back end in the first place.
 
The Klingon (and Kestrel and Lyran) aft shield issue is only a factor in the Middle Years (as presented for FC in Briefing #2); by the time of the General War, the various shield refits integrated into the Main Era Ship Cards remove this issue from contention.

For example, one could compare the Main Era D7 Ship Card linked to in my opening post to the Middle Years D7 which served the Deep Space Fleet through to the end of the Four Powers War. Going from shields #1 to #6, the Main Era D7 is 30-22-22-22-22-22, while the MY D7 is 30-22-15-13-15-22. (In SFB, both versions of the ship are on the SSD, with the added rear shields shaded and listed as a distinct refit. In FC, the Middle Years and General War time periods are more formally separated, so the pre- and post-refit versions of the hull are offered separately.)

In both cases, the proposed one-quarter rule above would more or less represent the stronger front shield (to a more proportionate ratio than the current one-half rule does) if one were to give each ship a "normal" Shield: 22 score. But only in the case of the Middle Years D7 would some sort of aft arc rule be advisable.

And again, this one-quarter rule would not be just for the Klingons; I propose it be offered for every ship which has the same sort of front-arc focus (like the Fed CA), but not for those ships which in FC have the same shield strength in all six facings (like the King Eagle or Archeo-Tholian CA).

Even in the case of the Andromedans, most of their ships have a proportionally stronger front PA panel bank, so perhaps they could get a modified versions of such a rule covering the front 180 degrees, rather than just the front 90. (Such ships might then use the rear panel bank as their "standard" score, as shown on the Andro Ship Cards in FC.) But only for those Andro units which have imbalanced panel arrangements; their bases would have no need for such a rule.
 
Klingon side and rear shields were weaker then those of other races and this was remedied with the various refits that came along. Klingon front shields weren't stronger than those of other the races.

If ACTA wants to capture the feel of Klingon shielding(before refits) then it needs to make it easier to down their shields when being fired at from the side or rear. Giving them increased shielding when being fired at through the front arcs isn't correct.

Klingons never had an advantage to other races when being fired at through the front arc; they had a disadvantage(until the various refits) when being fired at through the side or rear arcs. ACTA hasn't captured the feel of this.
 
Mid Years or whatever, specifics don't bother me. The point being that back when SFB wasn't cookie cutter ships each with similar shields, 38/4 power etc the klingons were renowned for having vastly different rear and front shields, way beyond the difference others had, it was one of their defining features.

I personally like that, and there is clearly a basis in the SFU for klingons having something akin to their current shield rule in ACTA, at least on those older hulls.
 
OrneryRooster:

I both agree and disagree with what you are getting at.

Yes, the current one-half front shield rule is too much, in terms of representing what kind of protection that Klingons (and others like the Feds) ought to get in the front arc.

But there is still a degree of increased protection in that direction, even if it's only one-third or one-quarter stronger than the flank shielding offers. (And it's not just the Klingons who benefit from this in FC or SFB.)

So having a one-quarter benus in the front arc, but for all ships which justify it (from whatever empire), might be a better fit than either sticking with the current system or jettisoning the concept entirely.


Storeylf:

But the specifics do matter.

For good or ill, the Main Era in FC, Starmada, and ACtA:SF is in the General War (to include the ISC Pacification and the Andromedan Invasion, in the absence of first-generation X-ships). The only one of the three games to show the unrefitted hulls is FC, but even it makes a point of dividing the Briefing #2 Ship Cards from those available for Main Era play.

(The wet navy adaptation of the ACtA game engine offers a similar split; playing the "default" WWII-era Victory at Sea is different from going back to WWI with the Age of Dreadnoughts variant.)

I think that the MY would make for an interesting alternate setting here because of how less-than-optimal the pre-refits hulls were. (And not just because of the shields; the frewer and slower drones, less prevalent plasma options, and technological limitations for future systems like ESGs or Hydran Stingers would add up to a stronger emphasis on the players working around these weaknesses while capitalising on those of their opponents.)

But the "current" era of game play requires the focus on the Main Era versions of each hull - which means that the Klingons, Kestrels, and Lyrans of the General War ought not to have a rear shield rule to deal with.
 
If ACTA wants to capture the feel of Klingon shielding(before refits) then it needs to make it easier to down their shields when being fired at from the side or rear. Giving them increased shielding when being fired at through the front arcs isn't correct.

Klingons never had an advantage to other races when being fired at through the front arc; they had a disadvantage(until the various refits) when being fired at through the side or rear arcs. ACTA hasn't captured the feel of this.

In deciding whether something is tougher or weaker shield wise you also have to account for the system and not just the raw stats. Leaks and Shield boosts make for noticeable differences in how the game plays compared to SFB/FC.

It is easier to down their shields from the rear when compared to what they'd be like without the current klingon shield rule. A D7 has 4 less than it would have and it boosts only half as well as it would do, that's a fair bit weaker than just having 22? pt normal shields.


Where it maybe falls down is on the newer hulls, where they still have 'reduced' shield scores, but those scores are still at the key thresholds for boosting. A D5 hull still boosts 2D6 like it would with standard shields. A C8 still boosts 3D6 as it would with standard shields. In those cases the front shields become very potent and the 'weaker' rear shields are largely negated by the boost and repair capability. Reducing the D5 hulls to 19 shields and the C8 to 29 would make them more appropriate IMO, a minor 1 pt shield score drop but one that reduces the boosts to the lower than 'standard' category.

Whilst I did mention you could reduce the D7 shields to more reflect the values that they maybe should be in raw number terms (probably 22?), you also have to bear in mind that between leaks and rounding and shield crits the front shield rule doesn't make their shields as potent as half damage may first imply. I don't think 18 point shields on a D7 is that far out, not enough to get concerned about. Where it gets problematic though IMO is when you get to things like C8s with 30 shield and 3D6 boost. If you lack a serious shield ignoring weapon like the Feds have then that is pretty tough. For Feds it doesn't make any real difference how big the shield is when you are firing photons, a 100 shield C8 goes down as fast as a 30 shield one.
 
I could live with all races receiving some kind of bonus when being fired at through the front shields since the front shields were(usually) the strongest. That's more realistic than just giving a bonus to Klingon(Kestrel) ships.

Problem solved.

Now, on to removing the agile trait from Klingon ships and just lowering their turn mode an inch or two instead! :P
 
Storeylf:

But the specifics do matter.

For good or ill, the Main Era in FC, Starmada, and ACtA:SF is in the General War (to include the ISC Pacification and the Andromedan Invasion, in the absence of first-generation X-ships). The only one of the three games to show the unrefitted hulls is FC, but even it makes a point of dividing the Briefing #2 Ship Cards from those available for Main Era play.

I have no doubt that ADB are forcing such things as background consistency. But that only matters if the time lines and little background details matter to you. I know you, Nerroth, are really into that. But I'm not, I'm a gamer first and foremost. I can roughly split out SFU into 'old' ships and 'new' ships, and that's about it. I don't know and have no real interest in any further level of detail on dates and ships.

The fact that ACTA tried to re-introduce the things that made SFB so much better in the early days (with those very different ship designs) should be encouraged IMO. Implementation details aside, it makes for a better game IMO. Unless ACTA is not intended to find new (non SFB) players then such stuff as detailed time lines should take second place to a good game with empires that play very differently.

Hence I maintain that as the huge difference in shields for Klingons was a defining feature for them then it is something that is good to have in ACTA, albeit only on those 'older' hulls. Old time SFB players like me who never really played it with the newer ships would recognize such things, and new players wouldn't know (or probably care as long as it was a good game). People can always buy into the rest of the SFU for that stuff if they find ACTA tweaks their interest.

As to Mid Years in FC. I was really hyped up for that as it was based more on my period of SFB. But it really doesn't work that well, I was very disappointed. Like with people arguing how close ACTA needs to be to SFB/FC in minute details, it's another case of keeping a level of detail from one game (the SSDs) and assuming that it will work well another game (FC). FC and SFB have a lot in common, but they are different systems, and the mid year ships just don't translate well IMHO. There are SFB players who note how different FC plays to SFB. Undoubtedly true, and as you go back further to the Mid Years those differences magnify to the point that it put me off.

Actually, I really wish that ACTA had done middle years. Fewer ships per empire, more interesting differences between them. Less drones and plasma (which many see as an issue). It would have made a better era to start with and get the system ironed out.
 
Given that I'm most looking forward to seeing the game system go out of the Alpha Octant outright and setting out to explore the turbulent waters of places like Omega and the LMC, I certainly wouldn't argue against seeing more variety added to the fleets to be made available to this game over the course of its development.

But in order to get out to those new frontiers (or to jump back to the Middle or Early Years), the Main Era fleets we have right now would need to be settled - and, as you note, ADB will likely compel the primary focus to be on the Main Era hulls first anyway.

But in the longer run, having the Middle Years as a separate setting (and having the aft shield rules be up for discussion in that era) would, in my view, be a greater benefit to the system as a whole. Trying to go with an ahistorical mash-up of shield quirks that historically are no longer a factor by the time of the General War would be essentially robbing the Middle Years of a key quirk that would make it an interesting era to play in, while denying the affected empires the kind of fair treatment that they ought to have in the Main Era. (The current rule might be too much, but going too far in the other direction as punishment wouldn't be fair to them either.)


At least the logistical ability to offer a Middle Years version of the game is not too challenging, as opposed to the work needed to draw up new rules, or cast new miniatures, which other alternatives (such as Omega or the Early Years) would need.

All we'd need is a Starline 2500 version of Squadron Box #91, plus a mini or two for a few of the MY-specific ships (like the Lyran DNE and BCE), and the rest could be covered with pre-existing minis.

So, maybe once the Main Era revisions are settled in version 2.0 of the core ruleset, the time could then be taken to give the MY setting the kind of attention it deserves?


(And as an aside, what was it about FC: Briefing #2 which disappointed you?)
 
If you aren't going to represent the historical klingon feature of glass thin rear shields, then any special shield rule is pointless and unnecessarily complicating things. The normal shield rules do a good job as it is, worrying about minor differences between a 30 point #1 and a 26#2 or whatever just doesn't translate. In FC where a cruiser could dish out 100 damage in 1 volley a few points wasn't a huge difference, in a longer running sandpapering duel the shield rotation smoothed out the difference.

[edit]
Again it comes down to don't get fixated on raw numbers in FC when you are talking about a wholly different system, but look at how it affects play. Then see if ACTA gives that feel.

In FC a 6 point (or whatever) difference between front and side shields has a minimal affect in play. Many times you try to fight across all 3 front shields notwithstanding that 2 and 6 are weaker, and rotation/battery reinforcement quickly ensure that such differences are lost.

Having a 17 point difference is, however, something that is noticeable. It may partially be in the mind, but it does also cause problems. You can best see that by thinking how you would play MY D7s compared with later D7s (where the usual tactic in FC is to keep at range 13+).

In FedCom as it stands those later D7s can maneuver to use all their shields as they avoid the photon strike, the 22 point rear shield is large enough to withstand a decent punishment. In 1 vs 1 then there is no way that the 6-8 Ph1s are going to get through it in a single volley, and over several turns of shooting and rotation the damage will be spread across multiple shields so you can probably use your back a second time. In a squadron level game it is also unlikely that a 22 pt shield will go down, A 3 ship Fed squadron will rake up maybe 18 Ph1s at the point you expose your back, the chance of getting significantly above average and blowing that shield down after a bit of battery is minimal. Again the damage will then spread around with rotation.

Put an Old style D7 in there and you have a different scenario. It's actually possible to lose that shield to one phaser volley from a single Fed ship. Unlikely, but there is more variance with less dice being rolled and the fact that it can happen will impact your willingness to just keep turning away as is the standard klingon tactic. When you go to a squadron level game though it is almost a certainty that you will lose that back shield and take internals on the first strike at it. That back shield is so weak that it will almost certainly affect the way you play and your tactics in a way that a few points difference didn't.

A shield that weak also becomes a liability when rotating, the 22 pt shield can have a point or 2 of damage on it and not make a big difference. If there is a couple of points of damage on a 13 point shield then your chance of taking internals just shot up.

There is a question of whether such a shield layout would have much affect in a fleet battle. When I'm throwing out large amounts of damage is 6 points worth noting, 17 points? There comes a point where it probably doesn't, but I don't think that point is reached in battles involving a dozen ships.

ACTA seems to provide that feel. Its single shield rule means you are not overly bothered where you get shot from on any given volley, just as in FC you are not overly worried (in terms of how much damage you will take). In ACTA The klingon rule does mean that you are concerned both as attacker and defender. Again, for the older klingons that reflects FC.
 
Here's an even easier rule that requires less math for the 'front shield'.

Discount the first two hits to your shields from every ship that hits you from the front 90 degree arc.

Buff up the klingon hull based ship's shields a little bit to even out whatever difference or to just make them competative again if they need to be rebalaced, then bam, simple, done. Heck, you could even give this to some other ships, I don't play FC and I don't play SFB so I don't know how ships 'work' in those games.

Comparing my rule to the current 1/2 rule.
1 shield hit would still do nothing,
2 would do 0, instead of 1
3 would do 1, which is the same as now
4 would do 2, same as now
5 would do 3, instead of 2
6 would do 4, instead of 3
etc..

I think this better represents an overall more dense front shield being able to withstand a little extra punishment from any one source of attack, but it gets overwhelmed the more damage is being poured into it like any normal shield would.

Simple, elegant, not all that over-powered (IMO), still gives some incentive to keep your front facing the enemy, but it doesnt feel as futile to shoot into their front. Plus bigger ships that can dish out more AD will be less neutered.
 
Back
Top