GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Are you sure about that? I thought Kzinti's biggest enemies were themselves? :lol: Or was that the Lyrans who have civil wars nearly annually?
Where now? A Brainstorming Thread.
- Thread starter Iapologisedon4chan
- Start date
Iapologisedon4chan
Mongoose
GalagaGalaxian said:
Nope. Requires a Crew Quality check of 8 first. Technically it's just a 4+ in most cases.
Well I'll be. So it does.
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
Was always of the opinion the the 'F' blocks were to make the life of 'ships' that penetrated the gunlines of the the ISC battlefleet unpleasent. The ISC fleet tactic's were developed whilst watching the other Empires beat each other senseless in the General War, so they could 'pacify' what they considered a bunch of dangerous lunatic's, which comprised of ships fighting in gunlines with the lighter vessels in the first line, cruiser-types and warcrusiers in the second and the 'Big Boys' forming a rear (not aware of a 4 line formation, that doesn't mean they didn't happen, just i'm not aware of them). As the bigger ships had heavier weapons, attacking forces hit a 'firewall' when striking frontally, and the ships were given rear 'defence' weapons - the blocks of Plasma F's that are being talked about - to target any ship that 'broke' the line. As has been mentioned, the tracking systems on these only allowed limited targeting of Capital vessels, but free engagement of 'Gunboat/PF & Fighters' even drones if required. Made breaking a line painful, but did tend to mean the ISC fleet fought in a standard way (even 3 ship groups would attempt to use these formations in combat).
Have included the above as some of the non-SFU crowd may not get the references to what the Defence Blocks were/are. To them we're just talking about bamks of rear firing Plasma's
Have included the above as some of the non-SFU crowd may not get the references to what the Defence Blocks were/are. To them we're just talking about bamks of rear firing Plasma's
One thing that FedCmdr does, and therefore ACTA:SF will probably do by extension, is all ships are depicted as "late war" with all upgrades and additions included. For example, the Fed CA is actually the CAr+ with two refits above the original CA -- the "r" refits adds the aft twin Ph-1 mount, the "+" adds the 360 twin Ph-3 mount. There's actually four refits, but two don't matter to FedCmdr.
In the case of the ISC ships, the entire aft-firing Plasma system, as well as the aft Ph-3 mounts, were added several years after the fleets were developed (as mentioned, in responce to Gunboats). The ISC "Star Cruiser" is on par with other empires' Heavy Battlecruiser (i.e., Klingon C7). When the pre-war Star Cruiser first came out without all the upgrades, however, she was on par with other empires' standard Heavy Cruiser (i.e., Klingon D7).
In the case of the ISC ships, the entire aft-firing Plasma system, as well as the aft Ph-3 mounts, were added several years after the fleets were developed (as mentioned, in responce to Gunboats). The ISC "Star Cruiser" is on par with other empires' Heavy Battlecruiser (i.e., Klingon C7). When the pre-war Star Cruiser first came out without all the upgrades, however, she was on par with other empires' standard Heavy Cruiser (i.e., Klingon D7).
Rick
Mongoose
Sgt_G said:
Looks like an interesting concept - I can imagine ACTA:SF as an initial game, taking the best ships as a kind of 'snapshot' of that vessel - I'd be willing to bet though, if the game proves successful, that a more complete timeline of ships might well appear - a bit like having the B5:ACTA ships split into different periods?
Rick said:
If it does, Federation Commander has a ready-made template to follow.
As Garth mentioned, the laminated Ship Cards are designed for the Main Era (General War/ISC Pacification/Andromedan War); but there is a separate set of "Middle Years" Ship Cards available in places like Briefing #2, that show what in SFB would be referred to as the unrefitted versions of several ships, as well as the rules needed to properly fly them. (Indeed, the natural home of some of the Franz Joseph Ship Cards from Booster #91 is in this era, though some of those in said booster are for the Main Era instead.) However, FCB2 does not have any pre-laminated Ship Cards; you have to either photocopy the black-and-white ones out of the book, or download the various colour Ship Card packs from e23 and print them out yourself.
As well as different time periods, FC also allows for different settings. For example, the Ship Cards of the Neo-Tholian hulls (such as the NCA) allow them to be used with either disruptors or particle cannons in their heavy weapon mounts; this allows them to serve in both the Milky Way (where they mount disruptors) and the M81 Galaxy (where they originally mounted particle cannons).
So, if ACtA:SF wants to go to new places, or indeed to new eras, there are options on the table.
Stumonster
Mongoose
Well, since this is a brainstorming thread, I want to put something out there to think about regarding disruptors:
The fluff for photon torpedoes is that "unlike distuptors, damage does not diminish over range" (Paraphrased). Yet really, in ACTA:SF disruptors do not lose damage over range. Ships with distuptors can hit you from 1 or 24 inches away with the same damage (Albeit -1 to hit past 12" and not overloaded.)
So, if one really wants to show that distuptors have diminished damage over range, then disruptors need to have weapon traits to handle that. Energy bleed does not work in this case, as over 3/4 range there would be no damage at all, and thus the long range coolness of the disruptor is lost.
Now, Killzone 12 with no multi-hit trait would work pretty well, especially if it is clarified that the killzone effect is taken into account before the Overload Weapons! SA is applied. If this is the case, then at range 12.1 to 24 inches, the damage would be 1. From 0 to 12 it would be MultiHit2 due to the kill zone. If the weapon was over loaded, then it would be 4 damage, just like now.
To compare:
RAW:
range 0-6 overloaded: multihit4
range 0-24 not overloaded: multihit2
No reduction over range . . . .
With KillZone 12 and no multi hit:
Range 0-6 overloaded Killzone 12 makes damage MultiHit2, doubled to 4 by overload (same as RAW)
Range 0-12 not overloaded: Killzone 12 makes them MultiHit2 (same as for RAW)
Range 12.1 to 24: 1 point of damage.
Viola! damage loss over range! (And pretty simply I might add.) Could be an "Advanced" or "Optional" rule so people could use either method. Also, I just use killzone 12 as an example, I do not have a SFB weapon's chart in front of me at the moment, so I am not sure of the drop off point. It could be adjusted to Killzone XX to be close to those ranges, whatever they are.
I might play test this in the next few days, but just curious of what others thoughts on this are.
--
Stuart
The fluff for photon torpedoes is that "unlike distuptors, damage does not diminish over range" (Paraphrased). Yet really, in ACTA:SF disruptors do not lose damage over range. Ships with distuptors can hit you from 1 or 24 inches away with the same damage (Albeit -1 to hit past 12" and not overloaded.)
So, if one really wants to show that distuptors have diminished damage over range, then disruptors need to have weapon traits to handle that. Energy bleed does not work in this case, as over 3/4 range there would be no damage at all, and thus the long range coolness of the disruptor is lost.
Now, Killzone 12 with no multi-hit trait would work pretty well, especially if it is clarified that the killzone effect is taken into account before the Overload Weapons! SA is applied. If this is the case, then at range 12.1 to 24 inches, the damage would be 1. From 0 to 12 it would be MultiHit2 due to the kill zone. If the weapon was over loaded, then it would be 4 damage, just like now.
To compare:
RAW:
range 0-6 overloaded: multihit4
range 0-24 not overloaded: multihit2
No reduction over range . . . .
With KillZone 12 and no multi hit:
Range 0-6 overloaded Killzone 12 makes damage MultiHit2, doubled to 4 by overload (same as RAW)
Range 0-12 not overloaded: Killzone 12 makes them MultiHit2 (same as for RAW)
Range 12.1 to 24: 1 point of damage.
Viola! damage loss over range! (And pretty simply I might add.) Could be an "Advanced" or "Optional" rule so people could use either method. Also, I just use killzone 12 as an example, I do not have a SFB weapon's chart in front of me at the moment, so I am not sure of the drop off point. It could be adjusted to Killzone XX to be close to those ranges, whatever they are.
I might play test this in the next few days, but just curious of what others thoughts on this are.
--
Stuart
In the SFU, disruptor damage does reduce over range...but not by much.
(Warning, SFB example ahead) A non-overloaded disruptor will do four points damage at a range of two to four hexes, but will do three points at any range between five and fifteen hexes, with the same to-hit score over that distance.
The disruptor is accurate at medium ranges and rapid-firing, but does not do calamitous damage with any single hit. This reflects what was seen on the TV show, with the aggressive Klingons shooting again and again at the Ent...err, the Good Guys, while tension built up and the bridge crew and the ship's chief engineer decided what to do about it.
Photons, by contrast are inaccurate ("Photon torpedoes ineffective, Captain!") but bad news when they *do* actually hit something.
SFB, FC and now ACtA:SF model this very well indeed.
(Warning, SFB example ahead) A non-overloaded disruptor will do four points damage at a range of two to four hexes, but will do three points at any range between five and fifteen hexes, with the same to-hit score over that distance.
The disruptor is accurate at medium ranges and rapid-firing, but does not do calamitous damage with any single hit. This reflects what was seen on the TV show, with the aggressive Klingons shooting again and again at the Ent...err, the Good Guys, while tension built up and the bridge crew and the ship's chief engineer decided what to do about it.
Photons, by contrast are inaccurate ("Photon torpedoes ineffective, Captain!") but bad news when they *do* actually hit something.
SFB, FC and now ACtA:SF model this very well indeed.
A plea for deployment limits.
First an apology. I haven't slept for two nights (you do *not* want to know) so what follows may sound harsher than intended.
Anyone remember ACtA:B5? Specifically, anyone remember what happened with fighters when the game was first released, and players started rocking up with fleets composed entirely of fighters - and crushing more conventional ship-based forces?
Or later on, the popular - but absurd - all-Sagittarius missile cruiser Frankenfleet?
Mongoose responded to those abuses firstly by nerfing everyone's fighters, and then nerfing the Sagittarius cruiser itself.
Well, that was one approach.
I fear that in ACtA:SF we're drifting towards a similar situation with Command ships. Players without experience of the SFU look at the stats, and think - not unreasonably - hey, cool, a couple of extra phasers and a command bonus for 25 (or whatever) points - what's not to love?
...and we end up with whole squadrons of Command ships, with nothing to actually 'be commanded' in sight.
OK, I've been playing SFB since the lower mesolithic, but the same thing used to happen there. Fortunately, there's a rule (S8.0) that enforces something resembling realistic deployments, and if you can find it in the rulebook, you can also use said rulebook to beat the minmaxing cheesmeister about the head with until he desists.
It always was a fun game.
Yes, I know, Deployment Limits 'interfere with player choice'. In a certain popular WW2 miniatures game, my 9th Queen's Royal Lancers lads are prevented from turning up to a France, May 1940 game driving the 76mm-gun Sherman tanks they had in Italy in 1945. More to the point, the Bad Guys don't get Tigers. Deployment Limits maketh a better game.
Can we please have a simple rule along the lines of "No more than one Command variant may be used, unless each is accompanied by two non-command versions of the same hull".
First an apology. I haven't slept for two nights (you do *not* want to know) so what follows may sound harsher than intended.
Anyone remember ACtA:B5? Specifically, anyone remember what happened with fighters when the game was first released, and players started rocking up with fleets composed entirely of fighters - and crushing more conventional ship-based forces?
Or later on, the popular - but absurd - all-Sagittarius missile cruiser Frankenfleet?
Mongoose responded to those abuses firstly by nerfing everyone's fighters, and then nerfing the Sagittarius cruiser itself.
Well, that was one approach.
I fear that in ACtA:SF we're drifting towards a similar situation with Command ships. Players without experience of the SFU look at the stats, and think - not unreasonably - hey, cool, a couple of extra phasers and a command bonus for 25 (or whatever) points - what's not to love?
...and we end up with whole squadrons of Command ships, with nothing to actually 'be commanded' in sight.
OK, I've been playing SFB since the lower mesolithic, but the same thing used to happen there. Fortunately, there's a rule (S8.0) that enforces something resembling realistic deployments, and if you can find it in the rulebook, you can also use said rulebook to beat the minmaxing cheesmeister about the head with until he desists.
It always was a fun game.
Yes, I know, Deployment Limits 'interfere with player choice'. In a certain popular WW2 miniatures game, my 9th Queen's Royal Lancers lads are prevented from turning up to a France, May 1940 game driving the 76mm-gun Sherman tanks they had in Italy in 1945. More to the point, the Bad Guys don't get Tigers. Deployment Limits maketh a better game.
Can we please have a simple rule along the lines of "No more than one Command variant may be used, unless each is accompanied by two non-command versions of the same hull".
Nomad said:
TBH I have had much the same thought. I already thought it was a little bit weird that you'd get a BCH and a DN together in a 5 ship squadron box... And I'm already marshaling the arguments I'll have to use on my non-SFB gaming buddies to keep them from fielding fleets of 6x C7s and nothing else ....
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Besides the fact 6 C7s would run somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 points? I could have fifteen F5s for that or twenty E4s. 20 E4s, that is forty range 15 disruptors, twenty drones, and lots of Phaser-2s vs a dozen range 24 disruptors, twenty-four drones and a lot of Phaser 1s. The C7s would swat a few E4s every turn, but they'd be massively out maneuvered and there would be E4s nipping at their rear shields in no time. I wonder who would win such a silly fight? Regardless, it'd be amusing as all get out. A wolf pack vs a rabid ferret swarm. 
On a more serious note, stuff like deployment considerations is why I prefer campaign games or pre-defined scenarios. You can't usually get away with going top-heavy in Campaign games, sometimes you need little guys for the smaller point battles. Well, that and I just find games with different objectives other than straight up "XYZ points, deathmatch" far more interesting.
On a more serious note, stuff like deployment considerations is why I prefer campaign games or pre-defined scenarios. You can't usually get away with going top-heavy in Campaign games, sometimes you need little guys for the smaller point battles. Well, that and I just find games with different objectives other than straight up "XYZ points, deathmatch" far more interesting.
When command ratings were invented for Federation & Empire (F&E) and later ported into SFB, one of the things it solved was the silly Fifteen Frigates fleets. First, it restricted the total number of ships to 11 (note: this is NOT anything I would advocate for ACTA as it's a game engine designed for huge battles) and required a flagship with a high enough command rating to lead the fleet. Seeing as most friages have a command rating of 3, you can't have an all-frigate fleet of more than four ships (leader plus three). A fleet of one BCH and ten FFs is just as silly but yet legal.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
The frigate swarm was just a joking opposite of the BCH pack. Silly what-ifs aside, I prefer balanced forces, especially ones that are "fluffy", as opposed to gamist/munchkiny.
Nomad said:
I think the problem there is that some fleets (ie the Romulans) have a good proprotion of their fleet with built in Command so its going to make it much more difficult for them to field a fleet.
It might work better after the next supplement when there are more ships available for each fleet but it could be too restricitive.
We all recall the broken elements of previous incarnations of ACTA upto the recent issues with ramming raiders but I am not sure the previliance of Command is that big a deal - although it would have been nice to have a more even spread across the fleets.....
+1 Initiaitive is useful and well worth having but I am not sure it is as game breaking as other things we have seen. (see my recent B5 report for how my +6 vs +3 Initiaitive didn't help :evil: )
I can def see your argument re fluff but what might work better is a optional rule for this together with ISD / YIS dates option that we talked about a bit on another thread. This would give players and tournament organisers the option but also allow people to play what they want in pick up games
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
Scoutdad mentioned somewhere that the all-dreadnought fleet and an all-frigate fleet were tested and did not fare very well. Nothing but C7s? Maybe that will work. SFB has the infamous C7-leading-nothing-but-D5s fleet. Munchkins gonna munch, no matter what rules are in place.
In any case, I think +1 command is not going to break the game. According to the playtesters, you can lose initiative every single turn and still win the game.
In any case, I think +1 command is not going to break the game. According to the playtesters, you can lose initiative every single turn and still win the game.
Iron Domokun said:
I agree about the +1 Command being good but not auto game winning
re the C7 leading D5's - that sort of sounds right - a single heavy/command Battlecruiser leading a squadron of lighter cruisers - isn't that how cruiser squadrons work? I might be missing something?
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
When it's one C7 and ten D5's, it's considered unrealistic
A typical large battle fleet might look like this:
Dreadnought - admiral's flagship
Heavy battlecruiser - leads section of fleet
3x heavy cruiser or light cruisers - battle line
The "battle group" comprised of 3xdestroyer and 3xfrigate, or some mix of destroyers and frigates.
Fleet scout.
A typical large battle fleet might look like this:
Dreadnought - admiral's flagship
Heavy battlecruiser - leads section of fleet
3x heavy cruiser or light cruisers - battle line
The "battle group" comprised of 3xdestroyer and 3xfrigate, or some mix of destroyers and frigates.
Fleet scout.
Perhaps I did not explain that well. The limit was meant to apply to the - supposedly rare, specialised - command *variants* of line designs, those with the white-on-black strap line below the ship description, or upgrades of a line design, such as the KRC, NovaHawk or RoyalHawk. Where there is no Command variant (there are no non-command Romulan Condors, for example) there is no limit.
The main restriction on fielding ships at present is likely to be the contents - and scarcity - of the miniatures boxes.
The Romulan fleet box contains a Condor (there are no non-command Condors, so you can have as many of those as you like), a King Eagle, balanced by two War Eagles, and fourteen other non-command vessels.
Their re-enforcement box adds a second KE, but that's OK as the first one is 'justified' by those two WEs. Bulk up on FireHawks, SparrowHawks, KRs and smaller and you're rock solid.
The main restriction on fielding ships at present is likely to be the contents - and scarcity - of the miniatures boxes.
The Romulan fleet box contains a Condor (there are no non-command Condors, so you can have as many of those as you like), a King Eagle, balanced by two War Eagles, and fourteen other non-command vessels.
Their re-enforcement box adds a second KE, but that's OK as the first one is 'justified' by those two WEs. Bulk up on FireHawks, SparrowHawks, KRs and smaller and you're rock solid.
