Which ships don't you use, and why?

[plutonyum]

my romulan fleet tend to avoid the following:

BH bad turning F aiming plasma is a bad combination.

WE under powered. not to mention that i has bad turning to make it hard to line up said R

RH 2 FH plasma-S is better then 1 F plasma-R* unless you are fireing at 12-16inches and then the F restriction isnt as bad either... but this would suggest your doing something wrong as a romulan.

CON turn 9 with the cloaking rules is just... NO. (the lumbering does not even enter into that)



*to be fair I did kill a Fed BCH with a long shot R, but that was he saved defensive fire on the injured ship at 6 inches and none on the injured BCH at 15inches. a similar situation has never come up again, making it way to situational to fly a RH over a NH

 

[gord314]

We could use the points system for another game, our we could could complain about what we believe are problems with the point system in the game we are playing, in a thread dedicated to complaining about what we see as problems in the points system of that game. Also, I'm not looking for an alternative points system, we already have one that TJhairball came up with here http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=103&t=50630 (with some modifications which I will ask TJhairball's permission to post), I'm just giving feedback on the current points system which I hope might aid the game's author in the future.

 

[tneva82]

Then they should be cheaper to compensate.

Why? They're balanced point-wise against each other anyways.

Just because you can't take a D5, D5W, C7, or C8 in a particular time period or historical scenario doesn't mean you can't have a good time with less than optimum ships.

Doesn't sound like they are if people don't take them _unless forced by availability in historical scenario's_.

However historical scenario's are added flavour AND ARE NOT BALANCE MECHANISM!

 

[tneva82]

Well how about comparing SFB BPV? That's been around for years... I don't have the SFB rules anymore so I don't have the BPVs at hand.

BPV accounts for actual combat capability by and large (with a few notable exceptions).

Works for SFB, obviously doesn't work for this game. Different game so ships are not going to perform identically...

 

[billclo]

Then they should be cheaper to compensate.

Why? They're balanced point-wise against each other anyways.

Just because you can't take a D5, D5W, C7, or C8 in a particular time period or historical scenario doesn't mean you can't have a good time with less than optimum ships.

Doesn't sound like they are if people don't take them _unless forced by availability in historical scenario's_.

However historical scenario's are added flavour AND ARE NOT BALANCE MECHANISM!

Gotcha, and no need to yell. I don't think that you all are going to agree with me, and that's fine. But once the yelling starts, I'm out of here.

 

[McKinstry]

Is there a listing of ships by general period somewhere? Not dates per se but pre-war, early war, mid-war and late war?

 

[billclo]

Is there a listing of ships by general period somewhere? Not dates per se but pre-war, early war, mid-war and late war?

Probably would be best to first define Early War, Mid-War, Late-War, and then sort by date of availability.

Myself, I think I'd consider Early war to be Y169 - Y174ish, Mid-War to be Y175-179ish, Late War Y180-184. You may come up with a different definition of course.

 

[TJHairball]

For Feds - I don't take the OCL because for the same cost I can have a 20 shield, 4 ADD ship in the DWD.

I don't take the classic CA because for 5 points more I can get a CS with the extra ADD and since they both turn liKe a non-Gorn pig, the rest is a wash and 180 points for a 1 ADD ship is wasted in a medium to high drone environment. The CA offers nothing that either the NCL or CS doesn't do better in that points bracket.

This is all well and good if it's just a generic pickup game or tournament where anything goes. If you are playing a particular historical scenario or just ships up to X year, then the "lesser ships" like the OCL, CA, FF/FFB, CC may be all that's available.

I'll comment that I don't think the FF, FFB, and OCL are necessarily overpriced. The Constitution definitely is.

It's just that... well, with the FFB, the DW is strictly superior (i.e., equal or better in every regard), so if you can afford the extra few points, which is often the case, you may as well upgrade.

With the FFG, gord314 doesn't like it because the main purposes of ships that size in larger games is to be an initiative sink; one on one, it can beat a police cutter - it has more shields and an extra photon torpedo, it's just that getting maximum effect out of the FFG relies more on its initiative position.

The OCL's only real problem is having 18 instead of 20+ shields. Aside from that, it's a really efficient phaser delivery system - it has the exact same phaser-1 layout as the D5W at 185 points. For the Romulans, you need to go to the Sparrowhawk at 170 points to have comparable phasers; the Gorn Allosaurus at 200 points; and the Kzinti can't match it with anything short of the BCF at 195 points.

Actually, thinking about it that way, the OCL is an amazing phaser delivery system.

 

[tneva82]

I'll comment that I don't think the FF, FFB, and OCL are necessarily overpriced. The Constitution definitely is.

It's just that... well, with the FFB, the DW is strictly superior (i.e., equal or better in every regard), so if you can afford the extra few points, which is often the case, you may as well upgrade.

Then either FFB is overpriced or the DW is underpriced.

If it's no brainer upgrade then it's too good for cost or the other not good enough for the cost.

And ergo it needs point change. Doesn't matter if fluff says there's just 1 of the underpriced item and 100000000 of the overpriced. Doesn't really matter even if you can take only one of the underpriced in the game! (for rather obvious reason I might add)

 

[TJHairball]

I'll comment that I don't think the FF, FFB, and OCL are necessarily overpriced. The Constitution definitely is.

It's just that... well, with the FFB, the DW is strictly superior (i.e., equal or better in every regard), so if you can afford the extra few points, which is often the case, you may as well upgrade.

Then either FFB is overpriced or the DW is underpriced.

If it's no brainer upgrade then it's too good for cost or the other not good enough for the cost.

And ergo it needs point change. Doesn't matter if fluff says there's just 1 of the underpriced item and 100000000 of the overpriced. Doesn't really matter even if you can take only one of the underpriced in the game! (for rather obvious reason I might add)

The difference between them is quite small - +4/2 damage score, +1 marine, +1 lab, and Enhanced Bridge (which really only matters with randomized crew scores or campaign play).

I honestly don't think it's even 10 points' worth of difference for competitive purposes, more like 5; it's just that the Ramius is strictly inferior to the Ortega, and that means that the points value is the only difference between them that favors the Ramius.

 

[TJHairball]

Actually, let me expand on that a minute. Strict dominance is the idea that one option is strictly better than another.

Ships that are strictly dominated, if we ignore point values, and Enhanced Bridge, which tends not to matter much:

Klingons:

• E4
• D6
• D5
• D7

Federation:

• FFB Ortega
• CA/CC Constitution
• NCA/NCC Chicago
• CS Prometheus

Romulans:

• Battle Hawk
• War Eagle
• King Eagle (by RoyalHawk and KC9R, mind)
• KR Heavy Cruiser (by KRC)
• Firehawk

All of these should be upgraded if you have the points. The FFB just happens to be closer in performance to the DW than any other strictly dominant pairing you can come up with, and correspondingly, it's closer in points.

 

[tneva82]

The difference between them is quite small - +4/2 damage score, +1 marine, +1 lab, and Enhanced Bridge (which really only matters with randomized crew scores or campaign play).

I honestly don't think it's even 10 points' worth of difference for competitive purposes, more like 5; it's just that the Ramius is strictly inferior to the Ortega, and that means that the points value is the only difference between them that favors the Ramius.

If one ship is always upgraded to another then obviously the ship to which you upgrade is better. Otherwise it wouldn't be such an automatic upgrade!

If there's automatic upgrade then there's something glaringly wrong with the pricing of the ships.

 

[TJHairball]

The difference between them is quite small - +4/2 damage score, +1 marine, +1 lab, and Enhanced Bridge (which really only matters with randomized crew scores or campaign play).

I honestly don't think it's even 10 points' worth of difference for competitive purposes, more like 5; it's just that the Ramius is strictly inferior to the Ortega, and that means that the points value is the only difference between them that favors the Ramius.

If one ship is always upgraded to another then obviously the ship to which you upgrade is better. Otherwise it wouldn't be such an automatic upgrade!

If there's automatic upgrade then there's something glaringly wrong with the pricing of the ships.

Well, the only time the Ramius is an automatic upgrade is when you can afford to upgrade it.

There are cases in which it's better to go the other way - say, 2xCA+2xDW is IMO a worse list than 2xNCA+2xFFB at 600 points - but our experience has been that if gord314 has the points left to buy a FFB after getting BCHs, NCLs, maybe a dreadnought and/or fast cruiser, he probably also has enough left to buy a DW.

 

[Rerednaw]

Avoid:
=====
Any DN. I prefer agile maneuvers over pregnant rhinos trying to make turns on ice skates.
Same for any Lumbering heavy/battleship/cruiser.

Aside from that:
==========

Fed: Callahan kind of crunchy. Prefer the DD class.
Klink: E4 as Callahan.
Rom: War Eagle (underpowered). Snipe is amazing.
Kzinti: FF and Light Cruiser too crunchy compared to others in class. War Destroyer decent.
Gorn: Anything bigger than the Stegasaurus.
Tholian/Orion: uh, more ships please? :mrgreen:

 

[McKinstry]

Overall the one ship that seems to be a consensus on 'not worth it at that price' is the Fed CA which is a real problem in that it, along with the D6/D7 are THE signature ships for the game and in reality, the whole Trek thing.

Even compared to a D7, the basic CA, between poor handling (Turn 6)and inadequate drone defense, is about 15 points too high. I think damage points and photons/plasma are being overstated since critical hits seal most ships fate long before the final damage point is ticked off and big thumping F arc weapons with 8" range aren't that useful against opponents unobliging enough to blunder into a front arc despite agile ships, racial initiative bonuses and generally cheaper fleets for initiative sink purposes.

If the game offered a guide to 'historic' eras it might be a fine ship for pre or early war but if ranked by points with all other ships for the whole period, it is too high.

 

[Nerroth]

Rather than separate YIS dates (as in SFB), I might sooner suspect (or at least hope) that the "TV era" would one day be treated the same way it is in FC; with a separate Middle Years setting, akin to the Age of Dreadnoughts expansion for version 1 of Victory at Sea.

Most of the ships which were available in both the Middle Years and the Main Era would be missing certain refits in the former; but that would be okay, not least since the "war" ships wouldn't exist back then anyway.

(Plus, as a further parallel to the VaS/AoD difference, even if true carriers were one day added to the Main Era setting, they wouldn't exist back in the Middle Years either.)


But I might guess there being a few years' more focus on getting the rest of the current Main Era material from Federation Commander over into ACtA:SF before that kind of discussion comes up, but at least there is something to consider long-term.


(Speaking of long-term, I can think of one or two other alternate settings where those Terran-hull CLs would also come in quite handy; though I am pleasantly surprised to see it getting some use already!)

 

[Rerednaw]

Overall the one ship that seems to be a consensus on 'not worth it at that price' is the Fed CA which is a real problem in that it, along with the D6/D7 are THE signature ships for the game and in reality, the whole Trek thing.

Even compared to a D7, the basic CA, between poor handling (Turn 6)and inadequate drone defense, is about 15 points too high. I think damage points and photons/plasma are being overstated since critical hits seal most ships fate long before the final damage point is ticked off and big thumping F arc weapons with 8" range aren't that useful against opponents unobliging enough to blunder into a front arc despite agile ships, racial initiative bonuses and generally cheaper fleets for initiative sink purposes.

If the game offered a guide to 'historic' eras it might be a fine ship for pre or early war but if ranked by points with all other ships for the whole period, it is too high.

Agreed. In the Fed CA's defense, canon has them as exploration first, warships second.
They would probably shine in campaigns or missions that weren't strictly combat per se.

Edit (just looked at stats again): I was right. 8 labs. 8!

And it has a very nice phaser suite.

As for as the Klingons, I find the D6/7's work fine as is.

The other archetype would be th Romulan War Eagle, though I don't like the "underpowered" flaw, with the cloak and Plasma R, for 140 points, it is still a pretty decent vessel.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Even compared to a D7, the basic CA, between poor handling (Turn 6)and inadequate drone defense, is about 15 points too high. I think damage points and photons/plasma are being overstated since critical hits seal most ships fate long before the final damage point is ticked off and big thumping F arc weapons with 8" range aren't that useful against opponents unobliging enough to blunder into a front arc despite agile ships, racial initiative bonuses and generally cheaper fleets for initiative sink purposes.

Afraid I cannot agree. We have a campaign running in the office at the moment, and I have taken Feds against Romulans and Klingons - and the Constitution is often my first choice.

It doesn't have poor handling, just distinctly average, and drone defence would, I say, lean more towards adequate rather than inadequate (can do fine with the ADD conversion, has Tractors and if all else fails, it is not exactly lacking in phaser coverage).

Shields are good, giving a 2D roll on boosts, hull damage is great, and you must never, never, never underestimate photons, overloaded or no. All round phaser coverage means no one is creeping up on you and while you may sometimes struggle to get 'boresight' at the front, it is relatively easy to do from the sides. Also, all those juciey phasers-1 mean not only a respectable amount of criticals but also double damage when thinsg start getting in close (and if they are not getting in close, this may be the problem you are having with this ship).

Played this week against a Klingon fleet (the player won a recent Call to Arms tournament and does a lot of playtesting, so he is no slouch), a D6 and D7C. It was the Constitution that covered itself in glory and held the ground...

Say what you like about Klingon ships, they fold so very, very quickly when the firepower starts being poured on them!

 

[Captain Jonah]

Avoid:
=====
Any DN. I prefer agile maneuvers over pregnant rhinos trying to make turns on ice skates.
Same for any Lumbering heavy/battleship/cruiser.

Hey thats half my fleet you are talking about there. :roll:
Pregnant Rhinos indeed

Gorn: Anything bigger than the Stegasaurus.

Heys thats over half my flee........

 

[billclo]

Matthew,

I think part of the comments by some of the players is that when you have the pick of all the ships in the game, there are better ships point-wise. They are basically playing pickup games or tournament where any ship is available.

If one restricts the scenario to a given year (or are playing a historical scenario from say SFB or FedCommander), then some ships look more attractive versus enemy ships of that particular era.

Say you are playing Early General War, and those nice NCA, DW, BCH are not available. You have FF, DD (not in this game yet), OCL, a very few NCL, CA, CC and a lousy lousy basic DN. Plus some carriers. That's it.

Versus E4, F5, a few D5s, D6, D7, D7C, C8. Again, no fancy F5W, D5W, D7W, C7, etc.

If one wants to stick to a pickup game with no era-related availability restrictions, then hey have fun with your ship choices. But I submit that it isn't quite as challenging when you have those nicer modern hulls versus making do with "sub-optimum" choices. BUT many of those older hulls have no business being on the line Late War versus the more modern ships.

And some ships later in the War simply aren't produced or are intended for use as a variant. Fed OCL stops production, as does the DD (except for occasional conversion into the excellent Scout).

Warning ***brief foray into Federation and Empire ***

Generally the Feds get to build 2 CA and a CC per year. While they make decent front line cruisers, often-times they get converted into CVS/CVB carriers, and late in the War, into X-Cruisers. It's a good idea as the Fed player to conserve those precious CA/CC so that he has enough hulls available to convert to X-Ships when that tech becomes available. Certainly he should build as many as he can.

I've seen a game where the Fed player made no effort to conserve those hulls and skipped occasional CA builds, and when it came time for X-Ships, was struggling to come up with enough hulls for conversion. Believe me, you want every X-Ship you can lay your hands on.