Nominations for Other Fixes

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: A Call to Arms Star Fleet: ACTASF Book 1.2 (The ADB Revision): Nominations for Other Fixes
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through November 21, 2013  25   11/26 12:56pm
Archive through December 29, 2013  25   01/02 10:03am
Archive through February 04, 2014  25   03/14 03:52pm

If there is anything else that anyone thinks needs to be fixed, then tell us here. Remember that if there IS a topic for a rules change, you use to use it, not post a duplicate item here. Also note that our contract with Matthew gives us very limited abilities to fix anything not on the pre-approved list of changes, so we may not be able to fix something unless Matthew agrees.
By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I can't see the points values being based on the FC ones - the FC ones are pretty poorly balanced to start with, and then on top of that ACTA is a very different game system - what is good in FC is not always good in ACTA.

On the other hand I'm not aware of any 'system' for working out ACTA points.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 03:51 pm: Edit

In the case of Starmada, Daniel Kast made a designer's note on this topic, which I quote from Page 85 of the Admiralty version of Romulan Armada:


Quote:

There will be a few things that stand out for experienced SFU players: perhaps the most obvious is the relative point values of individual ships. For example, in Federation Commander, the Romulan War Eagle is worth 103 points, while the Federation NCA is worth 150. However, in Romulan Armada, the War Eagle is worth 225 and the NCA is worth 302. This is due to the fact that, because they are different games with different points of emphasis, the various weapons and systems have more of an impact on winning and losing in Starmada than in FC or SFB. Nevertheless, the overall ratio of point values in Federation Commander to those in Starmada is fairly consistent: most ships have a Starmada point value between 200% and 250% of their FC value.




Again, I don't have any of the Nova Edition files to draw from, so I can't say what either the WE or NCA cost in that incarnation of the game system.

However, in this case, I am led to believe (and apologies if I'm mistaken on this) that after adding in the SFU-specific rules needed to handle (and cost for) things like phasers, plasma torpedoes, and so forth, Daniel is able to feed in the relevant data from each FC Ship Card, and have the conversion process "compute" what the new point value for each ship will be.

Since that is not an option for ACtA (so far as I'm aware; while both the Babylon 5 and Noble Armada uses of the game engine have ships inherited from older game systems, I don't know how closely those classes are to their original designs in B5 Wars and Holstic's own NA game system respectively), it might be too much work to try and conjure up such a system from scratch.

So, if it proved that the idea of having a "native" formula in ACtA:SF itself was a non-starter, at least the precedent exists for certain point values to be adjusted one way or another - so long as the process is consistent, and can be applied to new ships going forward.


Unless it would simply be as well to start by multiplying the Squadron Scale FC values by a fixed number (say, 1.25 to keep things fairly close to how they are in 1.0) and round up (or down) to the nearest fifth point (so, in this case, a Fed BCJ would come out at 250 points; while the NCL would either round up to 160, or down to 155) and see if that works out before opening other options up for consideration.

By David Bostwick (Zarquon) on Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Has any consideration been given to removing the extra damage associated with critical hits? They are bad enough as is and this would help ships last a bit longer.

By John Williams (Johndw) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 06:27 am: Edit

Hows progress coming along? Been a few weeks without much discussion goin on.

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 03:52 pm: Edit

My playing partner was meant to be away for a couple of weeks visiting family back end of Feb, but ended up in hospital with 3rd degree burns around one ankle instead and awaiting a skin graft, but now has MRSA on top of that. So not much going on in terms of ACTA over here, nor is there likely to be before play testing ends I suspect. I haven't heard from anyone else either.

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Wow Lee I hope it works out for him. Burns aside MRSA is no joke

By John Williams (Johndw) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Oh man! I hope your friend makes it.

By Andrew E Schwenzer (Andrew_Cluetain) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 04:51 pm: Edit

Wish your friend best of luck Lee!

In being a unofficial play tester I found something odd in V1.0 of ACAT SF. I have been converting SFB Stats to ACTA, for the book one ships so I knew I had updated Shield and hull points and the new Maneuver stat right. What I found was the Romulan Skyhawk designated (SKH) refers to the CARGO version. My question is, since I have no Fed Commander products, is this right? Or, as I think is it the wrong Designation? I'm assuming at the moment that the "Base" Skyhawk is the right one, please correct me if I'm wrong.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 06:54 pm: Edit

The SKH in ACTASF is the 'base' Skyhawk

Mathhew chose to give it a three letter designation SKH for (SK)y(H)awk.

That's probably something I should looking to revising.

By Dan Wideman (Kyrolon) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Sorry to hear about your friend, Lee. We've been getting some playtest time in. We've also started a campaign which should generate more games. We are trying to play weekly for the near future.

Tony has my notes, and when he gets a chance to review them and finishes up a cleaned up v1.4 (?) hopefully we can generate some more discussion.

The things I can tell you are that to us the revisions have more SFB feel while staying fairly simple. We like them a lot. I'm really looking forward to the finished product.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Andrew:

If it helps, you can see many of the low-toner versions of the relevant FC Ship Cards in the Commander's Circle. (Here's the low-toner SkyHawk Ship Card.)

Each Ship Card comes in two scales, but the Squadron Scale side most closely matches what you see on an SFB SSD. But there are a few differences here and there. (For example, if you are calculating Klingon damage scores, bear in mind that FC Klingon Ship Cards have no security station boxes.)

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:19 pm: Edit

I thought the three-letter designation (at least in SFB/FC) was SHK? (don't have access to my books, at the moment)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:38 pm: Edit

SHK is the S-era (bolted) Hawk in SFB Module Y1.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 07:46 pm: Edit

The Skyhawk base is 'SK' with the third letter being the module being carried, normally it's an 'A' (basic) making it an 'SKA' in SFB (not sure on FC).

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 06:07 pm: Edit

It's SK on the low-toner FC ship card I brought up, so that is indeed probably it.

By Dean Saffran (Gunner41c) on Monday, June 23, 2014 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Just a suggestion, when it comes to Artemis systems. I thought maybe you could try any ships before 175 have limited version and can only use this escort ability on 1 ship at a time. After 175 the escort rule would be applied as per normal.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Artemis?

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Artemis?? escort- must mean Aegis.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 08:45 pm: Edit

The ACTASF1.2 book has a rule for escorts...

and the play testers have tossed around ideas for 'full aegis' ships, too. If (and when) it comes time to add Full Aegis escorts 9as opposed to just escorts), the rule will only need a bit of testing to achieve balance.

And ACTASF (much like Federation Commander) doesn't use year in service. Everything is available. So pre-175 / post-175 is a meaningless description.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation