Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fleet Update #1

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4468
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:22 pm    Post subject: Fleet Update #1 Reply with quote

Fleet Update #1 is now available.

Fleet Update #1
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Sneaky Scot
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 380
Location: Thornbury, Gloucestershire

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting that Scoutdad!
_________________
Nothing is quite as persuasive as a disruptor pistol on slow burn and a rotisserie......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OGOPTIMUS
Captain


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 981

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Argh. You're making me want to buy yet another SFU game! And another starship combat game! Not sure how much longer I can resist.

Incidentally, is it just me, or does there seem to be a limited use for the CB?
i.e. a restricted deployment scenario or a timeline restraint?
I know Mongoose has been pushing for it (maybe for use as the "flagship" icon for the whole ACTA/2500 series minis), but it's 10 points more than the BCJ with two less torpedoes, shuttles, shields, and marines. A typo?

I haven't played ACTA since B5 6 years ago, so maybe there is some new mechanic that evens this out.
_________________
O.G. OPTIMUS


NEW Page | OLD Page
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The BCJ was 240 points same as the BCG and BCH prior to the addition of the Shock Trait and I expect after Playtesting it will go back to 240 points making the nearly equal capability CB 10 points cheaper than all of the Fed BCs.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DNordeen
Commander


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 519

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just out of curiosity...

What's a CB? I can't seem to find it in my Fed ship descriptions
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1548
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DNordeen wrote:
Just out of curiosity...

What's a CB? I can't seem to find it in my Fed ship descriptions


The Gettysburg-class heavy command cruiser, which is shown in Ship Card form in Communique #71.

From a background perspective, it bridges the evolutionary gap between the Lexington-class command cruiser and the Vincennes-class advanced technology cruiser (one of the first-generation X-ships seen in SFB but not yet in FC or ACtA:SF).
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2928
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In game stat terms, the CB is really no big deal. It adds a few phasers and a few other systems boxes. It's a really incremental bump up from the CC command cruiser and not really as good as the BC battlecruiser.

I don't know why the point values worked out as they did in ACTA. Mongoose did kind of go overboard with all the extra deckhouse stuff on the mini. In the original SFB description, it's hullform is externally identical to the classic CA (just as the CC is).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1548
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was asking over on the BBS (and the Mongoose board) if the Gettsyburg could go down to a Damage score of 32/11, to keep it in line with the Constitution and Lexington stats. Not least since, if Mongoose ever jump forward to the Vincennes at a later stage, the progression of the base hull type can be kept realtively tidy.

(Of all the new rules and adjustments that may one day be needed to accurately stat up a CX in ACtA:SF terms, building up the sheer physical bulk of the ship itself should not be one of them.)
_________________
FC Omega Discussion (v3)
FC LMC Discussion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 552
Location: Western Wisconsin

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary, I do not think you are getting any traction with the reduce the damage points on the CB. Damage is really ship capability not hull count.

Are you really going to tell me you can destroy a CB as easily as you could take out a CA? Play a couple of game with the ship and see if it feels right and stop looking at everything as either black or white. Who knows maybe they really do remove redundent hull structure when they convert a CB to a CX to improve warp bubble dynamics.
_________________
-Dal

"Which one of you is the Biggest, Baddest, Bootlicker of the bunch?"
"I am."
"ARCHERS!!! THAT ONE!!!!"

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2928
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does have a notable bump in shielding, so Dal has a point. I've yet to get an ACTASF game in, so I truly don't know what an appropriate rating is (yet).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4468
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

djdood wrote:
It does have a notable bump in shielding, so Dal has a point. I've yet to get an ACTASF game in, so I truly don't know what an appropriate rating is (yet).


Will, the basic formula is Fed Comm value * 1.25.
But that only gives you an approximation.

Since many of the systems integral to SFB/FC have no purpose in ACTASF - many of the ships need to have their points "adjusted" to make them more playable. Soemtimes they go up, sometimes they go down...

Either way, ships subtly lose their differences and become less granular.
Take the Lyran DWL in CL 46 for example.
[Yes, I know the Lyrans aren't in ACTAF yet, but we were using one in Fed Comm... so I had the info handy.]
It's 8 points more than teh 'vanilla" DW. That's means the ACTASF version will cost ~10 points more.
But the only difference is the addition of 2 impulse boxes.

How do you represent that in ACTASF?
It's not a "Fast" ship, so movement remains 12 inches.
It doesn't have any additional hull, so damage remains the same.
It has no additional weapons or increased arcs...

The CB is the same way. The ,ajority of the increases in SFB/FC are items that do not affect a ships abilities / performance in ACTASF, so even though the "formula" gives it this point value, there's not a lot to recommend it over the lower cost CC.

Its a balancing act that Matthew and Mongoose have to walk with ever new ship. Do they alays get it right? Probably not - but that's why you play test.
We test, adjust, test some more, adjust again, and test even more. Then we release the final version [ACTASF2] and hope that we've finally got it right.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
djdood
Fleet Captain


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 2928
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I figured they were set and adjusted by testing, more than anything else.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group