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 

Damage Comparisons Between FC and ACTA-SF
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lincolnlog
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 104
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Damage Comparisons Between FC and ACTA-SF Reply with quote

We had been discussing alternate shielding in a thread over on the Mongoose board, and it drifted to conversion factors overall. Now, let me say I'm not complaining the game is playable and fun as is, but the damages seem backwards in many cases, when a Federation POL has 2 more damage points than a FFG.

I built a spreadsheet and listed all Weapons, Systems, Hull, Cargo, Power and Frame boxes. This is going on the assumption is FC that a ship will take damage and die when all the frame has been shot away, which is usually after most if not all systems are gone.

ACTA-SF took Hull X 2 for overall damage. This is a flawed system.

Federation Ships:
POL Can absorb as much as 42 Damage
FFG Can absorb as much as 49 Damage
FFB Can absorb as much as 59 Damage
DW Can absorb as much as 62 Damage
CA Can absorb as much as 101 Damage
OCL Can absorb as much as 87 Damage (this ship got majorly honked in conversion)
DNG Can absorb as much as 161 Damage
BCG Can absorb as much as 122 Damage

Klingon Ships:
E4 Can absorb as much as 40 Damage
F5 Can absorb as much as 52 Damage
F5W Can absorb as much as 63 Damage
D6 Can absorb as much as 89 Damage
D7 Can absorb as much as 93 Damage
C7 Can absorb as much as 120 Damage
C8 Can absorb as much as 162 Damage

I would recommend using a divisor of 3, this raises the point value of smaller ships, but for instance it only raises the E4 by 1 Point. The Fed CA only goes up by 1. The OCL should get to add it's Armor since it doesn't get the trait and gets about 5 (but even without the armor it would go up 4).

Fed POL 14/5
Fed FFG 16/6
Fed FFB 19/6
Fed DW 20/7
Fed CA 33/11
Fed OCL 29/10 (or 28/9 without armor)
Fed DNG 54/18
Fed BCG 40/13

Kling E4 13/4
Kling F5 17/6
Kling F5W 21/7
Kling D6 30/10
Kling D7 31/10
Kling C7 40/13
Kling C8 54/18

Average the shields better, then with the bulked up damage scores toss out the Klingon front shield rule.

Anyhow, thats what I would have done. Once again not a complaint, just an observation. I know it can't be changed, but I would like to see it changed. It seems screwy when larger hulls have smaller damage scores than smaller ships...

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nerroth
Captain


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 1532
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Factoring in the armour would make a difference for some other, yet-to-be-converted ships also; not least the Fed Old Heavy Cruiser. (If using the standard conversion process, the armour belt of the OCA would be lost; but this method would help restore some of its toughness, which would contrast with the lower shield score it would have relative to the Constitution-class CA.)

That would help ships like it and the OCL show the distinction between the "Terran" hulls and their "saucer-and-nacelle" counterparts; you may have less shields protecting your ship, but more bulk to try and shoot through once you get past them.
_________________
FC Omega Conversion Project:
*Discussion (v2a)
*Feedback/Errata (v2a)


Last edited by Nerroth on Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sgt_G
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 264
Location: Offutt AFB, Nebraska

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about this idea for armor: calculate the "hit points" as a regular ship above, then add in half the armor (round up) to the total non-crip hit points. This does not add anything to the crip level hit points. The oCL has six armor, so it would get three more hit points.
_________________
Garth L. Getgen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lincolnlog
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 104
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I added the OCL's armor in because theoretically it would get shot away before all the frame would be shot away. And the ship didn't receive the armor trait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sgt_G
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 264
Location: Offutt AFB, Nebraska

PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm just saying, add it in twice. Once during a normal calculation, and then again as a bonus.
_________________
Garth L. Getgen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dal Downing
Commander


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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay so really you seem to have 3 Major Problems here.

First the Fed Police Cutter which counted it Cargo Boxes in its Damage Score. Lets wait and see how the Orions finally look before we scream about that one it may very well need a second look sorta like how the BCJ got revamped with Shock.

Second the Old Light Cruiser. People have been screaming about that one from day one and Mongoose has said it will not be changed. The ship performs the role it was designed to do in a fleet action well enough without the armor.

Thirdly Klingon Shields. Yeah they are just goofy as hell and really probably not worth the trouble they cause. Look at the Shield Score of the Dreadnaughts in the Last Update. Apparently the Klingon's Super top like spinning ability and shields was a Mongoose interpretation like the Waddling Gorn to give each Fleet a different Feel. Love it or hate the shields are here to stay it seems.

But even with these 3 items and the FFG/FFB there is nothing wrong with the way ACTA plays and it is still maintains a variation feel in the ship classes.

It always could have gone the way of Federation and Empires and made it so a Cruiser is a Cruiser and all races Cruisers function exactly the same way. Do exactly the same damage and take exactly the same damage.
_________________
-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
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The way damage was calculated is only one of the really bad mistakes in ACTASF.
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marauder
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 23 Sep 2011
Posts: 28
Location: Vancouver BC

PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My top 3 gripes are:

1) Turn modes
2) Critical hit system has huge impact on DN's and next to none on small ships
3) Needing to make a crew check to use "intensify defensive fire"

I really wish the OCL had the armour trait. IMHO the armour trait is one of the few cool things of ACTA.

Our group did have quite a bit of fun play ACTA when it first came out (even though we didn't have our minis and had to use megahex counters). But there are just too many nagging little issues to make it a game we play regularly.

Looking forward to the Squadron Strike adaptation - will use starline 2500 minis with 2d for fleet actions and hopefully box minis for 3d duels.

-Tim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lincolnlog
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 104
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember Sgt G ran the thread about the damage differentials between weapon systems.

Ran a game of ACTA-SF at Diecon last weekend here in St. Louis. It was a well attended game with 8 players. Some were returns from last year and some were new players. The game was between heavy Klingon and Federation task force, each had a DN, and 2 BCH, the federation player had 3 x CA and 1 NCA...the Klingons had 4 D7s. 7 ships per side equal points.

This was another game where massive amounts of Photons were fired with minimal hits. Only 1 Federation player rolled any 6's (2 out of 30 fired), and only 2 critical were scored (which is average)and there were only 4 hits total and two of the ships were under half range. Unfortunately, there were tons of 4's rolled, but at long range these are misses.

I had a gentleman in a Federation Commander t-shirt who was a repeat from last year that basically said "I don't see how the Federation can win." He likes the concept of a fast play fleet game but hates the way this game was fleshed (not the mechanics of the game, the interpretation of the tech). I explained that the devastating trait on the Photons is supposed to compensate for the inaccuracy. I hate when bad dice ruin a game. In SFB bad dice with your photons can be mitigated with good dice from your phasers.

So, I would like to see the ship damage scores and shields corrected (with no Klingon front shield rule, only a few SA's should require a first use CQC, Marauder mentioned IDF, I would like no CQC for the first HET (CQC 8 is about right for the second HET attempt). Photons don't need a devastating trait. I'll take multi-hit 4 if I can get them to hit. I would rather damage shields and get single critical results than see all my photons go wizzing off into space, doing nothing and then requiring reloads. I would make agile ships less so, the 90' turn is ridiculous. Marauder may be right in stating that turn modes needed to be the way to go.

Every weapon from every empire should have been worked out prior to printing the first book. There is too much difficulty in adding tech that affects already published tech.

I'm not sure if that is what Steve is referring to as the other issues. But anyway that's my two cents.

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Cole
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 3000

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Bob, exactly the point. The photon has changed from the SFU where it is the ultimate long-range weapon to useless at anything beyond short range. The disruptor has changed from the SFU where it is useless beyond short range to the ultimate sniping weapon. These were BAD decisions and before the game is reprinted they will be changed, or the game won't ever BE reprinted.

Bob, would you email me your thoughts for my file?
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bill Stec
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve, some thoughts emailed to you as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lincolnlog
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 104
Location: St. Louis, MO

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Yes, Bob, exactly the point. The photon has changed from the SFU where it is the ultimate long-range weapon to useless at anything beyond short range. The disruptor has changed from the SFU where it is useless beyond short range to the ultimate sniping weapon. These were BAD decisions and before the game is reprinted they will be changed, or the game won't ever BE reprinted.

Bob, would you email me your thoughts for my file?


I would be glad to. I was planning to play test some of these ideas on 5 July.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
archon96
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And steve lets please not forget the joke that plasma is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Stec
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Jan 2012
Posts: 230

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

archon96 wrote:
And steve lets please not forget the joke that plasma is.


Uh oh, now you've gone and done said it. Very Happy The "P" word.

I think Plasma works okay, personally, other than maybe making phasers a little less effective against it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1832

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Cole wrote:
Yes, Bob, exactly the point. The photon has changed from the SFU where it is the ultimate long-range weapon to useless at anything beyond short range. The disruptor has changed from the SFU where it is useless beyond short range to the ultimate sniping weapon.



You have got to be joking! The photon being the long range weapon, and the disrupter useless beyond short range. Since when!

ACTA has some issues, but they are nothing to do with shields, photons or turn modes.

Archon; Plasma a joke - I assume you mean because it so hugely potent in ACTA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> A Call to Arms Star Fleet All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 1 of 12

 
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