Fleet Update #1

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:22 pm

Fleet Update #1 is now available.

Fleet Update #1

Sneaky Scot · Post by **Sneaky Scot** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:25 am

Thanks for posting that Scoutdad!

OGOPTIMUS · Post by **OGOPTIMUS** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:50 am

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.

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:52 pm

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.

DNordeen · Post by **DNordeen** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:12 pm

Just out of curiosity...

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

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:36 pm

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).

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 pm

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).

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:50 pm

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.)

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:04 pm

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.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:42 pm

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).

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:03 am

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.

djdood · Post by **djdood** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 am

I figured they were set and adjusted by testing, more than anything else.