Damage Comparisons Between FC and ACTA-SF

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:26 pm

I posted this in a new thread on the Mongoose forum, but I was thinking that, if the Klingon/Kestrel front shield rule was up for grabs, perhaps turning it into a one-quarter (rather than one-half) bonus might be more proportionate - but only if it was then also given to those ships from other empires which have a similarly strong front shield historically.

Basically, change the rule to something like this:

*So long as it has a Shields score above 0, a ship of this class suffering an attack from within its Fore arc will have the number of hits it sustains reduced by one-quarter, rounding up, with the exception of any hits that penetrate the shields. These are treated as normal.

And give the Klingons and Kestrels their "normal" #2 shield facing values, but also give this one-quarter rule to ships like the Fed CA and Romulan SparrowHawk. (But not to ships which historically have equally thick shields in all facings, like the Romulan King Eagle or Archeo-Tholian CA.)

So, as an example, the D7 would go from Shields: 18 to Shields: 22, but only gains an "effective" F arc protection equivalent to 30 - which matches the strength of the #1 shield in FC.

Rather than kill off the rule entirely, this option would lessen its effectiveness to a more proportionate level - but also make it available to each ship and empire that historically warrants it.

Gimp · Post by **Gimp** » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:04 pm

Why limit the rule based on equal shielding? Early Klingon ships are the ones with a huge disparity between forward and rear shelding, and that disappeared with the B refits happening well before the ACTA:SF time frame.

The Klingon shield rule is trying to represent something that doesn't exist within the time frame of SFU hiostory represented by ACTA:SF. If the Klingon ships are being given shielding based on B refits with more equalized shielding, there is no reason to give what is then a non-existent bonus to represent shield disparity.

If ACTA:SF is allowed to expand the time frame it is dealing in, the Klingon shield rule could fit the early Klingon ships with shield ratings based on the D7's 30 point forward down to 13 point rear shields.

Something like the original D7's 30-22-15-13 shields makes sense for acknowledging stronger forward shields, but ACTA:SF doesn't use those ships. The B refit's 30-22-22-22 doesn't have a noticeable disparity, especially when a stock Federation CA is 30-24-20-20. Which ship has a greater disparity fore to aft with those numbers?

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:51 pm

To clarify, I was saying that ships which have equal shields in all six facings (such as the 30-30-30-30-30-30 setup on a King Eagle) would not have a need for such a rule, since the #2 shield already has the same strength in FC as the #1 shield.

But if you look at a SparrowHawk (which is 30-24-24-24-24-24), its front shield is notably stronger than those to the sides or rear. So if you left the current Shields: 24 score in place and gave it a one-quarter bonus in the Fore arc, the effective protection to F is close enough to 30 to cover that distinction.

The one-quarter option is not quite exact for every type of ship it would be applied to, but it may offer a reasonable balance of averages when looking at each class of ship which would have cause to use it.

(The idea of giving Middle Years Klingons, Kestrels, and Lyrans some sort of rule to represent their weaker aft shields would be separate from this process, and would not be necessary for the Main Era refitted hulls.)

Gimp · Post by **Gimp** » Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:23 pm

Which would fit, but would also mean most of the ships would qualify for the rule.

Looking at the two I noted, the Klingon D7B is 30 fore and 22 everywhere else, and the Federation CA is 30 fore, 24 fore sides, and 20 all three rear facings, with the CA+ 30 fore and 24 everywhere else. The Gorn CA is 30 fore and 24 everywhere else. The Kzinti BC is 30 fore, 28 fore sides, and 22 on all three rear facings.

30 fore, dropping to 20-24 for the sides and rear, is fairly standard. Ships with equal shielding all around are rather rare overall.

What criteria would you consider for giving a fore shield bonus that doesn't include most of the ships in play? All of those I noted are running about 25% stronger fore shielding over their rear arc shielding, and the rest of their fleets run along similar lines.

ACTA:SF giving a bonus forward shield rule just to the Klingons when the bonus would fit all of the races was a rather strange idea for ACTA:SF in its historical period. It gave the Klingons a special rule to make them different, but it did so in an inappropriate and advantageous way when compared to the other races.

Running average shield strength would fit better for the ACTA:SF time frame, as most ships have boosted their shields to closer ranges. The 60 degree arcs of SFB & FC make keeping just the strongest fore shields facing the enemy more difficult than the 90 degree arcs of ACTA:SF, so giving a boost over the wider range simply means more math during play without mirroring the core SFU as well.

An average rating when individual shields are not considered would effectively make varied shield strengths have impact without requiring special rules. I prefer the idea of multiple shields, but if they have to go with just one, or add special advantages for specific cases, it needs to be calculated in the same way for all of the races.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:55 am

May as well post this here as well, seeing as though its the same discussion.

If you aren't going to represent the historical klingon feature of glass thin rear shields, then any special shield rule is pointless and unnecessarily complicating things. The normal shield rules do a good job as it is, worrying about minor differences between a 30 point #1 and a 26#2 or whatever just doesn't translate. In a fleet level game In FC where a cruiser could dish out 100 damage in 1 volley a few points wasn't a huge difference, in a longer running sandpapering duel the shield rotation smoothed out the difference.

Gimp · Post by **Gimp** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:10 pm

I've always enjoy playing Klingons with the weak rear shields, as it makes them more of a challenge.

That issue, though, didn't really exist by the time of the General War. The B refit started Y165, and it's noted most ships had the refit by the start of the war in Y168, with virtually all of them having it before they were committed to action in the various theaters.

Perhaps, if a special rule needs to be in place for the Klingons, it should represent the weaker rear shielding of the earlier ships, instead of giving a bonus to the forward shields other races would qualify for just as readily.

Instead of boosting the forward shields of all Klingon ships, give a damage bonus to rear attacks against older Klingon ships.

Anything from the B refit forward would work just like other ships that it is just like. Anything without the B refit would have to worry about attacks from the rear.

mdauben · Post by **mdauben** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:56 pm

Gimp wrote:Perhaps, if a special rule needs to be in place for the Klingons, it should represent the weaker rear shielding of the earlier ships, instead of giving a bonus to the forward shields other races would qualify for just as readily.

I admit to having much less playing experience with ACTA than many here, but this makes the most sense to me. It seems to better model the situation of the early Klingon ships, without getting too complicated. I think that was once of the problems with the Starmada port of SFB (at least the first edition, I have not seen the "Nova" edition). It tried too hard to exactly model SFB, resulting in unnecessary complications that detracted from its ability to easily handle larger fleet actions.

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:33 pm

I should note that the Starmada adaptations are based more directly on FC, and not so much on SFB. (Not just rules-wise; each module for Star Fleet Starmada has a ship list based on a pair of FC modules + associated boosters.)

But in terms of ACtA:SF, I don't think that the Klingons, and Kestrels (and Lyrans) should have to worry about the aft shield issue unless a future supplement set in the Middle Years is to be worked up. I do think that a port of the material in FC: Briefing #2 (to include the Middle Years "Franz Joseph" Ship Cards in Booster #91) would be an interesting development, akin to how Mongoose already divide their wet-navy game engine Victory at Sea into World War II and World War I alternate settings.

In my view, that would be the ideal venue for incorporating weaker aft shields on appropriate hull types, along with other MY adjustments for things like drones and plasma.

Myrm · Post by **Myrm** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:40 pm

Nerroth wrote:To clarify, I was saying that ships which have equal shields in all six facings (such as the 30-30-30-30-30-30 setup on a King Eagle) would not have a need for such a rule, since the #2 shield already has the same strength in FC as the #1 shield.

Design it out. Assume that the shield rating is based on a standard format of slightly tougher #1 shield and slightly weaker round the back and carry on using the #2 value as the base but where the difference is not dramatic.

Work out if you think that all around even shields is a benefit or a weakness (I lean to benefit), and alter the base shield value for such ships by a the few points it needs.

Eliminate an ingame calculation, lose what is a misapplied Empire special rule, sorted for the main period and the majority of ships. This then allows you scope to add a future special rule for ships that really need it and apply it accurately and only to those ships that really need it (Unrefitted E3 anyone).

Please please please dont ask me how that is going to make Hellbores work.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:26 pm

My plan is to let Tony decide if it's even worth worrying about.