"New Ships for A Call to Arms: Star Fleet" Topic

I realize that most people will never need very many Orions, but mingling them with Klingons?

Is that "not done"?

All of the boxes issued for these new 2500 series miniatures match the contents of the existing boxes of the older 2400 series miniatures so the mix is essentially preset.

Hadn't realized they were mimicing the older scale sets. Still not sure it makes sense with the labeling, though.

I consider two-faction sets "two-player starters" instead of "reinforcements".

Well, since it clearly says "Klingon Vs. Orion" on the label, they aren't meant as reinforcements. 8)=

Hadn't realized they were mimicing the older scale sets.

I believe the mimicing is part of the joint venture agreement.

I assume the 2400 and 2500 series are incompatible, scale-wise?

You could hold the bigger ships a little further away ?

or the smaller ships a little closer ?

Might not be my most helpful post ever…

Mark Barker

The 2500 series is 1/3125 whereas I think the 2400 series was around 1/3700.

It was posted on TMP at some point.

Nice miniatures – but I can't stand Battleships or Fighters (or Missiles/Drones) in the Star Trek Universe. They pervert all the basic concepts of TOS.

Even though Kilingons do fight Orions from time to time. They hire them a lot as well. I don't mind the Large ships. The fighters on the other hand are for the most part stupid and slow the game down. As soon as they gave the Feds F-14 and A-10 it made the Klingon conquest impossible.

but I can't stand Battleships or Fighters (or Missiles/Drones) in the Star Trek Universe. They pervert all the basic concepts of TOS.

Agree about fighters, but not about Dreadnoughts. There's no reason to call a ship a cruiser unless there's something bigger.

I assume the fighters were dragged in by the Babylon Five rules engine? Shame, as that's not a great game, and the surface ship version of that is simply terrible.

No, fighters are a relic of the original Star Fleet Battles, where they were almost certainly introduced in response to demand from players fascinated with Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, not the much later B5 franchise. They don't currently appear in the ACTA SFU rules, which is based off Federation Commander, not SFB.

No, fighters are a relic of the original Star Fleet Battles, where they were almost certainly introduced in response to demand from players fascinated with Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica

I don't think it was so much that, as the desire (consciously or not) to model contemporary naval aviation in SFB. When they were first introduced (back in the first or second ziplock supplement), fighters were secondary weapons systems carried in small numbers by only a couple of races. As they began to evolve into the game-winning weapons of the three-ring binder edition with dedicated carriers, everyone started clamoring for fighters and soon the game was dominated (and play was crippled) by huge swarms of advanced fighters, particularly the Federation's uber-fighters.

Personally, I'm hoping (perhaps futilely) that in the ACTA incarnation of SFB, that fighters are ignored or at least held in check, to retain the big ship feel of the basic game.

Yes Fighters in SFB go way back. I liked the idea but the rules made SFB even more insanely complex as it just gave a whole pile of new records to keep track of (not to mention all the drones that get fired from the fighters). Also all the rules for flight deck operations just made it less of a game and more of a simulation. Part of the reason why I stopped playing SFB.

Currently Federation Commander does not have them, except for the Hydrans which that is one of their 'special technologies'. They did have some experimental rules in the Communique webzine that included some Federation and Klingon fighters and were just a variation of the Hydran rules. I've played the Hydran fighters in FC and looked at the Fed and Klingon rules and liked them. Personally I hope they do introduce more fighters into FC as the rules seem to handle them with the right balance of playability / simulation. Also, that would make shuttles a bit more useable other than cheap bombs to drop out of the back of your ship to ward off pursuit.

I think the ACTA rules would best play fighters however and would be looking forward to introduction of fighters and armed shuttles in Starfleet ACTA. I've played B5 ACTA and it plays vary well with those. Besides, I find the current rules for shuttles in SF ACTA even less useful than in FC.

SFB -> FedComm -> ACTA:SF

Once the Hydrans make it into ACTA:SF, fighters are a given. It might be possible to purposely limit the timeframe of the game to keep most fighters off the table, though. I would have to reacquaint myself with the introduction dates, but fighters, PFs, and maulers swept across Known Space from introduction point outward on specific dates. Unfortunately, if you want PFs, fighters are going to be along for the ride.

It might be possible to purposely limit the timeframe of the game to keep most fighters off the table

I devoutly hope you are correct. It is a fun game but SFB started that way as well.

And I can live without PF's.

Regarding size: There is no reason why you can't use both scales in the same game. It's space. The battlefield is in three dimeinsions. The larger 2500 ships are just higher/nearer to us (looking down like God) than the smaller 2400s :)

Like mixing lines in WWII games, if you avoid getting two models that are supposed to be the same fleet and class from the different lines, the visual disconnect can be avoided somewhat.

No, fighters are a relic of the original Star Fleet Battles, where they were almost certainly introduced in response to demand from players fascinated with Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, not the much later B5 franchise.

My comment of course was relating to Mongoose's release. Their B5 rules have fighters as an essemtial part of the game mix, so presumably that's why they are in the Starfleet rules expansion as well.

Not so much. Fighters have been part of SFB for thirty years. If ACTA hadn't had fighter rules to begin with (which would be odd since ACTA started as WWII Naval rules) they would have needed to write them to handle the SFB conversion, and/or ACTA would not have been considered a good fit in the first place.

There are currently no fighter rules for CTA: Star Fleet, likely won't be in the next expansion and _if_ they do appear later, we will likely do them as a 'module' that can be used or ignored as you see fit.

No firm decision made at all, and we have plenty of ground to cover until then!

Like, for instance, perhaps the Franz Joseph Destroyers, Scouts and Tugs Matt?

The tugs are heavy enough in the smaller scale. With the scale up the pods probably need to be resin, especially on the Klingon Tug. The Fed Tug's flight base will probably plug into the pod, so a one-pod configuration won't be a problem aside from being the size of a shotgun shell.

At the ACTA scale, a Federation pod is almost exactly 1/2" in diameter and 2" long. It's a lot of meat, especially with the Federation hooking them end to end to create a 6" miniature. I'm experimenting with making hollow pods through Shapeways to bring the tugs and freighters down to a manageable mass.

a Federation pod is almost exactly 1/2" in diameter and 2" long. It's a lot of meat, especially with the Federation hooking them end to end to create a 6" miniature.

Well, they already have a miniatures at least that big, in the form of the Mobile Base (currently up for pre-order), that is in effect 6 Fed cargo pods in a radial arrangement (thus being 6 inches in diameter, assuming your original measurments are correct), so it must be doable, although I admit it will make for an unweildy miniature to manuver around the board.