A New Universe for ACTA's

[godsgopher]

Vorlon and Shadow Planet killers

I win

Now, all silliness aside. The three systems will be incompatible for several reasons, Story wise it makes no sense, Rule while they aren't designed to play together and you get Earth Force Lasers cutting Constitution Class Cruisers in half on the first shot because of the Beam weapon rule. And lastly there will never be an "official" conversion because of license conflict, story conflict, scientific conflicts, and because its just to silly to think about seriously.

What I am expecting to see is a ton of cool new ships with dozens of sub-classes and variations. Historical scenarios, Classic Cruiser duels, upgrades, and Klingon players saying "Its a good day to die" right before I grant their wish.

[Greg Smith]

Matt has been talking about game design (including ACTA:SF) on his blog: http://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2011 ... es-design/

[captainsmirk]

Now, all silliness aside. The three systems will be incompatible for several reasons, Story wise it makes no sense, Rule while they aren't designed to play together and you get Earth Force Lasers cutting Constitution Class Cruisers in half on the first shot because of the Beam weapon rule. And lastly there will never be an "official" conversion because of license conflict, story conflict, scientific conflicts, and because its just to silly to think about seriously.

I don't think arguments about silliness have much bearing on whether people want to play crossover battles between different universes (examples already exist including the above mentioned In the Pirkining).

Seems an odd argument within sci-fi gaming, if we really cared that much about that sort of thing we would play historical games instead...

Incompatibility between the systems will of course make it difficult but I imagine that anyone really interested will be able to overcome them with a bit of conversion work, I don't think anyone was expecting any "official" support (given that Mongoose no longer has the B5 licence...) for crossover gaming.

[Nerroth]

The Talkshoe page has a second podcast uploaded; this time from the miniature seminar.

(By the way, that site also hosts a weekly discussion during most non-Origins weeks; it's usually on at 9:30pm EST for anyone interested in popping along.)

[MongooseMatt]

The Talkshoe page has a second podcast uploaded; this time from the miniature seminar.

Worth listening too...

[godsgopher]

ha ha ha...

You can tell Steve is from Texas, right in the middle of talking about Sci-fi Star Trek they have a five minuet diversion into the qualities and significances of different shotguns!

Thanks Steve you made me homesick!

[Da Boss]

Whilst its important that Trek keeps a feel for Trek in terms of style and substance there is no point in simply reproducing the same rules in the new game that would make ACTA into a pale imitation and remove the advantages of its ability to play large scale fleet engagements quickly.

I am quite looking forward to this - in particular:
Cool ships (well I hope they look cool!!)
new scenarios and ideas, new weapons and fleet types for ACTA
Compability with ACTA: NA (ideally ACTA 2nd ed but thats not going to happen)
Same quick and easy movement system - although probably need soemthing to allow ships to reverse as thats something that seems to be farily unique to Trek? Maybe just a SA after all stop - "Engines Full reverse" or some such"
I assume SFB has a reverse mechanic?
Same quick and easy weapons - althougb would prefer more dice than in Noble Armada - the ships feel a bit well wimpy with their AD.
Some fluff in the rules - always helps I feel.

What I don't want to see
Massively complex rules on power management etc
Having to track lots of things (Especially since crew stat was removed for this very reason)
Def don't want it to have lots of missiles to track all over the place - that way lies a very slow and annoying game. At most I'd be happy to see BFG style torpedo barrages.

[godsgopher]

Cool ships (well I hope they look cool!!)

Yes, I couldn't agree more here. After listening to the Pod Cast and hearing peoples reactions to the mini's I confess I'm getting excited. The old mini's aren't bad, but they really are pretty simple and boxy for 21st Century Gaming.

new scenarios and ideas, new weapons and fleet types for ACTA

I think I heard someone say that its going to be based off Federation Commander as it seems Starmada was done the same way. That means (Though I don't own FC) you can pretty much count on Unique Scenarios, defiantly going to be new and different weapons. As for fleet types I'm not quite sure what you mean, but Im assuming you mean to say that each fleet will have a unique play style much like 2nd Edition ACTA's fleets often did.

Compability with ACTA: NA (ideally ACTA 2nd ed but thats not going to happen)

I know that earlier in this thread a number of people talked about "Crossover Wars" But I have to be honest I just don't see it happening. If the new ACTA's: SF is comparable enough with NA, I don't see how it could say its going to be based off SFB or FC as the difference are such that it would be easier to compare the similarities... like NA and FC's rules are both written in English.

Same quick and easy movement system - although probably need soemthing to allow ships to reverse as thats something that seems to be farily unique to Trek? Maybe just a SA after all stop - "Engines Full reverse" or some such"

Having seen three editions of ACTA's I'm willing to lay good money that the movement system is going to be the same. As for the reverse I had completely forgotten you could do that in the Star Fleet Universe.

Same quick and easy weapons - although would prefer more dice than in Noble Armada - the ships feel a bit well wimpy with their AD.

Humm... Noble Armada as I understood it tried very hard to be a direct translation of weapons and marines directly into ACTA's. From what I remember of SFB's your basic Fed Heavy Cruiser only has two phasers to the front, sides, and rear. So if they do it like NA then it will be one AD per weapon. However in 2nd Edition each weapon system was ratted according to its overall firepower like the Dilgar Heavy Bolters on there heavy cruiser which was 18AD Double Damage.

Some fluff in the rules - always helps I feel.

I couldn't agree more! And this is something the Star Fleet Universe does so very very well. They have histories for each ship class, they don't just say "Oh this is a Destroyer". its usually something more like...

"New Heavy Cruiser: By Y175 the Lyran were facing severe shortages of Cruiser hulls, unable to increase their shipyard production significantly the engineers turned an eye to the Light Cruiser hull, by adding additional power pallet and a third warp engine they were able to vastly increase its capabilities to something comparable to a Heavy Cruiser, but one that could be built in a smaller shipyard leaving the larger yards to focus on Battle cruisers."

Honestly I think most long time gamers know that its not the many pages of charts and graphs, nor the hundreds of pages of rules that drive a good game. Its that "fluff" that captures your imagination! That makes you feel like for just a few hours your there as your commanding your ship. At least its always been that way for myself.

[MongooseMatt]

So we'll know around the time of the ACTA tournament?

Oh, those coming to the tournament might have a real treat

[Nerroth]

As a point of comparison, the Starmada conversion has no power allocation and no reverse movement.

(Rather, the sub-set of Starmada rules included with Klingon and Romulan Armada are the "default" mechanics for the system; pages 5-20 of RMA are the same as pages 11-26 in this file. If you want to use any of the alternate options in the Admiralty Edition Core Rulebook, it's up to you to try and make them work.)

There's a line which Daniel Kast writes in the designers' notes of RMA:

My intent in developing Romulan Armada was to maintain the "feel" of the Star Fleet Universe, but not to try to mimic the game mechanics of SFB or FC.

Of course, the dynamics at play here are a bit different than it was (and remains) for Starmada; but from this outside perspective (and, again, it is an outside perspective, in case anyone reads too much into what I write) it seems that a similar philosophy might be in play for the porting of the Star Fleet Universe setting into A Call to Arms.

[Rambler]

As a SFB and Fed Com player I can offer a few of my observations to some of these questions.

Whilst its important that Trek keeps a feel for Trek in terms of style and substance there is no point in simply reproducing the same rules in the new game that would make ACTA into a pale imitation and remove the advantages of its ability to play large scale fleet engagements quickly.

A thing to remember is we are talking Star Fleet Universe here not Movie Trek or one of the later series Trek here. It does however have the feel of the Original Series. SFU Klingons do fire Disruptors and Phaser but will never fire Photons or Cloak. SFU Romulans do Cloak and tend to fire few weapons that take longer to arm but, will kick like a mule when they hit you.

Compatibility with ACTA: NA (ideally ACTA 2nd ed but that’s not going to happen) Same quick and easy movement system - although probably need something to allow ships to reverse as thats something that seems to be farily unique to Trek? Maybe just a SA after all stop - "Engines Full reverse" or some such"
I assume SFB has a reverse mechanic?

SFB use Retrograde Movements rules basically you come to a dead stop then "shift" into reverse. Fed Com on the other hand uses a slightly different approach but the gist is you pay double the energy cost to move backwards.

Same quick and easy weapons - althougb would prefer more dice than in Noble Armada - the ships feel a bit well wimpy with their AD.
Some fluff in the rules - always helps I feel.

That is up to to how Mongoose decides to write the rules. SVC has stated before that it is not important for other rule engines to use SFB's Tax Codes to determine how there weapons work what is important is that the new rules have the same feel that SFB or Fed Com have. For example, Disruptors take one turn to arm, Photons take 2 turns to arm, Plasma Torpedoes takes 3 turns to arm. That kind of thing or One Photon Torpedo does roughly Twice the Damage of a Disruptor Bolt.

What I don't want to see
Massively complex rules on power management etc
Having to track lots of things (Especially since crew stat was removed for this very reason)

If you are interested in this level of detail might I loan you my 4" Rule book with all the rules for SFB in it. =p Seriously though, people play different games with different degrees of rules because they play with the amount of detail they are interested in and ADB recognizes this. Look at the difference between SFB and Fed Com. One system uses a detail Energy Allocation System which requires you to make most if not all of your decisions at the start of the turn. If you do not allocate energy for it at the start you probably are not going to be able to do it if a opportunity comes. Where as Fed Com uses a Power Pool that you pay for things as you go.

Def don't want it to have lots of missiles to track all over the place - that way lies a very slow and annoying game. At most I'd be happy to see BFG style torpedo barrages.

This one is going to be sticky, but it will be up to Mongoose to decide how they want to handle them. Seeking Weapons (both Drones and Plasma Torpedoes) serve 2 functions in the SFU. The first is obvious, that is to cause harm to your enemies. The second is to control his maneuvering and forcing him to move in a direction of your choosing instead of where he wants to go. If you abstract out the flight times of these weapons it will change the feel of them in game play a little bit but, that is a detail that may need to be sacrificed in the name of playability.

[Rambler]

And just a few more observations.

Cool ships (well I hope they look cool!!)

Yes, I couldn't agree more here. After listening to the Pod Cast and hearing peoples reactions to the mini's I confess I'm getting excited. The old mini's aren't bad, but they really are pretty simple and boxy for 21st Century Gaming.

Let me add after having seen the Screen Shots of the Fed CA and the Cad Model for the Klingon D7 that Rob Glass had at Origins I am also looking forward to what the final product will look like. Yes he is trying to modernize the designs some but people need to remember the 2400 miniatures look rather plain because the ships in the original series looked rather smooth and plain compared to the most recent movie.

Same quick and easy weapons - although would prefer more dice than in Noble Armada - the ships feel a bit well wimpy with their AD.

Humm... Noble Armada as I understood it tried very hard to be a direct translation of weapons and marines directly into ACTA's. From what I remember of SFB's your basic Fed Heavy Cruiser only has two phasers to the front, sides, and rear. So if they do it like NA then it will be one AD per weapon. However in 2nd Edition each weapon system was ratted according to its overall firepower like the Dilgar Heavy Bolters on there heavy cruiser which was 18AD Double Damage.

Remember those weapons on the CA have over lapping fields of fire. If you take a Fed CA on in a head on battle pass you probably going to eat 6 Offensive Phaser 2 Point Defense Phasers and 4 Photon Torpedoes where as if you can come at him at a angle of 30 degrees those numbers drop to 4 Offensive Phasers 2 Point Defense Phasers and 4 Photon Torpedoes. And if you can come straight at him from either sides the bearing weapons drop to 4 Offensive Phaser and 2 Point Defense Phasers.

Some fluff in the rules - always helps I feel.

I couldn't agree more! And this is something the Star Fleet Universe does so very very well. They have histories for each ship class, they don't just say "Oh this is a Destroyer". its usually something more like...

"New Heavy Cruiser: By Y175 the Lyran were facing severe shortages of Cruiser hulls, unable to increase their shipyard production significantly the engineers turned an eye to the Light Cruiser hull, by adding additional power pallet and a third warp engine they were able to vastly increase its capabilities to something comparable to a Heavy Cruiser, but one that could be built in a smaller shipyard leaving the larger yards to focus on Battle cruisers."

Honestly I think most long time gamers know that its not the many pages of charts and graphs, nor the hundreds of pages of rules that drive a good game. Its that "fluff" that captures your imagination! That makes you feel like for just a few hours your there as your commanding your ship. At least its always been that way for myself.

Yes! Fluff we have. If you want more detail than whats in the final rulebook ask and I am someone can point you to all the reference material you could possibly want.

[godsgopher]

Rambler, That was some helpful and interesting information, Thank you very much! Unfortunately as I get excited all over again I just don't know how I'm going to make it until December at this rate. I'll just have to try and content myself with some Vuldrok Dreadnoughts.

[Da Boss]

As a SFB and Fed Com player I can offer a few of my observations to some of these questions.

Whilst its important that Trek keeps a feel for Trek in terms of style and substance there is no point in simply reproducing the same rules in the new game that would make ACTA into a pale imitation and remove the advantages of its ability to play large scale fleet engagements quickly.

A thing to remember is we are talking Star Fleet Universe here not Movie Trek or one of the later series Trek here. It does however have the feel of the Original Series. SFU Klingons do fire Disruptors and Phaser but will never fire Photons or Cloak. SFU Romulans do Cloak and tend to fire few weapons that take longer to arm but, will kick like a mule when they hit you.

Thats all fine - I meant the Style of the SFU needs to be maintained but not at the expense of playability / making ACTA: ST too complex and elimnating the advantages of converting the system.

Compatibility with ACTA: NA (ideally ACTA 2nd ed but that’s not going to happen) Same quick and easy movement system - although probably need something to allow ships to reverse as thats something that seems to be farily unique to Trek? Maybe just a SA after all stop - "Engines Full reverse" or some such"
I assume SFB has a reverse mechanic?

SFB use Retrograde Movements rules basically you come to a dead stop then "shift" into reverse. Fed Com on the other hand uses a slightly different approach but the gist is you pay double the energy cost to move backwards.

That sounds the same as using the All Stop Special Action one turn and then "Engines Full reverse" next turn - so nice and easy esp since no need to worry about the speed of ships

Same quick and easy weapons - althougb would prefer more dice than in Noble Armada - the ships feel a bit well wimpy with their AD. Some fluff in the rules - always helps I feel.

That is up to to how Mongoose decides to write the rules. SVC has stated before that it is not important for other rule engines to use SFB's Tax Codes to determine how there weapons work what is important is that the new rules have the same feel that SFB or Fed Com have. For example, Disruptors take one turn to arm, Photons take 2 turns to arm, Plasma Torpedoes takes 3 turns to arm. That kind of thing or One Photon Torpedo does roughly Twice the Damage of a Disruptor Bolt.

I'd go along with that - but having slow-loading and weapon traits should mean that each missile type cna be very different. 3 turns is a very long time in ACTA - slow-loading is bad enough - ask Vree players!

What I don't want to see
Massively complex rules on power management etc
Having to track lots of things (Especially since crew stat was removed for this very reason)

If you are interested in this level of detail might I loan you my 4" Rule book with all the rules for SFB in it. =p Seriously though, people play different games with different degrees of rules because they play with the amount of detail they are interested in and ADB recognizes this. Look at the difference between SFB and Fed Com. One system uses a detail Energy Allocation System which requires you to make most if not all of your decisions at the start of the turn. If you do not allocate energy for it at the start you probably are not going to be able to do it if a opportunity comes. Where as Fed Com uses a Power Pool that you pay for things as you go.

As Burger said previously - Special Actions should cover pretty much all the thngs that power management does - wherther that be overloading weapons (Concentrate firepower- the old one would be better not the rubbishy new one), executing tight turns (Come About), Bracing for impact (CBD), All power to Shields etc etc. These are quick to implement and require very little tracking.

Def don't want it to have lots of missiles to track all over the place - that way lies a very slow and annoying game. At most I'd be happy to see BFG style torpedo barrages.

This one is going to be sticky, but it will be up to Mongoose to decide how they want to handle them. Seeking Weapons (both Drones and Plasma Torpedoes) serve 2 functions in the SFU. The first is obvious, that is to cause harm to your enemies. The second is to control his maneuvering and forcing him to move in a direction of your choosing instead of where he wants to go. If you abstract out the flight times of these weapons it will change the feel of them in game play a little bit but, that is a detail that may need to be sacrificed in the name of playability.

I think so - missiles in both B5 and NA are abstract enough to amke them interesting alternatives buit don't clutter the board - although I guess they could take the place of fighters if they are an independant entity - tracking targets etc would be a nightmare so lets hope that is not part of the game.

[Stormrider]

slow-loading is bad enough - ask Vree players!

Git....

[Burger]

This one is going to be sticky, but it will be up to Mongoose to decide how they want to handle them. Seeking Weapons (both Drones and Plasma Torpedoes) serve 2 functions in the SFU. The first is obvious, that is to cause harm to your enemies. The second is to control his maneuvering and forcing him to move in a direction of your choosing instead of where he wants to go. If you abstract out the flight times of these weapons it will change the feel of them in game play a little bit but, that is a detail that may need to be sacrificed in the name of playability.

Ah see this is exactly what I feared would happen. I am not too familiar with SFU and have never played any ST games so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but what is the source of these "seeking weapons" and drones? Is it in the canon material (ie. the shows) or in one of the previous games? And what is ACTA:ST going to be based on, the canon or a previous game? This is exactly what we had with B5 ACTA... someone would come along and say "oh that ship is wrong, it's not like that in B5 Wars". Well I don't give a cr@p what it's like in B5 Wars, this is B5 ACTA, it's based on the B5 TV show not on B5 Wars. Although a lot of ships and material and models were borrowed, it's not meant to be a carbon copy. So I imagine the same will apply here. Any ideas, ships or mechanics that worked in the previous games, may be brought forward. But anything that doesn't fit in with the ACTA ruleset, will be dropped or modified beyond recognition.

Really hope we don't have "flight times" for weapons, or anything like extra-slow loading. Slow loading is enough, you can track it with a token or simply your memory. What do you track a weapon that takes 3 turns to reload with, a dice? No thanks!

[Rambler]

This one is going to be sticky, but it will be up to Mongoose to decide how they want to handle them. Seeking Weapons (both Drones and Plasma Torpedoes) serve 2 functions in the SFU. The first is obvious, that is to cause harm to your enemies. The second is to control his maneuvering and forcing him to move in a direction of your choosing instead of where he wants to go. If you abstract out the flight times of these weapons it will change the feel of them in game play a little bit but, that is a detail that may need to be sacrificed in the name of playability.

Ah see this is exactly what I feared would happen. I am not too familiar with SFU and have never played any ST games so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but what is the source of these "seeking weapons" and drones? Is it in the canon material (ie. the shows) or in one of the previous games? And what is ACTA:ST going to be based on, the canon or a previous game? This is exactly what we had with B5 ACTA... someone would come along and say "oh that ship is wrong, it's not like that in B5 Wars". Well I don't give a cr@p what it's like in B5 Wars, this is B5 ACTA, it's based on the B5 TV show not on B5 Wars. Although a lot of ships and material and models were borrowed, it's not meant to be a carbon copy. So I imagine the same will apply here. Any ideas, ships or mechanics that worked in the previous games, may be brought forward. But anything that doesn't fit in with the ACTA ruleset, will be dropped or modified beyond recognition.

Really hope we don't have "flight times" for weapons, or anything like extra-slow loading. Slow loading is enough, you can track it with a token or simply your memory. What do you track a weapon that takes 3 turns to reload with, a dice? No thanks!

The Source Material for the SFU is going to wind up being SFB. The source material for SFB was the Original Series and a Handful of Books that came out back in the 70s. Due to the liscening with Paramount, only thing that were in the SFU at the time the deal was signed can be used in the SFU.

Plasma Torpedoes were seen in TOS episode, “A Balance of Terror” In that episode a Romulan Warbird was attacking and destroying Listening Outpost deep inside of Asteroids with as little as 2 volleys. When a brash young captain and his heavy cruiser showed up and fought this marauder we learned not only was the Plasma Torpedo extremely powerful but it was slow to arm and once launched it tracked you like a homing missile. Also we learned as you ran away from it, giving the warbird time to cloak, it would grow weaker.

Drones/missiles were part of the earliest deck plans available for the D7 Battlecruiser and thus were incorporated into the SFU from the beginning.

As I said earlier Mongoose will have wiggle room to make the SFU fit ACTA and somethings, by default will not be a perfect fit, but some how it is hoped it will maintain the feel of SFU. Part of that is Photons take twice as long to load as a Disruptor and do just over twice the damage. Plasma Torpedo take 3 times as long to arm as a Disruptor while a Type R Plasmas does about 10 times the damage.

[Burger]

The Source Material for the SFU is going to wind up being SFB.

Gah. Nothing against SFB specifically but a game based on a game based on a show is always more problematic than a game based on a show.

Tracked like a homing missile, we can do. All weapons fire in ACTA is assumed to have "hit" anyway, when you "roll to hit" you're just rolling so see if you hit powerfully enough to do damage. Maybe to represent being a homing missile it can be precise, or SAP.

We have normal, slow-loading and one-shot. I hope there won't be any more variations otherwise it becomes an exercise in book-keeping which I know Matt is not a fan of. Hopefully the reload times will all be abstracted to one of these categories and people won't complain too much about certain types of weapon taking longer to reload than others! Keeping it fun and fast-flowing is more important than sticking to every minute detail.

[Iron Domokun]

I don't think it is written in stone that plasma torps will take 3x longer to load than disruptors or phasers. Starmada: Klingon Armada has rules for plasma torps, and they just have the same "slow firing" rule as other slow weapons. In Starmada, slow firing weapons simply cannot be fired on consecutive turns. Fire a torpedo last turn? Can't fire it this turn. Easy, and it seems that AcTA already has a similar mechanic.

ACTA: SF will need to be consistent with the SFU, but AFAIK that means certain things like weapon arcs, special equipment (transporters, labs, shuttles, probes...) need to be the same. Some weapons fire slower than others (but there's no hard and fast rule on how much slower... e.g. standard photon torpedoes in Starmada fire every turn, overloaded photons are slow firing, plasma torpedoes are always slow firing). A Federation CA will always beat a Klingon F5, although the F5 can do some damage before going down if the captain has guts.

Games set in the SFU all use the same "database", but the mechanics of each game engine can be radically different. Compare Star Fleet Battles, Prime Directive, Federation & Empire, and Star Fleet Battle Force. Four totally different games, with four radically different game engines, all consistent in the SFU background data that they use.[/i]

[Da Boss]

The Source Material for the SFU is going to wind up being SFB. The source material for SFB was the Original Series and a Handful of Books that came out back in the 70s. Due to the liscening with Paramount, only thing that were in the SFU at the time the deal was signed can be used in the SFU.

Fair enough

Plasma Torpedoes were seen in TOS episode, “A Balance of Terror” In that episode a Romulan Warbird was attacking and destroying Listening Outpost deep inside of Asteroids with as little as 2 volleys. When a brash young captain and his heavy cruiser showed up and fought this marauder we learned not only was the Plasma Torpedo extremely powerful but it was slow to arm and once launched it tracked you like a homing missile. Also we learned as you ran away from it, giving the warbird time to cloak, it would grow weaker.

I recall all this

Drones/missiles were part of the earliest deck plans available for the D7 Battlecruiser and thus were incorporated into the SFU from the beginning.
As I said earlier Mongoose will have wiggle room to make the SFU fit ACTA and somethings, by default will not be a perfect fit, but some how it is hoped it will maintain the feel of SFU. Part of that is Photons take twice as long to load as a Disruptor and do just over twice the damage. Plasma Torpedo take 3 times as long to arm as a Disruptor while a Type R Plasmas does about 10 times the damage.[/quote]

Easily done by having Photons do twice as much AD or Multihit/ Double Damage etc. Plasma Torpedo can do different damage depending on range - dead easy. Really Slow Loading is not to be recomended in ACTA as its a fast moving game and even slow loading is a big penalty for powerful weapons.

So from what little I know of SFB:

Disruptor Bolt Range 30", Double Damage (or Multihit 2)
Photon Torpedo Range 24", Triple Damage (or Multihit 6), Precise, Slow-Loading

Plasma Torpedo, Max Range 40", Slow Loading
0-6" Quad Damage (or Multihit 10)
7-12" Triple Damage (or Multihit 6)
13-24" Double Damage (or Multihit 2)
25-40" normal damage

You can mess aboue with AD and ranges for different weapon variants but all seems an easy fit to standard ACTA whilst still keeping the flavour of specific weapons?