[ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
McKinstry
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm
Location: Atlanta,GA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby McKinstry » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:21 pm

Da Boss wrote:
katadder wrote:well hopefully seeker weapons will remove the direct fire thing. that was always a bug bear of mine during initial testing but was outvoted by the less things to track brigade
Hopefully not - we are debating on the other forum but unless its extremely simple and smooth - say akin to Torps in BFG then It will likely kill the game for me........
Fed Comm is certainly a great game but I have no interest in playing as it is still far too detailed to bother with. I certainly hope ACTA does not become Fed Comm lite.
shiba-tenchi
Mongoose
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:43 am
Location: Brisvegas, Australia

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby shiba-tenchi » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:33 am

And that's the risk isn't it. None of the ADB game systems ever took off here and none appeal enough for me to try and get a group playing them. ACTA is a neat system and we have a big pool of Babylon 5 players which made SF ACTA a winning proposition. Unfortunately Mongoose seem to be pathalogically unable to finish anything (lately?) and this appears to be another potentially great game swirling down the gurgler :cry:
Fire bad, tree pretty.
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:02 pm

shiba-tenchi wrote:And that's the risk isn't it. None of the ADB game systems ever took off here and none appeal enough for me to try and get a group playing them. ACTA is a neat system and we have a big pool of Babylon 5 players which made SF ACTA a winning proposition. Unfortunately Mongoose seem to be pathalogically unable to finish anything (lately?) and this appears to be another potentially great game swirling down the gurgler :cry:
If you can't or won't try to get the ADB Trek games going, how about Starmada Nova Edition, or even Full Thrust Cross Dimensions (you'll have to come up with ships on your own)?
McKinstry
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm
Location: Atlanta,GA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby McKinstry » Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:22 pm

I want ACTA SF to succeed and given Tony's pedigree as a play tester, I can wait.

That said, stacks of drone tokens and anything that resembles one of those horrid pulse charts and Starmada here I come.
katadder
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5005
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: lincoln, uk
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby katadder » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:59 pm

iirc tony was in the 1st playtest too. but this time he has someone who will listen more and make it more like SFU as it should have been. so hopefully a better game
1st & Only Centauri Grand Admiral

LONAW Fleets: http://www.mediafire.com/?tddmi2mjcl2
shiba-tenchi
Mongoose
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:43 am
Location: Brisvegas, Australia

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby shiba-tenchi » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:41 am

billclo wrote:
shiba-tenchi wrote:And that's the risk isn't it. None of the ADB game systems ever took off here and none appeal enough for me to try and get a group playing them. ACTA is a neat system and we have a big pool of Babylon 5 players which made SF ACTA a winning proposition. Unfortunately Mongoose seem to be pathalogically unable to finish anything (lately?) and this appears to be another potentially great game swirling down the gurgler :cry:
If you can't or won't try to get the ADB Trek games going, how about Starmada Nova Edition, or even Full Thrust Cross Dimensions (you'll have to come up with ships on your own)?
Eh, likely outcome would be we'd either dust off the Babylon 5 minis or just play Full Thrust with the GZG factions. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with either of those options :D
Fire bad, tree pretty.
Nretnimoc
Weasel
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:21 pm
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Nretnimoc » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:29 pm

Just a thought on the overall 'Taming of the Klingons' purpose on the thread. My friend and I sat down this weekend and play tested a few things. Overall, we did four games. Two 'demo games' and then two variable games.

1st Demo: I played 2 D7s & he played 2 CAs. Neither of us had ever played the others fleet and had only seen them in action. We did change up one thing, which was a major point. We changed up the D7s. Instead of A,S & A,P Phaser-2s we made them SH, PH. We liked the turret so it split them up giving the vessel a nice additional punch of short range fire. Our justification was that it made it feel more like the backbone of a fleet.

1st Turn: the Federation moved ahead 12' and boosted shields. Relying on their phasers. Klingons advanced only 4' to keep out of phaser range and enter disruptor range.

Klingons won initiative and plugged away with Disruptors, focusing on CA-Alpha Drones went in as well. Of the four that went, due to long range, only 2 hit and only one got through the tractor beams. (Of note, this was the ONLY drone damage all game. the rest of the game was completely nullified by Federation dual rack anti-drone).

->Note: My friend regrets boosting shields and losing anti-drones for this round. In retrospect, he feels the only time federation should go on power drain is when they have no other choice or are recharging photons. (in small ball games.) This has always been SOP for me.

2nd turn - Federation again move forward 12' and attempt evasive fire. CA-Alpha fails, CA-Bravo does not. Klingons back off 4' to stay out of phaser death range but keep Disruptors in range.

Firing exchange takes place, more steady damage. At this point Im getting decent shield damage and leaks but nothing to write home about. Forward Arc imp. shielding weathers the storm except for the CA-Alpha's long rang torp attack. One gets through, cause hull damage only ( I believe).

->At this point, CA-Alpha is pretty banged up but not out of it. However, I pounce, trying to drop one and then skirt away to regroup.

3rd turn - Federation begins maneuvering. Im on short end of the board and I close on CA-Alpha with both ships. It does not have any photons and is isolated. At close range, pound away with all Phaser-2s, Phaser-1s, and Disruptors and deal a healthy amount of damage to CA-Alpha, but not crippled. In return killzone fire, CA-Alpha does a fair bit of damage to D7-Cha'. CA-Bravo outside my forward arc, carves D7-Cha up, shields gone, photons pass right through, along with drones. one D7 is down.

4th Turn - Federation finally win initiative (of which Klingons won all previous rounds). Ultimately, D7-Wa manages to cripple CA-Alpha. At this point, the game is already over. Two CAs abeam of my D7, even with Hard shields, gets hammered by 12 kill zone Phaser-1s


-->It may have been 5 turns, but it a sound Federation victory. Though, I did have a chance. I believe I pounced to soon and should have danced away for another round of Disruptor fire.


Demo Game 2:

Im not even going to lay this one out. My friend was playing Federation, my brother who has never played before took Klingons. It was no contest. Granted, my brother was less determined then I to win and was more or less going through the motions, it was over before it began. Klingons closed to soon and Federation carved him up starting on the second turn. We called it after 3turns. Federation Sound victory.


Test Game 1: This is where we sat down and tested the drop agile or drop hard shields. For game one, we dropped agile. D7 modified vs. CA.

Was a joke. Granted, first turn, an extremely lucky long range strike of Phasers penetrated the Klingon shields. Two crits, one to Dilithium Chamber and the other to shields. After 1 turn, the D7 had 6 shields left, and a max of 8. minimal damage to the CA, though a weapons system crit. In the end phase, Federation repaired their weapons, Klingons did nothing.

At this point the game was out of hand and the Federation just floated around. (seriously, just floated about) keeping the klingon either abeam or directly aft and stayed within phaser-1 range. By the end of the second turn, Phaser-1s had destroyed the rest of his shields and dealt an additional 2 weapon crits. He lost his drones.

The CA moved behind an asteroid field, recovered its own shield damage to full, leaving it only with 3 hull damage. Klingon player had to give chase. This is where it turned into a rinse repeat. Klingon player would close, unload, CA would return fire, dropping their shields to null and more internal damage. Followed by boost shields, and repeat. We called this game after 5 turns because it was futile.

Ultimately the Klingon Ship could not move like it needed to. Couldnt bring its shields to bear like it has to and the CA was able to just move enough to keep out of the forward arc. The superior firing arcs of the federation Cruiser just meant that the CA didnt really give a #$% which direction it was heading. Photons were never needed nor did I feel they were important after the first two crits.

the 2nd test game we didnt even actually play out. We got a taste of it in here. Without Agile it is difficult 1v1 for a Klingon Cruiser to bring its forward shields to bare. Without it, the shields are insufficient and get dropped way to easily. Unlike the Klingon Player who can not do enough damage to the beastly CA (which I can not understand why people hate this ship.)

Granted, these were 1 on 1 but we figured, on a fleet level, it would be even more of a joke given that Federation ships BARELY need to 'maneuver' and would just destroy the Klingons with cross, out of arc firing.


All in All it was a bad night for the Klingons.

--->Two final notes.
1. This was with the d7 modified to have more versatile firepower.
2. All ships were Military Grade.


My friend took a couple of things away from all this. I believe we will keep the D7s with that new fire arc on the Phaser-2s.
Can others try this. The D7s are the only ones we adjusted because we feel it moves in line with their fluff. Mind you, neither of us has placed FC or SFB. So, that is just our thoughts.
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:03 pm

Thanks for the report. It now looks like the ships are going to have hull damage and shields recomputed and the Klingon front shield rule will go away.

Perhaps we do need to keep Agile for the Klingons. :) Thanks for being able to test out the theory.

One thing though:

quote:
2nd turn - Federation again move forward 12' and attempt evasive fire. CA-Alpha fails, CA-Bravo does not. Klingons back off 4' to stay out of phaser death range but keep Disruptors in range.
unquote.

Minor point, did the Feds stay together after one made it's Evasive Action roll? Reason I ask is that the ship that does manage the roll can only move 6". So you might have one CA that does not make the roll and can move 12", and one that did make the roll and moves only 6". Which can get them separated by more than you might like, unless the ship that didn't make the roll only moves 6" so as to allow the slower ship to keep up.
Nretnimoc
Weasel
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:21 pm
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Nretnimoc » Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:15 pm

This was actually on us. This was the first time we started using that special order. I didnt notice it till we were doing the 1 on 1 fighting.

So it would have changed things up only a little. The CA-Alpha didnt make it, so its fate would not have changed. What would have changed is the CA-Bravo would have only moved 6' and been in an even better position.

Yes, I think that is the best way to go about it. I get the reasoning and what they were going for. After a dozen of so small games I have honestly never had an issue with the 'hard shields' anyway. If anything, they are the only thing that forces me as a Federation to even think about movement.
Lord Hastings
Shrew
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:05 am
Location: Luton, UK

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Lord Hastings » Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:36 am

Interesting ideas above, but those who have played SFB & FC are here ands on other topics missing one vital point, the Photon has a consistent damage, whatever the range, but the Disruptor weakens at longer range. Maybe you should try Multihit 2 for Disruptors ONLY at short range? This will reduce Klingon efficiency at longer range whilst their shields are easier to bear to use the shield doubling (still one of the oddest rules in the game imho!). This would resemble what happens in SFB/FC and be easy to implement.
Plasmas are weakened with the Energy Bleed Trait, so no changes needed to weaken them at range.
Photon reloads use the same power as Disruptors, so I agree with other comments that their Reload should not be a power drain, use a different reload trait for them, the Plasma takes 3 turns for a full reload and is heavy on power for the third turn, so leave them as a Power Drain.

On Damage it is a bit odd, but there must be separate rule for freighters and bases, otherwise a base gets far tougher by docking Cargo pods on and the Jumbo Freighter is as tough as a Battleship on Damage!
Lord Hastings
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:09 am

There were proposals to make Disruptors a single hit weapon, but give them Killzone 12, allowing them to score 2 points of damage out to 12" and 1 from 12" to 24" for a standard disruptor.

I believe that Tony Thomas/ADB is looking at this issue, but I'm not in the loop on the playtesting so I can't say what they are testing.
Lincolnlog
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Lincolnlog » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:28 pm

billclo wrote:There were proposals to make Disruptors a single hit weapon, but give them Killzone 12, allowing them to score 2 points of damage out to 12" and 1 from 12" to 24" for a standard disruptor.

I believe that Tony Thomas/ADB is looking at this issue, but I'm not in the loop on the playtesting so I can't say what they are testing.
Bill,

I don't see this on the BBS discussion. Since plasma is 16" the range should be shortened to 15" and Kill Zone should be 10".

Bob
billclo
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Hanover PA

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby billclo » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:08 pm

Bob,

I think it was mainly around here, several months ago. I don't think it was on the SFU BBS, though feel free to bring it up there if you want.
Lincolnlog
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Lincolnlog » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:28 pm

billclo wrote:Bob,

I think it was mainly around here, several months ago. I don't think it was on the SFU BBS, though feel free to bring it up there if you want.
Bill,

ther e is a topic for weapons, that is not open yet. But I like the reduction in damage on long range fire with disruptors, but, I have a problem with disruptors in that they should be no longer range than photons. Plasma is 16" and if that equals 32 hexes, then disruptors shouldn't be longer than 15".

Bob
Iain McGhee
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Paisley, Scotland

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby Iain McGhee » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:50 am

Photons are near useless in FC over range 8, Disruptors should have a longer effective range.
katadder
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5005
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: lincoln, uk
Contact:

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby katadder » Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:57 am

which is exactly why I argued this point during playtest. as an FC player before CTA I wanted SFU CTA to play in a similar way.
which is why klingons are agile and have long range disrupters, so they can sabre dance
1st & Only Centauri Grand Admiral

LONAW Fleets: http://www.mediafire.com/?tddmi2mjcl2
storeylf
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: [ACTA:SF] Discussion: taming the Klingons

Postby storeylf » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:24 am

It is what I keep saying as well. Sure they have the same max range, but that totaly misses the point. 99% of the time Feds are closing to close range (12 maybe, 8 preferably) against a disrupter races and getting hammered as they do it. Firing at long range isn't usually going to work against disrupter fleets.

In a fleet game with a dozen ships (but no scouts) the Feds can expect to lose* 2 or 3 ships against klingons before even firing photons.

With scouts (and every fleet level game of FC I've played included them) the photon actually has a max range of 12, where as the dsirupter is still firing at range 25.

*Dead or effectively out of it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests