News on A Call to Arms: Star Fleet!

[Da Boss]

Well there does seem to be a whole new game in the offing - for good or ill.

I understand some of the suggested changes above - others less so.

I think that it should be remembered that the SFU compliance issue already put huge strains on the ACTA system and made many things "work" or in fact not work the way they do. Specifcially this whole "ADB" will fix the system - ADB has been involved from the start - like to or not - it was a joint venture

Drones - perhaps the single most difficult and annoying element of the game in playtesting -so very much time was spent on this and how to make it SFU compliant without wrecking the inherient advantages of the ACTA system. I will be intrigued to see how this can be suddenly solved without cluttering the table with vast numbers of counters etc..............but maybe thats whats wanted by some even if its an anthama to others.

oh well lets see what happens and if its still a game I have any interest in..............

[alansa]

Don't get me wrong - I like direct fire - like it a lot and I hope it will be retained. But I understand that people feel that there is something missing, something that doesn't quite capture the right SFU feel - especially SVC. But SVC also understands that this game has to be quick playing.

In all it sounds like a tough one - hopefully something nice and neat can be done. It'll be interesting...

[mdauben]

I will be intrigued to see how this can be suddenly solved without cluttering the table with vast numbers of counters etc..............but maybe thats whats wanted by some even if its an anthama to others.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't want to carry the record keeping aspects of seeking weapons from SFB to ACTASF. The method in SFB is fine for duels or even small squadron engagmements but it doesn't work well for the larger fleet style engagments which are the strength of ACTASF. I'd just like to somehow (and again, I don't claim to know how at this point) bring more of the... flavor of seeking weapons into ACTASF. If they can do this with the current "semi-direct fire" system by adding a few more tweaks, I'd be great with that.

[Iain McGhee]

Steve Cole posted this over on the ADB site as a potential idea for handling drones.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/me ... 1384545058

Basically working like (suicide) fighter stands in previous versions of ACTA, I'd guess you'd need to give them a separate movement step like they get too (before anything else moves I'd think). It'd take away the "IDF issue" since you could manoeuvre ships to intercept them with standard fire. I'd suggest it'd be simplest just to resolve close-defence and damage in the movement phase the drones hit if something along these lines was adopted rather than faff around with keeping track of how many hit each shield face in the firing or end phase.

[storeylf]

Well S Cole has posted about what he wants drones to be over on the FC forum (call to arms section).

Way off anything I want to play. Drones as minis on the table and that last 3 turns, no thanks. A kzinti fleet that dumps out 100 drone minis! may as well just stick with FC if I want that style of play.

Have to see more about what he is thinking in terms of speed/targeting etc, but even ignoring the fiddlyness I just can't see that is going to work without an absolutely seimic shift in ACTA, the game mechanics are just not suitable as is.

[Iain McGhee]

I'd guess you'd only need one marker for all the AD one ship fires on a turn, and just place a die or chit next to it to show how many AD it represents. Unless it's an evil plan to sell us buckets of those drone and plasma miniatures ADB sells

[alansa]

Steve's idea seems reasonable on paper - the worry is the number of drone pieces on the table...

What if the drone minis where grouped on bases. 1, 4, 10 etc depending on what was firing. Like a squadron of fighters (or something like torpedoes in Battle Fleet Gothic if anyone remembers that)

Individual drones wouldn't be able to split out, all the drones would have to hit the same target.

A drone 'wave/base' would be full strength or completely wiped out. Chances of wipe out depending on the strength of the wave and what is hitting it. (so you don't have to go replacing a stand with 4 drones on it with 1 with 3 cause you shot down a single drone)

That might keep the number of actual pieces on the table down

Even so - I'm still inclined to prefer direct fire for this game - if the appropriate tweaks can be found.

[Greg Smith]

I'd guess you'd only need one marker for all the AD one ship fires on a turn, and just place a die or chit next to it to show how many AD it represents.

One playtest game had seventy drone counters on the table, IIRC. Direct fire was a big compromise on seeking weapons made in playtesting.

Even talking about it on the forums we have the drones, a die next to it to show AD and Steve Cole's penny - suddenly those conjectural tables look awfully cluttered.

There are certainly issues with drones and drone defence. To my mind, direct fire isn't one of those issues.

I will be interested to see what Tony and ADB come up with.

[storeylf]

Drones as pieces that move etc works in a duel, works to a point in squadron level games. AT fleet level I just can't see it being reasonable. It was the the thing that held back FC from doing larger games very well, sure I played plenty of fleet actions in FC, but in the end it was the one thing we house ruled on to try and make the games play a bit faster at that level.

I think he may paint himself in to a corner with fighters as well. In FC the reason fighters never turned up apart from stingers was he couldn't seem to work out how to handle the drone numbers, whilst still insisting they should be the same as ship fired ones. Could be headed down the same path again, except on a larger scale given the emphasis on fleet combat in ACTA.

There is plenty of scope for decent direct fire seekers working. Just stop fixating on them being direct fire/auto hit, and ensure the counters to them feel and work right.

[Jean]

You may want to bring some of your ideas to ADB's BBS. SVC is posting daily updates on progress. If you don't like the BBS, I am also trying to get them posted on ADB's page on FB and on the fan page for A Call to Arms Star Fleet as well as a page that focuses on SFU minis

[Iain McGhee]

oh I have

[Jean]

We are asking YOUR input about miniatures. Please see the picture here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... nt_count=1

Comment either on the BBS or on our page on FB.

(Iain, thanks for your input. )

[Da Boss]

oh I have

Ditto

[Isoulle]

Any word on Noble Armada?

[Jean]

Isoulle, that is something you'd need to ask Matthew. It would be more likely to catch his eye in a new thread.

[MongooseMatt]

Any word on Noble Armada?

There is - we'll be covering this in the State of the Mongoose!

[The_Mhor]

Will the updated PDF of the new "1.2" rules be available free to those of us who purchased the original rulebook?

[Greg Smith]

Over on ADB's BBS, they have said it will be.

[riftsinger]

I happen to like a book in the hand more than a pdf what style of print on demand book are we talking about same as the book mongoose acta or a captains log ?

[scoutdad]

I happen to like a book in the hand more than a pdf what style of print on demand book are we talking about same as the book mongoose acta or a captains log ?

question forwarded to ADBs attention for response.