A Call To Arms Star Fleet question

[BFalcon]

Boss: OK, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your idea of making them direct fire while allowing the usual SFB response to plasma, which is to turn and open the range as much as possible while trying to kill them? The more impulses (in SFB) that a plasma exists, the weaker it is when it finally hits... so a fast-moving Fed ship can open the range quite a bit more than it was when the plasma was fired (cf TOS episode "Balance of Terror" where the "BigE" reverses as quickly as possible to open the range on the Romulan Warbird's plasma torp).

Drones can be fired upon by both ship-board weapons and Anti-Drone Drones (ADDs) but also (if memory serves) by fighters, so although it would be possible to make them direct-fire, it would also mean that you couldn't bring ships in to help.

Failure to accurately reflect these weapons would kill at least 3 races in SFU that I know of (Romulan, Gorn and Kzinti), possibly more and would cripple at least a few ships in every other fleet since they were designed to patrol these borders.*

*I only got to play the basic boxed sets.

 

[katadder]

as Bfalcon says, if those weapons were direct fire you wouldnt be able to use the usual defensive response against them.
my usual romulan player gave up romulans because he could never hit my klingons with plasma, think in all the games we played he managed to get one plasma to me at a greatly reduced strength.
drones can be outran, plasma can be ran away from enough until it lowers in strength and even this was shown in TOS iirc.
both plasma and drones can be shot to either destroy in a drones case or to weaken in plasmas case.

if these were direct fire weapons they would have no similarity to the SFU and as I said would not fit in with that side of things.

you can fire some plasma as direct fire btw but we have rules for that already.

my personal opinion on plasma was to use it like a fighter that has to chase a specific target, this though can get complicated with lots of plasma ships on the board, although if use dry wipe markers on plastic counters to write your target then this can be overcome.

 

[BFalcon]

my personal opinion on plasma was to use it like a fighter that has to chase a specific target, this though can get complicated with lots of plasma ships on the board, although if use dry wipe markers on plastic counters to write your target then this can be overcome.

Or a seperate piece of paper and just write the Drone or Torp's ID and the ID of the target ship along with the launch turn. Not much to write down (particularly if you were to combine all drone waves into one counter and assign a "strength" to the counter (eg the number of drones). Incidently, this is one area where the ship class codes are useful, but probably equally good to the named ships (provided you don't choose awkwardly-named alien ships which might slow things down.

Actually, I think "all drones must be launched at the same ship" and "each drone wave would be represented by one counter with a unique ID and assigned a strength depending on how many drones are in that wave" would be a good comprimise - not least reducing the number of counters on the board. It'd mean one more bit of book-keeping though (a dice might be enough)

 

[Da Boss]

Boss: OK, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your idea of making them direct fire while allowing the usual SFB response to plasma, which is to turn and open the range as much as possible while trying to kill them? The more impulses (in SFB) that a plasma exists, the weaker it is when it finally hits... so a fast-moving Fed ship can open the range quite a bit more than it was when the plasma was fired (cf TOS episode "Balance of Terror" where the "BigE" reverses as quickly as possible to open the range on the Romulan Warbird's plasma torp).

Drones can be fired upon by both ship-board weapons and Anti-Drone Drones (ADDs) but also (if memory serves) by fighters, so although it would be possible to make them direct-fire, it would also mean that you couldn't bring ships in to help.

Failure to accurately reflect these weapons would kill at least 3 races in SFU that I know of (Romulan, Gorn and Kzinti), possibly more and would cripple at least a few ships in every other fleet since they were designed to patrol these borders.*

*I only got to play the basic boxed sets.

Plasma Torps
I thnk it depends on how you are looking at the time the weapon spends moving from ship to target. As I understand it a SFB turn is broken into lots of impluses whereas a ACTA turn I feel normally simulates a longer period of time incorporating various maneuveres etc by both ships and weapons. Consequently you could make the Attack Dice damage, chance of critical effects and armour penetration reliant on the actual range at the time of firing. I had a mess around at making some rules on an other thread... This would also allow tactical maneuvring as the Romulan ships want to close with the Federation ships....

Firestorm Armada and a few other games have weapon systems which vary in capability at range.

Another option would be have some form of Evasive manueres SA which gives Dodge trait against Missiles. Do the present rules allow a ship to reverse at maximum speed which IIRC was what saved the Enterprise?

So at short range they would be deadily, at long range consideradly less so. Whilst drones and toprs could be simulated by the equivalent of fighter tokens one of the big things that slowed previous editions was having to track things related to them - and if the Plasma Torps/ drones are more complex - say by having to track damage- then it will be slower game. Not neccesarily better or worse but slower.

Drones
Point defence systems are easily represnted by a variant of either Anti-Fighter or Interceptors traits which again supported assistance by other ships and supporting fighters (or shuttles in this case) - again I had a go on another thread.......

I am just putting it out there that lots of counters is not the only option when representing such weapons

Actually, I think "all drones must be launched at the same ship" and "each drone wave would be represented by one counter with a unique ID and assigned a strength depending on how many drones are in that wave" would be a good comprimise - not least reducing the number of counters on the board. It'd mean one more bit of book-keeping though (a dice might be enough).

That could work - pretty much what Battle Fleet Gothic uses... Dice is not a good idea as there other things - has the ship moved/fired, reloading, Special Actions etc that people often use dice for...... it can get confusing!

 

[katadder]

even in a fedcom game you have to outrun plasma for multiple turns especially the big plasmas but this is not a problem. with direct fire this would make outrunning impossible even if done on range. in fact at range plasma would rarely if ever hit, the reason romulans use cloaking is to get in close before launching the plasma then recloaking to load again.

plasma/drones can never be direct fire without giving a big finger to the SFU and thats something that cannot happen for players of SFB/FC as you will not get them in. the game has to give ground to both systems so that players from both enjoy it.

and in answer to something you posted earlier, no this wont be compatible with NA or B5. would need alot of conversion work to get to work i think.

 

[Da Boss]

even in a fedcom game you have to outrun plasma for multiple turns especially the big plasmas but this is not a problem. with direct fire this would make outrunning impossible even if done on range. in fact at range plasma would rarely if ever hit, the reason romulans use cloaking is to get in close before launching the plasma then recloaking to load again..

Hmm maybe but I think that by having range related weapon youa re already accounting for the chase - just simulating it in a different way - rather than moving tokens and ships you are measuring the lack of chance of hitting and relative weakness of the missile even if it did?

plasma/drones can never be direct fire without giving a big finger to the SFU and thats something that cannot happen for players of SFB/FC as you will not get them in. the game has to give ground to both systems so that players from both enjoy it.

and in answer to something you posted earlier, no this wont be compatible with NA or B5. would need alot of conversion work to get to work i think.

Aren't drones just missiles which can be intercepted or are they something else - again there is nothing there that can't be simulated by a Anti-fighter type mechanism and the escort trait? If the effects are the same its really a question of if you want lots of counters racing aroud the table - again which could be fine if they are like fighters in ACTA: B5 or Torp salvos in BFG (in fact their counter/ turrets mechanism would probably work fine for Plasma Torps?) but not if you have to track lots of things related to them - damage, ship targeted, ship launched etc?

Shame about the compatability issue...........

 

[katadder]

well drones i think using the VaS rules isnt too bad an idea, but plasma is a whole differant issue.
if were to use tokens then i would have a stack of tokens for each ad, then for each hit remove a token. easy enough.

 

[adm]

My knowledge of ACTA is near zero, but drones can be thought of as similar to AoGs B5 wars missiles. Plasmas are a different beasty, the can be fired at with phasers, but phasers do only half damage. Your best defense is to run away, most of the time, a secondary defense is to use a "Wild Weasel" shuttle. To use one takes one of you small amount of shuttles you have, requires you to drop fire control, and slow down to a near stop. This of course makes you a major target after the various seeking weapons destroy the weasel.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'm with Katadder regarding Plasma Torpedoes in that I think it'd perhaps be better if they worked in a similar fashion to fighters in ACTA. That lets you manoeuvre away from them and shoot at them in much the same manner as in FC, plus you could also have them lose strength over time. It would require you to record data for every torpedo in flight, but I don't see any other way to handle them without losing their flavour.

I don't know how VAS torpedoes work, but I am quite familiar with both ACTA and basic FC rules (if it matters). IMO Drones could easily use direct fire rules to declutter the table with the SF equivalent of Anti-fighter/Interceptors to knock them down. Most ships would need something similar to the Escort trait, with an enhanced version for Aegis escorts. You would lose the ability to outrun them, but it should be possible to balance them to take this into account. You'd only need to record drones held by tractors if that's in ACTA:SF.

 

[Mundane]

I want the drones and plasma torps to have counters on the board. Part of the fun and tactics is using your seeking weapons to restrict the movement of your enemy.

I haven't seen the playtest rules but I figure drones would have a T firing arc and the ship would launch a counter with attack dice equal to the number of drone racks. The drones would have unlimited turning and move towards their designated target (either when it moves or in a phase for seeking weapons.) Ships would get a final shot at drones before they hit.

Plasma should work in a similar manner except each launcher would have one firing arc and launch its own counter. The AD of each counter would reduce by one per turn.

As long as each counter was numbered you could record the target info and current AD on a record sheet. I don't see then adding much time to the game but the acid test would be a large fleet battle between the Klingons and Kzintis.

 

[Greg Smith]

My knowledge of ACTA is near zero, but drones can be thought of as similar to AoGs B5 wars missiles.

I don't know how B5 Wars missiles worked, but in B5 ACTA they are direct fire weapons.

In the original Noble Armada, missiles moved independantly and tracked their target. In NA ACTA they became direct fire weapons. Although they could be shot down at the point of impact.

 

[Da Boss]

I want the drones and plasma torps to have counters on the board. Part of the fun and tactics is using your seeking weapons to restrict the movement of your enemy.

I haven't seen the playtest rules but I figure drones would have a T firing arc and the ship would launch a counter with attack dice equal to the number of drone racks. The drones would have unlimited turning and move towards their designated target (either when it moves or in a phase for seeking weapons.) Ships would get a final shot at drones before they hit.

Plasma should work in a similar manner except each launcher would have one firing arc and launch its own counter. The AD of each counter would reduce by one per turn.

As long as each counter was numbered you could record the target info and current AD on a record sheet. I don't see then adding much time to the game but the acid test would be a large fleet battle between the Klingons and Kzintis.

If ACTA stays true to its roots we are not talking about one or two ships and one or two drones but 10 ships on each side - potentially all firing drones each turn depending on the race - that alot of counters and an awful alot of unneccasry book keeping IMO.

As noted there may be quick ways of simulating Plasma Torps with counters (like in BFG) but having walls of drones moving between each group ships = table cluttter in my opinion.

There are proven mechanisms for intercepting missile fire which would distinguish them between them and other direct fire weapons. Presumably they already act exactly like Direct fire weapons when within the move range of drones anyway in SFU?? ie at short range you can just shoot the enemy ship with them?

 

[BFalcon]

Well, in all fairness, no matter what rules are eventually adopted, you're always able to rule that nobody uses a particular weapon if you find it slows the game too much to your tastes, but obviously that would be best avoided.

Drones being direct fire if in immediate range would be the best solution, but (given that drones are multi-turn weapons) I seriously think that each wave = 1 counter is the best comprimise over the massed-counters idea (although the massed counters does look impressive, I'll grant you).

Maybe borrow from the GW titans and the Heroclix and have a base with a rotating value and have that decrease as you lose drones. Similar idea could be employed for the bases for the plasma torps and the number of turns it's moved...

And if I recall, drones get to move at certain times in the impulse, so yes I would expect them to be a direct fire weapon (for all intents and purposes) if inside their maximum range and able to turn to keep up with the target. You might need to have a counter on the board to show that you've launched the drones to give your target a chance to move before the drones do (perhaps avoid their arc) but without my SFB or FC books to hand, I can't comment on the SFB rules.

For those wondering about the VaS rules on torpedos...

"Used as unguided missiles, torpedoes are unusual in that they are fired in salvos and operate a little differently from other attacks.

A torpedo attack is declared in the same way as any other. When a torpedo attack is made, place a torpedo spread counter in contact with a single target vessel that is within 10" and in the attacker's target arc, as appropriate. The counter should be placed alongside the target's beam (against the side of the ship*) only if the vessel making the attack would normally be making beam attacks against it**.

In the End Phase, roll Attack Dice for the torpedo spread. These Attack Dice do not use the normal modifiers detailed on page 7. Instead a +1 bonus is granted if the torpedo spread is placed on the target's beam.

Damage Dice are then rolled as normal and the effects of the hits are worked out accordingly."

That's the exact rules from the VaS rulebook... it would be in keeping for a counter to be placed in the same way in ACTA:SF, I'm guessing...

* Remember that VaS ships are based on rectangular bases...
** Presumably this means "if the attacking ship can reasonably hit the beam of the target ship better than the bow or stern".

 

[Iain McGhee]

Thanks, I see where they're going with that now. Yeah, I can see the VaS rules working for Drones (and I like your idea of using one counter per volley to reduce clutter).

FYI, Federation Commander Drones (and Plasma) have you launch them at the end of any of the 8 impulses in a turn (max range of target almost the same as Drone speed). After that, they just move as ships do until they either impact their target or are lost in some manner. Impacted weapons are resolved at the end of the turn, along with any defensive fire.

 

[katadder]

the other thing with drones is its not just anti-drone that can stop them, thats the final defence. phasers of any size can stop them, phaser 3s are the most used but if you have alot people have used phaser 1s to stop them too.
also drones can be stopped by tractor beams as a temporary measure, tholian webs and lyran esgs

 

[scoutdad]

We played several more sessions this past weekend. The report can be found here.
The big games were the Romulan v. Klingon fleet battles.
We had plasmas and drone flying back and forth. Perjaps it's familiarity with SFB / FC, but we had no trouble tracking drone / plasma counters.

Each drone stack on a particular facing of a single ship base had a die indicating how mnay drones remained. As they were destroyed, the die was rotated to accurately reflect the AD of drones remaining.

same with the Plasmas. One plasma torp counter on each base with a die totalling AD remaining combined with a note scribbled on paper indicating indiviudal torps and AD.
It took less than a minute each turn to deal with everything, and at one point I think it was 14 drones on the map and 19 AD worth of Torpedoes.

Labor day we are playing 2500 points of Kzinti versus 2500 points of Klingons. We'll let you know how that one goes, but I don't anticipate much delay in that one either.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Sounds encouraging. It'll be interesting to read how you get on with a large Kzinti fleet, that'll be the acid test for the Drone rules.

 

[scoutdad]

@Ian: It was actually pretty cool.
After reading some of the comments on this forum, I was really concerned - but it was no big deal.

Maybe it is coming from a Star Fleet Battles background, but I thought it turned out ot be much ado about nothing.

 

[Da Boss]

@ Scoutdad - thanks for the very interestng reports. Be interested to see how larger games with susbtantial maonts of seeking weapons as Clanger was talking about work for you - as you say it may be just a different gaming mindset in play......

I note they are (thus far) quite small games - 3-4 ships each - do you think this is the amount of ships intended?

You were talking about 20AD explosions - it used to be half the ships damage but with an upper limit of 15 AD - has this gone?

 

[Rick]

Given that ACTA B5 could have a fair few fighter counters on the table and that ACTA Star Fleet will have virtually no fighters - rather than trying to track every single drone like it's done in SFB; why not treat them in a similiar way to fighters - have a single counter representing a salvo of 5 and rate the launchers in how many salvoes it can launch per turn, rather than singles. I'm not terribly keen on the idea of pushing a big wobbly stack of counters round after ships or having copious notes on how many drones are represented by a single marker - this might be a better solution.