A Call To Arms Star Fleet question

[Rambler]

I guess the question on shields is really going to come down to what happens when they go down. If it is a 360 Shield and goes down that is going to change Overrun Tactics and Base Assaults. If more than 1 shield is a option. we really do not need 6 shields to keep the feel or tactical think of SFB. Even just 2 Shields could keep that element but 4 would be more than adequate. As far as just 2 shield there is some precedent to support this in the SFU. Interceptors (Protogunboats) had them but, the were really just a footnote and not a real combat unit, and Andromedansn Power Absorber Panels are front half or rear half protection.

Shields are going to have to eventually figure out how they will handle Enveloping Weapons like Hellbores which envelope then do the most damage to the weakest shield or Splash Wepons like Plasmatic Pulsar Devices which can strike upto 3 shileds or 180 Degrees.

Just a observation. If some form of ship card is used why not maintain the loading times of multi-turn wepaons?

 

[Rick]

I guess the question on shields is really going to come down to what happens when they go down. If it is a 360 Shield and goes down that is going to change Overrun Tactics and Base Assaults. If more than 1 shield is a option. we really do not need 6 shields to keep the feel or tactical think of SFB. Even just 2 Shields could keep that element but 4 would be more than adequate. As far as just 2 shield there is some precedent to support this in the SFU. Interceptors (Protogunboats) had them but, the were really just a footnote and not a real combat unit, and Andromedansn Power Absorber Panels are front half or rear half protection.

Shields are going to have to eventually figure out how they will handle Enveloping Weapons like Hellbores which envelope then do the most damage to the weakest shield or Splash Wepons like Plasmatic Pulsar Devices which can strike upto 3 shileds or 180 Degrees.

Just a observation. If some form of ship card is used why not maintain the loading times of multi-turn weapons?

Actually - it is a bit different. If you have a ship with 1 shield that takes damage, the firing ships have to get through every shield point before they hit the hull - if you use 4 different shield arcs they have to get through 1/4 of the total shield points before hitting the hull.

As to the number of shield arc's - I thought it would be simpler to stick with the same number as you've got firing arcs - any more or fewer and you're dividing some of your firing arcs into 2 shield arc's.

Umm depends how much you want to track stuff on a sheet really - I've never been a fan of 1 ship = 1 A4 sheet, I prefer fleet games where you can fit 3-5 ships onto an A4 sheet. The more stuff you have to keep track of, the more space you'll need.

 

[BFalcon]

Well, the advantage of 6 shields is that you can attack, but not at an angle that allows incoming weapons to pass through the damaged shield - a number 1 (forward) shield being badly damaged means that you need to avoid facing the enemy or face losing it completely but being able to use your photons (or similar)... 4 shields you could do that with - just... 2 shields, no way - you'd need to either split between fore and aft shields, or port and starboard - neither opens itself to being able to bring the same tactical impact.

The thing to remember is this, though - the fewer the shields, the stronger they'll need to be to keep the same endurance per ship... the thing I like about SFB is that you can have completely intact shields on an otherwise crippled ship without unbalancing the game.

The problem with only a few (or one) shield is, like you say, the enveloping weapons... they could be too powerful if the number of shields is too few - each shield would take more damage without the chance to spread it out... and if there's a reinforce shields order, could make each shield too powerful otherwise.

Multi-turn weapons are a problem... unlike shields (once gone, they're gone), multi-turn weapons reset each time they reload and are fired... so unless you decide that all weapons need to be fired and reloaded at the same time, you'd need to track each one... I'd sooner see a counter on the base for each weapon and have photons alternate between loading and ready to keep things simple and have a counter that needs to be added for plasmas each turn until ready.

The one thing I'm REALLY looking forward to is not having to fill out another Energy Allocation Form... those are really annoying sometimes...

 

[BFalcon]

Umm depends how much you want to track stuff on a sheet really - I've never been a fan of 1 ship = 1 A4 sheet, I prefer fleet games where you can fit 3-5 ships onto an A4 sheet. The more stuff you have to keep track of, the more space you'll need.

Me too (although an SSD from SFB can fit onto an A5 sheet, so two to an A4 sheet, the writing is a little small...

The thing to remember is that an SSD can easily be compressed into lines of data like the ACTA stat blocks, so you won't need to lose more than 1/3 of the data from each sheet - most room is taken up with the phaser and photon sheets... which will disappear so you'll find a big saving in space - especially if they don't worry about crew units either. Turn mode will probably become a single stat - that takes up lines too... Overall, you'd probably find that each ship (with the exception of the really heavily-armed ships) will not take up much more room than the NA ships...

 

[Da Boss]

Few thoughts from someone who has seen and played in a vast number of ACTA games or varying sizes:

Shields may work better as a form of GEG(*) - especially if they follow the route of low AD per ship as in Noble Armada (something I am not at all keen on as I like lots of dice but hey).

Tracking everything already involved in ACTA can be quite a trick when you are trying to play and you are running 8-15 ships, some of which are the same, and trying to remember what critical is effecting each ship, applying special orders and working out how best to use the asteroid field here or the dust could there. Add in six additional trackers for arcs of shields for every single ship and I feel it would just be massively game slowing. You could use dice if its low shield numbers - but again thats 6 dice for each and every ship - which will get nudged , knocked etc when you move the ships -its bad enough with one dice per shipas with Shadow Scouts (they have 5 shields).

Now I realise that SFU players are far more used to book keeping than us ACTA players - but the primary thing is the game is fast and furious (well as much as we can make it)

I think we have discussed multi-turn weapons before - slow-loading (fire every other turn) is ok -any more than that is not at all desirable from my experience. I toyed with this idea for the Hyach and realised that it could mean ships doing pretty much nothing for several turns -if its not been blown to smitherens. Also see my point about tracking too much with too many ships.....

Another big element of ACTA which may be different to SFU games is that terrain is massively important as is squadron tactics - these can be as vital as moving into unprotected or weak fire arcs thorugh straight movement.

I am not saying it wount be possible but does it improve the game - I am not convinced.

The excellent ship sheets (all fan made) for B5 usually allow tracking of 4 -10 ships per A4 sheet, dpeending on the style used.

(*) for non B5 players - GEG absorbs a set amount of damage from each weapon fired at it - critical hits (normally a roll of a 6 on a standard wepaon) bypass GEG completley...

 

[Rambler]

I guess the question on shields is really going to come down to what happens when they go down. If it is a 360 Shield and goes down that is going to change Overrun Tactics and Base Assaults. If more than 1 shield is a option. we really do not need 6 shields to keep the feel or tactical think of SFB. Even just 2 Shields could keep that element but 4 would be more than adequate. As far as just 2 shield there is some precedent to support this in the SFU. Interceptors (Protogunboats) had them but, the were really just a footnote and not a real combat unit, and Andromedansn Power Absorber Panels are front half or rear half protection.

Shields are going to have to eventually figure out how they will handle Enveloping Weapons like Hellbores which envelope then do the most damage to the weakest shield or Splash Wepons like Plasmatic Pulsar Devices which can strike upto 3 shileds or 180 Degrees.

Just a observation. If some form of ship card is used why not maintain the loading times of multi-turn weapons?

Actually - it is a bit different. If you have a ship with 1 shield that takes damage, the firing ships have to get through every shield point before they hit the hull - if you use 4 different shield arcs they have to get through 1/4 of the total shield points before hitting the hull.

As to the number of shield arc's - I thought it would be simpler to stick with the same number as you've got firing arcs - any more or fewer and you're dividing some of your firing arcs into 2 shield arc's.

I actually think 4 is probably best but, was just point out even just 2 would work. I do think 6 may be pushing it to much. Also as far as Overrun Attacks go lets look at how it would work in SFB/FC. A D7 starts its attack run it fires 4 Disruptors (overloaded) and 5 Phasers at point blank range then kicks out 2 drones for good measure. This should breach the forward shield. Now the D7 flies over/under it target and thrown in 4 more phasers which normally would strike a fresh shield. How would the single shield approach handle this. Also remeber if the Klingon timed the battle pass right he would starts the next turn at point blank range with 4 phasers and both drones able to fire again.

Umm depends how much you want to track stuff on a sheet really - I've never been a fan of 1 ship = 1 A4 sheet, I prefer fleet games where you can fit 3-5 ships onto an A4 sheet. The more stuff you have to keep track of, the more space you'll need.

Actually if FedCom can get a Ship Card down to 5.5"x8.5" page I was thinking ACTA could get it down to a 4”x6” or 3"x5" Card. Espically if you get rid of those pretty graphics.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Well, I can get 5 generic ship records for B5:ACTA on an A4 sheet which cover any ship type in the game. Reckon you should be able to fit 4 ACTA:SF ships in the same space if it uses the NA critical system (which requires you to track the number of hits to each system rather than individual effects) and has up to 4 shield arcs to track (which is what I'm hoping they end up with, one per firing arc). You don't need to track system hits in ACTA outside of critical effects.

 

[BFalcon]

Actually if FedCom can get a Ship Card down to 5.5"x8.5" page I was thinking ACTA could get it down to a 4”x6” or 3"x5" Card. Espically if you get rid of those pretty graphics.

Actually, I'd LOVE to see standard-sized index cards sold as a seperate product or to be allowed to scan and print them out ourselves from the main RB - I use the various sizes a lot for various things and they're the ultimate resource for any referee or wargamer, since you can file them in alphabetical order, but keep them out for easy reference while working or playing. Heck, even 8x6 would be good enough for me...

And yes, those FC wipe-clean cards was a nice touch, I'll admit - as I said elsewhere, I didn't get to use mine, just look at them before packing them away, but I do remember those.

Your example is a good one... I think that too few shields would make that kind of close-quarters brawling a less common event - why try to reach the shields on the other side when rear shields are weak and the enemy is pointing his stronger front shields at you - if he turns his weakened shields away, he can't shoot and has only weak shields anyhow and if he doesn't he's dead - no real choice either way... just stand back and keep pumping long-range shots into him. Single shields and he'll have no reason to turn away...

I'm afraid I'm a great believer in realism in wargaming - if I have a ship that's taken enough of a pounding to no longer be viable in combat, I'll pull it out of the fight to pull it back - no point in wasting ships that can no longer fight - it's just a waste of resources.

 

[BFalcon]

Well, I can get 5 generic ship records for B5:ACTA on an A4 sheet which cover any ship type in the game. Reckon you should be able to fit 4 ACTA:SF ships in the same space if it uses the NA critical system (which requires you to track the number of hits to each system rather than individual effects) and has up to 4 shield arcs to track (which is what I'm hoping they end up with, one per firing arc). You don't need to track system hits in ACTA outside of critical effects.

Well, you say that - I'm just wondering how they're going to translate, for example, the firing arcs from the D7 waist phasers - they have their own Front arc, side and opposite-rear arcs which can lead to some fun... so they'll either need to use 6 arcs or translate the 6 arcs into 4...

 

[Da Boss]

The fans made superb resources for B5 ACTA - check out the the truelly essential ships sheets here:

http://www.ibisfightclub.co.uk/

http://www.epicarmycard.com/

the sheets can be pretty small...........

ACTA games have both close and long range duels - depending on the speed and agility of the respective ships - its similar to your shield thing only related to different things - plus of course the terrain....

Please be aware that constantly tracking six extra things for each and every ship is not a small change to the rules...

 

[Greg Smith]

IDo you know if there'll be a "reinforce shields" special order to keep them alive longer, or will the emphasis be on killing each ship quickly like NA seems to be?

There is currently. (playtesting rules etc might change).

 

[BFalcon]

IDo you know if there'll be a "reinforce shields" special order to keep them alive longer, or will the emphasis be on killing each ship quickly like NA seems to be?

There is currently. (playtesting rules etc might change).

Thanks - understood...

Any info on the number of shields?

 

[Rick]

Please be aware that constantly tracking six extra things for each and every ship is not a small change to the rules...

I'm not so sure about this actually. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that huge a jump. We're used to tracking damage and criticals already - so that's several things at once for each ship; whether the shields are 1 long track or 4 smaller ones I don't think will matter - ACTA players are well used to turning to face with different firing arc's, so turning to face with different shields (I think) would become just as automatic.
It's been part of many different Star Trek games over the years and is part of the genre - think about how shields are mentioned on the show - they talk about forward shields and aft shields, not just a generic 'shields'. I'd like to see it in ACTA:SF - I really think it would add more than it took away!

 

[Ben2]

So shields are working like shields in SFB and not noble armada, ie with damage tracks and not a shield value?

Are leaky shields in there?

 

[Iain McGhee]

Well, I can get 5 generic ship records for B5:ACTA on an A4 sheet which cover any ship type in the game. Reckon you should be able to fit 4 ACTA:SF ships in the same space if it uses the NA critical system (which requires you to track the number of hits to each system rather than individual effects) and has up to 4 shield arcs to track (which is what I'm hoping they end up with, one per firing arc). You don't need to track system hits in ACTA outside of critical effects.

Well, you say that - I'm just wondering how they're going to translate, for example, the firing arcs from the D7 waist phasers - they have their own Front arc, side and opposite-rear arcs which can lead to some fun... so they'll either need to use 6 arcs or translate the 6 arcs into 4...

Not really going to be an issue, I'd expect. Weapons aren't usually treated as individual mounts in ACTA. Each weapons type has a separate entry and attack dice score assigned for each arc it can fire in (and criticals can knock out one or more weapons per arc depending on severity). There's also turret and boresight (fixed) weapons arcs to choose from.

 

[Da Boss]

I agree in B5 they are not - but Noble Armada did in fact try to excatly that iwth the weapon mounts..........

@ Rick - obviously I have to play to know - just running on instinct at present

 

[BFalcon]

Not really going to be an issue, I'd expect. Weapons aren't usually treated as individual mounts in ACTA. Each weapons type has a separate entry and attack dice score assigned for each arc it can fire in (and criticals can knock out one or more weapons per arc depending on severity). There's also turret and boresight (fixed) weapons arcs to choose from.

Sorry Iain, I missed out on ACTA: B5... I'm going on ACTA: NA and VaS...

 

[Iain McGhee]

No worries, besides I missed NA which might be closer to how SF will treat weapons arcs

 

[Greg Smith]

So shields are working like shields in SFB and not noble armada, ie with damage tracks and not a shield value?

But in NA shields can (and do) go down. They just go straight back up.

Are leaky shields in there?

Yes.*

*Playtest rules are subject to change.

 

[Rick]

I agree in B5 they are not - but Noble Armada did in fact try to excatly that iwth the weapon mounts..........

@ Rick - obviously I have to play to know - just running on instinct at present

Yup, me too - don't know what the rules are really like, just going on hunches and what Matt Sprange and the playtesters like Greg have let slip! I'm hoping different shield arc's will be in and I hope they work in game - otherwise I might be in a bit of a pickle!! :?