You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A new Universe for "A Call To Arms"
- Thread starter LimeyDragon
- Start date
treknogeek
Mongoose
Is there any real hope of a point system being used in place of priority levels?
treknogeek said:Is there any real hope of a point system being used in place of priority levels?
Given that Noble Armada is points based its highly likely?
There are a few things that would be interesting to see clarified between now and Day One:
*Would the game offer a hex-based map option for those who may want to use it? (If the Starline 2500 minis were to have hex bases, in order to work with the other games, that could be handy.)
*Would the firing arcs be re-done to match those in other Star Fleet Universe games? (For example, there were new arcs added to Starmada in order to make the likes of Klingon Armada work.)
*Would the shields be given separate facings, too? (Again, the Starmada conversion divided the ships' shields into separate 60-degree facings, to more closely echo the SFB/FC versions... and to retain the kind of tactical challenges that managing said facings present.)
*What kind of weapon traits would make sense for the various weapon systems, in order to accurately portray their various quirks and options?
(This may be less of an issue right now, but should some of the more esoteric weapons and/or systems be added in later, they might have to be re-considered.)
*Would the various seeking weapons (drones, plasma torpedoes, suicide shuttles, etc) be given proper rules governing their movement on the board, or would they be abstracted out?
I guess suicide shuttles would be the easiest, since they could be treated like the Kurgan suicide fighters in ACtA:NA...
*Would any of the monsters from the equivalent products in Federation Commander be on the list for consideration?
Klingon Border and Romulan Border offer the Planet Killer and Space Dragon respectively; though I'd personally be more excited about seeing the Juggernaut (from Klingon Attack) be brought in, especially if its rules could incorporate the option of taking Shriek missiles (as seen on Juggernaut Beta).
*One thing about the choice of combining KB and RB (if that is the choice to be made) is that it would make the Fed ship selection that little bit different to those for the outher four major fleets presented.
In Federation Commander, the outher four tend to have their "pre-war" ships (Klingon D7, Romulan War Eagle, etc) published in the "Border" boxes, while their "war" classes (Klingon D5, Romulan SparrowHawk et al) are in the "Attack" modules. In contrast, the pre-war Fed ships (CA, CL and so forth) are grouped with the Klingons, while their later ships (NCA, NCL etc) are in with the Romulans.
(You can see this in the Starmada books, too; Klingon Armada combines the ships from Klingon Border and Klingon Attack, while Romulan Armada combines the units from Romulan Border and Romulan Attack.)
With the choice to combine the two Border sets' worth of ships (again, if that is the choice to be made), the Feds would, for once, be the ones to show off some of their older and newer ships right off the bat!
*Would the game offer a hex-based map option for those who may want to use it? (If the Starline 2500 minis were to have hex bases, in order to work with the other games, that could be handy.)
*Would the firing arcs be re-done to match those in other Star Fleet Universe games? (For example, there were new arcs added to Starmada in order to make the likes of Klingon Armada work.)
*Would the shields be given separate facings, too? (Again, the Starmada conversion divided the ships' shields into separate 60-degree facings, to more closely echo the SFB/FC versions... and to retain the kind of tactical challenges that managing said facings present.)
*What kind of weapon traits would make sense for the various weapon systems, in order to accurately portray their various quirks and options?
(This may be less of an issue right now, but should some of the more esoteric weapons and/or systems be added in later, they might have to be re-considered.)
*Would the various seeking weapons (drones, plasma torpedoes, suicide shuttles, etc) be given proper rules governing their movement on the board, or would they be abstracted out?
I guess suicide shuttles would be the easiest, since they could be treated like the Kurgan suicide fighters in ACtA:NA...
*Would any of the monsters from the equivalent products in Federation Commander be on the list for consideration?
Klingon Border and Romulan Border offer the Planet Killer and Space Dragon respectively; though I'd personally be more excited about seeing the Juggernaut (from Klingon Attack) be brought in, especially if its rules could incorporate the option of taking Shriek missiles (as seen on Juggernaut Beta).
*One thing about the choice of combining KB and RB (if that is the choice to be made) is that it would make the Fed ship selection that little bit different to those for the outher four major fleets presented.
In Federation Commander, the outher four tend to have their "pre-war" ships (Klingon D7, Romulan War Eagle, etc) published in the "Border" boxes, while their "war" classes (Klingon D5, Romulan SparrowHawk et al) are in the "Attack" modules. In contrast, the pre-war Fed ships (CA, CL and so forth) are grouped with the Klingons, while their later ships (NCA, NCL etc) are in with the Romulans.
(You can see this in the Starmada books, too; Klingon Armada combines the ships from Klingon Border and Klingon Attack, while Romulan Armada combines the units from Romulan Border and Romulan Attack.)
With the choice to combine the two Border sets' worth of ships (again, if that is the choice to be made), the Feds would, for once, be the ones to show off some of their older and newer ships right off the bat!
Would the game offer a hex-based map option for those who may want to use it?
ANSWER: I don’t know what Matthew plans to do, but (with no knowledge on this question) I’d bet no.
====
(If the Starline 2500 minis were to have hex bases, in order to work with the other games, that could be handy.)
ANSWER: He said he was going to use round bases and I don’t know if hex bases are a practical option, but you don’t need hex bases to play on a hex map.
====
Would any of the monsters from the equivalent products in Federation Commander be on the list for consideration?
ANSWER: Matthew told me he plans to do them.
====
ANSWER TO MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS: I don’t know what Matthew plans to do.
====
ANSWER: I don’t know what Matthew plans to do, but (with no knowledge on this question) I’d bet no.
====
(If the Starline 2500 minis were to have hex bases, in order to work with the other games, that could be handy.)
ANSWER: He said he was going to use round bases and I don’t know if hex bases are a practical option, but you don’t need hex bases to play on a hex map.
====
Would any of the monsters from the equivalent products in Federation Commander be on the list for consideration?
ANSWER: Matthew told me he plans to do them.
====
ANSWER TO MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS: I don’t know what Matthew plans to do.
====
Thanks for the clarifications above.
there were two other things I had asked about over on the ADB BBS; I wanted to post about them here, in order to get the Mongoose side of things, if that's okay.
*Has there been a decision on which chronology to use for the historical data to be presented?
In other SFU books, there are three options available; the original Y-dates (as seen in SFB), in which the date of First Contact is basically considered to be unknowable (and is thus presented simply as Y1); the Valkenburg Chronology (used in Federation Commander), which arbitrarily sets the year of First Contact as 2400; and the Amin-Audeh Chronology (noted in various Prime Directive books), which sets First Contact in 2063, echoing the choice made in Franchise Trek.
I was thinking that Amin-Audeh could be an interesting choice here; it would make it the first SFU game to adopt it, plus it might be more conducive to those coming into the setting who might be more used to First Contact being in 2063.
*While the initial focus is on adapting Mongoose game properties into the Star Fleet Universe, could there be an interest in one day going the opposite direction; to consider adapting one or more of ADB's game engines into one of Mongoose's "home" settings?
For example, it could be interesting to see if the upcoming Star Fleet Marines: Assault game might be useful as the basis of a ground combat game set in the Fading Suns universe (and designed to work alongside ACtA:NA, the way SFM:A will work with the various tactical wargames in the SFU).
there were two other things I had asked about over on the ADB BBS; I wanted to post about them here, in order to get the Mongoose side of things, if that's okay.
*Has there been a decision on which chronology to use for the historical data to be presented?
In other SFU books, there are three options available; the original Y-dates (as seen in SFB), in which the date of First Contact is basically considered to be unknowable (and is thus presented simply as Y1); the Valkenburg Chronology (used in Federation Commander), which arbitrarily sets the year of First Contact as 2400; and the Amin-Audeh Chronology (noted in various Prime Directive books), which sets First Contact in 2063, echoing the choice made in Franchise Trek.
I was thinking that Amin-Audeh could be an interesting choice here; it would make it the first SFU game to adopt it, plus it might be more conducive to those coming into the setting who might be more used to First Contact being in 2063.
*While the initial focus is on adapting Mongoose game properties into the Star Fleet Universe, could there be an interest in one day going the opposite direction; to consider adapting one or more of ADB's game engines into one of Mongoose's "home" settings?
For example, it could be interesting to see if the upcoming Star Fleet Marines: Assault game might be useful as the basis of a ground combat game set in the Fading Suns universe (and designed to work alongside ACtA:NA, the way SFM:A will work with the various tactical wargames in the SFU).
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Nerroth said:*Would the various seeking weapons (drones, plasma torpedoes, suicide shuttles, etc) be given proper rules governing their movement on the board, or would they be abstracted out?
In the original Version of Noble Armada, there were rockets, missiles and torpedoes that moved around the board. When it was converted to ACTA, they were abstracted out.
Auxiliary craft do have their own rules in ACTA, so expect shuttles (and fighters if they are around in SFU) to be in the game.
*What kind of weapon traits would make sense for the various weapon systems, in order to accurately portray their various quirks and options?
Probably slow-loading for photons. Guided for drones. I don't know much about more sophisticated SFU weapons.
Can I ask a question, why does the SFU use drones? They seem like a very un-Star Trek weapon. Quite low-tech in fact.
SFB is very complex I would say a 10 out of 10. I think missles are there for extra strategy, and some races need them.
The basic rulebook weighs in at about 200 pages. Its played on a hex grid and there are 32 impulses to a turn. Each impulse a ship can move. There is an impulse chart that shows when ships move. The faster you make your ship move then the more impulses it will move in a turn. You have to fill out an Energy Allocation form before the start of each turn.
The things you do with the form are figureing out your total ship power, then after you figure out how much power your ship has you can start allocating energy to the different parts of the ship.
Looking at the form I have you fill out power for, life support, active fire control, phaser capacity, heavy weapons, active shields, general shield reinforcement, specific shield reinforcement, energy for movement, high energy turn, emergency braking, damage control, tractors, transporters, ecm, eccm, labs, wild weasel, and cloaking devices.
Each hexside of the ship is for a shield. You have 6 different hexsides to account for. Usually the rear aft section has less shields on a ship. Looking at a klingon D7 it has 30 in the front, 22 in the right front, 15 in the right rear, 13 in the rear or aft, 15 in the left rear, and 22 in the left front.
Any time you break through one of these shield then a weapon will hit the hull of your ship doing some kind of damage to it from knocking out a weapon system to knocking out warp box(power to the engines). I am out of time and need to go. I am more familiar to Federation Commander and not SFB. I would say Fed Com is about an 8 out of 10 in complexity and I would say ACTA is around 6 to 7.
The basic rulebook weighs in at about 200 pages. Its played on a hex grid and there are 32 impulses to a turn. Each impulse a ship can move. There is an impulse chart that shows when ships move. The faster you make your ship move then the more impulses it will move in a turn. You have to fill out an Energy Allocation form before the start of each turn.
The things you do with the form are figureing out your total ship power, then after you figure out how much power your ship has you can start allocating energy to the different parts of the ship.
Looking at the form I have you fill out power for, life support, active fire control, phaser capacity, heavy weapons, active shields, general shield reinforcement, specific shield reinforcement, energy for movement, high energy turn, emergency braking, damage control, tractors, transporters, ecm, eccm, labs, wild weasel, and cloaking devices.
Each hexside of the ship is for a shield. You have 6 different hexsides to account for. Usually the rear aft section has less shields on a ship. Looking at a klingon D7 it has 30 in the front, 22 in the right front, 15 in the right rear, 13 in the rear or aft, 15 in the left rear, and 22 in the left front.
Any time you break through one of these shield then a weapon will hit the hull of your ship doing some kind of damage to it from knocking out a weapon system to knocking out warp box(power to the engines). I am out of time and need to go. I am more familiar to Federation Commander and not SFB. I would say Fed Com is about an 8 out of 10 in complexity and I would say ACTA is around 6 to 7.
Greg Smith said:In the original Version of Noble Armada, there were rockets, missiles and torpedoes that moved around the board. When it was converted to ACTA, they were abstracted out.
If that turns out to be the case, I'm not sure how well that will work.
For example, plasma torpedoes already have direct-fire modes (bolt, carronade); would they be represented as alternate firing options, or side-stepped altogether?
(To be honest, not having them act as true seekers would take away one of the key aspects of them in other SFU games; the ability to affect the enemy's maneuver.)
Auxiliary craft do have their own rules in ACTA, so expect shuttles (and fighters if they are around in SFU) to be in the game.
If this game is set to follow the template laid down by Federation Commander (and already echoed in Starmada) then the only fighters I'd expect to see on the horizon will be the likes of Hydran Stingers; and only because the Hydran navy has a hybrid-carrier doctrine as standard. And even then, the Hydrans won't be in the first wave of empires ported in, from the looks of things.
Can I ask a question, why does the SFU use drones? They seem like a very un-Star Trek weapon. Quite low-tech in fact.
In the SFU, drones are nuclear missiles with miniature warp engines on them; the Kzintis are the most notorious drone users, but they were also adopted by the Klingons and (to a more limited degree) by the Federation.
One thing to bear in mind is that the use of drones by the Federation is something of a late development. The Federation CA as it originally served (in the Middle Years; i.e. the era in which a certain "five-year mission" took place) had no drone rack; it was added in a series of refits just prior to the General War.
The version of the CA we'll most likely see here will be the one with the later refits incorporated; over in FC, the MY era was split off into a separate module, but I guess time will tell where (if anywhere) such ships might be presented in ACtA.
re counters for plasma torps dornes etc - i guess this is one of the many areas where it will have to be decided which is more important - simple easy to use game mechinaics or specifiic universe background. Comprimises will inevitably have to be made in both directions.
I think you could def model mutli turn missiles (ACTA spiritual ancestor BFG does) if its needed and wanted..........
If you wanted differerence you have Plasma Torps as high damage, long range but slow loading or short range and good damage - or just have them like damned Narns emines from earlier edition with different modes
plenty of options..........
Must admit Greg and I were talking about the Drones and wondered why they were such a big thing - I wondered if it was the desire to simulate modern warfare to a certain degree?
I think you could def model mutli turn missiles (ACTA spiritual ancestor BFG does) if its needed and wanted..........
If you wanted differerence you have Plasma Torps as high damage, long range but slow loading or short range and good damage - or just have them like damned Narns emines from earlier edition with different modes
plenty of options..........
Must admit Greg and I were talking about the Drones and wondered why they were such a big thing - I wondered if it was the desire to simulate modern warfare to a certain degree?
When the first set of ships was being put together for the first edition of Star Fleet Battles back in the late 70s, SVC had a number of source materials to draw from; the Star Fleet Technical Manual (where some of the original ship designs in the SFU hail from), various other books and blueprints, and the on-screen footage itself.
One of the source materials drawn from was a set of blueprints for the Klingon D7. The ship shown there had a series of rear-firing phasers, as well as drone missiles (neither of which were shown on-screen). SVC had some of the ship's phasers used for drone defence; which begged the question, who were the ones launching these drones against the Klingons?
This is where the original Kzinti use of drones came from. The Klingons and Kzintis were poised as mutually antagonistic, so they became the ones who most strongly emphasised the use of drones in combat. Traditionally, the Klingons would have more disruptors than drone racks on their ships, and then rely on their superior maneuver to gain the advantage; the Kzintis would have large numbers of drones and few disruptors (or none at all, on some of their earlier ships), thus giving their less agile ships the ability to strike in any direction.
The real issue in SFB (one which, thankfully, has been side-stepped in FC) came wih the onset of carriers, alongside a wide array of new and improved drone types. Instead of only relying on the drones your ships could launch and control, now you had waves of fighters rippling off their own drone launches, all of which would add to the clutter on the tabletop. And then, when gunboats (PFs) were added, things got even more drone-heavy...
(The most striking change came for the Federation in SFB. In the Middle Years, Star Fleet had almost no drone-armed ships, and relied on their phasers and photons in battle. In the General War, the Feds had added drone racks as refits to most of their ships, and thrown in a bunch of drone-heavy variant ships, and added various carriers filled with drone-armed fighters of various sizes to their ranks. )
This is one reason why Federation Commander is a much faster playing game than Star Fleet Battles. In FC, there are no "true" carriers; the only fighters in print are Hydran Stingers, used on a fleet with a casual carrier doctrine. Since Stingers have no seeking weapons (their firepower is direct-fire only) the level of clutter a Hydran fleet brings to the table in FC is nowhere near as unwieldy as a Kzinti or Klingon carrier group cn be over in SFB.
If, as I might guess, the conversion here is using FC, rather than SFB, as the main point of comparison, drones should be important to keep an eye on, but not the daunting logistical challenge they can be in General War-era SFB.
One of the source materials drawn from was a set of blueprints for the Klingon D7. The ship shown there had a series of rear-firing phasers, as well as drone missiles (neither of which were shown on-screen). SVC had some of the ship's phasers used for drone defence; which begged the question, who were the ones launching these drones against the Klingons?
This is where the original Kzinti use of drones came from. The Klingons and Kzintis were poised as mutually antagonistic, so they became the ones who most strongly emphasised the use of drones in combat. Traditionally, the Klingons would have more disruptors than drone racks on their ships, and then rely on their superior maneuver to gain the advantage; the Kzintis would have large numbers of drones and few disruptors (or none at all, on some of their earlier ships), thus giving their less agile ships the ability to strike in any direction.
The real issue in SFB (one which, thankfully, has been side-stepped in FC) came wih the onset of carriers, alongside a wide array of new and improved drone types. Instead of only relying on the drones your ships could launch and control, now you had waves of fighters rippling off their own drone launches, all of which would add to the clutter on the tabletop. And then, when gunboats (PFs) were added, things got even more drone-heavy...
(The most striking change came for the Federation in SFB. In the Middle Years, Star Fleet had almost no drone-armed ships, and relied on their phasers and photons in battle. In the General War, the Feds had added drone racks as refits to most of their ships, and thrown in a bunch of drone-heavy variant ships, and added various carriers filled with drone-armed fighters of various sizes to their ranks. )
This is one reason why Federation Commander is a much faster playing game than Star Fleet Battles. In FC, there are no "true" carriers; the only fighters in print are Hydran Stingers, used on a fleet with a casual carrier doctrine. Since Stingers have no seeking weapons (their firepower is direct-fire only) the level of clutter a Hydran fleet brings to the table in FC is nowhere near as unwieldy as a Kzinti or Klingon carrier group cn be over in SFB.
If, as I might guess, the conversion here is using FC, rather than SFB, as the main point of comparison, drones should be important to keep an eye on, but not the daunting logistical challenge they can be in General War-era SFB.
In federation Commander there are 8 impulses, and you can move a ship up to 4 times in each sub pulse of the impulse. Just depending on what you set your speed at in the beginning of the turn you may be moving your ship from 1 to 4 times in a sub pulse. Its all simulated so you move ships only 1 hex at a time, and the slower turn mode ship moves before a ship with a better turn mode. There is no initiative phase. You can fire weapons and do things at the end of each impulse of movement. Any time you do anything it uses power.
Drones adds a extra lvl of strategy and tactics to the mix. Do you try to avoid the drones as long as you can, or do you let your phasers try to shoot them? When a phaser shoots it uses power. All ships have a limited amount of power. If you use to much power then when you make it to an opponents ship ,you may have no power to fire anything at it, or if you used all your phaser fireing at missles then yourt not going to do much damage if you make it to an opponents ship.
Do you launch on the last impulse of the turn then the first impulse of the next turn to double the drones on the board, or do you fire them on different impulses? How many tractor beams do you have in case a phaser does not destroy it? When you have multiple drones comming at your ship its a tough decision sometimes. Klingons and Federation have adds which help. Adds are just anti drone missles that help to deal with drones.
Speaking of plasma's. You do not want one hitting your ship at close range you have to outrun them in Federation Commander. As the plasma travels it looses strength each impulse(remember there are 4 subpulses to each impulse and a plasma travels all 4 subpulses) so if your ship can outrun it then it will take very minimal damage. The type R plasma is the biggest there is and it does 50 pts of damage on the first impulse if it hits you ship which will pretty much ruin your whole day. Most ships have around 30 points of damage they can take in the front shields.
I really love Federation Commander , but I can never get my brother to play it with me because of the complexity of the game. Thats why I have been asking questions and learning about ACTA in the forums. If you have any questions about how Federation Commander works you can pm me and I will do my best to answer. Its been at least 1 year since I have played a game tho. If you would like to read the begginner rules to fed com its here http://www.federationcommander.com/FCFirstMissions.pdf
That will give you the basics of how the game is played.
Drones adds a extra lvl of strategy and tactics to the mix. Do you try to avoid the drones as long as you can, or do you let your phasers try to shoot them? When a phaser shoots it uses power. All ships have a limited amount of power. If you use to much power then when you make it to an opponents ship ,you may have no power to fire anything at it, or if you used all your phaser fireing at missles then yourt not going to do much damage if you make it to an opponents ship.
Do you launch on the last impulse of the turn then the first impulse of the next turn to double the drones on the board, or do you fire them on different impulses? How many tractor beams do you have in case a phaser does not destroy it? When you have multiple drones comming at your ship its a tough decision sometimes. Klingons and Federation have adds which help. Adds are just anti drone missles that help to deal with drones.
Speaking of plasma's. You do not want one hitting your ship at close range you have to outrun them in Federation Commander. As the plasma travels it looses strength each impulse(remember there are 4 subpulses to each impulse and a plasma travels all 4 subpulses) so if your ship can outrun it then it will take very minimal damage. The type R plasma is the biggest there is and it does 50 pts of damage on the first impulse if it hits you ship which will pretty much ruin your whole day. Most ships have around 30 points of damage they can take in the front shields.
I really love Federation Commander , but I can never get my brother to play it with me because of the complexity of the game. Thats why I have been asking questions and learning about ACTA in the forums. If you have any questions about how Federation Commander works you can pm me and I will do my best to answer. Its been at least 1 year since I have played a game tho. If you would like to read the begginner rules to fed com its here http://www.federationcommander.com/FCFirstMissions.pdf
That will give you the basics of how the game is played.
Nerroth said:Greg Smith said:In the original Version of Noble Armada, there were rockets, missiles and torpedoes that moved around the board. When it was converted to ACTA, they were abstracted out.
If that turns out to be the case, I'm not sure how well that will work.
For example, plasma torpedoes already have direct-fire modes (bolt, carronade); would they be represented as alternate firing options, or side-stepped altogether?
(To be honest, not having them act as true seekers would take away one of the key aspects of them in other SFU games; the ability to affect the enemy's maneuver.)
Some of those seeking weapons special modes are fairly rare use, especially the direct fire ones you mention - for me if there is a rule for the shotgun on plasmas I'll be happy because thats the important one for me - if this ACTA variant tries to cover everything in SFB to the same level of detail as SFB we might as well just play SFB.
Converting to ACTA means making use of the quick play benefits of the system and playing the SFU a different way. In this case I suspect keeping the main differences between weapons in play and not going into the special event minutiae.
You can use such weapons to affect manoeuvre by adjusting the hit and damage dice levels - and believe me Long Lances on Japanese vessels in Victory at Sea (a WWII version on the same basic ruleset) do adjust how you manoeuvre. Within the VaS system of different torpedoes you have enough gradation to do plasma F,S,G and R torps from SFU and D will squeeze in if need be and still feel to an extent like plasma from SFB
A simple splitting fire rule will allow for shotgun, plus I can see how you could do plasma as a full seeking weapon.
I actually see many more benefits from dragging VaS concepts into this game over ACTA: B5 models.
ACTA B5 had Gaim suicide fighters that would make a good model for drone swarms or bigger plasma - the problem being it starts to beg for all sorts of variants and its much more complex to start shoe-horning plasma effects on that model, so I actually see it as much more appropriate for drones but even there I wonder if it is worth it (Type IIIs maybe) and feel that the torpedo system from VaS works for both drone and plasma.
I see them much more as operating under standard ACTA models with differentiation on the defence systems - so Interceptor tags from ACTA:B5 or AA defence dice from VaS working vs drones, plus some/all secondary dice being allow to go to drone defence.
Remember one turn of ACTA or VaS - which I would typically play for 6 ships in 20mins is at least a full 32 impulses of SFB possibly more.
Phasers are easy, standard direct fire weapons - using a VaS model PhIIIs and Gs are going to be secondary guns, or B5ACTA style interceptor dice. PhI and IIs will be the heavier guns.
For the heavy weapons I do wonder if overloads will be modelled or simply put if we will see overloads, proximity settings, bolt firing, DERFACS and so on all simply assumed to be best used as per tactical settings.
Actually I expect they make very good special orders (Overload the weapons!) in the ACTA structure.
Disruptors and Photons will be the standard weapons and how they handle these will set the relative time scale. Photons could be low hit dice with high damage dice using the VaS method, with Disruptors the reverse and then all fit in one turn with 3 turn armers from SFB being the low loaders. Or you can go for turn to turn equivalency by making photons slow loaders. Its these two systems that will be central to the design structure (in my opinion of course).
THe rest can filter in as you need them. Fusions are doable, Expanding Spheres will require some interesting rules but I see them porting quite well. PPDs - how to do wavelock??? Web from the Tholians - well I see that working like hard smoke from VaS actually with a globe setting that should use similar structure to ESGs. Hellbores are going to be the last to develop and how they work simply has to wait until you decide how you are doing shields.
If this game is set to follow the template laid down by Federation Commander [/quote]Auxiliary craft do have their own rules in ACTA, so expect shuttles (and fighters if they are around in SFU) to be in the game.
I'm only just getting into these threads, but is it confirmed this ACTA will follow the FC model? Its perfectly capable of managing fighters from SFB, so why not SFB based? The full range of fighters works then - especially as fighters
mikelosaurus
Mongoose
For my 2 cents worth, I just hope the new ships are approximately to scale with historic ACTA minis so I can do my own ST/B5 crossovers and it will look cool 8)
Myrm:
It hasn't been formally confirmed whether or not ACtA:SF will follow the FC template in terms of game mechanics, but there are two clues in that regard:
*The list of ships (both in the book and to be released as squadron boxes) is (at least initially) following the template laid out by the core FC modules, albeit with a different combination of those compared to how Starmada did things;
*The other (broadly) ACtA-level game to feature a Star Fleet Universe adaptation, Starmada, currently follows the FC template; with only one type of drone, plasma bolts and carronades (but no shotguns, envelopers, sabots etc), no UIM or DERFACS for disruptors, etc etc. (Although, it does have a proximity photon rule, so it doesn't entirely stick to the FC script.)
Speaking of Starmada, there are a couple of relevant points of comparison to look at.
It includes plasma-R, -S, -G, -F and -D torps, with bolt modes (and carronades for the Feds and Gorns); as noted above, it has only one type of drone (but obliges a ship to launch a single flight from all of a ship's racks at once); includes overload functions for weapons like photons and disruptors (in the case of photons, the slow-firing rule is only applied to overloads); and incorporates faceted shielding.
At Origins, Distant Armada will show what the Lyran, Hydran, WYN and LDR fleets will look like (again, keyed to FC releases; in this case, the Distant Kingdoms and Hydran Attack modules). It will be interesting to see how Starmada handles things like ESGs and Hydran Stingers; the latter in particular will likely colour whatever turn that engine may take, should there be some kind of "carrier armada" module at some point.
In short, given that FC is already the primary template for the Starmada conversion, I would sooner imagine the same being true for ACtA than not; but of course, I could be wrong.
It hasn't been formally confirmed whether or not ACtA:SF will follow the FC template in terms of game mechanics, but there are two clues in that regard:
*The list of ships (both in the book and to be released as squadron boxes) is (at least initially) following the template laid out by the core FC modules, albeit with a different combination of those compared to how Starmada did things;
*The other (broadly) ACtA-level game to feature a Star Fleet Universe adaptation, Starmada, currently follows the FC template; with only one type of drone, plasma bolts and carronades (but no shotguns, envelopers, sabots etc), no UIM or DERFACS for disruptors, etc etc. (Although, it does have a proximity photon rule, so it doesn't entirely stick to the FC script.)
Speaking of Starmada, there are a couple of relevant points of comparison to look at.
It includes plasma-R, -S, -G, -F and -D torps, with bolt modes (and carronades for the Feds and Gorns); as noted above, it has only one type of drone (but obliges a ship to launch a single flight from all of a ship's racks at once); includes overload functions for weapons like photons and disruptors (in the case of photons, the slow-firing rule is only applied to overloads); and incorporates faceted shielding.
At Origins, Distant Armada will show what the Lyran, Hydran, WYN and LDR fleets will look like (again, keyed to FC releases; in this case, the Distant Kingdoms and Hydran Attack modules). It will be interesting to see how Starmada handles things like ESGs and Hydran Stingers; the latter in particular will likely colour whatever turn that engine may take, should there be some kind of "carrier armada" module at some point.
In short, given that FC is already the primary template for the Starmada conversion, I would sooner imagine the same being true for ACtA than not; but of course, I could be wrong.
Nerroth said:Myrm:
It hasn't been formally confirmed whether or not ACtA:SF will follow the FC template in terms of game mechanics, but there are two clues in that regard:
Fair enough - it seems a bit of a waste of what the system can do to ignore fighters completely (please note there is no Hydran bias in my comments at all ;P ) - B5 ActA and VaS both make extensive use of something that would fit fighters well - although it could make some sense if they plan to introduce it later in development of the line and even a limitation of what they carry - so dogfighting types get assumed to carry only dogfight drones and only the heavier ones get antiship weaponry. PFs and Interceptors make for an interesting challenge.
Well, I guess the release of Distant Armada will be a way to test the waters, since it will be the first time we'll see fighters officially ported into a third-party tactical game system.
If Stingers prove to be manageable enough in Starmada, and if the demand for true carriers is there, who knows...
...but then, you'd run into the question; what if there are more people around who don't want to see true carriers show up at all?
There would be a lot of opposition to the concept of adding true carriers to Federation Commander; while there is the "Borders of Madness" project (which is intended to allow certain SFBisms to be tried out in the FC game engine) it's been made clear that the concepts set for BoM will not be part of "vanilla" FC.
I'm not sure what kind of hostility to the idea there may or may not be among the Starmada crowd, but given that other settings for that engine have carriers, I'd imagine it would be a useful comparison to make.
(As an aside, I don't think it's been made clear where gunboats and PF tenders fit into either equation; wherever they go, if they go anywhere at all, won't be decided upon for some time yet.)
Would such a placement of true carriers (i.e. into the "strictly optional" category) work for Starmada or A Call to Arms; or would a decision have to be made about whether to fully integrate carriers (and/or tenders) into the game... or, perhaps, to cut them out altogether?
I suspect that we won't get to that point here for quite some time, though.
If Stingers prove to be manageable enough in Starmada, and if the demand for true carriers is there, who knows...
...but then, you'd run into the question; what if there are more people around who don't want to see true carriers show up at all?
There would be a lot of opposition to the concept of adding true carriers to Federation Commander; while there is the "Borders of Madness" project (which is intended to allow certain SFBisms to be tried out in the FC game engine) it's been made clear that the concepts set for BoM will not be part of "vanilla" FC.
I'm not sure what kind of hostility to the idea there may or may not be among the Starmada crowd, but given that other settings for that engine have carriers, I'd imagine it would be a useful comparison to make.
(As an aside, I don't think it's been made clear where gunboats and PF tenders fit into either equation; wherever they go, if they go anywhere at all, won't be decided upon for some time yet.)
Would such a placement of true carriers (i.e. into the "strictly optional" category) work for Starmada or A Call to Arms; or would a decision have to be made about whether to fully integrate carriers (and/or tenders) into the game... or, perhaps, to cut them out altogether?
I suspect that we won't get to that point here for quite some time, though.
I'm somewhat unpleasantly surprised at the concept of being taken by anyone reading this as something I'm not; usually I'm the one that people don't listen to... which, in most cases, is probably just as well.
But even then, I would not ask for anyone to read more into what I might say than they really ought to.
I have no part to play in this project, nor do I speak for anyone but myself when posting here.
Please do not trouble ADB or Mongoose under a false set of impressions.
But even then, I would not ask for anyone to read more into what I might say than they really ought to.
I have no part to play in this project, nor do I speak for anyone but myself when posting here.
Please do not trouble ADB or Mongoose under a false set of impressions.
I get the feeling that ACTA:SF is going to suffer from the same issue that ACTA:B5 suffered from, with regards its predecessor.
Every now and then a poster would come on, saying how come XXX feature isn't in ACTA because it's there in B5 Wars which ACTA is based on and B5 Wars is canon it says so in the front cover so it should be there and I DEMAND it is put in and that ACTA is just rubbish because it doesn't have enough detail or power allocation or vector movement or such-and-such ship or this ship is too good or it's supposed to be a big ship blah blah blah.......
Well I am sure the answer to those threads will be the same we always gave to those errant B5 Wars players... if you want those things, go and play B5 Wars! ACTA is its own game!
Every now and then a poster would come on, saying how come XXX feature isn't in ACTA because it's there in B5 Wars which ACTA is based on and B5 Wars is canon it says so in the front cover so it should be there and I DEMAND it is put in and that ACTA is just rubbish because it doesn't have enough detail or power allocation or vector movement or such-and-such ship or this ship is too good or it's supposed to be a big ship blah blah blah.......
Well I am sure the answer to those threads will be the same we always gave to those errant B5 Wars players... if you want those things, go and play B5 Wars! ACTA is its own game!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 179
