hey i was asked what i wanted in the campaign, just because you want only the combat side of war doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you wrong. What it does do, is show how different people want different things from a game. and Currently the game campaign serves as a randomly connected series of combats taking nothing into account that would truly affect a galactic war.
ACTA Campaign
- Thread starter TGT
- Start date
Harry Lonsdale
Mongoose
This is a neat idea, but considering there are fleets that don't have some (or any) of these types of ships would have to be balanced carefully.Hash said:
Things I would like:
1. More impact from the type of scenario and perhaps the target only changing hands under certain scenarios......otherwise other effects from scenarios like reduced RR etc, no reinforcements etc
2. Research - you can spend RR on this rather than other options - allows refit rolls?
3. Other duties table for the Vorlons and Shadows - the two most manipulative races in the galaxy deserve this........
4. perhaps the ability to upgrade a target with fixed defences like Mines / Defence satellites not just space stations
1. More impact from the type of scenario and perhaps the target only changing hands under certain scenarios......otherwise other effects from scenarios like reduced RR etc, no reinforcements etc
2. Research - you can spend RR on this rather than other options - allows refit rolls?
3. Other duties table for the Vorlons and Shadows - the two most manipulative races in the galaxy deserve this........
4. perhaps the ability to upgrade a target with fixed defences like Mines / Defence satellites not just space stations
I agree with a number of points made here and can see both sides, with or without diplomacy. Certainly an array of options available to those that would like more diplomacy within a game would go down well with me.
I also agree that fleet composition is an area that should be looked at. As a Centauri player I still feel the Demos is maybe a little too good and because of this would not take too many of them but some players are prone to do this with their better ships. As fleets within the book have been constructed with an overall strategy in mind I think fleet composition should reflect this, forcing you to play with some of your 'weaker' vessels. Making the most of them in a battle can be extremely gratifying and forces you to consider other strategies you would not otherwise play. Limiting numbers of types of ships, in campaigns, is something I would also be in favor of, there are too many Blue Stars in the universe!!!
I also agree that fleet composition is an area that should be looked at. As a Centauri player I still feel the Demos is maybe a little too good and because of this would not take too many of them but some players are prone to do this with their better ships. As fleets within the book have been constructed with an overall strategy in mind I think fleet composition should reflect this, forcing you to play with some of your 'weaker' vessels. Making the most of them in a battle can be extremely gratifying and forces you to consider other strategies you would not otherwise play. Limiting numbers of types of ships, in campaigns, is something I would also be in favor of, there are too many Blue Stars in the universe!!!
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
hiffano said:
That, at least, we can agree on, you Scouse maniac... :wink:
CaptBavo
Mongoose
Da Boss said:4. perhaps the ability to upgrade a target with fixed defences like Mines / Defence satellites not just space stations
We have kicked around an idea about this for our next campaign. A pair of satellites could be purchased for 3 RR, and then they would cost 1RR or something like that per turn, otherwise you might see some property with like 50 satellites.
Our group has also thought about having an RR cost to launch an attack, to show the logistics of launching an assault. The RR cost would be paid whether you showed up for the attack or not, so the attackers "no shows" would be lessened maybe.
hiffano said:
I'd just like to toss in my 2 cents and mention that this had nothing to do with the USA's power as a great commercial nation. It was all about the USA's power as a great Industrial nation. It wasn't till after WWII that the USA took its place as a great commercial power (mostly because all the previous commercial powers were ruined structurally and financially...)
Court Jester
Mongoose
A player should never be hit by more than one diverting raid in a turn. :evil:
Although from the sounds of it y'all might as well just create a brand new campign system because the ACTA one obviously isn't giving you that Grand Tactical Way Simulation you crave.
Personally I think it all works pretty well.
I like the idea of choosing one of 5 attack plans and the defender choosing one of 5 defense plans and then that determins the scenario.
I'd also put a cap on the size of the entire fleet a play can have and remove sending ships back to HQ.
Although from the sounds of it y'all might as well just create a brand new campign system because the ACTA one obviously isn't giving you that Grand Tactical Way Simulation you crave.
Personally I think it all works pretty well.
I like the idea of choosing one of 5 attack plans and the defender choosing one of 5 defense plans and then that determins the scenario.
I'd also put a cap on the size of the entire fleet a play can have and remove sending ships back to HQ.
Jareth Valar
Mongoose
I also like the campaign system right now, but I agree a few tweeks might not hurt.
I also like the offensive/defensive chart idea. I saw an example of this in the Earth/Centauri War download.
Maybe the ability to "trade/sell" resource points between players, or the ability to "sell" a target for some gain, etc. (don't know about this one, could be abused without some guidelines and restrictions)
I also like the ability to upgrade one of your strategic targets. It already exists in the form of Space Stations, but something a bit smaller perhaps?
My thing is maybe a bit clearer descriptions on many of the scenarios and campaign rules.
Jareth
I also like the offensive/defensive chart idea. I saw an example of this in the Earth/Centauri War download.
Maybe the ability to "trade/sell" resource points between players, or the ability to "sell" a target for some gain, etc. (don't know about this one, could be abused without some guidelines and restrictions)
I also like the ability to upgrade one of your strategic targets. It already exists in the form of Space Stations, but something a bit smaller perhaps?
My thing is maybe a bit clearer descriptions on many of the scenarios and campaign rules.
Jareth
(lazy mode on)
Clanger
Mongoose
One idea I have had is if a strategic location has been lost. The losser can spend 1 RR point to have 8 troops left behind on the planet. These troops can draw away the new occupying forces troops from their ships. Until all these infiltrator / special forces units are destroyed.
If the troops are not destroyed the RR points of the location are reduced say by half (round down).
If the troops are not destroyed the RR points of the location are reduced say by half (round down).
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
I do plan on trying to put together that Att vs Def grid at some point. I'm just not very focused right now.
It will probably also help against the current problem with the space station rules, where you have no real choice as to whether or not your attack will be enough to take over the location. With the grid you can just have the restriction that to take over a location with a space station you must use an All Out Attack.
Another modification that I'd consider (which can be used with the current rules or with the grid idea) is for if the defender doesn't lose the target, but at the same time failed to win the battle (either due to a draw or space station). Whilst they don't lose control of the location, they should at least lose the income/benefits for that turn due to the disruption of the attack.
It will probably also help against the current problem with the space station rules, where you have no real choice as to whether or not your attack will be enough to take over the location. With the grid you can just have the restriction that to take over a location with a space station you must use an All Out Attack.
Another modification that I'd consider (which can be used with the current rules or with the grid idea) is for if the defender doesn't lose the target, but at the same time failed to win the battle (either due to a draw or space station). Whilst they don't lose control of the location, they should at least lose the income/benefits for that turn due to the disruption of the attack.
