ACTA - I want, I hate, lets adjust

[McKickaha]

AGAin....Kuddos HIff!


am I the only one laughing here??!!

Dont, encourage him

Hi I'm Troy McLure, you may remember it from such weapons as Neutron lasers.

See !!!!

 

[l33tpenguin]

isn't their already a plus to crit mechanic, it's called precise? Hi I'm Troy McLure, you may remember it from such weapons as Neutron lasers.

Precise increases your chances to crit, as it is a +1 to the damage roll. What I'm suggesting is a +1 when you actually roll for the critical hit.

So, an AP, Precise, "Critical" weapon would get +1 to hit the target (vs. hull) +1 on the damage roll (More likely to crit) and +1 on the critical hit table (which would be the die rolled AFTER location is determined). The crits become worse as the number increases. The *-6 crits are all the worse (1-6, 2-6, etc)

I agree that weapons batteries should not be broken down into lots of 2AD weapons. If you want something between "-1 AD all arcs" and "one weapon system totally knocked out", maybe have "-1D AD from a random weapon facing the attacker". Eligible weapons are those in the arc facing the attacker (F, A, P or S), turret, and boresight if the attacker is in the forward arc. (Or aft arc of relevant Earth ships.)

Limiting engine crits to aft (or side) arc starts to get into B5 Wars level. Not all ships have their engine at the back - where is it on a Vree Xill, for example?

As for knocking out a tank with a low calibre shell - it can happen, but is it frequent enough to be worth considering in ACTA? Especially since all you have to do to disable a tank is break its track, whereas you'd need to disable a ship's engines.

I don't think its getting too far into B5 Wars, personally. I *DO* think the idea of limiting weapons affected by crits to the applicable arcs facing the target is a good one.

In regards to engine crits, I threw that out there because it would add a little bit of tactics in that there would be more effort to hide your flank from an enemy. I also have had far too many ships get their engines critted out from the front only to have my ship stuck coasting forward as it gets beat on

 

[No. 1 Bear]

the thing is space is three dimensional the ship could be flying so that the back ends below the front and visible from an enemy ship on the same plane etc.

Further what happens if a beam goes straight through a ship?

 

[katadder]

the thing is space is three dimensional the ship could be flying so that the back ends below the front and visible from an enemy ship on the same plane etc.

Further what happens if a beam goes straight through a ship?

well we need a way to roll the ship then as thats what would happen in space so you reverse the crit side for weapons. its simple enough and works in FA

 

[l33tpenguin]

the thing is space is three dimensional the ship could be flying so that the back ends below the front and visible from an enemy ship on the same plane etc.

Further what happens if a beam goes straight through a ship?

well we need a way to roll the ship then as thats what would happen in space so you reverse the crit side for weapons. its simple enough and works in FA

There is too much speculation if the game tries to compensate for a real 3 dimensional playing surface. It causes way to much need for *more* rules, rules that would bog down the quick and fast game play. I'm happy with ACtA taking place in 2D. If I want the realize of 3D space battles, I'll play Homeworld. That's just me, and my opinion.

I'm looking at rules changes in from more of a 'what makes for better strategy and less random chance' view.

Examples:

Crits only affecting the weapons that are facing the opponent: result is that players can take a more tactical approach to maneuvers resulting in both protecting weapons not facing an opponent as well as putting those weapons at greater risk when they are employed. It also means, in order to knock out a ships guns, you have to expose yourself to them. No staying in someone's rare arc and critting out their forward weapons.

Engines can only suffer crits when the attacker is in the rear arc: forces players to maneuver around an opponent in order to disable their engines. Some exceptions could be made, such as the Vree.

 

[basaint]

I'm thinking Ill try this:

My opponent rolls his dice, if he makes the hull, I then in turn, take my mini and roll IT on the table. Whatever side is face up, will take the damage. Then I take another set of dice w/magnets on them and let my opponent roll them towards the mini and how ever many stick, will tell me how many hits I take.

See -simple.

 

[l33tpenguin]

You're over thinking it.

Each player is given a finishing hammer. They take turns whacking their opponents ships. The player with them ost intact ships at the end wins

 

[basaint]

DAMIT....why did i not see that! LEET Wins

 

[Lord David the Denied]

The only thing I want from the new "ACtA" is fidelity to the setting. If it was, by some miracle, B5 again, I'd want to see weapons and capabilities that match the setting. That can then be balanced with points costs.

Oh, and drop FAPs, it just doesn't work in practice. Like communism.

 

[H]

The only thing I want from the new "ACtA" is fidelity to the setting. If it was, by some miracle, B5 again, I'd want to see weapons and capabilities that match the setting. That can then be balanced with points costs.

Oh, and drop FAPs, it just doesn't work in practice. Like communism.

You are assuming it's even a setting we will know? Nothing we have heard so far seems to indicate it is a well known setting, ie firefly, farscape, BSG, Trek, Halo, SST, Honourverse and so on. you know, Just thought, maybe their is a decent licence in Andromeda? didn't watch it after half a series, but commonwealth, nichiens, rev bems people (whetever they were called), and whilst the andromeda was a bit too shiny for my liking, was an interesting design, mind you, probably a bugger to cast, probably expensive licence though being a Rodenberry thing?

 

[katadder]

FAPs do work as consider battlefleet gothic. every cruiser is basically 200pts give or take 10pts or whatever so they are basically the same anyway.
a very successful game is warmachine/hordes and they now only have 13 differant points values. ACTA by the end had basically 7 so wasnt that far off.
just call them points and make a cruiser 2pts or whatever and you basically have the same thing as FAPs but under another name.

 

[H]

the issue wasn't the FAP's as such, as rightly pointed out they could become points in themselves, the issue was the statting of vessels within those points, and then the breakdown system for the FAP's which changed regularly and probably never actually made balance.

 

[katadder]

I believe the initial intention with FAPs was not to allow breakdown so that you could spend more to buy bigger ships or say get 2 skirmish ships for a raid point but no other breakdown. so using a point of FAP to buy only one ship at that level, 2 the one below etc but not a combination.

 

[AdrianH]

The only thing I want from the new "ACtA" is fidelity to the setting.

You are assuming it's even a setting we will know?

I'm not but I agree with Lord David the Denied. Regardless of what the setting is, there's no point in using the setting (and perhaps paying licence fees) if the game is going to disregard it anyway. And if the whole idea is to attract fans of the setting, said fans are going to get upset if the game does not reflect the setting reasonably accurately.

Just thought, maybe their is a decent licence in Andromeda? didn't watch it after half a series, but commonwealth, nichiens, rev bems people (whetever they were called), and whilst the andromeda was a bit too shiny for my liking, was an interesting design, mind you, probably a bugger to cast, probably expensive licence though being a Rodenberry thing?

Rev Bem's lot were the Magog, and anyone who has a Drakh fleet probably already has the beginning of a Magog fleet - compare Drakh Raiders to Magog Swarm Ships. And if you think casting the Andromeda would be bad, consider a Magog World Ship...

 

[Da Boss]

The only thing I want from the new "ACtA" is fidelity to the setting.

You are assuming it's even a setting we will know?

I'm not but I agree with Lord David the Denied. Regardless of what the setting is, there's no point in using the setting (and perhaps paying licence fees) if the game is going to disregard it anyway. And if the whole idea is to attract fans of the setting, said fans are going to get upset if the game does not reflect the setting reasonably accurately.

Of course that does assume that fans are any good at actually agreeing things and that the setting its self is internally consistant - most TV shows and films are written with plenty of "cos its cool, plot defence for named characters, limitations due of SE budgets, severe time constraints etc". The new licence may well have people that are adamnant about how something "should" be and also disagree with each other about what that should be. Hopefully some dedicated fans are giving their input into the process but it would foolish to believe that all they come up with be universally excepted.

I feel ACTA and esp 2nd Ed had a damn good try at making a playable Babylon 5 universe game with a excellent selection of canonical and non canoical fleets and ships.

There is also somethimes a clash between making something appear as on screen and making it playable /fun - take the ACTA stealth mechanic - is it broadly refelctive of the on screen difficulty of firing at a Stealthed ship- - IMO yes. Is it fun - much more debatable......

Ship lists - should you make just the ships on screen - well maybe - but IMO it does limit the game consdierably and I much rather that all fleets (nearly all in ACTA) had a reasonable range of choice to make playing them fun. The other alternative is to have lots of variants based around the few on screen ships - but a balance is surely there to be struck.

FAPs are interesting but according to MGP gone - along with crew score - my only issue with the FAP score was the flexibility within it - perhaps as has been suggested a few more levels might have helped this.......... Its probably worth giving points a try and see how they work - it does give the opportunity to have intersting add ons - better crew, troops, fighter pilots, even enhanced/expermental targeting etc - although I freeley concede balancing this is a lot more work. I don't know if the other frequently suggested option of rareity of ships would make an appearance or indeed be wanted?

so in summary thus far: (In order of appearance)

I want to keep
Crew Scores (several)
little amount of bookkeeping
Priority Levels (several)
Present Movement style
Simplicity
A concise well written and interesting setting with balanced ships/fleets

I hate
one lucky crit can ruin the game
To hit numbers
Priority Levels (several)
Seperate weapons systems
So Called Balanced fleets (Several)
Mongoose/writers to get too embroiled in listening to every issue/complaint and over compensating to fix things

Lets adjust
stealth, get rid of the "all or nothing" effect (several)
Critical table (several)
To hit/Damage
Iniative and Iniative sinks
Campaign Rules
Close Blast Doors
Boresight

 

[l33tpenguin]

I like Da Boss' list there I'm pretty much in agreement. In regards to the setting, an option for Mongoose would be to create an entirely new setting of their own to work within. They could even call out for race designs from the player community, which would be cool for us. While I don't think the focus should be on ship design, I think asking the players to submit race profiles, complete with history, physiology, fleet/play style, cosmetic ship design (how their ships look), etc. and then pick the best/most well fleshed out to be used could be a fun project and I know there are some brilliant and creative members of this community. Some of us could even work together to design 'rival' races for submission, further adding to the creative design and backstory.

 

[Mean Mutton]

I like Da Boss' list there I'm pretty much in agreement. In regards to the setting, an option for Mongoose would be to create an entirely new setting of their own to work within. They could even call out for race designs from the player community, which would be cool for us. While I don't think the focus should be on ship design, I think asking the players to submit race profiles, complete with history, physiology, fleet/play style, cosmetic ship design (how their ships look), etc. and then pick the best/most well fleshed out to be used could be a fun project and I know there are some brilliant and creative members of this community. Some of us could even work together to design 'rival' races for submission, further adding to the creative design and backstory.

As great as that would be, if they're already hiring a painter (there was another thread on this) and they're already looking at a February deadline, they're at a bit of a late stage for that to work.

 

[Da Boss]

indeed - the setting is apparently set and licence purchased - now thats not to say that the idea of customer races would not work well for the new 3rd ed ACTA (or indeed 2nd ed depending on peoples preferences)

I for one would like to see what people could come up with 8)

 

[l33tpenguin]

Guess I'm a little behind on the news.

 

[Target]

I really hope they get rid of the crew score or atleast the part of it where it takes damage at the same time, leave it to crits to de crew. Never really liked the FAP system either. A change to the way crits effected big ships is must as well.