ACTA Mythbusters - suggestions welcome!

[Hash]

Ok Burger and Reaverman have been busy on the Little vs. Large issue and the 10 Sag fleet - is there anything else you would the ACTA mythbusters to tackle? (I have put together some options from reading the previous mythbusters thread and the cheesy fleet selection thread but feel free to suggest other ones).

Personally, I would also welcome any feedback for future reports;

Do you want to see anymore? (fundamental question really!)
Do you have any suggestions on format?
Do you want to see more photos?
More reporting of stats (i.e. individual dice rolls etc.)
Is humour welcome (or any good) or would you prefer a straight factual account?
How much technical detail do you want to see, every die roll, or just a summary of the action?
Do you want reports fairly newbie friendly (i.e. explain some traits etc) or are you happy to cut that stuff out?
Is there anything you feel we can do to improve things?

Of course we are only doing this for fun so we'll end up doing what we want to do anyway but it would be nice to know is people enjoyed it too

Feel free to send me a PM if you don't want to share your view publically on the thread for some reason.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

It's got to be the cheesy skirmish fleet versus a proper fleet. I want to see ten Ka'Tans carve through all opposition so Reaverman will admit his Narns have beards bigger than Santa Claus!

 

[Reaverman]

It's got to be the cheesy skirmish fleet versus a proper fleet. I want to see ten Ka'Tans carve through all opposition so Reaverman will admit his Narns have beards bigger than Santa Claus!

LMAO :lol: ..sure I will test anything...BTW this would be a non-tourney test

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Obviously. Don't get Ka'Tans in the tourney pack... because they're beardier than Gandalf!

 

[Silvereye]

Do you want to see anymore? (fundamental question really!)

Yes, it made for good reading and discussion afterwards. It also appears to be a good testing ground to explore the various rants about this and that in a more structured manner.

Do you have any suggestions on format?
Do you want to see more photos?

I would suggest adding an after the shooting photo into the narrative. If it is taken from a similar position to the after mooving photo that turn it shows at a glance what has disappeared from the battle.

Would it also be worth using the critical hit counters and things so the reader knows what ship is suffering or operating below capacity?

More reporting of stats (i.e. individual dice rolls etc.)

That would proably be excessive, however it might be worth noting substantially above and below average rolling when it occurs.

Is humour welcome (or any good) or would you prefer a straight factual account?

Mostly both, a bit of humour is always welcome. But the meat of it needs to be the factual account of the Mythbust attempt.

How much technical detail do you want to see, every die roll, or just a summary of the action?

A summary of the action is best, though do report anything 'unusual' that happens, such as the dice noted above or strange and unusual tactics employed.

Do you want reports fairly newbie friendly (i.e. explain some traits etc) or are you happy to cut that stuff out?

Probably worth doing a very quick summary of them as part of the intro, it means that anyone interested in the game and not a regular player gets a fighting chance to know whats going on when something traity happens.

Is there anything you feel we can do to improve things?

Using terrain in the scenario if applicable. But nothing else springs to mind immediately, but will let you know if I think of anything.

 

[Ripple]

Agree with all of the above.

Suggestions...

1- If you can try to use a 6 x 4 board instead of the 4 x 4. Not being able to set up out of range of a turn one move can restrict tatical options and for some scenarios it's critical. Space superiority would be very different on the smaller map.

2- Try switching commanders but playing the same game. Interested in whether that changes things. I know it can feel tedious playing the same games but I have found few better ways to get to know a fleet.

 

[Reaverman]

Agree with all of the above.

Suggestions...

1- If you can try to use a 6 x 4 board instead of the 4 x 4. Not being able to set up out of range of a turn one move can restrict tatical options and for some scenarios it's critical. Space superiority would be very different on the smaller map.

2- Try switching commanders but playing the same game. Interested in whether that changes things. I know it can feel tedious playing the same games but I have found few better ways to get to know a fleet.

We do, just alternating between battles is taking its time. Since each game takes 2 hours, I work shifts, and we both do other things. So the turn around, is not so quick.

 

[Ripple]

Yeah, we're trying here as well...but lots of schedules to get in synch. With the current crop of campaign battles we're not getting in much in the way of general testing. Hopefully soon we will get a few of our games up to compare.

Ripple

 

[Burger]

1- If you can try to use a 6 x 4 board instead of the 4 x 4. Not being able to set up out of range of a turn one move can restrict tatical options and for some scenarios it's critical. Space superiority would be very different on the smaller map.

Call To Arms and Annihilation, it wouldn't make much difference at all. Since the boards are played width-ways, the fleets would still start the same distance apart... they'd just have a little more room on the flanks.

Space superiority yeah, there would be more chance to start further apart, but even on a 4x4 board you have the opportunity to start 39.5 inches apart. So not a major difference here either.

 

[Celisasu]

Bust the Myth about the Haven being a bad ship! :twisted:

 

[Reaverman]

1- If you can try to use a 6 x 4 board instead of the 4 x 4. Not being able to set up out of range of a turn one move can restrict tatical options and for some scenarios it's critical. Space superiority would be very different on the smaller map.

Call To Arms and Annihilation, it wouldn't make much difference at all. Since the boards are played width-ways, the fleets would still start the same distance apart... they'd just have a little more room on the flanks.

Space superiority yeah, there would be more chance to start further apart, but even on a 4x4 board you have the opportunity to start 39.5 inches apart. So not a major difference here either.

But I think that's already been discussed, earlier in post. The reason why we used the CTA scenario. Is because there were no special rules, no possibility of JP bomb. Also no favouritism to one particular fleet, its just a flat straight battle. True, we could have tried other scenarios, but at the time, we had two hours and went straight for a simple game.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Bust the Myth about the Haven being a bad ship! :twisted:

Then do the Kutai for an éncore... :wink: