I've been having a discussion with some fairly new players to the game, and we were hashing out what might be done to tame the Klingons so that they are less powerful. We all thought that the Klingons are over-powered and one shouldn't have to be an expert to win with the Feds,
You don't have to be an expert to win with Feds, you just need to have played enough to understand that all the empires play differently and require different tactics. That is the same with many other games where new players find that they can't win with one empire or another.
I wanted to experiment with removing Agile; Klingon ships will still be more maneuverable than say the Feds, but not overwhelmingly so. They will have a little harder time keeping the flanks away from the enemy, but it shouldn't be too bad. I hope to get them to agree with play testing this for awhile and see what happens.
People are getting to hung up on minor detail and not the larger picture. Sure in FC the turn mode is not that much different, but in FC you don't have to end the turn facing the enemy to fire forward either, and that makes a huge difference to klingons. There is no way in ACTA to fire forward whilst spending most of your turn running away from the enemy. Klingons need their 'agility' to have any hope of maintaining range, especially those older ships with narrower arcs on disrupters. Once the range closes the disrupter is quite a weak weapon next to other heavies, and they will struggle on the geometry of keeping their fronts facing the enemy.
If anything I'd say all ships (klingons included) could maybe be a bit more agile than they are. E.g make klingons 3" and agile, Feds and Gorn 4". Everyone gains a bit in terms of option each turn, but mainly the slower turning ships. The klingons can still use agility to outmanouver others whilst the extra turn klingons get isn't really hugely significant, but Feds/Gorns etc gain an extra turn so can respond better.
Each turn, Klingon ships must choose between having the Agile trait, and therefore being able to make 90 degree turns, or their Front Shield Rule.
Yet more markers on ships, and one that really doesn't make much thematic sense to me personally.
My group and I have played quite a few scenarios involving the federation versus Klingons and cannot find them being overpowered at all.
I don't think there is a balnace issue either. When I first played the game with just a few ships then yes I thought the klingons were OP. But this isn't a game designed around small fights. Once you A) move to larger fights and B) undertand the strengths and weaknesses of each empire then the Feds are pretty fine.
People might not like the way the photon works, or that feel of relying on 6's (like being reliant on any other roll is somehow better). But that doesn't make klingons OP.
Feds may not be as easy to pick up as klingons. Klingons/Kzinti are the Newb friendly empires. Feds/Rom/Gorn are less forgiving, but all quite potent once you understand them. Feds do have a more streaky dice dependent nature in small games, but that is true in FC as well. I can understand not liking the 'luck' dependent nature, but that is not the same really as being underpowered or whatever. In fleet games needing 6's is not luck dependent really, law of large numbers and all that.
Any Fed ship trying to close to effective torpedo range risks being outflanked.
Given effective photon range is 15" that seems unlikely. I move a ship to 15" and a klingon moves to outflank. My other ships now moves 15" to that one who can't get out the way. etc.
My own thoughts centre on revising the Photon Torpedo - increasing its range to 24" and adding a close-range band (0 to 4", 2+ to hit).
Range 24" sounds way too potent to me, seriously potent. +2 to hit at point blank range is pretty nasty as well, maybe mitigated to some extent by being explosion range.
Disrupters need the range as they are a wear you down type of weapon, and they need a head start in shooting given how fast fleets close in ACTA, in FC you often get 2 or 3 good turns shooting with disrupters before the photons are getting the good shots in. In a fleet level game of ACTA photons can wipe out multi ships from max range, being able to do that from beyond the range of phasers, plasma, auto drone hit range etc is just way to good.
I am inclined to not remove the Front shield rule, despite it not making much sense. It will require too much work re-doing the new shield strengths, and may inadvertently change the Shield Boost dice. ]
It's not that much work, you change one number e.g. D7 shield = 22 (from memory?) rather than 18. Why would changing the shield boost dice matter. If you are just going to move to similar shields as everyone else then you get the same shield boost as everyone else. Off the top of my head only the D6/7 would be affected (can't remember the smaller ships) - they would go from 1D6 to 2D6 just like any other CA, representing that they are now just like any other CA.
I suspect that removing Agile will go a long way to helping the situation, as the Klingons won't be able to keep their vulnerable flanks away from an enemy unless they manage to keep the range open. Even without Agile, they are still much more maneuverable than the Feds for example:
[...]
Massive imbalance, IMHO.
See above. On the one hand they can keep vulnerable flanks away from the enemy, on the other hand they can't maintain range like they can in FC. Once you are up close the manouverability is not that fantastic for keeping the front shield facing, again except in small games. There is more to this than just simple turning radius, the entire game mechanics are different which results in Klingons loosing a lot of options that they would other wise have.
I'm sorry, but in nearly all my demo players, the Feds get slaughtered. There should be something resembling 50/50 win/loss. I am fairly sure that it's turned some potential players away, when they got their butts kicked by the Klingons, and we're not talking close games here.
I also got slaughtered by the klingons in my first ever game at a demo. By a poster above as it happens. But it seemed crystal clear to me afterwards that the demo game is the thing to blame. It was just 2 CA vs 2 D7. ACTA is not a game for that type of fight. Of course it didn't help that having never played before I had no immediate idea of how things would go, or know the rules to try and work things out.
I don't know what scenario you use, but maybe rethink your demo game. Use more ships, use smaller ships. Both things benefit the Feds more than the klingons. Maybe change to Fed vs Romulan, another classic match up that has recognition factor.
I still think that adjusting the front shield rule to one-quarter (while bringing the Klingon and Kestrel Shield scores "back" to the #2 shield values used for other hull types) might be a way to rein things in - so long as it was also applied to other ships and empires that warrant it. (So a Fed CA would get the one-quarter rule, but the Romulan King Eagle would not.)
Trying to give everyone better front shields seems odd. The minor difference between front and side sheilds for most ships (like the Fed CA) is just not relevent at fleet level. ACTA doesn't need these bit of extremely minor detail on it. They may be important in small scale FC 1 vs 1 duels especially, but in fleet level games almost irrelevant; yes even in FC. It is arguable that the difference on older klingon ships is not really that important at fleet level fights either, though I'd say that for your 6-12 ship fights that difference is just about significant.
I just think that with 2 new players, roughly equal skill, it should resemble a 50/50 win loss record, when that is definitely not the case.
Why?
Between 2 experienced players, sure. But many games have this sort of dynamic where brand new players will find one side better as they try to work out the tactics that each empire is best at. That is not a sign of imbalance but a sign of new players, it takes time to appreciate and understand each sides strengths. Klingons are easy to play, but they are not particularly potent per se. Their ease of play balances out the fact that they have probably the weakest weapons in the game - the disrupter may have a good range, and it fires every turn, but it does nothing spectacular. Their offensive phasers are a mix of 2's and 1's, with the 1's being generally in short supply. It takes time to wear down enemies with disrupters therefore you need some amount of forgiveness in playing with them. Photons and Plasma (in particular) have the the power to maybe win a game in one fell swoop, you balance that by making them harder to play and less forgiving of mistakes.
Similarly, reduce the range of disruptors. Unless things have changed since I gave up SFB -- not least because of SVC's fondness for the Klinks -- disruptors did not outrange photorps, except maybe the DN versions.
ACTA is based more on FC. In FC there is a big difference between disrupters and photons. They do technically have the same range, but you will seldom see photons fired beyond range 12 (or 8 more often). Disrupters on the other hand are good all the way out to max range of 25.
Also, photon and plasma torpedo arming needs to not be handled via Special Actions. They already lose a turn reloading, they don't also need to not be able to perform IDF, for example.
Get rid of reloading as an energy drain/special action for the Feds and Roms. They still need to reload.
That would make them incredibly OP. Plasma in particular is already easily the most powerful weapon in the game, giving it free reload is way over the top. It may be a pain not being able to do other things like IDF, but 'fixing' that (if it is broken) via free reload would be game breaking.
The power drain does reflect a reality of playing the Feds in FC, the need to commit all that energy up front is a serious power issue for Feds in a game where klingons run entirely on a pay as you fire mechanic. The klingons may have to pay the same power if they fire disrupters, but the ability to make that decision on the fly gives them some significant advantages during a turn. I don't personally see an issue with power drain reflecting not just how much power you spend in FC, but also combine the affect of how and when the power is allocated in FC.
At any rate in light of recent announcements it will be interesting to see what Tony comes up with. The Seeker thing is what I'm more interested in, it never 'feels' right to me.
