Detail Level?

Ideal Detail Level

  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Morpheus1975

Mongoose
Ok if you could make/produce your own game would you have it just like ACTA or would you like something with more detail?

What is your preferred detail level.

Remember the more complex the more time to play a single game!

Detail Level
1. (2 Players w/1 ships each - 2 Hours)
2. (2 Players w/ 1 ship each - 1-1/2 hours)
3. Star Fleet Battles (2 Players w/2 ships each - 1 Hour)
4. B5 Wars (2 Players w/2 ships each - 1 Hour)
5. (2 Players w/3 ships each - 1 Hour)
6. Star Fleet Commmander (2 Players w/4 ships each - 1 Hour)
7. (2 Players w/5 ships each - 1 Hour)
8. ACTA (2 Players w/6 ships each - 1 Hour)
9. Battlefleet Gothic (2 Players w/8 ships each - 1 Hour)
10. (2 Players w/10 ships each - 1 Hour)

Play time does not include setting up.

I know the playing time is arguable on some games but this is just a rough guess/average.
 
I prefer battles that capture Fleet maneuver, which requires between 6 and 10+ ships, and generally 2-3 hours to do properly. 1 hour ship-to-ship fights are essentially dogfights, for which the SILENT DEATH rules are best. One Ship-to-oneShip fights, no matter what the SFB level of detail, are generally dull math crunching or dice tossing exercises.

Fleet actions work best too if there's a range of vessels, from Fighters on up to superdreadnoughts. Any system that leaves one element in the dirt has a weakness. So there should always be as much a reason to take Escorts as Battleships in an appropriate scenario.

BFG bothers me because Escorts are generally weak and not worth it in most fleets. And GW doesn't support it anymore.

B5 bothers me that Fighters (such a prominent force in B5 shows, and my new fav show BSG) are a near complete waste of time. And fleet balance is still an issue above Raid, which is where most good Fleet Actions can take place.

SFB bothers me because it's overcooked.

Full Thurst bothers me because its undersupported with print materials, and game balance went off after Fleet Book One.

Saganami Island Tactical Simulator bother me because my LGS apparently still can't get it. And early reviews I've heard are not good.
I'd trade every mini I own for a solid, simple, and sensible simulation of the Honor Harrington Universe starship combat (with a good balanced fleet list system) that didn't require a supercomputer and 10 hours to play...
 
B5Wars with 2 Players w/2 ships each took alot more than hour!!!
it also depends on how big the ships are
 
The reason I'm curious is I'm thinking of continuing work with either my Fleet Action game that is very similar to Turning point or FA while having the choice between 3 different levels of detail or a game that is more of a CCG similar to magic but with more detail and more campaign oriented.
 
B5Wars with 2 Players w/2 ships each took alot more than hour!!!
it also depends on how big the ships are

B5W seems to be often misrepresented as being overly long.
With two ships each and no fighters it shouldn't take more than 20mins per turn to play (so an average 4 turn game would be over in an hour and a half). With fighters that would increase to about 30 mins a turn.

In comparison I have definitely never seen a 6 a side ACTA game play from start to finish in anything less than a couple of hours. While it's definitely a faster system, I'd personally estimate it's only 2-3 times quicker / ship used, not 6 or so times.

john
 
There are two parts to the issue, the actual game mechanics, resolution of what happens, and the player's decisions of what to do. Look at chess for an example; extremely simple- no system at all really- but also vastly complex, because of the spectrum of possibility, the implications of the player's actions.
Complexity of mechanic is generally bad, because it's generally unnecessary, frequently (Traveller space combat, dear gods) rules for rules' sake, adding nothing but headache. Complexity of decision is good, because it's what wargaming should be about, the exercise of tactical judgement, making choices.
overall play time is a bit of a chimera really. (Name suggestion for EA's latest?) It depends a lot on the players. I'd say ACtA is good on the mechanics, less so on player choice- it can seem a bit predetermined at times, turn up with the right ships from the right fleet and you've already almost won.
 
I far prefer macro-game to micro-game. I like a fair bit of detail but when it gets down to it, large scale maneouvres are what I like.

And lets face it, nothing looks more badass than huge fleets tearing each other apart over the table.
 
There's a place for all levels of game.

The main drawback I've found with more complex games such as SFB, Attack Vector:Tactical or B5W (all of which I've played - badly - and enjoyed) is that you need an opponent with the right mindset and attention span, and they're in short supply.

Simpler games like ACtA and FT (which I also play - just as badly) have greater appeal to more (i.e. less obsessive) people.

Chess/Draughs, Snooker/Pool, you get the same division in lots of games.

Just give me an excuse to waste money on toy spaceships and you've got it made :) .....
 
Rorschach said:
BFG bothers me because Escorts are generally weak and not worth it in most fleets. And GW doesn't support it anymore.
Amen to that...then again I also have to argue that any GW game of decent points (8 ships would probably be 1000+ points) takes conciderably longer then 1 hour to play...

Saganami Island Tactical Simulator bother me because my LGS apparently still can't get it. And early reviews I've heard are not good.
I'd trade every mini I own for a solid, simple, and sensible simulation of the Honor Harrington Universe starship combat (with a good balanced fleet list system) that didn't require a supercomputer and 10 hours to play...
In theory Alliance Game Distributer (US) is capable of filling these orders...I don't know about UK/Europe though...
However I must say in their deffence that Harrington is a very physics friendly work of science fiction...as such you need to take a lot more care to accurately detail their combat...And although I haven't played it it is supposed to be a loit easier then you would assume given the complexity of physics...
 
deathlynx said:
However I must say in their deffence that Harrington is a very physics friendly work of science fiction...as such you need to take a lot more care to accurately detail their combat...And although I haven't played it it is supposed to be a loit easier then you would assume given the complexity of physics...

It's a "simplified" version of Attack Vector: Tactical which should actually play quite quickly once you've got used to it. The physics in it will be spot on though :) The physics isn't actually that complicated, the calculations required to produce the "black boxes" into which the physics simulation sits, that's complicated ;) But that's all ready done for you.

It's still not for the faint hearted though...
 
I only play two ship combat games - ActA and AeroTech, and they certianly play to different levels. I enjoy them both because I can do huge games in ActA easily, whereas AeroTech gives a more detailed battle (and therefore your average game is smaller), without going into B5Wlevels of detail, which i think gets a bit too much.
 
I'm not sure if I'd do it - simplifying the system would allow for bigger battles certainly, but it'd lose a lot of the BattleTech flavour in the process. I don't think you really need a larger-scale fleet game for the modern BattleTech universe anyway - we're never going to see more than 5 Warships per side in a battle.
 
I agree with the combat scale. Especially with the Jihad Aerotech is going to almost disappear since WOB has just about all the warships now anyways.
 
Mr_Punch said:
B5Wars with 2 Players w/2 ships each took alot more than hour!!!
it also depends on how big the ships are

B5W seems to be often misrepresented as being overly long.
With two ships each and no fighters it shouldn't take more than 20mins per turn to play (so an average 4 turn game would be over in an hour and a half). With fighters that would increase to about 30 mins a turn.

it may only take 20-30mins per turn but you definately need a lot more than 4 turns, bearing in mind that a Heavy Laser can be fired 1 per 4 turns and it takes a few good hits to take down a large ship bearing, after 4 turns neither ship will hardly be scratched.
 
Back
Top