Drones...Do They Slow Down the Game?

[Pavlov Grenadier]

Hi all! I didn’t want to hijack the Gorn thread but wanted to comment on something Mckinstry mentioned concerning our take on drones:

One other issue - the drone mechanics are still the sticking/slow point of an otherwise quick and clean system. What's the quarter it is hitting? What's fired and what hasn't? What can still fire and what could come next? It seems as if the quick flowing system suddenly bogs at a series of micro-decisions. Drone defense slows the game down above and beyond all other mechanics combined and if fighters do the same, this will cease to be a quick game.

Im the Kzinti player he mentions in a lot of his posts and after playing a dozen or so games with them, I would like to second his sentiment above. This is not a “are drones balanced” discussion but rather my feelings on how they impact game speed/fun.

The mechanics as they are now, really slow up the games we’ve been playing. Essentially, my opponent has to “activate” several of his ships 4 times each in the shooting phase (one for when he fires it and 3 more times when drones attack it from my various ships). Each one of those “activations” becomes a decision point he has to make (which phasers do I fire, do I use ADD, Tractor Beams, etc.). That’s not even including the decision points on nearby ships on IDF. These decision points are not merely “oh, I have 3 phaser 1s in arc, I can fire them” but rather, “I have those in arc but if I do, I cant fire them later” or “is there a bigger salvo coming from the next ship” and all the various permutations that go along with that decision point…for each time I fire at the ship. On top of that, you still have to determine (for each time I fire drones at you), what’s in arc, how many for each line item, mark them off, etc.

In theory the mechanic is fine (and for the most part balanced). I like the idea of forcing my opponent to choose between defending vs. drones or getting some more offense out of his phasers. Its just the practical application when playing a “fleet scale” game becomes tedious for both me and my opponent. As Mckinstry said, it slows down an otherwise well written and smooth shooting phase.

Also, while Plasma should have the same problem, it hasn’t in our games since A) they can't fire from turn 1 like the drones can, B) Its not as much of a decision point since (at least in our limited experience) you will fire all of your phasers (if you have them left) since he will have to reload next turn and all you have to do is mitigate the damage this turn and pound him the next.

Now having said all of this, I don’t have a solution (that’s why we pay you guys at Mongoose the big bucks.. :lol: ). Instead, I wanted to see if other groups have experienced this and if so, what can be done about it (if anything?).

Thanks!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Instead, I wanted to see if other groups have experienced this and if so, what can be done about it (if anything?).

Not a great deal. This detail was a design requirement for the game.

 

[Captain Jonah]

I like the idea of forcing my opponent to choose between defending vs. drones or getting some more offence out of his Phasers. Thanks!

Sorry, there is a choice?

The Gorn either fire Phasers and kiss good by to the shields/ship or don't fire Phasers at the enemy and swat drones instead. Firing off all Phasers leaves you taking a few D6 of damage as a Drone ship later in the battle throws some presents your way.

I tend to find that apart from the very last ships on my turn or when the Drone player only has one or two Drones left that I cannot risk Phaser fire.

Firing off most or all of a ships Phasers early on just moves it to the top of the Drone Incoming list. Even low Drone fleets can make a dent in the shields or Hull of a ship that has decided to forgo its only Drone defences.

In terms of it slowing the game down, not sure. I tend to avoid the Drone heavy fleets with Gorn, I like hurting people not the other way round and being all but defenceless to some one flying a fleet designed to dump 12 Drones a turn onto any two of my ships isn’t fun (though not as less fun as it was before the 3 ship limit).

Also the current Drone and Plasma rules are the fast rules, putting down counters will make things much slower.

The ship being hit fires till it is out of defences then takes the hit. Ships doing IDF wait till the target is out then fire to support otherwise all that happens is the IDF ship is not out of Phasers and becomes the new target. A big problem with using smaller ships to IDF big ones unless you are careful.

Anyway I don’t see a way round it.

Unless we just remove drones from the game, or make the 18” weapons
:twisted:

 

[Da Boss]

Instead, I wanted to see if other groups have experienced this and if so, what can be done about it (if anything?).

Not a great deal. This detail was a design requirement for the game.

This is the fast and furious version of the original rule......... however it does slow the game down quite a bit

 

[TJHairball]

Some people always take a long time with decisions. Others don't.

As you learn your options, it gets a lot faster. IME drones don't take much longer than plasmas, since with plasmas, the plasma user also has to make some decisions - to fire or reserve until next turn, or even to fire bolts or carronades - and needs to be paying careful attention to range brackets, as must their opponent, which means more time spend moving and measuring.

Right now, we've found the game moves very quickly overall, so we're not terribly concerned with the speed of resolving defensive fire. If we've got 6-7 hours to play on a game day, we may well manage to fit in two strategic turns of our campaign (each of three players making one attack, i.e., scenario, doing any skills and upgrades, buying and redeploying ships at the end of the turn, etc). Many other games we'd only be able to fit a couple matches in that span.

 

[gord314]

Some people always take a long time with decisions. Others don't.

As you learn your options, it gets a lot faster. IME drones don't take much longer than plasmas, since with plasmas, the plasma user also has to make some decisions - to fire or reserve until next turn, or even to fire bolts or carronades - and needs to be paying careful attention to range brackets, as must their opponent, which means more time spend moving and measuring.

Right now, we've found the game moves very quickly overall, so we're not terribly concerned with the speed of resolving defensive fire. If we've got 6-7 hours to play on a game day, we may well manage to fit in two strategic turns of our campaign (each of three players making one attack, i.e., scenario, doing any skills and upgrades, buying and redeploying ships at the end of the turn, etc). Many other games we'd only be able to fit a couple matches in that span.

Its worth noting that many of these battles are in the 200-600 pt range, but mixed in are 500-1000 pt battles and even the odd 1200+ pt battle station assault.

 

[Red-24]

I agree that the drones slow down the game a bit. But I find it one of the best aspects of the game.

The decision points on whether to take the drone hit so that the phasers are still available for offense is a big part of what makes this a very tactical game.

Over the four games played at Trumpeter Salute this weekend, I had one very astute SFB player who picked up the system incredibly rapidly. I would watch as he boosted his Klingon shields, then would choose to not even use tractors on drones and literally laugh as his extra shields absorbed the damage. He could see all the decision points and chose very wisely. He did have a huge advantage in knowing all the types of ships on all three forces and their weaponry, but we'll all get there.

There are a lot of decision points in this game. Which ship to move first, how to move, predicting what the opponent will do, long range torpedoes vs. waiting until you are closer, and what to use against drones. All of these can slow down the game, until you figure out your best strategies. Then the game is really quite quick.

I was running 6 new players through 1000 points per side games each session. We either finished, or came close to finishing in the 4 hours, even after I explained all the relevant rules and even with 3 players per side discussing what to do next, who should go next, etc.. If it had been one player per side and they each knew the rules, I think these games would have been 2 to 3 hours max.

As a side note, we used the 3 drone attacks per ship rule in every game, and I found that this simple rule goes a long way. We simply mark each ship with a token for each drone attack. All very elegant.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

As a side note, we used the 3 drone attacks per ship rule in every game, and I found that this simple rule goes a long way. We simply mark each ship with a token for each drone attack. All very elegant.

Yep, thats what we do as well...easy and no confusion on which ship has taken 3 drone hits.

 

[Greg Smith]

In short, yes the drones/plasma and defensive does slow the game down compared to other versions of ACTA. Tracking which phasers have fired in a big fleet with multiple ships all on IDF! is a PITA. But it is a lot faster than some of the versions we playtested. I will say it is much easier to do with fleets with phasers grouped together than with the Gorn with their two dozen different fire arcs.

 

[Red-24]

Tracking which phasers have fired in a big fleet with multiple ships all on IDF! is a PITA.

My ship record sheets have a box to put a mark in, beside each weapon system, to mark when it has fired. We mark every system when it fires and erase at the end of the turn.

I can't see how keeping track of defensive fire is a PITA when you have to keep track of all offensive shots anyway.

 

[Greg Smith]

I can't see how keeping track of defensive fire is a PITA when you have to keep track of all offensive shots anyway.

You don't have to track all offensive shots. You only need to remember which ship has fired.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

I can't see how keeping track of defensive fire is a PITA when you have to keep track of all offensive shots anyway.

You don't have to track all offensive shots. You only need to remember which ship has fired.

Hi Red! In most other space combat games we play, we just have to track which ship has fired…usually by a token (or just amazing mental prowess…which I possess none of :wink: ).

When drones (and to a lesser extent plasma) are on the field, we do as you indicated (mark on our sheet each line item as it fires both offensively, then the 3 times that ship is fired at by the other fleet using drones). While its not hard to remember since we have the checks next to the boxes, its just tedious to have keep track of (at least in our opinion ).

 

[Blaer]

Weird.. I would say it'd always be mandatory to record each weapon as fired each turn... on the off chance they take fire, or wish to fire offensively (drones and photons) while retaining their phasers for defense... just saying, but Red's box marking would be a step I'd make habitual of anyone I played with for that reason alone...

 

[archon96]

same here we check off all weapons used to avoid any (cough) mistakes on available weapons for defensive fire.

 

[scoutdad]

Yep. Us too.

Our record cards have check boxes for each weapon; and after thirty years of SFB playing, it's second nature o check off weapons as they are used.

 

[McKinstry]

I used one the the excel sheets someone worked up to create a card for each ship and laminate it. I then check off boxes using a cheap eraseable marker.