ground zero

[Talisinbear]

hi

how do the scales of BF and Ground Zero Games Full Thrust match up ?


how are the game systems in comparison?

thanks Talisinbear

 

[Slightly Norse John]

Nolo comprehendere. You're trying to compare 'BF'- Battlefield Evo?- Mongoose's ground combat game, with Ground Zero's space combat game, on the forum for Mongoose's space combat game? Does not compute.

On the only assumption that makes sense on this board, Full Thrust vs. ACtA, people who grumble about Mongoose's excessively rapid updates take note; there are bits on the GZG website that have been there for playtesting for five years...

I personally like the FT system. It shows signs of vegetation, though; designed for simple, fast play, got overgrown with complex bits like an ordnance phase. The optional vector system is about as intuitive as vector movement will ever get.

FT's basic mechanics are also more flexible. Systems really can function differently one from another, alien tech works alienishly. Which can be a mixed blessing. There is also a construction system that produces more or less approximate balance and can duplicate existing ships- typos permitting.

The big problem Full Thrust has is some of those alien and perpetual-playtest systems. Balance dubious verging on absurdly broken. Heavy Missiles, Kra'Vak railguns, Phalon plasma bolt launchers and pulsars, Japanese space navy hyperspatial distortion weapons, Futtock Guns (Nova Cannon)- all cheese. Beardy cheese.

Also, no flavour. No existing background to tap into, their background is interesting but low- key, colonial warfare in space. Too many tacky jokes, as well.

 

[Talisinbear]

that is exactly what I was looking for a comparison of BF (B5) with the Full thrust space combat game from Ground Zero Games?

Are the ship scales approximate?

I really like the FT Japanese ships

thanks

 

[Locutus9956]

To avoid confusion Talis you might do well to call it ACTA rather than BF as BF on these boards tends to mean Battlefield Evolution and B5 tends to mean the B5 Role playing game. But anyway as for your actual question:

The Scales, for the most part, are pretty similar though since both games ships are repreentative with all measurments depending on the stem anyway its not THAT important.

As for the games themselves, personally I think FT is a better game, but ACTA has that tasty B5ey flavour that helps alot Movement in ACTA is much less complex than FT (its very similar to Battlefleet Gothic if youve ever played that). Damage in ACTA is in some ways more complex with seperate tracks for crew and hull and an extensive crit table but personally I prefer FTs damage system with weapons being knocked out etc. On the weapons front theres alot more variety in weaponry in ACTA. Basically theyre quite different games really but both alot of fun

 

[Alexb83]

Full thrust is a very... different game. Personally I think ACTA is much more user friendly with its greater focus on scenarios, the scoring system etc.
The inertial movement system in FT is good, but on balance I would say that the ACTA system is more condusive to quick and easy gaming (and also the use of smaller tables).

As many balance issues as ACTA has, FT has waaaay more thanks to the points system and the shipbuilding maths. The Kra'vak fleet costs waaay more than it should due to the way that advanced drives and K-guns are priced. The Phalon fleet is waaay under priced due to the lack of advanced drives, and the incredible awesomeness of their plasma bursts.
The new human fleets in playtest are completely broken (Japanese fleet, anyone?)

In terms of scale - hrm. Full thrust ships, by 'class' are smaller than ACTA. But class doesn't really cross over into the B5 universe that easily (destroyer has a different connotation in each game).