How close are your ACTA games in general?
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
Like I wrote. When I'm playing it's almost everytime (at least I could damage one ship of the enemy a few games).....but for me it's not through the game mechanics, but through my dice luck (and that of my opponents....whole salvoe from omega hits with maximum damage....1 damage geht's through CBD)
Hopefully the current playtest revisions will ultimately address issues like the FAP, initiative sinks and critical hits. There are a couple things which I hope are also covered (or clarified).
1. I'm not sure of the official way of doing it but the point level, scenario type and battlefield really needs to be determined before selecting a race and fleet. A large open expanse with a race that has slow speed and relatively short range weapons against a foe with a higher speed and longer range weapons equals no fun.
2. Some races are flat out bad matches against each other. How often have you seen the Pak'Ma'Ra win against the Shadows? How often have you seen the Abbai win against the Vorlons? How often have you seen the Raiders win against the Minbari? Etc. Etc. Sure there are a number of good matches but there are enough bad ones to ensure too many bad games (especially if aggravated by #1 above).
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
1. I'm not sure of the official way of doing it but the point level, scenario type and battlefield really needs to be determined before selecting a race and fleet. A large open expanse with a race that has slow speed and relatively short range weapons against a foe with a higher speed and longer range weapons equals no fun.
2. Some races are flat out bad matches against each other. How often have you seen the Pak'Ma'Ra win against the Shadows? How often have you seen the Abbai win against the Vorlons? How often have you seen the Raiders win against the Minbari? Etc. Etc. Sure there are a number of good matches but there are enough bad ones to ensure too many bad games (especially if aggravated by #1 above).
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
Foxmeister
Mongoose
hiffano said:nope, it is a scout, therefore it does. It's main job is to scout, to stop it doing it's job while it scouted would be a tad harsh
*cough* WhiteStar *cough*
IMHO, if scouting were an SA, there be a lot less of an issue with the WhiteStar in the first place.
Regards,
Dave
Foxmeister said:hiffano said:nope, it is a scout, therefore it does. It's main job is to scout, to stop it doing it's job while it scouted would be a tad harsh
*cough* WhiteStar *cough*
IMHO, if scouting were an SA, there be a lot less of an issue with the WhiteStar in the first place.
Regards,
Dave
so to fix the whitestar you cripple other scouts?!
and did someone just ask what was wrong with the whitestar scouting? one of the cheesiest ships ever can self scout?! the leshath? great scout, but where is it's TD beam, it's dodge, it's adaptive armour? it's precise weapons etc
Foxmeister
Mongoose
hiffano said:
No - i just don't see any particular reason why Scouting shouldn't be an SA.
Regards,
Dave
Foxmeister said:
um, is firing e-mines a special action? is firing a main beam a special action? the ships with those weapons are war ships, it is there job... a scouts job is to scout, so it can do it without a special action. I can just see a Typhoon pilot intercepting a a blackjack, this is pookie to base, i'm turning off the radar as I want to be able to do other stuff. . .
Foxmeister
Mongoose
hiffano said:
Who said anything about turning anything off? What relevance do weapons have to do with this? Answer, none!
You can't use the Jump Engine trait without using a special action, so I see no logical reason why scouting shouldn't be an SA that can only be performed by ships with the Scout trait.
Just my opinion of course, but that's because "Special Actions" aren't really that special!
The fluff for SAs states:
Is opening a jump point really an extraordinary thing, or is it just a run of the mill thing that any ship with a jump engine would do? (Initiate Jump Point)
Is bring your ship to a halt really special? (All Stop)
Why should a ship with a scout trait be able to perform its normal duties (i.e. scout) presumably using *active* sensors and still "Run Silent"? - doesn't make sense to me!
Regards,
Dave
ok, removed my opening line, as you obviously can't get that particular arghument. . .
. . . now if it was a warship, with a scout ability, maybe it would need to divert power to it's scanners, so it would be an SA, but it is designed and built as a scout, so why in the blue hell would you not be able to scout with a scout, it's it's very function in life.
however if thats the way you think it should work, surely a carrier should need to use a special action to launch any fighters? it's the exact same principle.
warships shoot guns, carriers launch fighters, scouts um, well scout.
I'm sorry, but having to do a special action do do your job it's bloody ridiculous. I understand your point on special actions, but the scouting ability is priced into the cost of the ship, to then penalise it by making it do a special action to do it seems daft, now then, if all scouts got boosted to be bonafide warships, plus having a scout ability (ok this is the whitestar) then yes, make it a special action by all means, the scout is already a rare enough ship in most fleets, bar the whitestar, why make it worse?
as for jump engines, if the power requirement of a spiffy radar was the same as ripping open the fabric of space, this might be relevant, but until we understand how to rip open the very fabric of space, we have to accept that scanning something is a probably a whole lot less power consuming.
. . . now if it was a warship, with a scout ability, maybe it would need to divert power to it's scanners, so it would be an SA, but it is designed and built as a scout, so why in the blue hell would you not be able to scout with a scout, it's it's very function in life.
however if thats the way you think it should work, surely a carrier should need to use a special action to launch any fighters? it's the exact same principle.
warships shoot guns, carriers launch fighters, scouts um, well scout.
I'm sorry, but having to do a special action do do your job it's bloody ridiculous. I understand your point on special actions, but the scouting ability is priced into the cost of the ship, to then penalise it by making it do a special action to do it seems daft, now then, if all scouts got boosted to be bonafide warships, plus having a scout ability (ok this is the whitestar) then yes, make it a special action by all means, the scout is already a rare enough ship in most fleets, bar the whitestar, why make it worse?
as for jump engines, if the power requirement of a spiffy radar was the same as ripping open the fabric of space, this might be relevant, but until we understand how to rip open the very fabric of space, we have to accept that scanning something is a probably a whole lot less power consuming.
Why do you need a SA to go to General Quarters and lock down all hatches? (CBD) Why would going to General Quarters affect what weapons you can fire?
Why would a Carrier need a special action to get all its fighters off the deck as fast as possible (Scramble! Scramble!)?
Why would you need a special action to activate a jump gate? Is that not 1 crewman's job?
Why would you need a SA to Scout if you're a purpose built Scout? Because that's the system that has been set up. That's the design of the game.
Why would a Carrier need a special action to get all its fighters off the deck as fast as possible (Scramble! Scramble!)?
Why would you need a special action to activate a jump gate? Is that not 1 crewman's job?
Why would you need a SA to Scout if you're a purpose built Scout? Because that's the system that has been set up. That's the design of the game.
Anyway, that's a different discussion for a different thread.
This thread, as has been pointed out in the last attempt to rescue it from threadjacking, is about how often do you see blowout games?
Myself? Every game I've been in except 1 on VPs because of all the separate fighter flights I bought. And with the new Fighter VPs rule, that'd change to a blowout, too.
That's EA vs ISA with me as EA, or ISA vs anyone I've ever played against, Narn, Minbari, Psi Corps, ISA, Abbai, Drakh and EA: Crusade in a 3 for all...
This thread, as has been pointed out in the last attempt to rescue it from threadjacking, is about how often do you see blowout games?
Myself? Every game I've been in except 1 on VPs because of all the separate fighter flights I bought. And with the new Fighter VPs rule, that'd change to a blowout, too.
That's EA vs ISA with me as EA, or ISA vs anyone I've ever played against, Narn, Minbari, Psi Corps, ISA, Abbai, Drakh and EA: Crusade in a 3 for all...
Foxmeister
Mongoose
hiffano said:
I can *get* plenty of arguments without having to *agree* with them. Isn't that the whole nature of an argument?
When did I ever say you can't Scout with a scout? Answer - never. I just said that it should be a special action. Yes that would mean that if you're actively scouting, you can't be cowering behind CBD, but then again why should you be able to?
That's my opinion and I'm entitled to have it - and it has no more or less value than your opinion!
And what about "Run Silent!"? "Scanning" (i.e. actively Scouting) and "Running Silent" should be mutually exclusive activities but they are not?
I *do* understand your argument - I just disagree with it!
Regards,
Dave
