MrHemlocks
Mongoose
I am aware that A Call to Arms uses miniatures but what are the other core differences between is and Starfleet Battles? I only have the extra cash for one of them so...
How does A Call to Arms differ then Starfleet Battles?
- Thread starter MrHemlocks
- Start date
SFB is extremely detailed, can be pretty slow to play and has a huge number of rules covering just about every eventuallity. Teaching someone else SFB requires some planning and commitment from the other player.
ACTA is very light on detail, is pretty fast to play and has hardly any rules, that because of the way they are written are often not exactly clear on what they are meaning. You can explain and play ACTA within half an hour to someone who hasn't played before.
OK that may be a bit of an exageration, but conveys the main difference.
Conceptually:
SFB is more a simulation of being a ship captain. You will mainly play 1 vs 1 or not much bigger, you can play bigger fights, but it can really slow down an awful lot. You make decsions about precisely how fast to go, which shields to reinforce, what weapons to arm, how to use your marines, what to configure your shuttles for, how to use every drop of valuable power to get the most out of your ships and its quirks.
ACTA is about having a quick squadron/fleet level game, where you make a few large scale decisions, send those ships there and kill that. There's very little micro managing ships themselves, although a key part is deciding which special action each ship will take each turn. iT doesn'y handle small fights very well, 1 vs 1 tends to be extremely luck dependent.
Although you didn't ask, there is also Federation commander. Conceptually FedCom is sort of between SFB and ACTA, more SFB though (They are both from ADB). It is really a toned down version of SFB, it has a lot of similar mechanics to SFB but ditches a lot of the more fiddly bits. You can play a good 1 vs 1, or squadron fights in a decent time, and large (SFU wise) battles are quite doable with 2 players in a days gaming, though no where near as fast as ACTA.
SFB/FedCom are more hex and counter games, though peope do use minis. ACTA is a mini game, though we have used counters.
I would also note that with ACTA I often felt a couple of key D6 rolls could make or break a battle, that is more pronounced at smaller fights. SFB/FedCom never seems quite so reliant on winning or losing because of a couple of dice rolls.
If you are looking for a serious hardcore game then SFB is what you want, if you are looking to have some fast playing games with casual gamers then ACTA is it. FedCom maybe worth a look if you are a bit more in between.
That is my 2 penneth anyway.
ACTA is very light on detail, is pretty fast to play and has hardly any rules, that because of the way they are written are often not exactly clear on what they are meaning. You can explain and play ACTA within half an hour to someone who hasn't played before.
OK that may be a bit of an exageration, but conveys the main difference.
Conceptually:
SFB is more a simulation of being a ship captain. You will mainly play 1 vs 1 or not much bigger, you can play bigger fights, but it can really slow down an awful lot. You make decsions about precisely how fast to go, which shields to reinforce, what weapons to arm, how to use your marines, what to configure your shuttles for, how to use every drop of valuable power to get the most out of your ships and its quirks.
ACTA is about having a quick squadron/fleet level game, where you make a few large scale decisions, send those ships there and kill that. There's very little micro managing ships themselves, although a key part is deciding which special action each ship will take each turn. iT doesn'y handle small fights very well, 1 vs 1 tends to be extremely luck dependent.
Although you didn't ask, there is also Federation commander. Conceptually FedCom is sort of between SFB and ACTA, more SFB though (They are both from ADB). It is really a toned down version of SFB, it has a lot of similar mechanics to SFB but ditches a lot of the more fiddly bits. You can play a good 1 vs 1, or squadron fights in a decent time, and large (SFU wise) battles are quite doable with 2 players in a days gaming, though no where near as fast as ACTA.
SFB/FedCom are more hex and counter games, though peope do use minis. ACTA is a mini game, though we have used counters.
I would also note that with ACTA I often felt a couple of key D6 rolls could make or break a battle, that is more pronounced at smaller fights. SFB/FedCom never seems quite so reliant on winning or losing because of a couple of dice rolls.
If you are looking for a serious hardcore game then SFB is what you want, if you are looking to have some fast playing games with casual gamers then ACTA is it. FedCom maybe worth a look if you are a bit more in between.
That is my 2 penneth anyway.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Got ninja'd there, but half my post's still relevant 
Of the two, ACTA:SF's a lot simpler and faster playing since it's a fleet level game. SFB focuses more on individual ships and is far more detailed and complex (note that ADB also publishes Federation Commander which falls somewhere between the two, although more towards the SFB end of the spectrum). Macro versus micro, if you will.
If you go to http://www.starfleetgames.com/ you can find more information on the two ADB games and how they play.
A few major differences:
SFB/FC splits a turn up into multiple segments with proportional movement based on speed and the option to fire during each segment whereas in ACTA players alternately make full moves with each model then alternate firing once all models have moved.
SFB/FC uses power allocation rules which determine speed, weapon and shield power etc, whereas ACTA has a range of "special actions" some of which require you to take one of three penalties due to power drain.
SFB/FC seeking weapons (Plasma Torpedoes, Drone missiles etc) are placed on the map at launch and use the same proportional movement as ships do, whereas ACTA:SF seekers are resolved immediately just like direct-fire weapons (but targets have the opportunity to use defensive measures/weapons).
Of the two, ACTA:SF's a lot simpler and faster playing since it's a fleet level game. SFB focuses more on individual ships and is far more detailed and complex (note that ADB also publishes Federation Commander which falls somewhere between the two, although more towards the SFB end of the spectrum). Macro versus micro, if you will.
If you go to http://www.starfleetgames.com/ you can find more information on the two ADB games and how they play.
A few major differences:
SFB/FC splits a turn up into multiple segments with proportional movement based on speed and the option to fire during each segment whereas in ACTA players alternately make full moves with each model then alternate firing once all models have moved.
SFB/FC uses power allocation rules which determine speed, weapon and shield power etc, whereas ACTA has a range of "special actions" some of which require you to take one of three penalties due to power drain.
SFB/FC seeking weapons (Plasma Torpedoes, Drone missiles etc) are placed on the map at launch and use the same proportional movement as ships do, whereas ACTA:SF seekers are resolved immediately just like direct-fire weapons (but targets have the opportunity to use defensive measures/weapons).
Actually the first question that should have been addressed before in detailed description of difference was given was what are looking for in the game. A detailed ship to ship combat game or the ability to play a 12 ship fleet battle in a few hours?
If you intend to play with 1 to 3 ships per side then you would probably be happier playing SFB or FC. If you want to put a lot of units on the board and see a lot of stuff go BOOM real fast then ACTASF is your game.
If you intend to play with 1 to 3 ships per side then you would probably be happier playing SFB or FC. If you want to put a lot of units on the board and see a lot of stuff go BOOM real fast then ACTASF is your game.
It's worth noting that there is a fourth game engine which supports tactical starship combat in the SFU (or a fifth, depending on how you count it); the Star Fleet adaptation of Starmada.
Each book in that series takes a pair of modules from Federation Commander and combines them into a single set of rules and ships for either the Admiralty or Nova editions of the Starmada game system. So, for example, Klingon Armada includes the ships from FC: Klingon Border and FC: Klingon Attack; while both Klingon and Romulan Armada (Which in turn combines FC: Romulan Border and FC: Romulan Attack) together give you the same ships you get in book 1 of A Call to Arms: Star Fleet.
(Starmada is run by Majestic 12 Games, and the SFU adaptations are courtesy of an agreement between MJ12 and ADB; akin to the joint venture that allows Mongoose to adapt A Call to Arms to the same universe.)
Nova, the current edition of Starmada, is much more streamlined and abstracted relative to the prior Admiralty edition; but for now at least, you can get all of the Star Fleet books (including Battleships Armada, which just came out a few weeks ago) for either edition. Either version would still be closer to ACtA:SF than either SFB or FC in terms of complexity or focus. However, both assume the use of hex maps, unlike the hexless play in A Call to Arms: Star Fleet.
Each book in that series takes a pair of modules from Federation Commander and combines them into a single set of rules and ships for either the Admiralty or Nova editions of the Starmada game system. So, for example, Klingon Armada includes the ships from FC: Klingon Border and FC: Klingon Attack; while both Klingon and Romulan Armada (Which in turn combines FC: Romulan Border and FC: Romulan Attack) together give you the same ships you get in book 1 of A Call to Arms: Star Fleet.
(Starmada is run by Majestic 12 Games, and the SFU adaptations are courtesy of an agreement between MJ12 and ADB; akin to the joint venture that allows Mongoose to adapt A Call to Arms to the same universe.)
Nova, the current edition of Starmada, is much more streamlined and abstracted relative to the prior Admiralty edition; but for now at least, you can get all of the Star Fleet books (including Battleships Armada, which just came out a few weeks ago) for either edition. Either version would still be closer to ACtA:SF than either SFB or FC in terms of complexity or focus. However, both assume the use of hex maps, unlike the hexless play in A Call to Arms: Star Fleet.
There have been some really good answers here, but I intend to jump on the bandwagon as well:MrHemlocks said:
First off, The core difference is the size game hte systems are designed for.
There are several games set in the Star Fleet universe, and they can generally be ranked by complexity/squadron size.
The original game in the system is Star FLeet Battles. First released in 1979 as a baord game. Most people still play SFB with cardboard counters and a hex map.. although many of us do break out the minis, if we have them.
Star FLeet Battles isthe quintessential game of commanding a starship. Most of hte battels are one-on-one duel, or small squadron actions involving just a few (3 to 6) ships per side. The current printed version of the Master Rule Book clocks in at 400+ pages of rules... and that's rules only, no fluff, no ship stats, no fleet lists, and no scenarios. Although, in fairness these rules cover over a dozen empires and over 2,000 ships. VEry rarely will more than 25 to 30 pages of rules apply to any single game.
Each ship is controlled via energy allocation. You being each turn by counting up the power generated by the systems on each ship, as shown on its SSD (Ship System Display). Sample SSD for the Federation tournament cruiser shown here and entering that into the upper section of that ships energy allocation form.
All of the energy a ship generates must be spent (or allocated) before the turn begins. You must determine the speed you intend to go and pay for that... you need to pay for life support, shielding, and fire systems control. Weapons have to be powered up (and some heavy weapons require pre-set amounts of energy across two or even three turns). speacial mission shuttles must be prepped, electronic warfare must have power allocated to it, and if you intend to use (or at least want the option to use...) Tractors or transporters, then power mustbe allocated to that.
Once this is completed (for every ship in you force), the turn begins. Each turn in SFB is divided in 32 impulses. Movement occurs proportionally, so that faster ships move more often (32 impulse chart shown here[url]. During each impulse you have the opportunity to use (or not to use) your ships systems, weapons, etc.
Once weapons have been fired, damage is allocated via the SFB Damage Allocation Chart or DAC... shown [url=http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/DAC.pdf] here.
As you can see, this is an in-depth simulation. We [Battlegroup Murfreesboro] have been playing SFB since 1980 and have most of the rules committed to memeory. A 5 versus 5 battle can typically be fought out in a single 6 to 8 hour session -although the use of certain rare units or counter-heavy units can slow that down as obscure rules are researched or massive numbers of counters are dealt with.
The next game out was Federation Commander. Fed Comm is a streamlined version of SFB. Many of the finicky rules and weapon options (there are over 30 different types of drone you can load into your ships drone racks in SFB, but only one in Fed Comm) were left out. The game has been broken down into 8 impulse with 4 movement sub-pulses each. This still gives you the 32 movement impulse SFB has, but you now only have 8 opportunities each turn to use ships systems and fire weapons. Thereby speeding the game by 75%.
Fed Comm works best with squadrons of 3 to 6 ships. Less than that and you'd be better off with the detail level of SFB... more than that and you begin to get bogges down by the sheer number of choices avaialble during each movement pulse.
Then there's ACTASF. This is truly the fleet level game of the SFU. It works best with 5 to 12 ships per side (although we have down 35 versus 35 battles before). With its fast paced rules - you can typically fight a 10 ship battle in less than 2 hours.
Currently, you only have about 100 ships to choose from (including the scouts, escorts, and variants) as opposed to the 2,000+ in SFB - but it is a faster game.
And before someone calls me on it... there are other games set in the SFU:
Starmada... which I am not very familiar with, although I do owwn it and have read the rules.
Star Fleet Battleforce - the fast-paced, easy to learn card game of starship battles.
Federation and Empire - the grand and glorious strategic level game where you control entire empires of ships as the glaaxy breaksdown in a sector wide General War.
Prime Directive - the RPG set in the Star Fleet Universe (available in D20, D20 Modern, and Gurps flavors - with a Mongoose Traveller version in the works.)
Star Fleet Marine: Assault - This is the newest game of hte SFU and covers small unit marine combat actions.
Starmada... which I am not very familiar with, although I do owwn it and have read the rules.
Star Fleet Battleforce - the fast-paced, easy to learn card game of starship battles.
Federation and Empire - the grand and glorious strategic level game where you control entire empires of ships as the glaaxy breaksdown in a sector wide General War.
Prime Directive - the RPG set in the Star Fleet Universe (available in D20, D20 Modern, and Gurps flavors - with a Mongoose Traveller version in the works.)
Star Fleet Marine: Assault - This is the newest game of hte SFU and covers small unit marine combat actions.
phoenixhawk
Mongoose
Basically, if you are Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory" or some other ultra-high level PhD who wants to completely micromanage your "fun", you pick SFB. :roll:
If you are reasonably normal and just want to move some minis and roll some dice, you pick ACtA. 8)
Of course, if you are brain dead there is always "Candyland".
(this post not intended to offend anyone or those who favor "Candyland")
Chris
If you are reasonably normal and just want to move some minis and roll some dice, you pick ACtA. 8)
Of course, if you are brain dead there is always "Candyland".
(this post not intended to offend anyone or those who favor "Candyland")
Chris
Wow, I never knew that I was part of a teen prodigy group once upon a time, Our town must have had a very high proportion of ultra high level PhD level kids looking down on those lesser mortals who pushed toy soldiers around
Still at least we realised that neither group was exactly normal, an insight due to us being ultra high PhD material probably :shock:
(this post not intended to offend anyone or those who like to push around toys and roll some dice)
Still at least we realised that neither group was exactly normal, an insight due to us being ultra high PhD material probably :shock:
(this post not intended to offend anyone or those who like to push around toys and roll some dice)
If you want a game you can take down the local club and teach some other people to play in 15 minutes, then you want ACTA.
If you want a game you can sink a fair amount of time into learning the rules, and which also features TABLES! then try SFB.
They are for completely different levels of play. It's an interesting illustration of how gaming has changed in the last 30 years. My SFB rules are in a 3 ring binder and about 3 inches thick. The ACTA rules are about 30 pages, with one table you need to keep referring to.
I've played SFB, B5W (which certainly was influenced knowingly by the example of SFB) and ACTA, and I prefer the latter two.
If you want a game you can sink a fair amount of time into learning the rules, and which also features TABLES! then try SFB.
They are for completely different levels of play. It's an interesting illustration of how gaming has changed in the last 30 years. My SFB rules are in a 3 ring binder and about 3 inches thick. The ACTA rules are about 30 pages, with one table you need to keep referring to.
I've played SFB, B5W (which certainly was influenced knowingly by the example of SFB) and ACTA, and I prefer the latter two.
