how many ACTA players will or do play Victory at Sea
- Thread starter TGT
- Start date
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well I havent read the 'wsmpn' post but if your talking about LAND based combat definitely not, thats just crazy. If your talking Napoleonic NAVAL combat on the other hand that could work.
ACTA is a distincly 'naval' style of game with large heavily armed units with strict manuevering limits, this works well for warships isnt really suited for tanks, cars infantry etc.
Now perosnally a napoleonic field battles game with simple quick rules that let you focus on actual strategy rather than rules tables would be great but trying to adapt ACTA into that would be an staggeringly bad idea imho.
ps. I voted ACTA Napoleonic but as I said above, by that I mean specifically Napeonic NAVAL battles
ACTA is a distincly 'naval' style of game with large heavily armed units with strict manuevering limits, this works well for warships isnt really suited for tanks, cars infantry etc.
Now perosnally a napoleonic field battles game with simple quick rules that let you focus on actual strategy rather than rules tables would be great but trying to adapt ACTA into that would be an staggeringly bad idea imho.
ps. I voted ACTA Napoleonic but as I said above, by that I mean specifically Napeonic NAVAL battles
Thanks for the replies
I think you're probably right its probably not feasible as a ground game for modern or B5 combat.
I do think that some of the ACTA game mechanics could work well for Horse and musket...really
its just I think a card counter based game for Napoleonic would be great and had ACTA as my main rules to compare.
I think you're probably right its probably not feasible as a ground game for modern or B5 combat.
I do think that some of the ACTA game mechanics could work well for Horse and musket...really
its just I think a card counter based game for Napoleonic would be great and had ACTA as my main rules to compare.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
well a pretty good one for that sort of thing is GW Warmaster. Yes I know its the 'evil GW empire' but it is acutally a pretty good game. Whats more you can download the rules in PDF for free off their specialist games website and they even suggest you can play with bits of card and dont try to ram hundreds of pounds of miniatures down your through (which is really qutie odd for GW 
).
It is of course based on the Warhammer universe but Im sure someone MUST have done rules for napoleonic armies for it as it would work so fantastically well.
).It is of course based on the Warhammer universe but Im sure someone MUST have done rules for napoleonic armies for it as it would work so fantastically well.
philogara_mk2
Mongoose
TGT said:
Lured in under false pretenses :shock:
As a ground system - no, because (a) trying to fit into a well-established market (b) what woulkd be so special about these rules and (c) they have ground combat rules.
Locutus9956 said:
Apart from horrendously overpowered cavalry and high elves(if _I_ can kick everything without any effort or real tactics with enemy having 50% more points there's got to be something wrong with the balance. I'm not THAT good gamer and my friends are in any other games actually tad better to be honest).
It is of course based on the Warhammer universe but Im sure someone MUST have done rules for napoleonic armies for it as it would work so fantastically well.
Dunno. Napoleonic armies don't usually charge into enemy bayonet to bayonet in first opportunity do they? I thought they carried the muskets for a reason...
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Have you TRIED playing with/against an Empire army in warmaster? And for the record just because one force is unbalanced doesnt mean the game sucks!
Locutus9956 said:
Empire, orcs, chaos, vampire counts, dwarves, khemri, daemon legion. Top of my head those are ones I have definetly fought againt.
And true one unbalanced army isn't that bad. Overpowerfullness of cavalry is far worse. Cavalry heavy army can pretty much dictate pace of game. Draw(if there's enough cavalry cannot enter terrain and enemy just sits there whole game) or victory. Infantry can't stand up to cavalry even in defended terrain.
2 brigades of infantry in a hill? Let's run over them. Sure it's slow grinding process but huge boost to break point and slow grinding process means just more dices to roll.
Agree ACTA in itself would make a poor adaptation to ground combat. There was talk in one of the earlier S&P Wargamer issues of a Babylon 5 Ground Combat game I believe, though I believe it had only surface similarities to the ACTA system (probably more to SST, though I've never played that game).
And a lot of the GW games are quite enjoyable, particularly if you're willing to forego 'powergaming' and play a 'fluffy' game with balanced armies and have fun. That's true of most game systems though, including ACTA. It's true they're a massive company and operate as a business quite well, though I don't see that big a flaw in that. The biggest problem is with their magazine which just gushes praise of their latest releases and is never remotely objective about anything. True the models are somewhat expensive, but I've never seen or heard of the issues with bad molds, deformed pieces, or difficulties fitting parts together that seem quite common with smaller companies. Just a different set of tradeoffs. The actual game systems have some good ideas, though most of them have already been taken and recast a hundred different ways by GW itself and many publishers copying them, so you aren't gonna get many original breakthroughs studying their stuff for ideas.
And a lot of the GW games are quite enjoyable, particularly if you're willing to forego 'powergaming' and play a 'fluffy' game with balanced armies and have fun. That's true of most game systems though, including ACTA. It's true they're a massive company and operate as a business quite well, though I don't see that big a flaw in that. The biggest problem is with their magazine which just gushes praise of their latest releases and is never remotely objective about anything. True the models are somewhat expensive, but I've never seen or heard of the issues with bad molds, deformed pieces, or difficulties fitting parts together that seem quite common with smaller companies. Just a different set of tradeoffs. The actual game systems have some good ideas, though most of them have already been taken and recast a hundred different ways by GW itself and many publishers copying them, so you aren't gonna get many original breakthroughs studying their stuff for ideas.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
yep agree completely. Some GW games DO have some huge balance issues (40K being the worst offender by far) (though I still think WFB and BFG are quite well balanced if you know what your doing, people just winge about balance far too often rather than trying to develop different tactics) but if you play them for fun rather than worrying about who wins or loses the game then much enjoyment can still be had
I also however HUGELY agree about White Dwarf (GWs magazine). It's a complete joke. It USED to be worth reading with interesting articles and rules updates but now its just a 5 quid advertising pamphlet with about half the magazine nothing but pics of new products and order forms. Oh and a battle report that invariably does nothing but rave about how awsome the new releases are.... (also in which the new releases usually give a good fight but narrowly lose to show how not broken they are....).
All that said, GW minis ARE expensive but however you want to call it they ARE good quality. I cant remember EVER getting a badly cast mini or deformed palstic sprue. I've had bits missing occasionaly but in every case theyve replaced the bit free of charge and in many instances given me a whole new model just because I was missing some tiny bit like a backpack or a knif or something!
GW are a business first and a gamers games company second these days its true but in all honesty I think we ARE a bit TOO hard on them at times.
I also however HUGELY agree about White Dwarf (GWs magazine). It's a complete joke. It USED to be worth reading with interesting articles and rules updates but now its just a 5 quid advertising pamphlet with about half the magazine nothing but pics of new products and order forms. Oh and a battle report that invariably does nothing but rave about how awsome the new releases are.... (also in which the new releases usually give a good fight but narrowly lose to show how not broken they are....).
All that said, GW minis ARE expensive but however you want to call it they ARE good quality. I cant remember EVER getting a badly cast mini or deformed palstic sprue. I've had bits missing occasionaly but in every case theyve replaced the bit free of charge and in many instances given me a whole new model just because I was missing some tiny bit like a backpack or a knif or something!
GW are a business first and a gamers games company second these days its true but in all honesty I think we ARE a bit TOO hard on them at times.
I mostly agree with your last statement - the executives who make the strategic decisions are really only concerned with the business context of decisions (even if they do know they need to build a customer base by making good products for long term success), with the staff at all levels almost entirely in it for the love of the game.Locutus9956 said:yep agree completely. Some GW games DO have some huge balance issues (40K being the worst offender by far) (though I still think WFB and BFG are quite well balanced if you know what your doing, people just winge about balance far too often rather than trying to develop different tactics) but if you play them for fun rather than worrying about who wins or loses the game then much enjoyment can still be had
I also however HUGELY agree about White Dwarf (GWs magazine). It's a complete joke. It USED to be worth reading with interesting articles and rules updates but now its just a 5 quid advertising pamphlet with about half the magazine nothing but pics of new products and order forms. Oh and a battle report that invariably does nothing but rave about how awsome the new releases are.... (also in which the new releases usually give a good fight but narrowly lose to show how not broken they are....).
All that said, GW minis ARE expensive but however you want to call it they ARE good quality. I cant remember EVER getting a badly cast mini or deformed palstic sprue. I've had bits missing occasionaly but in every case theyve replaced the bit free of charge and in many instances given me a whole new model just because I was missing some tiny bit like a backpack or a knif or something!
GW are a business first and a gamers games company second these days its true but in all honesty I think we ARE a bit TOO hard on them at times.
If you've played 40K recently then you'll find it's getting more and more balanced as each step is made. It's now only really one army (Chaos) that are overpowered if taken in a certain way and the gaming is massively streamlined and balanced for the most part. This is something Mongoose will achieve if given enough time but look at just how much time is needed for the world's leading company to get it right and how large a player base they have!
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well I'd still say 40K in its current format has some BIG balance issues (Wraithlords (though the new Eldar list isnt THAT bad), the Tau are potentially very beardy if used a certain way (the Sag fleet of 40k , Tyranids are open to HUGE abuse if you go overboard on the big nasties like Carnifexes, Chaos as noted are pure cheese especially certain lists (Iron Warriors come to mind....) Marines are not entirely innocent either with Space Wolf rune priests ranking pretty highly (and wolf scouts are a tad cheesy too.... and dont even get me STARTED on Necrons and Dark Eldar....)
Now all this would be fair enough if they were all equally over the top but theyre not all equally cheesy amongst themsleves some are FAR nastier than others. And then you have the Standard Marine lists, Imperial Gaurd and Orks which are all frankly at a collossal disadvantage (even the more specific marine chapters like Dark Angels and Blood Angels (yes Blood Angels, theyre not so wrong since they cant rhino rush any more) that come across as hideously under strenght by comparison. The problem is that GW codex creep is DELIBERATE. They make the new 40K forces sick because thats how they get all the little mucnkin kiddies to buy lots of the new stuff. Their other games (WFB and the specialist range) DO suffer from this but far less as simply put there tend to be less of the kiddie market that play those games and they can't get away with it as much.
That's not to say 40K is aimed soley at the kiddies, I still play it from time to time and I DO enjoy it when I do, but I would NEVER even consider entering a serious 40K tournament as I would get soundly thrashed by anyone whos maxed out their army for pure powergaming cheese (which they WILL have).
Ok this has gone a bit off topic Ill admit (this is a call to arms forum not a 40k one) but there you have it 
, Tyranids are open to HUGE abuse if you go overboard on the big nasties like Carnifexes, Chaos as noted are pure cheese especially certain lists (Iron Warriors come to mind....) Marines are not entirely innocent either with Space Wolf rune priests ranking pretty highly (and wolf scouts are a tad cheesy too.... and dont even get me STARTED on Necrons and Dark Eldar....)Now all this would be fair enough if they were all equally over the top but theyre not all equally cheesy amongst themsleves some are FAR nastier than others. And then you have the Standard Marine lists, Imperial Gaurd and Orks which are all frankly at a collossal disadvantage (even the more specific marine chapters like Dark Angels and Blood Angels (yes Blood Angels, theyre not so wrong since they cant rhino rush any more) that come across as hideously under strenght by comparison. The problem is that GW codex creep is DELIBERATE. They make the new 40K forces sick because thats how they get all the little mucnkin kiddies to buy lots of the new stuff. Their other games (WFB and the specialist range) DO suffer from this but far less as simply put there tend to be less of the kiddie market that play those games and they can't get away with it as much.
That's not to say 40K is aimed soley at the kiddies, I still play it from time to time and I DO enjoy it when I do, but I would NEVER even consider entering a serious 40K tournament as I would get soundly thrashed by anyone whos maxed out their army for pure powergaming cheese (which they WILL have).
Ok this has gone a bit off topic Ill admit (this is a call to arms forum not a 40k one
) but there you have it If you've ever actually spoken to the games developers (one of the advantages of living in Nottingham) "codex creep" is not deliberate!!! However if one thing slips through the net of playtesting in any game then they get accused of deliberately overpowering certain races to sell more (hell, Mongoose has been accused of this more than once already).Locutus9956 said:Well I'd still say 40K in its current format has some BIG balance issues (Wraithlords (though the new Eldar list isnt THAT bad), the Tau are potentially very beardy if used a certain way (the Sag fleet of 40k
Now all this would be fair enough if they were all equally over the top but theyre not all equally cheesy amongst themsleves some are FAR nastier than others. And then you have the Standard Marine lists, Imperial Gaurd and Orks which are all frankly at a collossal disadvantage (even the more specific marine chapters like Dark Angels and Blood Angels (yes Blood Angels, theyre not so wrong since they cant rhino rush any more) that come across as hideously under strenght by comparison. The problem is that GW codex creep is DELIBERATE. They make the new 40K forces sick because thats how they get all the little mucnkin kiddies to buy lots of the new stuff. Their other games (WFB and the specialist range) DO suffer from this but far less as simply put there tend to be less of the kiddie market that play those games and they can't get away with it as much.
That's not to say 40K is aimed soley at the kiddies, I still play it from time to time and I DO enjoy it when I do, but I would NEVER even consider entering a serious 40K tournament as I would get soundly thrashed by anyone whos maxed out their army for pure powergaming cheese (which they WILL have).
Ok this has gone a bit off topic Ill admit (this is a call to arms forum not a 40k one
The issues with 40K are more aimed at certain variants of each list being a bit too good and having to take a certain list to do well competatively. This is actually much the case with ACtA too (see, bringing it back on topic
) with certain ships and combinations of ships being worse than useless as they give away points as well as being poor performing units. Then when the whole EA list got revamped in Armageddon, suddenly their most broken unit got better! People make mistakes and at least in Mongoose's case they're trying to sort things out. The problem with this is that their attempts to sort things out are quite frequent at the moment as the game system is young and it seems as if they are ripping off customers with suplements and updates far too frequently. They are indeed caught between a rock and a hard place. I like where the game is heading but it's a bumpy ride along the way...Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well of course they SAY its not deliberate but I still think 40K has rather degenerated into being too much of a cash cow for GW aimed at getting 12 year olds to run up to mummy saying "Look Mom! 5 Plastic Terminators only £400! And I only need 40 of them to beat any army in the game!" (ok thats an exacgeration but you can see what Im driving at I hope ).
Fantasy on the other hand I still throughroly enjoy, though I AM getting a little annoyed at being considered a munchkin for playing Wood Elves (which for the record I think are fine as an army list and would happily face with just about any army in the game (and while we're on the subject I started playing Wood Elves before their current book anyway (for that matter I decided to collect them before I'd even READ the wood elf rules (or for that matter the rules to WFB).
Now Im not saying that Fantasy doesnt have a few issues here and there but the nature of the game I find tends to lean towards victory being more based on what you DO with your army on the battlefield than what units you actually choose in the first place (this more than anything is my BIGGEST problem with 40k, I cannot for the life of me remember a game of 40k I've played that wasnt won or lost before deployment by army selection).
Now Call to Arms, I think has its flaws but as with WFB I do genuinely think it matters more HOW you play than what you play with for the most part. It has its problem units but then again, what wargame DOESN'T have such issues? Honestly?
).Fantasy on the other hand I still throughroly enjoy, though I AM getting a little annoyed at being considered a munchkin for playing Wood Elves (which for the record I think are fine as an army list and would happily face with just about any army in the game (and while we're on the subject I started playing Wood Elves before their current book anyway (for that matter I decided to collect them before I'd even READ the wood elf rules (or for that matter the rules to WFB
).Now Im not saying that Fantasy doesnt have a few issues here and there but the nature of the game I find tends to lean towards victory being more based on what you DO with your army on the battlefield than what units you actually choose in the first place (this more than anything is my BIGGEST problem with 40k, I cannot for the life of me remember a game of 40k I've played that wasnt won or lost before deployment by army selection).
Now Call to Arms, I think has its flaws but as with WFB I do genuinely think it matters more HOW you play than what you play with for the most part. It has its problem units but then again, what wargame DOESN'T have such issues? Honestly?
Heh, I started playing Blood Angels in 1989 and look at all the crap that they've had thrown at them in the meantime (I know where you're coming from).Locutus9956 said:Well of course they SAY its not deliberate but I still think 40K has rather degenerated into being too much of a cash cow for GW aimed at getting 12 year olds to run up to mummy saying "Look Mom! 5 Plastic Terminators only £400! And I only need 40 of them to beat any army in the game!" (ok thats an exacgeration but you can see what Im driving at I hope
Fantasy on the other hand I still throughroly enjoy, though I AM getting a little annoyed at being considered a munchkin for playing Wood Elves (which for the record I think are fine as an army list and would happily face with just about any army in the game (and while we're on the subject I started playing Wood Elves before their current book anyway (for that matter I decided to collect them before I'd even READ the wood elf rules (or for that matter the rules to WFB
Now Im not saying that Fantasy doesnt have a few issues here and there but the nature of the game I find tends to lean towards victory being more based on what you DO with your army on the battlefield than what units you actually choose in the first place (this more than anything is my BIGGEST problem with 40k, I cannot for the life of me remember a game of 40k I've played that wasnt won or lost before deployment by army selection).
Now Call to Arms, I think has its flaws but as with WFB I do genuinely think it matters more HOW you play than what you play with for the most part. It has its problem units but then again, what wargame DOESN'T have such issues? Honestly?
It's funny how our views differ on 40K vs Fantasy - I find that although you're right that army selection is more important in 40K, if you do pick even armies (almost every game I've played at a tourney in the last three years has been fairly balanced on army selection, only a couple where it wasn't) then the game can be very close and tactical. Fantasy still has a few more armies that don't really have any opposition (certain Skaven shooty armies for example). This is all rambling really to agree with your final point that all games have issues at hand with balance and playability and ACtA is no exception. I do like where things are going in general though even if we still have to be careful with certain elements in 2nd ed.
I've found something similar, basically 40K seems to be which ever force can fight in close combat the best wins.
Which is really annoying when I had a shooting based Dark Angel army before the re-revamp and a Deathwing force through the every army with plama guns phase.
As to fanatasy I did toy with the idea of 300 goblins in a 1,000 point army a couple of years back, but was put off by painting that many goblins. I do however like the Lord of The Rings as a game.
ACTA I find is a much more tactial game, and aside from a couple of possible cheesy fleets, most selections tend to be balanced finely enough that good tactics will decide the outcome, and some of the cheese can be negated by good counter selction.
Which is really annoying when I had a shooting based Dark Angel army before the re-revamp and a Deathwing force through the every army with plama guns phase.
As to fanatasy I did toy with the idea of 300 goblins in a 1,000 point army a couple of years back, but was put off by painting that many goblins. I do however like the Lord of The Rings as a game.
ACTA I find is a much more tactial game, and aside from a couple of possible cheesy fleets, most selections tend to be balanced finely enough that good tactics will decide the outcome, and some of the cheese can be negated by good counter selction.
Similar threads
